Extremism in Defense of Liberty...and Oppression

Lately, I've been reading Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion by Herbert Aptheker (1937/2006).  It's the first serious (second generally) history of the rebellion Nat Turner led in 1831.  It's an incredibly easy read, and I highly recommend it.

Needless to say, many things stick out to me from the book.  More posts may come...

For now, Aptheker's writing about "the effects" (i.e. social and legal reactions) of Turner's rebellion captures my mind.  Our best guess is that 60-80 black people joined the rebellion, yet at the time whites estimated as many as 800 armed revolutionaries actively participated and nearly every southern state legislature convened to deal with whites' mass hysteria following the revolt.  After his capture, Turner pleaded not guilty (because he had done nothing wrong) and never said he was mistaken in believing God led him to revolt.  Those facts lead me to my two initial thoughts:

1. Oppressors Live in Constant Fear

We, the people willing to act for social justice, severely underestimate our influence.  One of the false lessons of the Civil Rights Era is that "a movement" requires mass numbers.  I am convinced that movement requires little more than a few people willing to move.  People imposing injustice tend to freak out when directly confronted with resistance.  I am reminded of three biblical stories.  One where Elisha showed his chief disciple the invisible chariots and horsemen of Israel.  The second, when Gideon took a very small army (~300 men) and defeated a much larger army when the enemy soldiers turned on themselves.  And a third, when three lepers marched into the enemy camp only to find it deserted because the enemy soldiers mistook their footsteps for the sound of a large army.  My point, God seems to be suggesting the power of small numbers often in the Bible.

My larger point from Nat Turner is that all oppressors live in constant fear of resistance, even resistance from groups that cannot possibly overthrow systems by force alone.  Men live in constant fear that they will be exposed as vulnerable and not masculine.  Whites live in constant fear that the logic of white supremacy (i.e. justified domination because of superior intellect/morality/numerical majority/etc) will be exposed as a lie [thus The Bell Curve, the Minute Men, the Tea Party, etc].  The rich are petrified of labor coalitions.  The Christian Right is obsessed with "creeping Sharia law." Bush began a war against terror itself.  

We don't often pay enough attention to the fact that emotion is an integral part of every social structure.  Specifically, fear is an inevitable part of every oppressive structure.  That means that one of the contradictions inherent to any system of organization is the emotional vulnerability of the dominant group.  Oppressed people thus always have a structural avenue of resistance, even in the most oppressive and closed systems.

Nat Turner demonstrated that.  For months and even years after his rebellion, whites openly claimed that they could not sleep, were filled with anxiety, and were in failing health due to fear of slave rebellions inspired by Turner.  In fact, several southern governors explicitly stated mass anxiety among whites as the reason for calling emergency legislative sessions in fall of 1831.  This mass anxiety despite there being no clear evidence that a single subsequent rebellion was directly connected to Turner or his co-conspirators.  That oppressors were convicted by their own guilt is proven by two facts: 1) Turner "passed-over" the houses of whites who "did not think themselves better than blacks."  His army only targeted open bigots and slaveowners; and 2) there is some evidence that many poor whites supported the rebellion.  Whites were not afraid they would be targeted for being white; they were afraid because they knew they were targeted for being active oppressors.


2.  Retrenchment Is Not Evidence of Failure

After the Turner Rebellion, whites reacted extremely harshly.  They not only assassinated Turner and his fellow rebels, they also mutilated and murdered innumerable black people (slave and free) with and without trials.  Whites killed at least as many innocent black people as the total number of rebells in Turner's army.  In some cases, white militias lynched black people on the mere accusation of white overseers.  Whites tortured, lynched, and murdered black people without any evidence or even reason for suspicion in states as far from Turner's rebellion (in Virginia) as Louisiana and Kentucky.  Whites tortured innocent black people to the point that whites themselves began criticizing the brutality and fearing they would lose the moral ground in the slaveholding South!  [I cannot imagine the savagery that would move slaveholders even that small step toward compassion.  Our black ancestors are beyond heroic!]  Bunches of municipalities and southern states passed a host of laws tightening restrictions on free blacks and making life even more difficult for slaves.  ... None of this is a surprise, but it leads me to my next point...

For black people, the most obvious immediate result of Turner's Rebellion was increased white oppression.  In other words, black people's lives got worse; in some cases much worse.  Turner, his fellow warriors, and potentially hundreds of uninvolved black people were tortured and killed by whites.  In addition to the rampant mass murder, black people lost [i.e. whites took] the few civil rights they had.  Black people couldn't even legally have church without whites present.  Again, biblical parallels come to mind.  The Egyptians made crazy laws against enslaved Israelites (e.g. making bricks without straw) out of fear of growing Israelite numbers and fear of slave revolt.  Moses left Egypt after reacting to Egyptian cruelty, and the Egyptians reacted harshly to subsequent Israelite resistance once the Exodus began.  ... I bring up the Bible to show that the patterns are old and unchanging.  Oppressors oppress, get scared, generate resistance, clamp down, and ultimately lose.

And here, I think, is another false lesson we have drawn from the Civil Rights Movement.  Activists hesitate too often for fear that their efforts will make life harder for the very people they are fighting for.  This fear among activists is one of the main causes of "analysis until paralysis" and splits among coalitions.  We should understand that activism never causes oppression.  Oppressors do that.  We should not assume that harsh retrenchment is a sign that we did the wrong thing.  Often retrenchment is a sign that mobilization meaningfully challenged oppressors.

Again, the immediate aftermath of Turner's rebellion was death and increased white-on-black terrorism throughout the South.  Not only so, but nearly all the southern abolitionist organizations disappeared following the rebellion.  They reformed in the North, but that meant the thousands of free blacks in the South and millions of enslaved blacks had much less local white support after 1831.  But nearly 200 years later, we see that Turner's Rebellion was a positive and critically important part of the liberation struggle.  If we judged him by the lives of black people in October and November of 1831, we would conclude his efforts a failure on every level.  Now we praise Turner and name city parks after him (e.g. in Newark, NJ).  We recognize Nat Turner, John Brown, and other antislavery rebells as national heroes--certainly heroes among people of color.

Selah.

Dez Bryant - Labor and the Tyranny of Capital

I am disgusted by the latest example of capital impeding on the lives of workers.  If you haven't read the latest sports news, the Dallas Cowboys announced "new rules" for their troubled star receiver Dez Bryant [the Cowboys now claim to have only offered "guidance"].  The "rules" include:

• A midnight curfew. If he's going to miss curfew, team officials must know in advance; 

• No drinking alcohol.

• He can't attend any strip clubs and can only attend nightclubs if they are approved by the team and he has a security team with him.

• He must attend counseling sessions twice a week.

• A rotating three-man security team will leave one man with Bryant at all times.

• Members of the security team will drive Bryant to practices, games and team functions.

The Dallas Cowboys may claim to be offering only "guidance," but anyone with half a brain knows these rules were imposed on Bryant with at least the implication that if he did not accept them, he would have to find another job.  As Tony Kornheiser stated on "Pardon the Interruption," Bryant is now effectively in a minimum security prison.

There is so much to be outraged about concerning this situation.  The racial undertones are obvious--why doesn't Rothlisberger have similar rules, especially since he used his private security team to help him rape women.  But this post is about the eroding boundaries between labor and capital.  Every worker in the United States should be irate that an employer would use its weight to impose these kinds of restrictions on a person's private life.  [By the way, can I get some Republican support here for respect of "private lives" and small government/capital control?]

The relationship between employers and laborers should be relatively simple.  Employers compensate laborers for output relevant to the product or service the employer provides.  That is it.  The employer's status as a worker's source of income does not entitle that employer to tell a worker how to spend her/his time, what beverages to drink, and definitely not when and whether s/he can be alone!  That's not an employer's business!  If a worker is breaking the law, we have police officers to enforce that.  It is not an employer's job to enforce the law.  An employer's power should start and end at the "shop-floor" door.

It truly disturbs me that more workers do not share my analysis of these events.  So many people are saying that this is Bryant's last chance and praising the NFL's increasingly Draconian disciplinary policies against players.  We need more worker solidarity!  We need to recognize that employers--i.e. big money capitalists--are claiming more and more authority over our lives.  They want to monitor our Facebook accounts, political activities, drinking habits, etc; and increasingly, they demand that we behave 24/7 according to bosses' interests.  Republicans have even offered bills giving employers control over whether female employees will have access to birth control through insurance.

ALL of the this is WAY over the line.  It's way past time we rose up as workers and demanded a stop to this madness.  Employers only have authority over workers when workers are at work!  [...and don't get me started about smart phones and how employers intrude on workers' time off.  That's a whole 'nother post.]

Recording a Lesson about Fear and Anxiety

Just recording a lesson here for myself.  After a week of unprecedented productivity, I suddenly couldn't write a single paragraph in 12 hours of trying last night.  I panicked, thinking my grace was gone and the anxiety had won out.  But, thank God, my therapist corrected me.  I am excited about the writing, and I am enjoying the process.  Thus the week of productivity.  It all stopped when I tried to finish (final edits) an article and submit it for publication.  Suddenly, no production.  My therapist said, it's because completing the project introduced my fears of having my writing rejected.  The only way to avoid the correction/rejection process is not to submit.  Of course, that is not an option for a professional academic.

So...I'm shifting my attention to recognizing a few things:

1. Academic review--even the fiercest rejection--is not that bad.  Certainly nothing to panic about.  Review is part of the profession, and it's part of joining any conversation.

2. Academic review, including and especially rejection, will be a tremendous blessing to me because it will reinforce God's attempts to help me walk in humility.

3. Academic review, including and especially rejection, will be a tremendous blessing to me because by confronting and surviving it, I will be far less likely to catastrophise the unknown the next time I finish up and submit an article.

4. Most importantly, academic review, including and especially rejection, will be a tremendous blessing to me because it is a reminder that my self concept, focus, and source for evaluation are not external.  The goal of my life is not to produce memorable and praiseworthy work.  The goal of my life is to manifest the me God created.  That means producing the best work I can as a reflection of who I am, not an attempt to impress the academy or anyone else.  

Capitalism Run Amuck: The Ben Rothlisberger Suspension and the Need for Big Labor

[I began this over a month ago.  Sorry for the dated info.]

Capitalism has run amuck.  There are many, many, many examples that make my point.  (Just look at how brash the oil industry is right now.  They're publicizing multi-billion dollar profits and defending "drill-baby-drill" while spilling hundreds of thousands of gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico daily and ruining the coastal economy.  You might also notice how hesitant most politicians are to upset Big Oil and cancel offshore drilling projects; President Obama is promising only a fuller review.  Big capital knows neither shame nor limits.)

In this post, I want to focus on an over-looked example.  If you're not a sports fan, you may not have seen the news about NFL star quarterback, Ben Rothlisberger.  Rothlisberger has been accused of rape and sexual assault by two young women in separate incidents.  The first incident is the subject of an on-going civil suit.  Prosecutors recently announced that although "something happened," they are unable to prove a criminal case.  Last week, NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell, announced a conditional six-game suspension of Rothlisberger.  The Commissioner may reduce the suspension to four games if Rothlisberger completes a "comprehensive behavioral evaluation."

Let me say off the top, I believe the young women.  Statements to police by witnesses to the second incident are consistent and very credible.  As a feminist, I recognize how difficult it is for women to make accusations of rape/sexual assault--all the more difficult when very powerful men are the assailants.  Relatively underpowered accusers (e.g. women, racial and sexual minorities, poor, children and elderly) deserve the benefit of the doubt, even if we must request supplemental evidence in court proceedings.  Specific to the second accusation against Rothlisberger, the combination of testimonies from multiple sources is compelling on its own.  That being said, Rothlisberger deserves much more than a six-game suspension and probably substantial jail time.

The problem is not that Rothlisberger is being punished, but that the punishment is coming from his employer. There are several potential sanctioning entities here: government/police, NFL, NFLPA (the players' union).  Unfortunately, though they believe Rothlisberger committed a crime, the government cannot successfully prosecute for lack of an airtight case.  In my view, the NFLPA should step in and discipline their fellow worker.  His actions embarrass and endanger the reputations and livelihoods of all NFL players.  Instead, the NFL commissioner, Roger Goodell, issued the punishment.  Goodell went so far as to mandate personal behavioral counseling for Rothlisberger because he (Goodell) felt it was necessary for Rothlisberger conducting his life properly.

The whole thing illustrates the severe problem we have as laborers in the United States.  When we enter the job market (i.e. labor market/force), we sell our labor power in the form of time, skills, and production to a capitalist/employer in exchange for wages.  The capitalist is buying our labor, for a limited period of time.  That is all.  The capitalist/employer is NOT purchasing control of my life.  The employer cannot punish me because s/he does not like my extra-office activities.  An employer should not be able to punish workers for their political activities away from the job.  Nor should employers be allowed to comment on or sanction workers for their sexual activities away from the job.  Again, employers buy our labor and production.  They do not buy us!  The employer/laborer relationship is simply transactional.  Giving employers the power to control our lives beyond work, especially to the point of mandating behavior counseling, is outrageous and dangerous.  It is as ridiculous as giving the grocery store cashier control over how you raise your children!  The cashier is a party in a transaction.  So is your employer.

That so much talk around this incident has been around "protecting the shield" (i.e. the reputation of the NFL) illustrates just how far we've gone toward thinking that capitalists somehow own us; that capitalists' willingness to exchange money for our labor means they have a vested interest in every part of our lives, that which is part of labor production (e.g. activities at work) and that which is not (e.g. how I spend every other part of my day).

There is so much more to say, but I must stop here so that I don't end up writing a permanently unfinished eternal treatise.  Thank God, Karl Marx already did that for us.  :)

Federal Court Strikes Down Washington State’s Felon Disfranchisement Law in Landmark Voting Rights Case

Federal Court Strikes Down Washington State’s Felon Disfranchisement Law in Landmark Voting Rights Case


Stripping felons of their voting rights for life is one of many ways whites systematically deny people of color  our full humanity.  Ultimately, self-government through voting is an institutional reflection of our shared belief that all people are equal.  No person or arbitrarily defined group of people has the natural right to rule over others.  When people strip felons, who are unfairly disproportionately people of color, of their right to vote, they are claiming that the voting public (disproportionately whites) is a more valuable form of human than those who cannot participate in the governing process. 

You may have noticed that Virginia's new Republican governor, Bob McDonnell, has declared April "Confederate History Month" and instituted a new literacy test for felons (again, disproportionately minority--especially African American in Virginia) who want to regain the "right-turned-privilege" to vote.  McDonnell's literacy test requires felons to submit an essay to him as part of voting rights reinstatement proceedings.  If the Governor approves of the essay, he may choose to reinstate voting rights.  Many other states have similar systems.  When I lived in Florida, the governor could arbitrarily restore or deny voting rights to felons (after their release) based on the governor's whim.  This is the kind of thing the 1965 Voting Rights Act is designed to prevent.   These practices are only allowed to go on because they disproportionately harm people of color and greatly increase whites' voting power. 

In Florida, if released felons were allowed to vote, Al Gore would have won the state in 2000.  Among many probable consequences, former felons' votes would mean that our military would likely be home safe, and thousands of Afghan, Iraqi, and American lives would not have been lost.  How ironic that the people society is supposedly punishing for their violent pasts would have given us peace instead of the violence President Bush did in our names!

These Wounds I Suffer in the House of My Friends: Church as Site of White Racism

Continuing the previous post, this week researchers at Baylor University published a study finding that people who were primed with Christian words (e.g. Jesus, Bible, faith, Christ) demonstrated more covert and overt racism against African Americans than people who were not primed with Christian words.  In other words, people who are thinking about American Christianity (or thinking through a Christian frame, the study speculates) feel and express more anti-Black racism than people who are not thinking about Christianity.  The ABP news service, with a quotation by one of the study's authors, sums up the point nicely:

The study, published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, found that people subliminally "primed" with Christian words reported more negative attitudes about African-Americans than those primed with neutral words.

"What's interesting about this study is that it shows some component of religion does lead to some negative evaluations of people based on race," said Wade Rowatt, associate professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor, who led the study. 

 According to Rowatt, there is something about American Christianity that leads to whites' anti-black racism.  Rather than preventing white on black racism, white Christianity actually leads to (i.e. activates, maybe even produces) racism.

The study only subliminally primed people with Christian words and measured the effect of that incredibly minuscule stimulus.  That they found any effect at all is remarkable!  In reality, people are not subliminally primed with singular Christian words; they are overwhelmed with Christian words and symbols.  Extrapolating from the study, each Christian stimulus primes people for anti-Black sentiment.  If people in short laboratory studies in which they "heard" only one Christian word exhibit increased anti-Black racism, how much greater is the effect when people have been in church!!!  Given the flood of Christian symbols around us--crosses, t-shirts with verses, people praying over their food, "blessings" when we sneeze--it is no wonder people of color face white racism everywhere, all the time.

Of course, the Church is not the only central purveyor of white racism.  But the study is important because it indicates two critical things: 1) in the United States, Christianity and white racism reinforce one another; and 2) churches are sites where whites do racial harm and amplify racism.  White churches are not sites of racial harmony; they are places where people of color are wounded in the houses of their white friends (see Zechariah 13:6, from which I drew this post's title).     


I have many thoughts on this subject, but I will save most of them for another time.  Suffice it to say here, the white Church has a lot of work to do if it hopes to succeed at the "racial reconciliation" project many churches have taken up over the last half century.  Having worshiped and served in predominantly white churches, I can give innumerable first hand accounts of the covert and overt racism the researchers found.  In one instance, a white evangelical with whom I was living actually said to me "if you were my slave, it would be fine." My experiences are not unique.  People of color who have taken the leap of faith to join white churches usually find those churches to be houses of racialized pain, and suffer many wounds as a result.  The book, Reconciliation Blues, has many accounts documenting that fact.

Sociologizing Sin

[I wrote this a few years ago. It wouldn't be identical if I wrote it today, but I still find it interesting. Hope you do, too!]

Sociologizing Sin

Coming to understand my place in the world has caused me to completely reconsider my understanding of sin. Recognizing myself as a frequent oppressor of others--whether consciously or unconsciously, individually or corporately, personally or through social structures, intentionally or unintentionally--I have come to realize that avoiding sin is pretty much impossible. Depending on your theology, one of two conclusions will be the logical result of the insights I am about to share. Either one will take this message to further demonstrate our constant dependence on Jesus' payment for our sins and lead a more relaxed Christian life that does not consider it possible to never be guilty of sin ever again (this belief leads many to modern aesthetic practices and is burdensome on us all, especially when it is politicized). Or one will conclude that a personal relationship with Jesus is a poor and illogical solution for a crime that is both individual and corporate. One may futher conclude that judging people as individuals, rather than as social groups, and sending individuals to heaven or hell is fundamentally unfair. I have not thought down these paths yet. Neither am I steering one direction or the other. I simply want to share how understanding my social identity and status has broadened and deepened my understanding of many concepts, including sin and the intractiblility of our dependence on God for forgiveness.

Before I fully understood and considered my social identity, I basically boiled sin down to dichotomous, individualized actions and decisions. Each option presented to me was essentially a choice between doing what God wanted (e.g. telling the truth) or sinning against God (e.g. lying). Regardless of where one stands on the doctrine of original or imputed sin, after salvation, sin is generally understood to be an individualized choice.

But now I think of things differently. I know that I daily actively oppress and/or benefit from being a member of a group that is oppressing others. For instance, I know that my ability to attend graduate school inexpensively is dependent upon Texas A&M University and the state of Texas deciding to financially exploit custodians and other low-wage workers at the institution. I know that the relatively low gas prices I enjoy as an American are due to the American government using its military and financial might to pressure and exploit people in oil-producing countries. I know that, as a man, I participate in and/or fail to stop sexist activities (including joking and objectifying women as sexual objects rather than whole human beings). In so doing, I help to create the social climate we have now. One in which most women experience sexual harassment at some point in their lives. If memory serves, over 20% of American women have experienced some sort of sexual assault, including rape. I am at least partially responsible for that.

These are just a few examples. Just because I don't have the nuclear codes, doesn't mean I'm not responsible for my government's oppression of people around the globe. We all know very well that if the US engaged in fairer military and economic practices and the American economy suffered, the great majority of us would vote for candidates who would restore "the good old days." We would pretend not to know how they did it.

As an active participant, passive (or intentional) beneficiary, and structural party to the oppression and exploitation of countless others, I am constantly in a state of sin from which I cannot and do not extricate myself. No amount of physical, mental, or spiritual self-chastisement will free me from some exploitative relationship to others. And even if I could find a way to have no structural or relational exploitative power over any single other person on the globe, I would not do it. Sin has its enjoyable season.

I never knew how much I was asking God to forgive when I asked God to remove my sins from me and impune them to Christ Jesus. I cannot imagine how much sin of mine God is constantly forgiving (or storing up, if God is judgemental and Christianity is untrue). It's frightening and humbling all at once. For me, it is a beginning to understanding grace, mercy, forgiveness, and the character and omnipotence of God. Forgiveness of this magnitude is far more impressive to me than any of the miracles mentioned in Scripture. No human can even imagine giving that kind of grace.

This is by no means an excuse for our sinful actions or for not trying to end oppression of all kinds, everywhere, regardless of the sacrifice.

It is actually an attempt to bring these kinds of sins to our attention and to bring glory to God for God's mercy, grace, and love.