In a 1962 Gallup poll, 85% of European-Americans responded that African-Americans had the same opportunity for a good education as their children did. In 1963, 66% of European-Americans felt that Afican-Americans in their communities were treated the same or better. In 1968, only 17% of European-Americans would agree with the generality that "African-Americans have been treated poorly in their communities". (Statistics drawn from Anti-racist Activist Tiim Wise's book "Speaking Treason Fluently")
In a time in which racism and discrimination was blatant, there was a resiliency for many people to express this observation. It seems like there is a cultural pressure to minimize the truth of racism, even when it is recorded and demonstrated on your TV's, as it was done during the civil rights era.
Over 40 years later, I find that there is still incredible resistance to see and express the results of racialization and racism. Some of that stems from the desire to believe in the national myth of the innocent nation (our nation always acts on the best behalf, even its evil had a honorable purpose). This myth is why Americans could not speak out against the war and still be considered patriotic. It became difficult to question that motives of leaders because it violated the innocent nation mythology. Yet, even beyond this, there is a national guilt that is too painful to realize. We dare not touch it because then our identity and our mythology must succumb to the unflattering portrait of realism. So insidious is this blindness that we have even labeled our current era (after the election of President Obama) as "post-racial era.
Why can't we talk about what's plainly there? Why can't we dialogue about the entrenched discrepancies of education, healthcare, distribution of wealth, opportunities for enterprise that are apparent between European-Americans and Americans of color? Why can't we share our observations of the predilection of capitalistic systems to have cheap labor in order to have increasng profits, and that cheap labor is predominantly brown, black, olive, and tan in America?
When can we have the courage to make observations and take ownership of that reality, so that we can simply move forward to solutions. Yet, I find, even in the halls of academia, we can't even have the discussion. Its too powerful, too frightening, and too overwhelming.
I want to have the discussions so that my children will inherit a nation with the conviction to own its past, and wrestle with its present, so that its future is one of true democracy and justice.
Can we talk....
Pastor M Traylor
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Martin Luther King Jr. and Optimism
For the past week, I have had the privilege of reading through many of the speeches and writings of the great Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. I have been reading a compilation of his work that was edited by the late historian James Washington. "I Have a Dream" , James Washington editor.
As I read his speeches and writings, I became aware of a battle that was raging in my mind. It was a small tension at first, but the more I read, the louder the dissenting voice in my mind became. Soon, I was journaling and praying because I found that His writings revealed a huge "ego-dystonic" gap in my attitudes and his.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had an amazing faith in two ideals that I approach with increasing cynicism.
He first had faith in America. He loved the American creed (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal") and was confident that America can and would live up to the ideals in which it was created. His works, particularly the poignant and powerful, "Letter from the Birmingham Jail", gives an unfailing optimism in the spirit and purpose of the American creed.
Secondly, Dr. King had the significant faith in the moral consciousness of all people. He would argue with African students that non-violence works against all regimes, no matter how cruel, because all people have a moral consciousness that can be challenged. In his 1959 article in Ebony magazine, he states "non-violent resistance, when planned and positive in action, can work effectively, even under totalitarian regimes".
Although I love America, I do not have faith in it. I although I thank God for the privileges found in America, I mourn the exploitation and the devastations of entire peoples in order to make that possible. I spoke to a leader in the impoversihed nation of Malawi in 2004. I asked him why there were not more American products around. He replied "There nothing here to exploit". He went on to explain his thoughts which were echoed in Kenya that America is the land of opportunitist. The American creed was declared at a time inwhich the rights spoken of, were reserved for Whites only. It was never meant as Dr. King defines it. I love his confidence, but unfortunately do not share it.
Dr. King is heavily influenced by the social gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. This movement believed that the people of God will usher in the Kingdom of God through our own direct actions. He believed that people will rise to the nature of their calling. In his 1964 Nobel Prize acceptance speech he states "I Refuse to believe the "isness" of humanity can not reach up to the "oughtness" that forever confronts him". I believe that humanity has incredible capacity for good and evil. I believe that without God, we will never reach our "oughtness" and that Jesus Christ came to lead us back to our "oughtness".
Now, obviously Dr. King lead a movement that changed the world, and I, on the other hand, have not. Therefore, I am challenged on my cynicism and my theology. Have I focused on humanity and America's capacity for evil, to the neglect of the possibility for it to be a tremendous force for good.
My thought is that I choose to be hopeful, even if I am not optimistic. Optimism is a favorable outlook based upon the past or present conditions. Hope on the other hand, is God-centered and focuses on the work of God to bring about the things that matter to him, such as justice, love, and peace, acknowledging that the vehicle of his kingdom is flawed peoples, nations, and communities.
How would you describe your approach to social change? Are you hopeful, cynical, pessimistic, or joyful.
It is my desire that the hope of God would inspire and empower you this day!
Pastor M Traylor
As I read his speeches and writings, I became aware of a battle that was raging in my mind. It was a small tension at first, but the more I read, the louder the dissenting voice in my mind became. Soon, I was journaling and praying because I found that His writings revealed a huge "ego-dystonic" gap in my attitudes and his.
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., had an amazing faith in two ideals that I approach with increasing cynicism.
He first had faith in America. He loved the American creed (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal") and was confident that America can and would live up to the ideals in which it was created. His works, particularly the poignant and powerful, "Letter from the Birmingham Jail", gives an unfailing optimism in the spirit and purpose of the American creed.
Secondly, Dr. King had the significant faith in the moral consciousness of all people. He would argue with African students that non-violence works against all regimes, no matter how cruel, because all people have a moral consciousness that can be challenged. In his 1959 article in Ebony magazine, he states "non-violent resistance, when planned and positive in action, can work effectively, even under totalitarian regimes".
Although I love America, I do not have faith in it. I although I thank God for the privileges found in America, I mourn the exploitation and the devastations of entire peoples in order to make that possible. I spoke to a leader in the impoversihed nation of Malawi in 2004. I asked him why there were not more American products around. He replied "There nothing here to exploit". He went on to explain his thoughts which were echoed in Kenya that America is the land of opportunitist. The American creed was declared at a time inwhich the rights spoken of, were reserved for Whites only. It was never meant as Dr. King defines it. I love his confidence, but unfortunately do not share it.
Dr. King is heavily influenced by the social gospel movement of the late 19th and early 20th century. This movement believed that the people of God will usher in the Kingdom of God through our own direct actions. He believed that people will rise to the nature of their calling. In his 1964 Nobel Prize acceptance speech he states "I Refuse to believe the "isness" of humanity can not reach up to the "oughtness" that forever confronts him". I believe that humanity has incredible capacity for good and evil. I believe that without God, we will never reach our "oughtness" and that Jesus Christ came to lead us back to our "oughtness".
Now, obviously Dr. King lead a movement that changed the world, and I, on the other hand, have not. Therefore, I am challenged on my cynicism and my theology. Have I focused on humanity and America's capacity for evil, to the neglect of the possibility for it to be a tremendous force for good.
My thought is that I choose to be hopeful, even if I am not optimistic. Optimism is a favorable outlook based upon the past or present conditions. Hope on the other hand, is God-centered and focuses on the work of God to bring about the things that matter to him, such as justice, love, and peace, acknowledging that the vehicle of his kingdom is flawed peoples, nations, and communities.
How would you describe your approach to social change? Are you hopeful, cynical, pessimistic, or joyful.
It is my desire that the hope of God would inspire and empower you this day!
Pastor M Traylor
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)