Enter the Sloganeering

Here you go! Fed up with the God taunting ads - make up your own!

Calgary: Aryan Hotbed?

No doubt many of you readers will be aware of this story. Anti-racist and a neo-Nazi, Aryan groups clashed on the streets of Calgary. The wild west, frontier cowboy town image is certainly not lost in Calgary. Perhaps it is muted by the fact that the combatants used cans of vegetables and placards in what one police officer labelled an obviously premeditated attack.

A survey of the news reports from different corners is very telling in terms of how they have constructed the issue with reference to race. The Calgary Herald seems particularly concerned with Calgary's reputation. Interestingly they seem to lay blame at the feet of the Aryan group for starting the violence citing one observer who suggests, "That's precisely why these groups are so prone to resort to violence, because they are frustrated their message has no popular resonance." In this piece one MP is quoted as saying he would rather have these racist groups out in the open than have their operations turn to more clandestine methods.

The Globe and Mail seems to lay the blame for the violence on the anti-racist group. ""We can be thankful; we did well," said Insp. Williams, who chiefly blamed members of the anti-racism group, comprising in total around 450 people, for the trouble."

The CBC News story reveals claims by the anti-racist group that police officers were protecting the Aryan group.

The Toronto Star tries to give a balanced approach? First it quotes an anti-racist who suggests that the demonstration and clash was a blow to the racists and then it quote two teenage girls in the racist group who don't see themselves as racist at all – just misunderstood.

Media representations are critical in the development of public rhetoric on race. The source of your news obviously affects the perspective you will get. Does anyone else find the above photo interesting and ironic?

Guillermo Stars in Burromance

this guy is my new fav - i just can't stop laughing!

Jes We Can

Constructing Jesus

Most Christians have been taught that Jesus lived a sinless life. Hebrews 4:15 categorically claims Christ's sinlessness in the face of the very sort of temptation that we all face. This claim of sinlessness is, in large part, the basis for soteriology (theology of salvation): Jesus was the sinless sacrifice upon whom God could rest the sin of the whole world. Jesus' crucifixion seems to loose its meaning if his sinlessness cannot be established.

From whose perspective was Jesus sinless? Certainly not from the perspective of the ruling religious elite. They were constantly pointing out the various sins that Jesus was committing: working on the Sabbath, cheating on taxes, defaulting on tithing, associating with prostitutes and tax collectors. These were not just minor grievances that the Pharisees had against Jesus – there were definite laws pertaining to these things and restrictions on association held significant consequences (think cleanliness laws pertaining to Samaritans, menstruating women, and diseased individuals). Nothing to get too bent out of shape with this, in fact sticking to the nasty Pharisees is something revered in Jesus ministry. The religious leaders of the time have been constructed as these nasty self-righteous control freaks. It is convenient to forget that they were charged with preserving what was considered to be the most authentic religious expression of faith in YHWH in the face of the oppressive rule of Rome.

It is also convenient to forget the hegemony that these leaders accrued from the Jewish people of the day. Certainly as within every religious expression 100% compliance was far from normative but other historical documents reveal just how closely most of the population was able to follow the Pharisaic prescriptions. In other words, people generally considered the regulations imposed by the religious leaders of the day to be an adequate standard by which to model their lives. All this was in the face of a fairly democratic approach to religious orthodoxy. It was common to have contentious issues debated openly in the synagogues. Although, it was obviously a restrictive society it is difficult to claim that the people lived in religious oppression. Religious apathy perhaps?

Then this

According to whose standards would someone need to live today in order to be considered sinless? Which church conference guide would be accepted as accurate enough? My suspicion is that Jesus would have very much the same evaluation today as he did from the religious leaders of his day. He would break many of the conventions around which we have built our set of morals. And we would denounce him for that – not just our religious leaders but we ourselves.

So does Jesus just get to rewrite the moral standards arbitrarily and 'get away' with being known as sinless? Yes in some ways he does. Jesus understands morality differently than most people do. In Jesus' teaching it is clear that he constructs morality according to principles not according to specific regulations. Unfortunately most of our rhetoric about Jesus does not reflect this – in fact most often we use specific instances and teachings to uphold our particular moral regulation rather than discover the nuances of how a Godly principle should be applied.

As a result it is not very helpful for us to talk about Jesus as being sinless. He clearly broke the moral norms of his day. To say that Jesus never contradicted any Godly principles might be more accurate but it isn't very useful for us since it does not allow us to defend some of the hard fought moral codes we have adopted. So Jesus remains this sinful sinless man.

So…

…a pastor, some folks in Alabama and some junior high school students in Germany all lost their lives this week. All died in very public bloodbaths at the hands of some clearly disturbed individuals. These tragedies have obviously struck fear into the hearts of many. A quick scan of the media reports and we can see some common threads. Anger, pain, indescribable grief and questions – the leading one of these being -- -- WHY?

The answer to that question is perhaps the most difficult to answer with any degree of specificity. But that has not stopped new agencies and officials from speculating about the possible reasons for these rampages. It seems to me that the answers that have been arrived at are hollow and completely unsatisfying. Attempts have been made to construct typologies of the killers to see if there were markers that might explain their behaviour. Targets have been analyzed for potential motive. Style of shooting and the type of weaponry used has come under intense scrutiny. While these pictures might give some partial indications to the causes of this violence it seems clear that the answers these investigations produce leave us still lacking effective reasons to explain the actions of these people. (One BBC report highlighted the fact that the boy wore glasses among other features)

An equally dissatisfying answer is the one that suggests in broad spiritualizing tones that these actions were the result of the 'sinful' condition of humanity. Chalking this up to the products of sin significantly cheapens the spiritual perspective. And I suspect it only serves to highlight two damning perspectives that many Christians take:

The evacuation mentality: See, look how terrible this world is. Christ must be coming soon. We just have to hang on till the end and make sure we are ready to meet him.

The superiority complex: See, look how horrid life without Christ is. It's a good thing that we know Jesus and are not tempted to live like that. Make sure you are careful not to get yourself mixed up in those crazy chatrooms or whatever…

Let us admit something if we can. The problems that these violent acts reveal are large and complex. They are not however so large that we must throw up our hand in defeat or so trivial that we should succumb to the mindless triviality of public discourse. If the principles of Christ are valid, is it not true that applying them practically in these situations will garner actual results?

Pastor Shot

Many of you who read my blog will no doubt be aware of this incident which occurred today. ABC News has some interesting coverage if you have not heard about it. I am interested in the story for more than the obvious reason: my former employment as a pastor. The story dovetails with my research into public acts of violence (more specifically) school shootings and other killings. Because the venue for the murder is a public space as opposed to the more private space that most homicides are committed in, these acts of violence carry a peculiar social reaction. The response to these events often instigates radical precautionary policies and systems of vigilance and prevention. What is altogether unclear is how effective these measures are in being able to actually prevent violence. Even though many of the systems that are developed can report significant engagement with potentially violent individuals, most programs have a very difficult time claiming actual prevention. This is largely due to the fact that these public acts of violence are some of the most randomly occurring acts both in their actual rate and in the perceived reasons that trigger these types of actions. The scope of my research is evaluating how policies might actually contribute to the occurrence of these types of public acts. And more importantly, my research is investigating how these systems affect the fabric of social order in various community contexts. I have been trained in the formal threat assessment program available to the regions schools. The correlating strategies see schools transforming their facilities into fortresses of high surveillance. This strategy is intended to allow the school to become more quickly aware of dangerous elements who might enter into the facility. It is also intended to provide parents and the general public with a sense of safety in response to the moral panic which these incidents engender.

But my interest goes farther than that:

It is interesting to me to see how followers of Christ respond when the worst of situations occur. How to they express their faith in meaningful terms?

Along with a call to prayer the statement reads:

In this day, where uncertainty seems to abound creating an environment in which people are vulnerable in doing things they might not do otherwise, one thing is certain, we, as human beings need a foundation upon which we can live our lives. We at First Baptist Maryville, along with other Christian believers, share this conviction: that foundation is God's Word. In the pages of the Book we call the Bible, we find the pathway for peace, hope, and a quality of living life despite what circumstances we find ourselves in.

What do you say at a time like this? For me this statement really emphasizes grace founded on several important convictions. I would say on the whole this statement seems to intentionally avoid the natural disposition that an event like this could have toward fear and despair. What remains to be seen is what pathway this church seeks to take in the next months and years as it comes to terms with this tragic loss. This church, and I would suggest, churches in general have an opportunity to address the roots of fear based social constructions and provide a meaningful counterpoint. We should not forget to pray for this aspect of the tragedy.

Till then…

Peace…

Resistance…

For some of you, regular readers, this artist will be hard to stomach because he uses foul language in his material. Or you may not really dig hip hop music. And there may be a number of other visceral reactions that produce disdain for this artist. However, K'naan (for some background on his life check this out) receives a high endorsement from me. And his music and career trigger some nagging questions regarding racism and resistance.

You should listen to his music even though you will struggle to get past his use of the f-word. His music has an authentic quality that is rare these days. His popular acclaim is a compelling testament that people can resonate and engage with thoughtful and provocative music (even if it does carry a parental advisory). In the lyrics of his latest work Troubadour K'naan takes on his own genre with a blazing furry (some might even say it is overkill). Essentially he says, "Hey you rappers think that you have street cred but you don't know the hard core life until you have grown up with an automatic riffle in your hands!" K'naan should know a little about conflict. His lyrics are sharp and they describe the reality of living in a third world country riddled with war and poverty. He infuses hope into the darkness of these situations. He also sees his own success in a significantly divergent light than most in the music business. He repeatedly acknowledges the extreme privilege of his position and his address the disparity between the pleasure of his success and the harsh reality of countrymates in Somalia. This is where the real honest seems most evident. Not only that – it is impossible to listen to his music and feel the indictment (even condemnation) that rests on the shoulders of western culture and political ventures.

On a larger scale his music provokes the question that has been haunting me lately. How is meaningful resistance to racial oppression enacted? More specifically, is it necessary to engage with the dominant systems (in this case the western music industry) that reproduce privilege in order to affect a meaningful counterpoint or resistance? In K'naan case, it seems clear that his success as a musical artist means that he has successfully negotiated the disadvantages of his national (and perhaps even racial) background. This in itself might signal some form of resistance. On top of that, through his music he is able to highlight the plight of his fellow Somalis. This is resistance as well since this type of discourse lies well beyond the scope of most hip hop music (sex, guns, and the 'hood). But does the fact that he has engaged with the system mean complicity with a western system of domination that keeps on subjugating people and leaving certain groups privileged and more importantly underprivileged? There is no doubt a homogenizing effect that the 'music industry' has on artists that sanitizes and sterilizes the music itself. This is as I have mentioned earlier a product of the fact that in order to be a recording artist one must sell records to people. So the whim of the people rules the day. What must haunt K'naan and does me is that his music, as honest and provocative as it is, could be seen as a prostitution of a people and situation at the expense of record sales. What I mean is that there is a danger that the horrible plight of the Somali people could become merely a tool to advance what is essentially a tool of western hegemony. I think this is what produces the ultimate conundrum of effective resistance. ::Participation in the system in order to enable a resistance or avoidance of the system to produce a different sort of resistance:: Hmmm…

Until then check out this guys music. I am going to recommend "Wavin' Flag" as a starter for those of you queasy with the lyric stuff. But here is another song that captures the tone of his message and I think for the most part it is clean (clean hmmm it strikes me that even that term is a highly racialized term…more on that later perhaps).

Make three wishes…

What does a dictator wish for on his birthday? Well if you are Robert Mugabe it seems you only have one. Get more farms and businesses out of white control and into the hands of the country's blacks. Of course Mugabe dare not close his eyes when he goes to blow out the candles on his 85 kilo birthday cake (one of for every year of his age). And far from taking on the typical repose of the senior citizen that he is, Mugabe seems to be hard at work defending his regime and the causes that sparked his initial political involvement as far back as 1970's. This BBC article reveals that Mugabe intends to strip ownership from more white and foreign land and business owners.

Mr. Mugabe said the new government would continue to push for a majority stake in companies operating in Zimbabwe. "We would want to see a greater participation of our people in them, not less than 51%, in certain companies we would have designated," he said.

Mugabe has mainly been touted as a tyrant and critics point to failing economic policies, staggering unemployment and inflations rates (2007: 2 million yr to yr). His involvement in the return of farm land back to black ownership has been criticized, citing the dramatic reduction in agricultural production and general chaos. But if this course (in Anthropology) has suggested anything it is that nothing is as clear cut as it might seem.

Zimbabwe seems like a desperate situation. Cholera and AIDS ravage the country. Political instability has led to untold violence. Are these the costs of the struggle against colonial repression as recent as the 1950's or is are these struggles the result of an egotistical despot bent on fulfilling his own agenda and personal gain. Although, I am inclined to bend toward the later perspective the former is not easily dismissed. It seems abundantly clear that the difficulties that Zimbabwe faces are the result of oppressive colonial racism. It is a tragedy to see a desperate situation such as this haunted by these colonial ghosts.

“Scumbag Millionaire”

My wife referred to the movie Slumdog Millionaire using this term (the title of the post) completely unintentionally. I chuckled at the Freudian-esque slip of the tongue. I'm wondering if the term might be a more suitable moniker than it might seem. The production of the movie used two children who make the slums of Mumbai their home. These children received an eye-popping trip to L.A. for an appearance at the Oscars where the movie swept the awards show. As this article points out the children's families are being awarded new homes as a compensation for their work as actors in the movie. The children were scooped up from the slums and elevated to superstar status in a surreal life-imitating-art scenario.

What intrigued me about the movie are the deeper racial undertones that inform the discourse around this movie. First, it is clear that not everyone in the slums of Mumbai is all that thrilled at being labelled 'slumdogs' (a term that denotes laziness).

While everyone in the area was proud of their local stars, some objected to the film - and its title - that made them famous. "I'm poor, but no one can call me a dog," said Fakrunissa Sheikh, 40, who lives in a lean-to next to Azhar's. "I work very hard."

There seems to be a sense that the depiction of life in the slums, even though it drew starlight attention ("as television lights and camera flashbulbs lit up the slum.") and national pride, produced a marginalizing effect on the people the movie portrayed. So that even in drawing the most spectacular attention to their life – they are reduced to an invisibility caused by hypervisibility (a la Gordon in Ghostly Matters).

Second, a new kind of colonialism seems to have emerged in the way we entertain ourselves. Entertainment is the new (or not so new) imperial frontier. The world we live in is dictated to by the rhetoric contained in the entertainment consumed as music, television, movies, etc. Companies with imperial strength have dominated the world in terms of what content is consumed and the way (style) that content is produced. Hollywood dominates this entertain-olonialism. So that the stories and lyrics and pictures we get to see and hear are qualitatively homogenous. This homogeneity is inevitable since even the emerging Bollywood sets its sights on producing movies to rival those of its American cousin. This type of hegemony inevitably leads to certain ideas being privileged but also the way those ideas are being presented being privileged.

Consider for a moment the television station Al Jazeera. Even though, its perspective is decidedly different (and often opposing) than that of many American News Organizations (CNN, FOX, MSNBC), it can be easily argued that the method and style of its presentation is unequivocally imitative of the American 'standard'. This stylistic concern shows that a certain form of perspective is privileged over another.

The question that remains unanswered then is this: Does conforming to the entertain-olonialistic standard allow for meaningful contestation of underprivileged discourse or does it subvert this perspective even more?

In the case of Slumdog Millionaire the TV lights and microphones will soon be gone and the slums will once again not only be returned to their darkness but to new invisibility in that darkness due in part to it new found fame.