Category Archives: Culture Nights

Of isms, schisms, colloquialisms

Posted on by
2

by the Night Writer

There was a classic Saturday Night Live sketch where Chevy Chase was interviewing Richard Pryor for a job (transcript here, blurry video here). The last step was for Pryor to take a word association test where he’d say the first word that came to his mind after Chase read a word from a list. The test is innocent enough at first, but soon the words — initially ambiguous — start to take on racial overtones: “black” = “white”, “tar baby” = “ofay”, “jungle bunny” = “cracker” as each man gets a little angrier and more confrontational. Ultimately Chase drops the “n” word, not even looking at his list, and Pryor responds menacingly with “Dead Honky.” This was way back in the 70s when SNL was a startling new phenomenon, pushing the edge of satire and taste. To dare to use the “n” word in a humorous context to satirize the volatility of the race issue and the absurdity of the language was to also push the nuance envelope. The skit confronted the words rather than running from them and drew them out into the light so their bulbous ugliness could be punctured and deflated by the sharp needle. It was ground-breaking, it was liberating, it was as if it were prophesying a new day where we could at last talk.

That glimmer of hope appears long gone. I doubt that skit could run today. In fact, many of the links I originally found to the video now have messages about “video removed for content violation.” Whether it was for language or copyright violations I don’t know, but it makes me wonder. Yesterday’s satire is now reality, as any racially-tinged language provokes instant word association-type reflex responses of reaction unfettered by reason. “Racism” has become such a loaded word that no one can pick it up without getting a hernia. It even occurred to me after I posted the Tom Lehrer video earlier that some might watch that and fail to see the irony and would instead react with, “That’s mean” or something worse, missing the satire completely. No emails like that yet, fortunately.

Ultimately, racism can’t be changed by talking about it, but by living without it. I know, that sounds impossible, especially since I concur with what Mitch Berg had to say earlier his week:

I’m going to start out with a very broad statement: “Isms” are part of the human condition. All people are conditioned to favor people who are like them, and to suspect people who are different from them, whether tangibly (skin color, language, accent, smell, dress) or subtly (class, education, geography). Many white people get uneasy around many black people, sure, but that’s an easy one. Middle-class white people get uneasy around mullet-headed bikers; New Yorkers sneer down their noses at Arklahoma accents; light-skinned blacks disdain darker blacks (or so said Spike Lee); farmers roll their eyes at people in suits and ties and clipped city accents and manners.

This is true across every culture on this planet.

In many of those cultures, that suspicion is codified in the language. In many languages, the word for “Human” varies, depending on how closely-related or situated the subject is to the speaker; for “humans” whose tribe is closer to that of the speaker, it’s a fairly benign or amiable term; the farther afield the subject, the less-benign and more derogatory the term will get.

To say “everyone’s a racist” is itself simplistic; it would be fairer and more accurate to say “we are all we-ists”; all of us, black or female or suburban or mentally ill or urban or atheist, are more comfortable around people who are like us. And every single one of us practices “profiling”, whether you’re a black couple “profiling” some agressive drunk rednecks, or a Xhosa turning on a Bantu in anger, or Molly Priesmeyer “profiling” white males, or even the stereotypical white middle-class guy sizing up…anyone else.

We separate ourselves in countless ways, not just by skin color. I was just back in my rural hometown the other day, a small community of about 3,000 people, almost all caucasian. I saw a list of the churches serving this small community. There were 13. Among that 13, there were seven varieties of Baptists. We all pretty much use the same Bible, know that we’re called to join and knit in the Body of Christ, and yet even in a small community that would appear to have so much in common, we can’t help but separate ourselves.

We are all “We-ists” by nature. As a Christian, however, I know that that our basic nature is essentially base and sinful. It is natural to identify with “our” group, to get beyond that we need to begin seeing ourselves as a member of wider and wider groups.

I fellowship regularly with, and minister occasionally to, a group of men overcoming addictions in their lives. The group is roughly 50/50 blacks and whites, and range in age from their 20s to their 60s. Some are from the south, some from the north, some are from the country and some have lived in the city all their lives. There are any number of reasons for individuals in this group to stand apart from other members and perhaps some do. Greater, however, is the overall sense of what we have in common, including our purpose. One of our preachers is a fiery black man who knows first hand what it means to beat up on someone, and to be beat down. If anyone could righteously spout the things that Rev. Jeremiah Wright says, it would be this man, yet he preaches that our enemy isn’t some person or some group – our enemy is ourselves.

About 10 years ago part of this group went on a weekend fishing trip. One of the young black men who came along was just out of prison, and he didn’t have a very favorable opinion of white folks. Early Saturday morning I went down to help out in the kitchen and found this man working by himself on the bacon and eggs. He was large and imposing, the size of an NFL linebacker. I asked him I could help him by turning the bacon.

He looked at me out of the corner of his eye. “No.”

I tried again. “How about I stir up the eggs then?”

“Nope. I got it.” We could have been ice-fishing for the chill in that cabin.

“Oooh-kaay,” I said, looking around and spying about a dozen loaves of bread on the counter, waiting to be toasted. “I think I’ll just hang out over here with all this white bread.”

It was very quiet, except for the sound of the bacon sizzling. “I am about to die,” I thought to myself.

“HAWW!”

Ever since then we’ve been buds. My friend still comes often to the Saturday meetings, and I ran into him last week as the meeting was ending. The message had been about discipleship, and about whether you are a follower or an imitator of someone else (imitator is better). I hadn’t seen him come in earlier so I gave him a big hug, which he returned. He then turned to introduce me to the man he had brought with him, who turned out to be his brother.

“This is John,” he said as I shook the other man’s hand. “He’s somebody I’ve been trying to imitate.”

I couldn’t make out the look in his brother’s eyes, because my own eyes suddenly got kind of misty.

Getting along, if only in song

Posted on by
Reply

Ben’s post, Perpetuating Racism By Talking About It reminded me of a Tom Lehrer classic, of how much I love Lehrer’s music — and how great it is that we have YouTube.

Lehrer, the predecessor to Mark Russell (though much funnier and not as smarmy as Russell), used to appear on national television in the 60s in a show called “That Was the Week That Was” (scroll down for details about the American version) where he would do a satirical song about something in the news that week. I had an album of his best from TW3 when I was in college that I soon had memorized, but I’d never seen a photo of the reclusive Mr. Lehrer until I saw this YouTube video. As funny as Lehrer was as a songwriter and vocalist, he is incomparable when you can actually see his facial expressions.

Now, ripped once again from the headlines, Tom Lehrer and “National Brotherhood Week” (the screen is black for several seconds at the beginning of the video):

Left. Right. Left, Right, Left. Marching toward what?

Posted on by
Reply

by the Night Writer

Rich Karlgaard is among those pondering a return of the religious left:

Yet while secular politics are unwelcome in our church, I have noticed subtle shifts of late. The mood of the ministry and congregation is moving left. The music is moving toward a folk-rock sound of the 1960s and 1970s. Youth ministers wear berets and soul patches. The younger ministers don’t identify themselves as “Christians” but as “Jesus followers.” I would guess that most of them are Obama supporters, but I don’t ask.

To my thinking, “Christian” is ideally something that other people should call you because of what they see in you, rather than something you’d necessarily call yourself. “Follower of Christ” doesn’t do much for me, since Jesus had a lot of people following him around during his ministry, perhaps just for the food. Personally, I like “Imitator of Christ” myself (more on that later).

America’s religious left seems to be mounting a comeback. I’m happy for this development, even though my own tilt is to the right.

The religious left has a distinguished past in American history. It led the abolition fight in the 19th century. It led the civil rights movement in the 20th century. Organizations like the Red Cross grew out of progressive Christianity.

Yes, and I think the basis of America’s welfare program appealed to our country’s Christian heritage and the well-meaning desire to do good and to help the poor. That welfare has had the un-Christian effect of destroying families and perpetuating multi-generational poverty also has to be acknowledged — something the religious left is loathe to do. It has also been, at best, ambivalent about abortion, and its infatuation and even outright embrace of communist and socialist totalitarianism from the Soviets to Castro, Ortega on through Chavez, and it’s apparent commitment to replacing God with Government throughout U.S. policy is also disturbing. (That’s not to say the Religious Right hasn’t supported it’s share of dictators and made its own alliances of convenience).

The strange disappearance of America’s religious left during the 1970s has been noted but not examined much. My own guess is that drugs, music, sex, New Age religions, body worship, tree worship, earth worship and so forth, siphoned off an entire generation of seekers who had previously found their mystic/activist fulfillment in the left hemisphere of Christianity.

Now one detects that many old hippies, and sons and daughters of hippies, are returning to progressive Christianity.

We’ll see how this plays out politically. If there must be a left, then let’s cheer for a religious and not an atheistic left. However, I do think the trend benefits Democrats and is one reason why Democratic primary voter turnout has far excelled Republican voter turnout this year. The mainstream secular media, as usual, has utterly missed this story.

I think I agree with Karlgaard that if there’s going to be a left let it be a religious left rather than an atheistic one. My caveat, and especially my prayer (for both the left and the right) is that the focus is on seeking and doing God’s will, ideally by trying to be like Christ.

Earlier I mentioned being an “imitator” of Christ. Because we’re all human (left and right), it is an easy step to try and move from “imitator” to “impersonator”, wherein we try to rule by proclamation as if we, ourselves, were God. That’s certainly long been a fear and a warning from the left side of the church aisle regarding the motivations of the right, while the left’s own similar tendencies are ignored or attributed to “doing good” or “meaning well.”

My belief is that any “theocracy”, whether left or right, is fatally flawed by our own human imperfections and tendency to turn moves into movements; movements into monuments; and, ultimately, monuments into mausoleums. By all means, we should pursue faith in our lives and we should hope that our personal beliefs will be reflected in our public behavior individually and through policy. Our responsibilities to the poor (and the poor’s responsibilities to God and others); to be stewards of the earth; to deal ethically and compassionately with others are all things that must be done and honored by individuals, not discharged to a collective or government to be taken care of while we blithely go our own selfish way. As I’ve written here before, if God asks me if I helped the poor (as if He doesn’t already know) I don’t think He’s going to be impressed if I say, “Well, I paid my taxes.” Being religiously left or right, highly taxed or not, doesn’t lessen our responsibilities to do something on an individual basis, no matter how many marches, protests or church services we go to.

We often hear the phrase, “What would Jesus do?” as a guide to behavior. I suppose that’s all right as far as it goes. A better statement might be, “What is Jesus doing?” and then trying to line up with that. If we believe Jesus is still at work around us, and not that He’s gone off and left us to our own freedom-eroding devices, we can purpose to look for those things and and align ourselves accordingly. I urge those of the religious left, and my friends on the religious right, to put our focus on glorifying God, not our own group or idealogy. If we can do that — though we may disagree from time to time — I think we’ll be all right.

What’s in a game? Don’t ask the 8th Circuit Court

Posted on by
1

Back in the day, and I mean really back in the day when I had an Apple IIe computer and a computer game called Castle Wolfenstein. The game was on a 5″ floppy disk and was essentially a puzzle maze where you were a WWII Allied prisoner trying to escape from the lowest dungeons of an old castle turned Nazi fortress. Graphically it was about as crude as it could be, and by crude I mean laughably simplistic by today’s standards. It was a one-color, two-dimensional, third-person shooter where the game characters were essentially stick figures whose arms would only extend at 45 and 90 degree angles to shoot at other characters. To “kill” a Nazi guard you had to maneuver around the screen and try to plink him before he got you. If you succeeded, your victim fell over like a tree in the forest. Nevertheless it was hours of fun as you worked your way through various rooms, traps and puzzles while searching crates for keys, ammo, grenades and bullet proof vests.

A few years later I was using a company laptop and one day in a clearance bin I saw an updated version of “Wolfenstein” on a diskette advertising new, 3-D graphics. “Cool,” I thought, and plunked down the $5, took the game home and loaded it up, finding myself in a full-color dungeon, armed with a Luger. I worked my way around a corner and a uniformed guard came rushing at me. I raised my gun and fired and — HIS HEAD EXPLODED! Blood, meat and brains went flying and I actually felt a little ill. In this case the graphics were, well, graphic and unbelievably “crude” but not in the same way as the first game. I later learned that the updated game was based on the “Doom” game engine — quite a leap forward from the tin-man stick figures of my old game. I decided it was too intense for me and turned it off, never to go back to it.

Even then, of course, the “new” graphics were still not as realistic as they are now; the game, after all, was on a little 3″ diskette, running on a computer with a processor that would embarrass a calculator today. Today’s games and game engines are highly advanced, technically, but some are still as base as they can be in their renderings of violence. I’ve changed, too, of course and I don’t mind a little of the ultra-violence in a game as long as it’s not too real. I’ve hacked and slashed my way through orcs, trolls, bug-bears, goblins and fire-breathing demon dogs without flinching (Baldur’s Gate II) or sniped German storm-troopers (Brothers In Arms) while still looking forward to lunch, but while these games are well-rendered the “dead” aren’t excessively gory and they thoughtfully disappear soon after falling. I’ve even played these with my youngest daughter, a sweet-natured girl who used to cry if someone fell off a horse in a TV show, but who now snickers if she gets the drop on a mummy and dispatches it with a spinning kick.

Perhaps this isn’t the nicest daddy-daughter activity we can engage in, but I know that there are games out there that are much worse and that strive to outdo each other in replicating the most realistic dismemberments. These games typically have “M” for “Mature” ratings. These games do not come into my house. I was thinking of this today when I read the news story that the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals had struck down (how violent!) a law banning selling “mature” or “adults only” video games.

Minnesota may not enforce a law restricting the sale or rental of “adults only” or “mature” video games to minors, according to an opinion issued Monday by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

A three-judge panel said the court previously has held that violent video games are protected free speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. For that reason, the law can only be upheld if it is proven “necessary to serve a compelling state interest and … is narrowly tailored to achieve that end,” the panel ruled.

As I read it I was also thinking about the day a few years ago when I went into the video arcade at Valley Fair and watched an expert player using both pistols on the big-screen “House of the Dead” game to mow down realistic, nearly life-sized zombies and monsters. He was fast and unhesitant. He was accurate and stylish, often using the turn-the-gun-sideways grip so popular in today’s action movies. He was about eight years old. I wondered then if maybe something inside a young person doesn’t get seared a bit from playing a game as graphic as that (or even an older person for that matter). Could you “play” enough so that the real thing wouldn’t seem like that big of a deal?

About 15 years ago I was at a conference where we were all taken out to a dude ranch for the evening’s entertainment. One of the things you could do was engage in a quick-draw contest with a friend. In this you each had an authentic style and weight single-action revolver in a leather holster. You actually faced each other from about six feet away and when the cowpoke “referee” gave the signal you’d draw, work the single-action, aim at your opponent and pull the trigger. Sensors determined who fired first, while the referee determined if your gun was pointed in an “effective” manner. My friend Nick and I faced off three times; each time he won. The ref looked at me and shook his head. “Dude,” he said (it was a dude ranch, after all), “you’re clearing leather and cocking the gun ahead of him every time, but you don’t pull the trigger fast enough.

“Really?” I said. “I don’t feel like I’m hesitating.” We tried three more times, each time I focused on pulling the trigger with grim resolution. Three more times I died. I just couldn’t overcome the split-second hesitation, even though I knew the gun was fake and the action wasn’t for real. The ref just shook his head. “You’re a cold-hearted bastard, Nick,” I told my partner. He rather enjoyed that.

Somehow I don’t think the little kid I saw playing the game at Valley Fair would hesitate. This is a good thing, perhaps, if you’re under zombie attack for real but since that doesn’t happen much when the legislature isn’t in session I wonder if, all in all, it’s not such a good thing. I also wonder at the bizarre reasoning of the 8th Circuit Court which based it’s ruling in large part that graphic violence is protected as free speech and therefore can’t be restricted, even by age. Which, in turn, makes me wonder if the Court will now repeal motion picture ratings and allow over-the-counter sales of pr0n magazines to 10-year-olds under the same logic.

I’d like to be just as sophisticated and blasé about the potential impact of the CG-enhanced violence in games available to kids and the TV shows and movies that are so accessible. The scientists, after all, assure us that there’s a negligible effect. “Tosh,” I’ll think to myself, “the schools and parents are doing an excellent job of teaching manners, respect and impulse-control to today’s young men. What’s the worst that can happen?” And then I’ll turn from the comics page to the local news section.

A young man upset about a girlfriend issue takes a rock in a sock to a knife fight and is killed by two other young men. Another man beats his friend to death with a baseball bat. A five-year-old boy takes a knife to school in order to threaten his gym teacher. A 15-year-old boy points a replica gun at police officers, who respond with real bullets. The last article appeared in the paper two days ago, the first three articles, along with the story about the court ruling, were all in today’s paper. I’m sure it’s all just coincidence.

Let’s play two.

Update:

Then there’s this: Five arrested with weapons outside St. Paul school. Three of the five are minors.

Unto the next generation

Posted on by
1

by the Night Writer

“We are now trusting to those who are against us in position and principle, to fashion to their own form the minds and affections of our youth… This canker is eating on the vitals of our existence, and if not arrested at once, will be beyond remedy.”

— Thomas Jefferson

I just spent a week away from my children. Curiously enough, I spent a surprising amount of this time thinking and talking about home education.

One afternoon I played golf with a fun couple who have two boys, aged 4 and 2, who are nicknamed “Search” and “Destroy.” The mom had learned from my wife the evening before that we home educate and was interested in what was involved. I heard the usual questions from her about college admissions (colleges are now, in fact, actively recruiting home-schooled teens) and socialization (personally, I’m more concerned about socialism).

I told her that my children had always had a wide circle of friends their age, either cousins or kids from church or even the neighborhood, but also had had the experience of talking to and working closely with adults on a one-on-one basis. One of the results of this, in my opinion, is that my daughters have always been poised and comfortable whenever they speak with non-parental adults. They are respectful, but not awed or overcome with shyness or cupidity. In short, they act as if talking to other, older people is completely natural (imagine that!). Interestingly enough, the woman I was talking to and her husband spend a great deal of time (and earn a fair amount of money) trying to teach adults to regain or re-engage the child-like creativity and imagination they had had before years of education and “socialization” had beaten it out of them.

Two days later I was in the home of my wife’s cousin Kay and her husband, Adrian. With us were, I think, 9 of their 11 kids, plus a few sons- and daughters-in-law (and a prospective daughter-in-law) and their own children. We were enthusiastically and effortlessly added to the dinner table where our presence scarcely created a ripple. I think that with this many kids and grandkids around on a regular basis, most of Kay’s recipes start with “Take one whole cow…” One of the things you can’t help but notice, besides the number, is how fresh-faced and attentive all the young folks are, even the ones that have married in. Kay home-educated all of her children, some of whom are currently pursuing college degrees.

Normally when I’m around a family gathering of this size the rising clamor will eventually start to get to me, raising my blood-pressure and level of discomfort. This night, however, though there was a steady hub-bub, I had nothing but a feeling of peace, though I’d scarcely met any of these people before that night. Several of the children cycled through our table talk as the evening rolled on, with every age having something to contribute to the conversation.

The next morning we met Adrian, Kay and their oldest son, David, at their favorite local restaurant for breakfast. One of the topics that came up was the recent California appellate court ruling requiring home-schooling parents to have a teaching certificate. More compelling was one judge’s written opinion:

“California courts have held that … parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,” Justice H. Walter Croskey said in the 3-0 ruling issued on Feb. 28. “Parents have a legal duty to see to their children’s schooling under the provisions of these laws.”

Parents can be criminally prosecuted for failing to comply, Croskey said.

The ruling sent shock waves throughout the estimated 166,000 home-educators in California as well as through the California legislature and even Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said, “Every California child deserves a quality education, and parents should have the right to decide what’s best for their children. Parents should not be penalized for acting in the best interests of their children’s education. This outrageous ruling must be overturned by the courts, and, if the courts don’t protect parents’ rights, then, as elected officials, we will.” Interestingly enough, Schwarzenegger’s signing of SB777 last year may be one of the things that have led many parents to abandon the public schools. Give the Governator credit though; he may not be great at logic but he definitely knows how to count votes and probably realizes that whatever other political beliefs a homeschooling family may have, telling them that they have no right to educate their own children trumps them all.

Personally, I’m not shocked. California has long been the most overtly hostile state toward home-educators (ironically it’s own school system struggles to place a certified teacher in every classroom, yet would seek to mandate it in every home-school). Similarly, Education Minnesota has no love lost for home-educators and my hunch is that they wouldn’t mind if their pet DFL pupils in the Minnesota legislature were to bring them a similar bill as if it were a bright, shiny apple.

Of course, it takes a real socialist mentality to proclaim that the State is the rightful owner of your children, as I’ve documented before regarding events in England and Germany. The Germans, in fact, are still embracing the 1937 law instituted by a certain mustachioed megalomaniac that mandates compulsory state school educations. Seventy years later they’re still enforcing it by forceably taking kids from their homes to school in police cars or even removing children from their parents’ homes and hiding them in psychiatric hospitals for evaluation.

Many home-school parents in California are having to consider possibly leaving the state. That’s a drastic measure for sure, but one that has had to be taken by many German parents, as described by Sheila Lange in her blog, Trying to Homeschool in Germany, which details the personal struggles of her own family (now living in South Africa) and other home-school German families.

Of course, that’s all happening very far away, in Germany or even California, right? Closer to home, former Nebraska state senator Peter Hoagland is on record as saying, “Fundamentalist parents have no right to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. We are preparing their children for the year 2000 and life in a global one-world society and those children will not fit in.”

Especially not if I can help it.

No offense

Posted on by
3

Driving home this evening I tuned in to Dan Barreiro’s show on KFAN. The FAN is a sports station, but Barreiro’s show is more general interest with a regular dose of politics. The political discussions usually aren’t the tedious regurgitations of talking points because Dan, while reflexively liberal, also has a fine sense for where some of those sacred cows get turned into hamburger in the real world. The fact that he regularly gets blasted by liberal and conservative e-mailers for being too much of the other suggests a certain tolerable and precarious balance (though I usually tune to another station whenever Pat Kessler joins the show).

I don’t know what they were talking about exactly before I got in the car tonight, but it had something to do with the media. Jim Walsh, an editor and Dan’s former colleague at the Strib called in to bemoan how everybody today just likes to get their news from people who think the same as they do and no one appreciates truly unbiased reporting such as the Strib provides. (See – the Barriero show can be funny, too!). Actually, I think Walsh makes the mistake of believing most people really think like he thinks — an assumption fostered by the fact that for a number of years people didn’t have any choice. Maybe “most”, as in a majority, do think like he does, but there are plenty who don’t and they have many viable alternatives. This goes a long way in explaining the decline in circulation and credibility of many mainstream newspapers.

I grant that most news reporters don’t consciously set out to write a news story in a particular way (and many stories can and should be reported without a slant), but he also needs to acknowledge that an institutional bias creeps in in terms of what stories get reported and where they are displayed. To read the editorial pages (where opinion is the point) of the Strib over the years is to know exactly where the editorial board falls on the political spectrum; it is disingenuous on his part to think that those attitudes won’t seep in to some extent on how the news is presented and the headlines presented.

I find it ironic that the mainstream media that once pandered to (if it wasn’t outright leading) the “question authority-don’t trust anyone over 30, especially the government” zeitgeist one generation ago now finds it’s own credibility being questioned. I will agree with Walsh, however, that the discourse has become harsher now that there are opposing viewpoints. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, even if it does become wearisome at times. The reaction, however, is at least as ill-considered as some of the rants from either side: political correctness and the concept that certain constituencies must not be offended has created “no-go” zones not unlike those in Britain where non-Muslims dare not venture. There are some discussions or issues that just can’t be talked about safely, usually dealing with race or religion (or both).

The boundaries here are “defended” by the mutually assured destruction mentality of a previous Cold War where the ranks of the professionally offended stand ready to rain down fire at the lightest touch on the tripwire.

For example, another topic on the Barriero show this evening was the foofaraw (I prefer this to the over-used kerfuffle) over Kelly Tilghman’s “lynching” remark about Tiger Woods. The latest twist on the story (aside from Tilghman’s twisting in the wind) is Jim Brown being angry that Tiger Woods isn’t angry. It’s almost as if anything less than loosing Die Walküre at the slightest mis-step will somehow signal a weakening of our country’s resolve to confront the injustices of racism.

To my thinking, Woods’ response does just the opposite — it suggests that maybe our society has matured to the point that it can tell what a real offense is and can deal with inadvertent or ill-advised slips with calm and toleration. To me (admittedly unburdened by generations of persecution), Tilghman’s comments to the effect that the only chance the younger players on the PGA Tour had to deal with Tiger’s dominance was to “lynch him in a back alley,” were a crude (in more ways than one) attempt at humor but without a racist intent. It was along the lines of her saying, perhaps, that they break his kneecaps, or perhaps have him fitted for concrete golf shoes. Perhaps knee-cappers and gangsters would have been offended by the reference but it wouldn’t have resulted in Tilghman being suspended. I think Woods’ mellow forgiveness of the clumsy remark shows not a lack of identification with the awful history endured by blacks but a self-possession and awareness that says, “I know what racism looks like, and believe me, that isn’t it.”

Should anyone ever (and most inadvisedly) express a hateful and ignorant attitude toward Woods’ race or family I have no doubt that his response would be direct and withering — with no consideration of (and even less affect) on his shoe sales. Perceived slights are like Gatorade to him (just ask Rory Sabbatini or Stephen Ames); Lord knows what Tiger would do if someone really made him angry.

Taunting the Tiger

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a tremendous, insightful and thought-provoking post over at Breath of the Beast. No excerpt here can quite do it justice, but I encourage you to take the time to walk along with the author as he tries to understand the cultural death-wish of moral relativism and the motivations of those who would defend or make excuses for a regime that would tear them to shreds if they were ever to personally fall into its clutches. It’s not a rant but a thoughtful examination of how intelligent minds can become so deceived.

It’s a profound essay, and I get a strong sense that it isn’t the only one of its kind to be found on Breath of the Beast.

HT: Techno-Chitlins

Privilege, moi ? No, the “Privilege Meme”

Posted on by
3

Via Kathy and Mitch and a couple of other places, here’s the “Privilege Meme” that’s going around, I suppose to help one comprehend how privileged you are. The idea is to bold face the statements below that apply to you. I’ll do that, then I have some thoughts on the nature and definition of privilege at the end.

First of all, however, the original source of this meme is an exercise developed by Will Barratt, Meagan Cahill, Angie Carlen, Minnette Huck, Drew Lurker, Stacy Ploskonka at Illinois State University. The developers ask that if you participate in this blog game, you acknowledge their copyright. So acknowledged.

Father went to college

Father finished college

Mother went to college

Mother finished college
Not only that, but she eventually went on to get a Ph.D in Elementary Education and Administration.

Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor
Ummm, no, but my little sister is a veterinarian, the second Dr. in the family.

Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers

Had more than 50 books in your childhood home
Do comic books count?

Had more than 500 books in your childhood home

Were read children’s books by a parent
Loved that Dr. Seuss Sleep Book.

Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
You mean, other than “if you don’t stop making that face it will freeze like that”?

Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18

The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
Hmmm. Is Ned Flanders a positive portrayal?

In the words of Napoleon Dynamite, “Lucky!”

In this day and age when I see the word “privilege” associated with something like this it is usually attached to a phrase such as “White Privilege” and an exercise aimed at myself or others accidentally born Caucasian. That seems to be the intent behind the original work that later became this meme, and the theme of certain writings you’ll find on the Illinois State University website.

The point is to make us feel guilty about being born with certain advantages. To which my response would be, “What is your point?” I hope this wasn’t the result of hundreds of thousands of dollars sunk into a research study of the obvious. I mean, couldn’t that money have been better spent on something like finding out why monkeys scream during sex? Perhaps a better response from me, though, would be “So what?” — as in “So what do you want me to do about it?”

Am I supposed to go around feeling meek and guilty for an accident of birth over which I had no control over? I mean, that was a decision made way above my pay-grade. Similarly, should I be upset over the injustice that Michael Jordan gets the privilege of being 6′ 9″ with mad skills, or that Sean Connery gets that voice? Or should I go to Japan and have people treat me differently, in overt or subtle ways, because I’m different? They probably would, and I’d probably be upset about it, but the only thing in my power to change about the situation is my attitude.

In the Fundamentals in Film class I do with the young men we have watched a number of movies that deal with racism, prejudice, injustice. Though they are ostensibly “privileged” young white men (actually, they’re not all white), I tell them repeatedly that no matter who they are or where they are, there are always going to be people who will discriminate against them because of their age, the way they talk or think, what they believe, the way they look; there’s usually going to be someone with some power and authority in their lives whose prejudices will impact them in some way. They can’t help but be affected by it, but it’s up to them just how much difference they’re going to allow it to make in their lives.

Looking back through the statements in the meme above it occurs to me that this particular statements have more to do with class than race. That is, the statements seem to assume (the HR folks at my politically correct company refer to assumptions as “blind spots”, btw) that “class” is determined by birth and environment. Those are undeniably large, but not determining, factors. Class in this country is one of the most fluid of the ways we classify ourselves or are classified by others. Decision-making and behavior can change this quite a bit.

Almost all of the circumstances above are the result of a decision made by a grandparent, parent or myself. Neither my father or anyone in his family went to college; my mother’s father got himself through college through hard work, ingenuity, a love of learning and a desire to better himself. (It seems unpopular or unjust these days to want to better yourself. Instead, judging by the way people vote, it’s far better to expect others to lower themselves to your standard.) The vision and aspiration was passed on, and my parents made college a priority for their children, at great cost and apparent sacrifice, though it hardly seemed like a sacrifice to them.

The “privilege” bequeathed to me and that helped me to succeed was not an accident or random fortune. It was bought and paid for in the way each generation was raised. It is the same “privilege” I’ll fight for in order to pass on to my children. I was lucky to the extent that I was born into a family where someone had already started the tradition. Other people will get the honor and privilege of being the one to start the tradition themselves.

Life lessons for teenagers

Posted on by
1

1. Don’t tug on Superman’s cape.

2. Don’t spit into the wind.

3. Don’t post pictures of yourself participating in illegal activities on Facebook.

The children are upset because Eden Prairie High School is disciplining them for breaking school rules about drinking by suspending several students from athletic teams or extra-curricular activities (presumably not drinking related). “Unfair!” they say as they stalk to their corners (or stage a walk-out).

For educational purposes, let’s examine this logic. The students and their parents sign agreements not to drink alcohol while participating in school events (or presumably while eligible to participate), such as sports. The student breaks that pledge and the school finds out through photographic evidence. What part of basic cause and effect did you not learn in class? The school is enforcing its rules, and you should hope that the State of Minnesota doesn’t try to enforce it’s rules (called “laws”, btw) as well since underage drinking is, like, you know, illegal.

And no, my darlings, this isn’t a violation of privacy or free speech. First, if you put something in a public place or space, it’s not private. Second, while your posting of it is speech, the punishment isn’t because you posted, per se, but because the pictures were of you doing something that broke your word, the rules and the law.

This lesson is over. Now, get back to class because I don’t think you can afford to miss many more.

Of friendship, and courtship

Posted on by
Reply

by the Night Writer

There have been some questions, since Ben and Faith (the Mall Diva) announced their courtship last week, as to what courtship is, and — if they’ve agreed to be married — how come they don’t just say they are engaged? Actually, what they’ve agreed to is to look at the possibility of being married. Over the course of their courtship they should both come to know whether the possibility can be a reality. I want and expect both of them to post more about courtship and their experiences going forward, and I won’t dig into what can be a complex topic here and now. I think this will be a more useful discussion if it comes from their perspective.

What I would like to do, however, is describe the process of friendship, wherein they both came to the place where courtship became a possibility.

As described last week, it was a little over a year ago when Ben expressed his hope and intention to one day be in a position to marry my daughter. At that time they had already known each other socially for about a year. They were not, however, at a level where a courtship could begin, which essentially was what Ben was asking for permission to do. Given the difference in their ages and circumstances, Faith’s mother and I thought it best that they learn to be friends first – — to find out if they could realistically and truthfully put the other person’s best interests ahead of their own. This model of friendship is found in the Bible, and was the basis of a post I first offered here back in 2005 (when maybe 20 people a day were stopping by). I’ll repeat it below, with minor editing (many of the links originally included have since fallen away). At the time, though we had witnessed it in other people’s lives, it was still mostly theory for us. We have now seen it take hold in “real life”, to the point where we could see the evidence in their lives and give our blessing for the courtship stage to begin.

On being a friend

…This got me to thinking, however, about the far less titillating but every bit as devastating romantic tragedies that happen all around us. Even, dare I say, in our own lives. My wife and I have been very blessed and happy in our 17-year marriage, but we both experienced emotion-searing, even mind-altering damage in our single days (stories for another day, but don’t count on it).

As we look to what may be ahead for our daughters, we’ve come to realize that the dating culture of serial monogamy and mini-divorces is not a good way to find a mate for life. And that’s based on our experiences from 20 and 30 years ago in the more idealistic days of the sexual revolution. With our oldest being of “dating” age, my wife and I naturally want better for our daughters than what we subjected ourselves to when we were their age.

Back then, at least, the culture expected couples to adopt the appearance of having a relationship. Now even the minimal commitment to someone else needed to simply make a date is optional in today’s hook-up culture among teens and older singles. Somewhere along the line “Wham, bam, thank you, ma’am” went from being the height of selfishness to the point where merely throwing in the “thank you” passes for gentlemanliness. The glorification of sensation has ironically desensitized a significant part of a generation, and I can’t even picture how much “enlightenment” is required to make this look like a good thing.

Even in evangelical circles the challenges are severe for parents with an eye to preparing their youth for healthy, happy marriages. The book “Best Friends for Life” by Michael and Judy Phillips includes several case studies of kids who grew up in “churched” families and dated other “churched” youth and eventually married – and then crashed and burned. Though each example had different characteristics, the common thing I saw in each was the parents really had no vision of what they wanted for their kids or what was acceptable – or if they did, they didn’t communicate it. In many cases they gave in to the predominant dating model and were simply glad that their son or daughter was dating another Christian. As a result, the youngsters also fell into self-centered relationships in which they may have been physical, but they were far from intimate.

Is there another option? Well, I admit that the locking them in a tower until they’re 30 plan has its strong points, but that doesn’t do anything to prepare them for a strong marriage either. Our plan is the opposite of isolation, both the isolation of the tower where they are separated from others and the passion-induced isolation of being a couple where they separate themselves from others. We’ve encouraged our daughters to have a group of friends they can count on and do things with as a group. Boys can be a part of this group, and are even encouraged, but no pairing up. The idea is to determine who can be trusted to be a friend – and not who just wants to get friendly.

What are the standards for friendship? The Bible lists some good ones (New Living Translation):

    • Friends are few (Prov. 18:24) – “There are ‘friends’ who destroy each other, but a real friend sticks closer than a brother.” We know the traditional concept of what a brother is, but think about what a brother is to a woman. A brother is someone who will stand by you and stand up for you because he wants the best for you, not because of what you can do for him.
    • A friend lays down his life (John 15:13)“And here is how to measure it–the greatest love is shown when people lay down their lives for their friends.” A friend puts your needs and well-being above his own.
    • A friend loves unconditionally (Prov. 17:17) “A friend is always loyal, and a brother is born to help in time of need.”
    • A friend speaks the truth in love (Prov. 27:6)
      “Wounds from a friend are better than many kisses from an enemy.” A friend will tell you what you need to hear, again because he wants what is best for you. Someone caught up in infatuation or what he thinks is love will keep quiet so as not to jeopardize the physical aspects of the relationship.
    • A friend encourages you and is sensitive to your needs (Prov. 26:18, 19) “Just as damaging as a mad man shooting a lethal weapon is someone who lies to a friend and then says, ‘I was only joking.'”

 

If true friendships can be established in a safe environment where the emotional stakes are not as high, then the ground is prepared for a possible courtship with an eye toward marriage. In a true courtship, both partners learn to trust the other with more and more of their innermost thoughts, wishes and emotions. This relationship is the key to a successful marriage. Most modern marriages fall short of genuine intimacy due to a distorted cultural image of romanticism that expects immediate intimacy. Too many want to jump right to the courtship stage simply because the other person is cute or a “hottie.” This might make for lovely wedding photos (or great tabloid covers) but is not much of a foundation for a lovely marriage.

I may appear pretty smug and overconfident seeing as how our oldest is just entering this dynamic time, but the rules and expectations have been set down and discussed for several years prior to this, and we do have wonderful examples in the lives of other parents and young marrieds we know who have crossed these waters ahead of us.

Truthfully, I don’t expect it to be easy, but right now the relationship my wife and I have with our children is still the most important in their lives aside from the relationship they are developing with God. And part of our responsibility in this relationship is to prepare them for a relationship with God and for a loving and godly relationship with their spouse – and ultimately their own children who they, in turn, must train. It won’t be the easiest course, but given what else is out there, I know it is the safest.

There’s no questioning the depth of feeling between Faith and Ben and the sincerity of their intentions. They will, however, face significant issues in the time that is before them. Difficult, even painful, decisions, must be made. Because of the foundation that has already been created, however, they are better prepared to shine.