During the night hours yesterday, I listened to an all-night program in which an economist was discussing the significance of the revolutionary tendencies in northern Africa. I'm sorry, I don't remember his name! I disagreed with the point of view he expressed, however. For him, it seemed the Moslems of these countries were taking to the streets and congregating in the plazas because they're out of work with little to occupy their minds; and they want JOBS!
I tended to agree with his analysis, as I understood it, about the United States' expanding its imperialism into this region--for reasons of strengthening the dollar and gaining greater US presence through the work of such organizations as the CIA. It seems logical, after all!
But what he fails to grasp is the social and religious significance of this Moslem Renaissance. These people are expressing their tradition and heritage; and taking pride in themselves by so doing. They may not understand all the nuances of a democratic regime; they do understand they are Moslems and Arabs!
For lo these many years, Moslems have had to live in the shadow of the European and American giants. They have felt lost, discouraged, and truly downtrodden. Their leaders have taken advantage of them, because they knew they were nothings to the West and their leaders were doing the bidding of the West.
But now they know: they are Moslems; and the Moslem faith is the fastest growing religion in the world! Through this simple identity, they are amounting to be somebody.
Who can make fun of the Iranians for finally asserting their own independence after countless attempts by the West to control them? I believe there is arising a solidarity, an identity between the Iranians and the Turks; and this bonding is spreading encouragement and enthusiasm among all Moslems in the Near East. They don't have to be Westerners in order to be worth something.
I've listened to Levin and other radio talk hosts condemning the Moslem faith for this or that tenet. What, in essence, they are contending is that if you aren't ready. as they judge it, to establish a democratic republic, you have no right to be in control of your own destiny. More jingoistic hogwash! Let Moslems be; and let them come to be! This diatribe against the Moslem faith is rooted in a religious bias according to which only in Christianity is there a firm and true foundation for the state and its government. Go to hell! And by the way, read Paul Tillich's theology on your way there.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
Exclusivism, Religion's Bugaboo
Here in El Paso, I've been attending the First Baptist Church on Sundays recently. At their Adult Sunday School session this past Sunday, we got talking about Chrisitianity's exclusivism, as suggested by the Bibilical passage "I am the Way...no man cometh to the Father, but by Me."
Some in class stood up tall for Chrisitanity claiming its Truth leads to everlasting life. I pointed out that the Baptist ministers and lay preachers I grew up listening in my youth were of the type referred to as the "hell and damnation" preachers! They still exist today: you can see them in the homeless shelters run by funamentalist groups. These gospel zealots tell the poor and hapless, seated as if members of a congregation--though in reality they are waiting to be fed but must hear the sermon first--that if they miss the opportunity now being presented them to be saved, they are bound for eternal fire and brimstone. "Don't bother yourself about the food of bread and beans we'll be handing to you, my brothers and sisters, benefit from the spiritual food I'm giving you, Now is the day of salvation!" the preacher shouts out.
There's no doubt in my mind that some of our military abroad--in Afghanistan and Iraq--are of the same fundamentalist persuasion, convinced of the rightness of their Chrisitan beliefs, all founded on Scripture to be sure--the preacher, holding up Jesus and eternal salvation on one hand and the Devil and hell on the other; and then insisting that each listener reach for one.
During the discussion, in retort, I too cited Scripture: Mathew 7:1: Judge ye not that ye be not judged! "There's no place for exclusivism in Christianity." I explained, "You preach the Christian message; and if it falls on deaf ears, move on!--as Paul and his entourage did in the Early Church. But you don't go around condemning people for not accepting the Christian faith!" I also alluded to Scripture where Jesus was persecuted from the beginning of His ministry--a Jewish crowd in Nazereth, composed in part by religious orothodoxists (whom St. Paul called "Jewish legalists") wishing to throw Him of a cliff. He was ostracized by the very Jews he was brought up with, because of His teachings that starkly differed from those traditionally held.
Well, I wasn't very popular among that Sunday School adult class.
In Iraq, the indigenous Christiana and in Egypt, the Coptic Christians are suffering today from persecution at the hands of Islamic zealots, who blindly follow Islam as the only true faith.
The opposite to exclusivism is religious tolerance. So long as religious believers, no matter the religion, are convinced they are privy to the Truth; and they are granted the right to pronounce judgment on those who don't believe as they without social consequence in their exercise of that right, there will be religious bigotry pervasive in that land. I note that in Egypt, many Moslems, including the Egyptian government, are coming to the aid of the Coptics.
Some in class stood up tall for Chrisitanity claiming its Truth leads to everlasting life. I pointed out that the Baptist ministers and lay preachers I grew up listening in my youth were of the type referred to as the "hell and damnation" preachers! They still exist today: you can see them in the homeless shelters run by funamentalist groups. These gospel zealots tell the poor and hapless, seated as if members of a congregation--though in reality they are waiting to be fed but must hear the sermon first--that if they miss the opportunity now being presented them to be saved, they are bound for eternal fire and brimstone. "Don't bother yourself about the food of bread and beans we'll be handing to you, my brothers and sisters, benefit from the spiritual food I'm giving you, Now is the day of salvation!" the preacher shouts out.
There's no doubt in my mind that some of our military abroad--in Afghanistan and Iraq--are of the same fundamentalist persuasion, convinced of the rightness of their Chrisitan beliefs, all founded on Scripture to be sure--the preacher, holding up Jesus and eternal salvation on one hand and the Devil and hell on the other; and then insisting that each listener reach for one.
During the discussion, in retort, I too cited Scripture: Mathew 7:1: Judge ye not that ye be not judged! "There's no place for exclusivism in Christianity." I explained, "You preach the Christian message; and if it falls on deaf ears, move on!--as Paul and his entourage did in the Early Church. But you don't go around condemning people for not accepting the Christian faith!" I also alluded to Scripture where Jesus was persecuted from the beginning of His ministry--a Jewish crowd in Nazereth, composed in part by religious orothodoxists (whom St. Paul called "Jewish legalists") wishing to throw Him of a cliff. He was ostracized by the very Jews he was brought up with, because of His teachings that starkly differed from those traditionally held.
Well, I wasn't very popular among that Sunday School adult class.
In Iraq, the indigenous Christiana and in Egypt, the Coptic Christians are suffering today from persecution at the hands of Islamic zealots, who blindly follow Islam as the only true faith.
The opposite to exclusivism is religious tolerance. So long as religious believers, no matter the religion, are convinced they are privy to the Truth; and they are granted the right to pronounce judgment on those who don't believe as they without social consequence in their exercise of that right, there will be religious bigotry pervasive in that land. I note that in Egypt, many Moslems, including the Egyptian government, are coming to the aid of the Coptics.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
The Purposes of a Healthcare Program
1) The fundamental purpose of a healthcare program is to promote longevity of human life. The Wall Street Journal. I understand, has reported that for the US male life expectany is 75; female, close to 80. A healthcare program must address itself to life threatening conditions when they occur in patients. On the radio the other day, it was said that some older women could not obtain treatment for a life threatening condition because they could not afford the co-pay. We ought to expect better; and they should have demanded better, if true.
2) Another purpose is to provide remedy and treatment to enable its patients to functon as much as possible on their own. In some cases, the healthcare program provides an artificial limb or an electric wheelchair, allowing patients who otherwise would find it difficult, if not impossible, to get around.
3) Yet another purpose is to provide restorative "cures" so as to bring back its patients to normal look and action. Cosmestic surgery would fall in this category; even removing non-threatening cancerous growths. In short, restoring the patient's health to the point that he can do the things he's accustomed to doing.
I've had discussions with members of the Catholic Worker organization in L.A. about this thrid purpose. They encourage their people, if I understand their position, to withstand a certain amount of pain, certainly when the poatients can still function normally though experiencing pain. I am intrigued by the hero of Flynn's novel Consent to Kill. who is described as learning to cope with his manifold personal injuries and resultant pain for long periods of time. I think Americans tend to rely on pills and short-lived remedies too much, so as to run away from what I believe to be part of the human condition.
Should a public healthcare system pay for providing such remedies and prescriptive devices to meet this purpose? I think not in many instances of applying remedies.
Note that patients who subject their bodies to restorative treatments over time may find subsequently that their bodies are less capable of fighting more serious physical maladies.
.
2) Another purpose is to provide remedy and treatment to enable its patients to functon as much as possible on their own. In some cases, the healthcare program provides an artificial limb or an electric wheelchair, allowing patients who otherwise would find it difficult, if not impossible, to get around.
3) Yet another purpose is to provide restorative "cures" so as to bring back its patients to normal look and action. Cosmestic surgery would fall in this category; even removing non-threatening cancerous growths. In short, restoring the patient's health to the point that he can do the things he's accustomed to doing.
I've had discussions with members of the Catholic Worker organization in L.A. about this thrid purpose. They encourage their people, if I understand their position, to withstand a certain amount of pain, certainly when the poatients can still function normally though experiencing pain. I am intrigued by the hero of Flynn's novel Consent to Kill. who is described as learning to cope with his manifold personal injuries and resultant pain for long periods of time. I think Americans tend to rely on pills and short-lived remedies too much, so as to run away from what I believe to be part of the human condition.
Should a public healthcare system pay for providing such remedies and prescriptive devices to meet this purpose? I think not in many instances of applying remedies.
Note that patients who subject their bodies to restorative treatments over time may find subsequently that their bodies are less capable of fighting more serious physical maladies.
.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Politicians vs. Technocrats
Wonder why politians are so eager to cut back on financing entitlements and trimming entitlement budgets? That's because they have no control over how the money is allocated and spent once its placed in the hands of an administrative technocrat in charge of some particular entitlement program. And, as government continues to expand entitlements--first, social security, then medicare, now medicaid--Congress is going to become even more frustrated and feel even more left out of the decision-making processes in government.
Why just this morning, the technocrats in the Treasury and Federal Reserve were warning Congress that if it failed to pass the current tax-unemployment-extended package, a compromise, dire economic consequences would ensue, including an even steeper plunge in unemployment figures. Despite the fact that Democratic progressives are unhappy with the bill in its outline form, they are being told by these technocrats and the Vice President, who is heeding their words, to shut up and go along!
This morning, I was also listening to the Dr. Bill Bennett program on the radio. He was moaning over the fact that Congress seems to be losing control to a bunch of technocrats in governmental adminstrative positions. His view of a technocrat is a bit passe and dated, I believe, Remember Katrina? Bush had made a political appointment, placing someone in charge of the federal agency handling such physical disasters, someone who knew little about dealing with such matters but who was loyal to Bush's team. That appointment backfired; and the individual was removed in favor of someone who was a technocrat in the field. At one time, political appointments were the name of the game--support the winning candidate and you've got a job for four years. But the country has moved toward establishing its government as a technocracy--not socialist, communist, nor capitalist--not committed to any ideology, but instead making knowledge and science the basis for decision-making, e.g., formulating policy and administering it.
Bill Bennett thinks, I suppose, that technocrats are only in govcrnment and education. But he's wrong. Most technocrats are in industry! During and after the Gulf Oil Spill, BP brought in its own technocrats to analyze the situation and decide how to overcome it. That's what technocrats do: they engage situations using the best technology available and from their findings and trial-and-error solutiions to situational problems share what they have learned with the industry at large, viz., other oil companies, so everbody benefits. The procedure they follow, well known in technocratic circles, is known as action research.
Nonethelsss, in a technocracy, politicians play a vital role for its success. 1) They hire and fire adinistrative technocrats. Obama recently let go a techncrat from the Univeresity of California-Berkeley apparently for her inability to measure up to her assigned responsibilities; but he has hired since his becoming President several administrative technocrats he calls "czars!" 2) They serve as a go-between between the public and the technocrats, explaining matters of administrative policy made by technocrats, defending such decisions, while at the same time communicating to these technocrats the public's concerns, apprehensions and desired outcomes regarding a federal program. 3) They establish and close down programs through their control of the federal purse strings; and regulate the degree of financial support available to any such program; 4) They bring in their own technocratic consultants to evaluate a program or call upon the GAO to monitor. Particuarly is this function useful in detecting any politically motivated, rather than scientifically founded, policy or decision made by an administrative technocrat. This is no different than the way industry proceeds in evaluating their cadre of technocrats. BP's decisions and technological procedures were overseen by the US military and once the wells were capped sucessfully, BP technocrats had to account for their actions to numerous other technocrats in the oil and gas field as part of an evaluative process.
The US is not yet a technocracy, however, though I believe that it is taking the proper steps toward that end. Just last week, a Congressional committee offered its suggestions and recommendations for dramatically reducing the US debt. In a technocracy, only experts in the fields of economics and its applications to government should be formulating and refining and evaluating technical decisions of this nature.
Enough already!
Why just this morning, the technocrats in the Treasury and Federal Reserve were warning Congress that if it failed to pass the current tax-unemployment-extended package, a compromise, dire economic consequences would ensue, including an even steeper plunge in unemployment figures. Despite the fact that Democratic progressives are unhappy with the bill in its outline form, they are being told by these technocrats and the Vice President, who is heeding their words, to shut up and go along!
This morning, I was also listening to the Dr. Bill Bennett program on the radio. He was moaning over the fact that Congress seems to be losing control to a bunch of technocrats in governmental adminstrative positions. His view of a technocrat is a bit passe and dated, I believe, Remember Katrina? Bush had made a political appointment, placing someone in charge of the federal agency handling such physical disasters, someone who knew little about dealing with such matters but who was loyal to Bush's team. That appointment backfired; and the individual was removed in favor of someone who was a technocrat in the field. At one time, political appointments were the name of the game--support the winning candidate and you've got a job for four years. But the country has moved toward establishing its government as a technocracy--not socialist, communist, nor capitalist--not committed to any ideology, but instead making knowledge and science the basis for decision-making, e.g., formulating policy and administering it.
Bill Bennett thinks, I suppose, that technocrats are only in govcrnment and education. But he's wrong. Most technocrats are in industry! During and after the Gulf Oil Spill, BP brought in its own technocrats to analyze the situation and decide how to overcome it. That's what technocrats do: they engage situations using the best technology available and from their findings and trial-and-error solutiions to situational problems share what they have learned with the industry at large, viz., other oil companies, so everbody benefits. The procedure they follow, well known in technocratic circles, is known as action research.
Nonethelsss, in a technocracy, politicians play a vital role for its success. 1) They hire and fire adinistrative technocrats. Obama recently let go a techncrat from the Univeresity of California-Berkeley apparently for her inability to measure up to her assigned responsibilities; but he has hired since his becoming President several administrative technocrats he calls "czars!" 2) They serve as a go-between between the public and the technocrats, explaining matters of administrative policy made by technocrats, defending such decisions, while at the same time communicating to these technocrats the public's concerns, apprehensions and desired outcomes regarding a federal program. 3) They establish and close down programs through their control of the federal purse strings; and regulate the degree of financial support available to any such program; 4) They bring in their own technocratic consultants to evaluate a program or call upon the GAO to monitor. Particuarly is this function useful in detecting any politically motivated, rather than scientifically founded, policy or decision made by an administrative technocrat. This is no different than the way industry proceeds in evaluating their cadre of technocrats. BP's decisions and technological procedures were overseen by the US military and once the wells were capped sucessfully, BP technocrats had to account for their actions to numerous other technocrats in the oil and gas field as part of an evaluative process.
The US is not yet a technocracy, however, though I believe that it is taking the proper steps toward that end. Just last week, a Congressional committee offered its suggestions and recommendations for dramatically reducing the US debt. In a technocracy, only experts in the fields of economics and its applications to government should be formulating and refining and evaluating technical decisions of this nature.
Enough already!
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Important US CEOs Decry Capitalism
I can hardly believe it myself!
In justifying tax cuts for the rich, Congressional Republican leaders have contended, in accord presumably with those whose interests they promote, that because the rich who head corporations are the ones actually doing the hiring of workers from the pool of the unemployed or underemployed, they, the rich, should be rewarded by government with a lower than customary tax burden!
Now, I thought that under capitalism, the Board of Directors of any corporation rewarded its top echelon. If the tax rate were high, a Board simply could provide ample consideration to its executives to meet such a burden. But are these CEOs crying to their Boards of Directors to increase their benefits? Hell no; they want their government, not private enterprise to come up with a tax relief schemata for them!
Some capitalists these guys are. They'll take money wherever they can grab it--call it yielding to socialistic tendencies or forsaking the major tenets of private enterprise under a capitalist model--so long as they come out winners of money, money, money!
In justifying tax cuts for the rich, Congressional Republican leaders have contended, in accord presumably with those whose interests they promote, that because the rich who head corporations are the ones actually doing the hiring of workers from the pool of the unemployed or underemployed, they, the rich, should be rewarded by government with a lower than customary tax burden!
Now, I thought that under capitalism, the Board of Directors of any corporation rewarded its top echelon. If the tax rate were high, a Board simply could provide ample consideration to its executives to meet such a burden. But are these CEOs crying to their Boards of Directors to increase their benefits? Hell no; they want their government, not private enterprise to come up with a tax relief schemata for them!
Some capitalists these guys are. They'll take money wherever they can grab it--call it yielding to socialistic tendencies or forsaking the major tenets of private enterprise under a capitalist model--so long as they come out winners of money, money, money!
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Reflections on Going to Nevada
I had been living in California, since 1989 San Francisco, then 1995, Santa Barbara for 6 months, then onto L.A. I had some terrible experiences with my health care diagnoses and treatments in San Francisco, so I went on to Santa Barbara, where the county health in my case was adequate, but I found the people snobbish. I moved to L.A., where I had good living conditions downtown, good food, but again lousy healthcare. Indeed, both in San Francisco and Los Angeles, I had to seek second-opinions out-of-state because in my case the situations under the healthcare systems in these two cities I ran into were life-threatening! I do not have a death wish! So, I began to think about leaving the state and living elsewhere.
The cities I found more to my liking were El Paso, Texas, where I'm now residing, Omaha, Nebraska, where I just came from (and it's cold there!); and Reno, Nevada, to where I wouldn't mind returning some day (but not now!). I found the healthcare in El Paso, Washington, DC and Omaha acording to my standards, but did not use a medical facility in either Raleigh nor Reno.
In any event, this item is about my stays in Reno, Nevada over a period of two years, amounting to about 8 months. I got to know the natives and many retirees over at the Downtown Senior Center and on the buses and at the libraries, where I used the computers.
The good things I remember about Reno. Good quality, affordable housing; great food, the best I've had at any senior center in the cities I lived in in California; Washington, DC, Raleigh, North Carolina, Omaha and El Paso. I'd say, by the way, that El Paso Downtown comes in second! Good quality clothes, etc. at the thrift stores, especially St. Anthony's, though I heard the Salvation Army has reaally good stuff, too.
For seniors, there's the Lifelong Learning Center developed by the University of Nevada, Reno. It's ok, but certainly not the qualitiy of offering and not the availability of their programs for all seniors who are enrolled in the Center. But they are changing as demonstrated by the new catologue they've just put.out.
There's plenty of free entertainment, mostly on the weekends downtown, but I must say it's offerings, e.g., country music by groups from the California Central Valley, is only average and hackneyed.
A wonderful transit system--the best for a mid-city. I noted that the townspeople and tourists really don't mix with the University students; and the young people and old people stay pretty much within their respective age groups. And, there's lots of old people. With over 14% unemployment, those able-bodied who can get out, do so--and that's from all over the state, but especially Vegas (I talked in Reno with people fleeing Vegas), but their housing prices just rose (so did Washington, DC's prices)..
What grabs you as you walk down Virginia Street downtown is how few people there are of any age. I talked with natives who said, "Yes, the crowds were here in the '80's, but not anymore!" Of course, with the blossoming of Vegas, you can appreciate how Reno has suffered.
But the most outstanding feature of Reno is its old people. I talked with several who were in their 90's and walking around sprightly and talking intelligently, coherently. I was especially impressed with a 96 year old gentleman I met at the Senior Center. My impression is that people live long in Reno.
The biggest problem I see for Nevada, which has a lot to offer old and young alike even amid this deep recession is that the state over the years has catered to the casino technology where bets are made at tables and payoffs occur at casino slot machines and cashiers. As I see it, casino gambling technology is almost passe. The gambling of the future is online, computer controlled--where the place of betting could be anywhere in the world. The state of Nevada is contemplating, I heard, serviciing online bets and gambling for which they would collect a fee, much like transpires offshore in the Bahamas.
Goodbye, Nevada, for now!
The cities I found more to my liking were El Paso, Texas, where I'm now residing, Omaha, Nebraska, where I just came from (and it's cold there!); and Reno, Nevada, to where I wouldn't mind returning some day (but not now!). I found the healthcare in El Paso, Washington, DC and Omaha acording to my standards, but did not use a medical facility in either Raleigh nor Reno.
In any event, this item is about my stays in Reno, Nevada over a period of two years, amounting to about 8 months. I got to know the natives and many retirees over at the Downtown Senior Center and on the buses and at the libraries, where I used the computers.
The good things I remember about Reno. Good quality, affordable housing; great food, the best I've had at any senior center in the cities I lived in in California; Washington, DC, Raleigh, North Carolina, Omaha and El Paso. I'd say, by the way, that El Paso Downtown comes in second! Good quality clothes, etc. at the thrift stores, especially St. Anthony's, though I heard the Salvation Army has reaally good stuff, too.
For seniors, there's the Lifelong Learning Center developed by the University of Nevada, Reno. It's ok, but certainly not the qualitiy of offering and not the availability of their programs for all seniors who are enrolled in the Center. But they are changing as demonstrated by the new catologue they've just put.out.
There's plenty of free entertainment, mostly on the weekends downtown, but I must say it's offerings, e.g., country music by groups from the California Central Valley, is only average and hackneyed.
A wonderful transit system--the best for a mid-city. I noted that the townspeople and tourists really don't mix with the University students; and the young people and old people stay pretty much within their respective age groups. And, there's lots of old people. With over 14% unemployment, those able-bodied who can get out, do so--and that's from all over the state, but especially Vegas (I talked in Reno with people fleeing Vegas), but their housing prices just rose (so did Washington, DC's prices)..
What grabs you as you walk down Virginia Street downtown is how few people there are of any age. I talked with natives who said, "Yes, the crowds were here in the '80's, but not anymore!" Of course, with the blossoming of Vegas, you can appreciate how Reno has suffered.
But the most outstanding feature of Reno is its old people. I talked with several who were in their 90's and walking around sprightly and talking intelligently, coherently. I was especially impressed with a 96 year old gentleman I met at the Senior Center. My impression is that people live long in Reno.
The biggest problem I see for Nevada, which has a lot to offer old and young alike even amid this deep recession is that the state over the years has catered to the casino technology where bets are made at tables and payoffs occur at casino slot machines and cashiers. As I see it, casino gambling technology is almost passe. The gambling of the future is online, computer controlled--where the place of betting could be anywhere in the world. The state of Nevada is contemplating, I heard, serviciing online bets and gambling for which they would collect a fee, much like transpires offshore in the Bahamas.
Goodbye, Nevada, for now!
Saturday, August 14, 2010
de facto Segregation: a fact of human existence
I've been thinking through what on earth happened to me in Washington, DC this past trip in the Winter, 2010. Briefly, I tried to live in a black neighborhood, because it was within my ability to pay, but was treated harshly and had to get out fast!
That got me to thinking. What had I done wrong? Perhaps, it was the same mistake that Dr. Laura made on her radio show when she several times, over and over again, mentioned the N-Word in a recent broadcast. I had not realized that blacks have their own culture, which they share with other blacks and few others. I was intruding on their space; and they resented it. If was as if they were saying, "Get yourself out of our area! And, don't pretend you're one of us!" Despite the fact I couldn't afford living elsewhere; and certainly did not mind living in a black area of town. I know that the southeast area near St. Elizabeth's wasn't bad, but I couldn't find anything there and kept looking around Georgia Avenue.
What I'm saying is that the American Experience of trying to become a melting pot of the races really doesn't work--in my opinion; or, it will have mixed results. While blacks call among themselves N's, they don't want those not of that culture to use the word to apply to them. I attended a concert in Wingfield Park in wonderful Reno recently and a black performer said to a predominantly, almost entirely, black audience that it was wonderful being among "his people for a little while" before he want back to perform at one of the casinos downtown. There's that identity of being black, of realizing oneself by being black. After all, "black is beautiful!"
I recall several years ago applying for a job at Laney College in downtown Oakland, California. I thought it was strange that I was one of few white people in the halls of the college; but in thinking it through, I see that the neighborhood had been changing--which, being from the Chicago area, I hadn't known--and I really had no chance of being hired, because I didn't fit.
The phenomenon I'm discussing is true of the Chinese living in Chinatown. They share common customs and ways of thinking; and a common language heritage. It's true of the northern Europeans who settled in the northern middle states, especially Minnesota. It's true of the orthodox Jews who live by Yeshiva University in New York City. Yet it's also true of families: though it's perfectly alright for a mother to say to her child "Do you have to go pee-pee?" it's probably not as acceptable for a stranger to be as familiar. It just doesn't click.
Sad to say, I think the American Experience of intgrating works for some people, but if the ties are strong to the heritage, it won't work for them. They want to be among their own. By blacks finding their identity in being African Americans, they have achieved self-actualization but at the cost of separation. That's the terrible thing of being trapped and cornered by one's heritage. When I was in Russia, I urged the Russians to give up their history and look to the future.
Glenn Beck contends we must study history. No, history is gone; and its lessons are tied to other circumstances. Reach out courageously into a new world with new opportunities; and don't look back (as Lot's wife had done)!
That got me to thinking. What had I done wrong? Perhaps, it was the same mistake that Dr. Laura made on her radio show when she several times, over and over again, mentioned the N-Word in a recent broadcast. I had not realized that blacks have their own culture, which they share with other blacks and few others. I was intruding on their space; and they resented it. If was as if they were saying, "Get yourself out of our area! And, don't pretend you're one of us!" Despite the fact I couldn't afford living elsewhere; and certainly did not mind living in a black area of town. I know that the southeast area near St. Elizabeth's wasn't bad, but I couldn't find anything there and kept looking around Georgia Avenue.
What I'm saying is that the American Experience of trying to become a melting pot of the races really doesn't work--in my opinion; or, it will have mixed results. While blacks call among themselves N's, they don't want those not of that culture to use the word to apply to them. I attended a concert in Wingfield Park in wonderful Reno recently and a black performer said to a predominantly, almost entirely, black audience that it was wonderful being among "his people for a little while" before he want back to perform at one of the casinos downtown. There's that identity of being black, of realizing oneself by being black. After all, "black is beautiful!"
I recall several years ago applying for a job at Laney College in downtown Oakland, California. I thought it was strange that I was one of few white people in the halls of the college; but in thinking it through, I see that the neighborhood had been changing--which, being from the Chicago area, I hadn't known--and I really had no chance of being hired, because I didn't fit.
The phenomenon I'm discussing is true of the Chinese living in Chinatown. They share common customs and ways of thinking; and a common language heritage. It's true of the northern Europeans who settled in the northern middle states, especially Minnesota. It's true of the orthodox Jews who live by Yeshiva University in New York City. Yet it's also true of families: though it's perfectly alright for a mother to say to her child "Do you have to go pee-pee?" it's probably not as acceptable for a stranger to be as familiar. It just doesn't click.
Sad to say, I think the American Experience of intgrating works for some people, but if the ties are strong to the heritage, it won't work for them. They want to be among their own. By blacks finding their identity in being African Americans, they have achieved self-actualization but at the cost of separation. That's the terrible thing of being trapped and cornered by one's heritage. When I was in Russia, I urged the Russians to give up their history and look to the future.
Glenn Beck contends we must study history. No, history is gone; and its lessons are tied to other circumstances. Reach out courageously into a new world with new opportunities; and don't look back (as Lot's wife had done)!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)