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.]

On Salvation, Spirit, and Grace

I feel compelled to write a note on God's lessons to me about salvation and grace.  (As a side note that has no clear doctrinal connection to this post, Bishop T.D. Jakes preached a great word about dimensions of grace today.  He worked from the story of Hannah, Samuel's mother [I Samuel 2:18-21].  I recommend his lesson to everyone.)

In my quiet times and through years of trials and therapy, God revealed a lesson I have never before understood.  This is my note on it.  Please feel free to comment with additions/suggestions/reactions.  This is as much a recording of the lesson for my future relearning as it is the opening of a conversation.

The lessons are in the Gospel of Matthew:

And Jesus said to them, "Watch out and beware of the [fn]leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." .... "How is it that you do not understand that I did not speak to you concerning bread? But beware of the[fn]leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees." Then they understood that He did not say to beware of the leaven of bread, but of the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees (Matthew 6:6,11-12).  

The Pharisees and Sadducees are the teachers of the Old Testament Law.  The Pharisees are the "people's priests," whose sensitivity to the average person and avowed doctrines (e.g. resurrection from the dead, belief in active angels) resonate most closely with our own.  The Sadducees are official priests who run the temple and control Jewish government during Jesus time.  Their privileged position influenced their doctrine (e.g. no resurrection) and promoted abusive temple policies.  As Paul's experience demonstrates, the two camps were enemies.  Nevertheless, Jesus groups them together as problematic because their commitment to focussing on law rather than spirit blinded people to the gospel.  Their kind of legalism is described as "leaven" because the effects of even a little yeast seep through and affect the entire loaf of bread.  In other words, even a little legalism corrupts the gospel of Jesus.

Having warned us about the wrong perspective about the Law and means for salvation, Jesus doubles down on the point:

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"  And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, [fn]Elijah; but still others, [fn]Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."  He [!] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"  Simon Peter answered, "You are [fn]the Christ, the Son of the living God."  And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon[fn]Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.  (Matthew 16:13-17)

Jesus's question highlights the failings of legal teaching on two levels.  First, the Pharisees and Sadducees are both factually wrong.  They fail to correctly identify the Messiah.  (They also fail to identify John the Baptist as the Elijah who was to precede the Messiah. [Matt. 17:10-13])  Of course, even from a traditional Jewish perspective, failing to identify the Messiah is a HUGE problem.  Second, and most central to the lesson Jesus is teaching, is that the correct answer--that Jesus is the Christ, i.e. the Son of the living God, the Anointed One--is revealed to the disciples by Spirit (i.e. through the Father who is in heaven) and not through legal teaching.  The two failings of the teachers of the law are connected.  Failure to learn through spiritual revelation produces incorrect doctrine--even to the point of missing the single most important thing in Jewish teaching, namely the coming Messiah.  The failing of law is total.

Jesus reinforces the point by immediately anointing Peter on the basis of spiritual revelation ("this is the rock upon which I will build my church" [Matthew 6:18]) and then immediately rebuking him when Peter falls back to traditional legal teaching about what the Messiah will do ("Get behind me Satan..." because Peter expects political revolution and rejects Jesus's predictions of his crucifixion [Matthew 6:22-23]).

Jesus again illustrates His points brilliantly through His transfiguration:

Six days later Jesus [!] took with Him Peter and[fn]James and John his brother, and [!] led them up on a high mountain by themselves.  And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.  And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, talking with Him.  Peter said to Jesus, "Lord, it is good for us to be here; if You wish, I will make three [fn]tabernacles here, one for You, and one for Moses, and one for Elijah."  While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and behold, a voice out of the cloud said, "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased; listen to Him!"  When the disciples heard this, they fell [fn]face down to the ground and were terrified.  And Jesus came to them and touched them and said,"Get up, and do not be afraid."  And lifting up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus Himself alone.  (Matthew 17:1-8) 

Through His transfiguration, Jesus proves: 1) He is neither the Law (Moses) nor the Prophets (Elijah), but the Messiah.  Jesus description of Himself, revealed to the disciples spiritually though hidden from legal teachers, is factually correct; and 2) Reliance on teachings of the Law will mislead disciples.  Peter's reaction to the transfiguration, namely wanting to build a tabernacle in each figure's honor, is appropriate given the Mosaic tradition.  But, without shaming Peter's proposal of worship, God nullifies Peter's legal reasoning by ending the transfiguration and thereby eliminating the possibility of building a tabernacle.  This is because: 1) Mosaic Law and Prophetic teaching are foreshadows of the Messiah, not His equals; and 2) reliance on legal tradition, even for insight on how to worship in this instance, was not the mode Jesus wanted to teach.  Jesus was emphasizing spirit and belief, which the Father emphatically supported, "Listen to Him!"  That's why, Jesus immediately follows the transfiguration with teachings about faith the size of a mustard seed and faith that moves mountains (Matthew 17:20).  


And then Jesus gives us a beautiful and fundamentally transformative teaching about spirit and faith: 

When they came to Capernaum, those who collected the [fn]two-drachma tax came to Peter and said, "Does your teacher not pay the [fn]two-drachma tax?"  He [!] said, "Yes." And when he came into the house, Jesus spoke to him first, saying, "What do you think, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?"  When Peter said, "From strangers," Jesus said to him, "Then the sons are [fn]exempt.  "However, so that we do not [fn]offend them, go to the sea and throw in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up; and when you open its mouth, you will find [fn]a shekel. Take that and give it to them for you and Me."  (Matthew 17:24-27)

"Those who collect the two-drachma tax" are empowered by the Sadducees and are connected to temple worship.  The tax was a traditional sacrifice for entering the temple for festivals, holidays, and regular worship.  Peter--still not completely understanding Jesus's spiritual, rather than legal, emphasis--is slightly intimidated by the temple officials asking him if Jesus is an irreverent Jew, breaking the Law by not paying the tax.  Peter insists that Jesus follows the law and pays the temple tax.  


Because Peter does not recognize the spirit versus law conflict into which he has waded, he does not feel compelled to bring the question to the Christ.  Jesus has to initiate the lesson.  Jesus asks, "From whom do the kings of the earth collect customs or poll-tax, from their sons or from strangers?"  And receiving the obvious answer, Jesus gives the point, "Then the sons are exempt."  In other words, Jesus is saying that our judgement and behavior should no longer be determined by law but by our relationship to God.  Just as earthly children receive grace-based, not law-based, treatment from their parents, so we as God's spiritual children receive grace-based, non-legal treatment from God.  Jesus is saying to Peter and us, if we understand our relationship to God, then the questions and teachings of law-based folk are revealed to be obviously silly and irrelevant.  The law exists, yes.  It teaches a way to approach God.  But it's crazy to think God's children would be subject to law!  We approach through grace and love, just like earthly children do.  


Then Jesus teaches Peter and us a more excellent way.  Jesus is not interested in causing debates or fights with the teachers of the law, but He is also not going to insult His relationship with God by acting as though He is bound by legalism.  Therefore, Jesus instructs Peter to miraculously get a coin out of a fish's mouth and pay the tax with that.  The miracle of the fish containing a coin shows that God the Father confirms Jesus's teaching and the special relationship we have as sons and daughters.  And here's the part I like most, Jesus specifies that the fish will contain enough payment "for you and Me!"  Hallelujah!!!  Jesus is making clear to us that the lesson is about spirit, not law.  Jesus does not claim exemption based on his sinlessness (i.e. being law abiding), but rather He says that we all can approach God without law because of our status as His children!  And all of this is confirmed by the fact that Jesus issues this teaching and calls Peter to abide by it before He has died and paid the blood penalty for our sins (which would have classified us all as exempt based on conferred sinlessness).  The relationship with God was granted to Peter through spirit and faith, just like Abraham was justified through faith.  God is consistent and beyond generous!  [Cue the organ!  Do your praise dance!]  


And so that we don't miss the point, Jesus doubles down again with the ultimate demonstration: 

At that [fn]time the disciples came to Jesus and said, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"  And He called a child to Himself and set him[fn]before them, and said, "Truly I say to you, unless you [fn]are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.  "Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  "And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me.... (Matthew 18:1-5)

The disciples now understand that Jesus is offering a totally new paradigm from the Law teachings they grew up with, but they don't know how the new paradigm of salvation works.  So they ask an old paradigm-based question to explore the dimensions of the new paradigm of spirit and grace, "Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"  Jesus capitalizes on the moment to reemphasize that spirit and faith are all that matter.  He does this by using a literal child as an illustration and says, "...unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven...."  The key here is that children are intellectually incapable of understanding and affirming doctrine.  If Peter, the disciples, and people generally were saved through law or doctrinal affirmation--even the affirmation that Jesus is Messiah as made by Peter in Matt. 16:16--then Jesus would have had to use an adult who had correctly identified Him as Christ for the illustration.  But the entire illustration hinges on being "converted and becom[ing] like children" and thus leaving the adult world of affirmations and doctrinal analysis.  Instead we are to take on the characteristics of children, namely the spirit-based wild-eyed character of faith and belief, that is universal to children.  As children, we are perfectly capable of believing the wildest things (e.g. Santa Claus) without the slightest hesitation or doubt.  Children are perfectly trusting (though they often have spiritual discernment about evil people).  Children are completely disinterested in doctrinal debates.  God has unfettered access to their minds and hearts.  That is the character God calls us to adopt as adults.  It is not easy, especially in a culture like ours (deriving from the Greek influence Jesus also lived under).  It requires humility and getting comfortable with uncertainty.  But it is the only way God--whose ways "are beyond our ways," whose "judgments are beyond searching out [and whose ways are] unfathomable!" (Romans 11:33)--can reveal to us the things of His Spirit.  God's thoughts and ways are "beyond searching out" and "unfathomable."  In other words, there is no amount of studying or teaching or listening or church or Bible study or even imagination that can reveal to us the ways and insights of God.  We can only begin by emptying ourselves, becoming like little children again, and letting Him introduce us to supernatural Christ-ness.  


Oh My God!  For an intellectual like me, this is a tremendously difficult teaching.  But praise God!  I'm looking forward to trying to live it out.  I can't wait for all the things God will show me and the things God will do.  I will be meditating regularly in an effort to release the old wineskins of traditionalism and legalism in favor of the new wineskin of spirit and Christ-ness.  I am as clueless as anyone else on what to do or how to do it.  


I'll end with an invitation.  As the old preachers say, "Won't you come?"  

A Blessed Circle, A Blessed Evening (Part I)

Yesterday was my friend, Rose Pulliam's birthday.  [Happy Birthday, again, Rose!]  If you don't know Rose, she is a beautiful woman, in every sense imaginable.  Hers is a gathering and nurturing soul; the kind that keeps communities together.  She totally dispels the notion that activists, of which she is one of the finest, only throw bricks and don't build anything.  Rose can throw a brick, but through her stories, comedy, outreach, and just force of personality, she constantly edifies individuals and communities in the deepest, most profound and elemental ways.  

So, we gathered to celebrate her birthday.  Overtime, as the crowd ebbed and flowed, about of dozen of us--all queer people of color, mostly activists, many with Bible-based religious backgrounds of various denominations--formed a large circle and began to talk about religion and faith.  In the circle were 4 men and 8 or so women, people in their 20s through 50s, including African Americans, Latin@s, and women from the Caribbean.  We covered a lot of ground as the conversation flowed from an academic look at religion and politics to how religion played in people's coming out stories and a host of other angles.  Eventually, one of the sisters in the group asked the pivotal question that launched us into the meat of the night.  She asked, "what happens to the soul when we die?  Where does the soul go?"   

I cannot do justice to the following events, nor can I completely recount every word (or even highlight) of the blessed conversation that followed.  There was too much wisdom in the group to even imagine capturing it in words.  We simply vibed together.  As the Bible says, "deep calls to deep," and that's where and how we met each other.  The energy in the space was so holy (for lack of a less loaded word), built on the trust and safety we recognized and built in each other.  And it was as much recognized as created.  The secret price of entry to the circle, demanded by the Spirit that brought us, was years of deep and intense personal reflection on who we are in the world and how our religious histories had both revealed and hidden aspects of the spiritual realities we are called to share.  It was the evidence of that pursuit of truth beyond dogma--an uncommon spiritual maturation--that we silently recognized in one another.  Everyone brought some truly spiritual gift to the collective, and we recognized that gifting in each other as well.  Upon those spiritual recognitions and connections, we experienced our circle.  

Like I said, there was far too much wisdom in the circle for me to recount it here.  Truthfully, so much happened beyond the aural that even a perfect transcription of the night would give but a fraction of the experience.  So let me touch on just a few things to give a sense of the conversation.  In the next post, I want to talk about my experience in the circle.  

So, the pivotal question was, "Where does the soul go when we die?" People offered a range of answers, generally speaking of our souls and essences as collections of energy that may or may not (or may also) remain as a self-identified unit after bodily death (as opposed to breaking up into fragments, given away in life and/or recycled in death back in to the whole).  We related stories of speaking to people who had passed, whether directly or through mediums.  [[I'll note here that even the Bible says this is possible; remember Saul speaking to Samuel through the Witch of Endor and Abraham's acknowledgement that it is possible for the dead rich man go back and talk to his brothers though it would be useless.]]  We spoke of dreaming other people's dreams and receiving and conveying supernatural messages...and the awesome responsibility that entails.  We spoke of visions; some viewed alone, others shared.  We wondered how all this is possible.  What truths about now and the next epoch do our experiences reveal?  Conversely, we did not try to fit our experiences into the orthodoxy boxes of our various traditions.  Nor did we doubt one another.  We did not all have identical experiences, but we've all had experiences that were similar enough and far enough beyond the fringes of orthodoxy to know that everyone was speaking of "reality."  Every story was more than sincere; it was accurate.  

We wondered.  We spoke of the power of this wonder and of faith and doubt and fear.  One sister shared a valuable lesson.  She said, "fear haunts.  Truth does not haunt.  Truth always manifests itself."  And she is right, truth comes to pass.  Fear dogs people, but the fearful possibilities cannot and do not all come into being.  In another exchange, a brother spoke of doubt and faith.  Relating his coming out story, he said he learned to have as much faith that God created him as gay as others have that being gay is sin.  We spoke of how doubt creates much opportunity--to expand beyond dogma, to receive others, to experience spirit.  

We spoke of how death is a simultaneously individual and collective experience.  Even birth is a collective experience (just ask your mother), as is every subsequent experience until death.  No one experiences death per se with you; we all face it individually.  Yet, we can experience it collectively.  Several sisters recalled being together when a loved one passed, in the very house where we were talking.  Everyone recounted the different experiences, in at least three locations, that marked the instant of the person's passing.  A sleeping baby sat up to witness the moment, people pulled close in immediate anticipation, one woman spoke in words and a voice unrecognizable to herself.  

We spoke of shared energies.  How we miss the experience of collective worship, especially the songs.  We hummed the Old 100; that classic set of moans and ancestral hymns that welcome the Spirit and make the Black church so powerful and comforting.  We spoke of how the songs put us on the same wave length and how our bodies and essences feel that.  How that collective energy is so strong it can become visible.  

We laughed.  Uninhibited, joyful laughs.  We truly enjoyed each other and all the people, present and past, whose spirits and other remnants, were in the place.  It was a blessing.  It was healing.  We all held hands, felt a powerful warmth, and gave thanks.  

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.  :)

Deferential Diplomacy

In my quotidian survey of popular newspapers and political blogs, I was struck by the headline at politico.com declaring President Obama's strategic "diplomacy of deference" and the subsequent critiques (article and image credits available at above link). At first, I assumed the criticisms were based on tacit white supremacist positions, unspoken and generally buried in the subconsciences of the unwitting. I was right about the cause, but wrong about the manifestation. The racial element remains thinly veiled (and I mean thinly), but the supremacist element is bold indeed. Darth Vader himself, Dick Cheney, exemplifies the phenomenon:

But critics call Obama’s outstretched hand a miscalculation. Former vice president Cheney said: "There is no reason for an American president to bow to anyone. Our friends and allies don't expect it, and our enemies see it as a sign of weakness."

Did I miss something? Does every U.S. president pass into deity immediately following his inauguration? I was in Washington this past January, and I can tell you I saw nothing of the sort. Why then should American presidents not have to show respect to other national leaders (and frankly, every human being, in my view) via the cultural symbols dominant in that society?

You will notice that Emperor Akihito and President Obama are both simultaneously bowing and shaking hands. Indeed, the image appears to me to represent exactly the kind of mutual respect for one another and the larger societies each represents that is appropriate in diplomatic contexts.

Frankly, I believe Obama's status as the first Black president plays into the situation in myriad ways. First off, I believe that as a Black man, Obama has had to use a host of symbolic forms of respect and deference to others his entire life. Whites have undoubtedly demanded all sorts of indications of deference from him, especially in this "colorblind" era. Obama has skillfully learned to turn whites' racist demands into an asset for himself, which wheals now as second nature.

But more to the point, I believe Obama's racial status contributed to the development of his general orientation toward the world--one of respect and a sense of communal membership, rather than global domination. Part of the historical development of whiteness is the idea that whites have a manifest destiny; a destiny which has gone global over the years. Although it is taken for granted now that everyone issues handshakes as the common greeting, the handshake is actually a Eurocentric tradition. Whites made it universal through aggressive imperialism. Forcing others to use Western cultural symbols represented, and continues to represent, acquiescence to said imperialism.

Obama's decision to recognize indigenous symbols is a repudiation of America's history of white imperialism and racism. Critics of the president are manifesting deep emotional attachments to white supremacy. The degree of "controversy" and the characterization of Obama's moves as "deferential" (rather than respectful) and indicative of "weakness" illustrate the depth and ubiquity of white supremacy in the United States, among all social strata. The emotionally charged rhetoric indicates just how entrench white supremacy and its defenders are in this country.

This "controversy" is really just the white supremacist version of territorial animals' displays of aggression; white supremacists are basically flashing their teeth at us, hoping to intimidate us into giving into their racist demands. But like animals, their reaction is actually a revelation that they feel very threatened, even by something as simple as a bow. They hope brief displays will save them from an actual fight.

As anti-racists, we must accurately recognize the meanings in critics' reactions and respond accordingly. Now is the time to resist. As the president has modeled, just purposing to demonstrate respect and equality is an effective means of attacking white supremacy. We can all do that. Let us support our president in his effort to reestablish the United States as one of many global players, rather than a resented global bully. Let us think globally and act locally. We should make a special effort to learn and use non-Western/white symbols to demonstrate respect.

[[This final paragraph is largely my first attempt to address an issue in critical race studies, and sociology generally. We diagnose social ills extremely well, but our prescriptions for resolution are very limited and under theorized. Like Marx, I believe the tools of revolution exist within every social structure. We only need to recognize them and be willing to use them. Consequently, I am putting more effort to suggesting a range of options and actions we can take to combat social injustices wherever we find them. Massive social movements are wonderful and necessary for some tasks, but we have waited for the movement too long. Not all issues are best addressed by immediate mobilizations. Let's keep trying whatever we can until we find what we can do now that works. I would greatly appreciate your thoughts and ideas about resistance.]]