Friday, July 19, 2013
Origin of the Phrase "Women of Color" offered by Loretta Ross
** Origin of the Phrase, "Women of Color".
** Loretta Ross: SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective***.
** http://www.decolonizingyoga.com/
** January 28, 2011.
Y'all know where the term 'Women of Color' came from? Who can say that?
See we're bad at transmitting history….
In 1977, a group of black women from Washington D.C. went to the National Women's Conference that Jimmy Carter had given five million dollars to have as part of the World Decade for Women -- there was a conference in Houston, Texas.
This group of black women carried to that conference something called A Black Women's Agenda, because the organizers of the conference… had put together a three-page minority womens' plank…, in a two-hundred-page document that these black women thought was somewhat 'inadequate.' .
And they actually formed a group called Black Women's Agenda to come there in Houston with a black women's plan of action that they wanted the delegates to vote to substitute for the minority plank that was in the proposed plan of action. Well a funny thing happened in Houston. When they took the Black Womens' Agenda to Houston, then all the rest of the 'minority women of color' wanted to be included in the Black Womens' Agenda. Okay?… Well, they agreed, except that you could no longer call it the Black Womens' Agenda!
And it was in those negotiations in Houston the term 'Women of Color' was created. Okay? And they didn't see it as a biological designation -- you're born Asian, you're born black, you're born African-American, whatever…. It is a solidarity definition -- a commitment to work in collaboration with other oppressed women of color who have been 'minoritized.'
Now what's happened, you know, in the thirty years since then is that people see it as biology now. You know, like, okay… and people are saying, "I don't want to be definied as a woman of color, I am black, I am Asian-American, well that's fine, but why are you reducing a political designation to a biological destiny? That's what white supremacy wants you to do. You know?
And I think it's a setback when we disintegrate as people of color, you know, around primitive ethnic claiming. You know, yes, we are Asian-American, Native American, whatever -- but the point is when you choose to work with other people who are minoritized by oppression, you have lifted yourself out of that basic identity. Into another political being. Another political space. And unfortunately so many times, people of color hear the term 'people of color' from other white people that they think white people created it, instead of understanding that we -- we self-named ourselves this. This is a term that has a lot of power for us. But we've done a poor ass job of communicating that history so that people understand that power.
** Loretta Ross: SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective***.
** http://www.decolonizingyoga.com/
** January 28, 2011.
Y'all know where the term 'Women of Color' came from? Who can say that?
See we're bad at transmitting history….
In 1977, a group of black women from Washington D.C. went to the National Women's Conference that Jimmy Carter had given five million dollars to have as part of the World Decade for Women -- there was a conference in Houston, Texas.
This group of black women carried to that conference something called A Black Women's Agenda, because the organizers of the conference… had put together a three-page minority womens' plank…
And they actually formed a group called Black Women's Agenda to come there in Houston with a black women's plan of action that they wanted the delegates to vote to substitute for the minority plank that was in the proposed plan of action. Well a funny thing happened in Houston. When they took the Black Womens' Agenda to Houston, then all the rest of the 'minority women of color' wanted to be included in the Black Womens' Agenda. Okay?… Well, they agreed, except that you could no longer call it the Black Womens' Agenda!
And it was in those negotiations in Houston the term 'Women of Color' was created. Okay? And they didn't see it as a biological designation -- you're born Asian, you're born black, you're born African-American, whatever…. It is a solidarity definition -- a commitment to work in collaboration with other oppressed women of color who have been 'minoritized.'
Now what's happened, you know, in the thirty years since then is that people see it as biology now. You know, like, okay… and people are saying, "I don't want to be definied as a woman of color, I am black, I am Asian-American, well that's fine, but why are you reducing a political designation to a biological destiny? That's what white supremacy wants you to do.
And I think it's a setback when we disintegrate as people of color, you know, around primitive ethnic claiming. You know, yes, we are Asian-American, Native American, whatever -- but the point is when you choose to work with other people who are minoritized by oppression, you have lifted yourself out of that basic identity. Into another political being. Another political space. And unfortunately so many times, people of color hear the term 'people of color' from other white people that they think white people created it, instead of understanding that we -- we self-named ourselves this. This is a term that has a lot of power for us. But we've done a poor ass job of communicating that history so that people understand that power.
Labels: amplifying voices, anti-oppression, anti-racism, sacred texts, women, Women's Rights
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Sermon: An Engine Composed of Generations
An
Engine Composed of Generations
Delivered on May 26, 2013 for First Unitarian Church
of Pittsburgh
Tomorrow
is memorial day -- again. When I was young, I was taught that this
was a time to remember those who had passed on before us – at the
time, I thought that meant great grandparents and ancestors previous
to them whom I'd never met. Frequently, while visiting my
grandparents in Western Wisconsin, we would drive to the cemetery
adjacent to the Rush
River Lutheran Church and visit the graves of some of those
ancestors I'd never met. Now my grandparents
are buried there as well.
Over time, I've come to realize memorial day began as a patriotic holiday, originally created in 1866 just after the Civil War. It is a time for remembering our soldiers who have died serving our nation in any of its many wars.
During
my internship at the First Unitarian Universalist Society of San
Francisco, the worship group decided to offer a litany of names and
ages of the US soldiers who had died in the last year as a result of
war. SO MANY of them were 18, 19, 20, 21 years old! These are just
past the age of what we call “bridging” (which our congregation
will celebrate next weekend). I don't want to imagine losing our
young people in such a way – in bloody conflict. If you have, or
know somebody who has, for this, we grieve, and deeply.
In our
own hymnal, there is a reading, The
Young Dead Soldiers, #583, which so harrowingly names this loss,
and the unknown meaning of the loss – waiting for us to complete
that meaning. “We were young,
they say. We have died.
Remember
us.”
They died
for their cause. But martyrdom is not the only way, and I reject the
idea that being an adult of any age makes one somehow ready to enjoin
in a war. If you know me, you know I stand for peace – from the
core of my being I pray every day for an end
to wars, and an end to needless deaths of soldiers and civilians
of all ages. So, whether you give your last breath for something, or
whether you dedicate decades of your breathing to something, each
represents a commitment to bending the universe's arc toward justice.
That arc doesn't bend on its own, and surely not automatically.
With every hummingbird
that steps up, and every elephant, every monkey, every human with
a voice, we tug at that arc together – our attention impelling it
toward that which we call justice.
As this congregation's
outgoing campus ministry coordinator and social action coordinator, I
desire for the elders in this congregation to work continually to
more deeply embrace and include the younger generations. So many of
the young among us (in our congregation and in society at large) are
older than those who have died for our country. If people of that
young age are ready for such a task, surely those of such an age
among us are fit for the task of full inclusion in our democracies.
If our culture needs to change to be inclusive in a multi-cultural
sense, with respect to diversity of ages, then that is the work
before us. Not because of duty to some ideal, or because of a quota
to meet. But because of our practice of unconditional loving
acceptance and recognition of the first-principle inherent worth and
dignity within each of us.
In an instrumental sense, I call for
this because it makes our community whole. Because with all
generations engaged, we will have an engine.
And I know off the bat it will be an imperfect engine, but it can
be
an engine that moves us forward, which on its own would speak
volumes. This engine would push from behind, and pull from the
front. My understanding is that the youngest among us (my 4 year-old
son Henry included) know
what they want. Henry knows what he wants so very clearly, in such a
way that he leans in full-force heart, body, and soul (and
occasionally, lungs) to try and satisfy that desire. My
conversations with him about id,
superego and ego, never venture very far past the Id. Superego
gets magically transformed into “Super-Eagle,”
and we have gone from the world of reflection and examination into an
entirely different world of imagination. It's wonderful. And it's
id. He knows his drives, but does not know the complex context that
his drives are rooted in, or the ramifications of carrying through on
those drives.
In a classical sense, the younger generations know
their drives. Meanwhile, the older generation knows the contexts in
their complexity, and would offer its wisdom based on history, while
the middle generation could work collaboratively with everyone to
create and execute a plan balancing the drives of the younger with
the cautions of the elder.
I don't believe that such a classical
model holds up entirely, because it's based on categorical
thinking. There are young people who have learned
history, and attend well to that learning. There are certainly older
people who are
in touch with their drives, and some whom wisdom has somehow eluded.
In other words, youth does not make one naïve or unlearned, and age
need not make one wise, or even experienced.
An excellent example
of a young adult who stepped up, perhaps one of our most famous
living UU's in fact, is Zach
Wahls, the Eagle Scout raised by two moms, who has not waited
until some later stage of development to engage with the world. As a
result of the work he has been a part of, this week we have the very
good news that the Boy Scouts of America have ended
their ban on openly gay scouts – a huge victory for gay youth!
This is “shoulder-to-the-wheel” kind of stuff, which I believe we
do well to encourage. Young people (within UU and beyond) tend to
have great energy for justice and a strong sense of justice, and
those in every generation can realize a win-win scenario through
multi-generational collaborative efforts.
However, as with many
religious groups, Unitarian Universalist churches have tended to lose
people while they're in their 20's, and I believe it diminishes our
drive somewhat, and consequently diminishes the strength of our
movement. This loss need not be the case. We can open this
congregation further to become more young-adult friendly, perhaps
even to the point of being young-adult centered. Or better, since
often a both/and
understanding is richer than an either/or understanding, we could
develop a multi-culture with a strong core of young adult culture.
I
have seen our congregation's younger population grow, even over the
last two years. And I want to be clear on one thing, lest I be
misunderstood. It would be a very big mistake for me to preach here
to the older generation only, and I do not want my words interpreted
as such. If I were preaching about how “we” need to be more
attractive to “them” these words would be marginalizing at the
same time as I'm trying to be inviting. Throughout, I have been
attempting to speak agnostic of generations, because my hope is to
speak to the larger “us.” This work of inclusion and balance –
this movement toward wholeness – requires all to feel welcome, and
all to be in discourse.
This
next minute or so I will
dedicate to the older generation, as I see a tendency which I believe
hinders our efforts at wholeness and inclusion. The perils
of coffee hour conversations! Some of you younger folks may have
experienced this. The issue of age-related social faux pas was
important enough for Carey MacDonald – along with the UUA office of
Young Adult Ministries – to create a flyer called “Coffee Hour
Caution” advising churchgoers on ways that they're lousing things
up in conversations, and some good ways to be warm and gracious
without inserting their feet in their mouth. I've printed up several
of these sheets to share if you're interested – some are here in
the sanctuary, and some will be downstairs. As one young adult
commented, “It [the flyer] might be a little tongue-in-cheek, but
it needs to be said.” Here are just a few things it recommends
avoiding – “How old are you?” “Have you met our other young
adult?” or “We need more young people!” Upon a little
reflection, it's clear to see how these can be experienced as
“othering” and would not be received as a hospitable welcome.
Lest we start walking on eggshells, there aren't magic words, other
than the words you would say to somebody you're initially meeting for
whom age is unimportant: “Can I introduce you to my friend?” or
“What did you think of the service?” The magic attitude for
anyone, regardless of age, is to: Introduce
yourself • Make friends • Be interested • Reach out • and
Respect boundaries.
Now,
to those who identify as part of the younger generation, and to those
newly joined, this wholeness won't work without you. Expect
inclusion, and be ready to speak up for what you want. The minute
you sign the membership book, or even the minute you start to
participate, your voice ought to have an equitable place in the
discourse of this community. It's not necessary to be steeped
in UU culture to have a sharable opinion. In some cases, you may
find it beneficial to learn our ways, and in other cases, it may very
well help for our ways to be instructed by your
ways. If I were not leaving in a month, I would do my best to make
sure we (the all-inclusive “we”) make room for you, wherever
you're coming from, however long you've been in this congregation, or
on this planet.
Now, opening to make space for all to feel
welcome is one thing, and knowing ourselves is another. Here's the
take-home multi-generational pastoral part. Where are you
in the arc of your life, and how do your feelings about it affect
your connections with others? How well do you connect with yourself
at other life stages, either in the past or the future? Sometimes,
even in myself and perhaps among some who've cycled around the sun a
few times more than me, I feel a bit of envy toward the younger
generation, for your energy that seems to recover more easily from
exhaustion, and that hasn't gone stale. And occasionally there is
envy for the youthful insights unhindered by experiences which too
often serve to narrow our perspectives. And to the older generation,
those younger among us may feel envy, toward you for being settled
financially or socially, and knowing who you are. For
accomplishments that have succeeded, and for your attempted
accomplishments that instead have rewarded you with “wisdom.”
Even
if that envy were admiration, I don't see it as particularly helpful
or connective, however. To know the arc of our lives, we are called
to take a step back, and be compassionate with ourselves. We have
each been a younger version of our self. That young person was you.
With any luck, (or for the theists here, God willing or Insha'Allah),
you will progress along your arc and become an older version of
yourself. As we come to terms with ourselves at different ages in
the span of our lives, hand-in-hand we can develop stronger more
authentic connection with others. The corollary – as we connect
with others across generations, we have a greater opportunity to find
ourselves along our own personal arc.
Ultimately,
we are all made
of stars. This star
matter we have been fortunate enough to inherit, and imbue with
the spirit that resides within and beyond ourselves. This star
matter has cycled through humanity for countless millennia. Through
that matter, and the processes it provides a vehicle for, we are
deeply connected to our Earth and to each other. The wisdom and
drives of our long-dead ancestors call to us. The desires and
understandings of our future descendents call to us. Let us make
room for the voices of all drives and wisdom, including our own. Let
us tune and start the engine we are, and race to answer the call.
Blessed be, and amen.
Please
join with me in singing our next hymn, Building Bridges, #1023 in
your teal hymnal.
Labels: 1st UU principle, 2nd UU principle, ageism, anti-oppression, Henry, multiculturalism, organized religion, our mission, sermons
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Reproductive Justice and other Frameworks
This method of understanding different frameworks was from La'Tasha Mayes of New Voices Pittsburgh: Women of Color for Reproductive Choice, also here on Facebook. She presented to our congregation at the most recent Sunday morning forum, and opened us up!
Since the picture I took is a little fuzzy, here are the contents of the chart:
From a quick review of this chart, I think many of the terms ought to be fairly clear with a little reflection or conversation with others. However, a few that I think could require a little learning curve (for someone like myself) may include:
Human Rights: UN Universal Declaration. Pittsburgh Human Rights Network.
Movement-Building: The Gamaliel network is one example. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is another. There is more than one way to build power, and a good start is leaders who are themselves organized, and can organize masses of people, masses of money, or both.
Systemic Oppression: Here's a static definition from pcc.edu:
Self-Help:
Since the picture I took is a little fuzzy, here are the contents of the chart:
FRAMEWORKS
|
|||
Reproductive Rights
|
Reproductive Health
|
Reproductive Justice
|
|
Mode of Delivery
|
Legal Systems
|
Healthcare
Delivery
|
Movement-Building
|
Issues
|
Abortion;
Contraception; Informed Consent; Privacy
|
Access to full
range of reproductive health services; low/no-cost, and
culturally-competent care; comprehensive sex education;
contraception; pre-natal/pregnancy care; abortion services;
cancer prevention; health insurance
|
RR + RH +
Human Rights; systemic oppression; self-help; intersectionality
|
Key Players
|
Lawyers,
judges, policymakers, elected officials, advocacy groups
|
Healthcare
providers, medical professionals, community and public health
educators, researchers
|
Community
organizers, Women of Color, marginalized groups, social justice
organizations, Allies
|
From a quick review of this chart, I think many of the terms ought to be fairly clear with a little reflection or conversation with others. However, a few that I think could require a little learning curve (for someone like myself) may include:
Human Rights: UN Universal Declaration. Pittsburgh Human Rights Network.
Movement-Building: The Gamaliel network is one example. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is another. There is more than one way to build power, and a good start is leaders who are themselves organized, and can organize masses of people, masses of money, or both.
Systemic Oppression: Here's a static definition from pcc.edu:
Institutional Oppression is the systematic mistreatment of people within a social identity group, supported and enforced by the society and its institutions, solely based on the person’s membership in the social identity group.
Institutional Oppression occurs when established laws, customs, and practices systematically reflect and produce inequities based on one’s membership in targeted social identity groups. If oppressive consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs, or practices, the institution is oppressive whether or not the individuals maintaining those practices have oppressive intentions.
Institutional Oppression creates a system of invisible barriers limiting people based on their membership in unfavored social identity groups. The barriers are only invisible to those “seemingly” unaffected by it.
The practice of institutionalized oppression is based on the belief in inherent superiority or inferiority. Institutionalized oppression is a matter of result regardless of intent.And here's a dynamic definition of systemic oppression.
Self-Help:
Central to several key women of color organizations has been the self-help model. Using a process of dialogue and active listening as a way of demystifying the health problems communities faced, the self-help model assumes that collectively participants can thread through the difficult problems — including racism, poverty, low self-esteem and stress — and use their intelligence to find meaningful solutions. This approach is central to sparking self- healing as well as social action.
Intersectionality: My understanding of this is that pretty much every one of us fits into some categories of privilege and some categories of oppression. Sometimes, the intersection can be seen as a multiplier (as in being female and a person of color), and sometimes a mitigator (as in being female and white, or female and able-bodied, etc. Noting the link just above from the WWHATSUP training on white supremacy, "arguing hierarchies of oppressions is not helpful."
And here again, Tumblr is a great resource for providing a conversation on a crowd-sourced definition.
Allies: My understanding of an ally is somebody who is outside of an oppressed social identity group, and who stands with others who are bearing the brunt of that oppression -- because often people in privileged categories are more likely to hear folks from their same categories, rather than writing somebody "different" off as "just acting on their own self-interest." This can be in the form of a group of men who speak up for women or third-gender folks. This can be a white person who marches with people of color. This can be an able-bodied person, or a cisgender person, or a heterosexual person, or anybody who could be identified as outside of certain oppressed social groups, who is there to work together with people within those groups, and use their voice as an amplifier. Note with intersectionality, it is possible for ally-ship to be multi-directional or reciprocal, so working together helps us all.
It's important to note that speaking up for somebody is NOT the same as speaking FOR somebody. It's pretty much always best to speak from one's own experience, and be clear about when you're speaking from your understanding of another's experience. In other words, it's important to work on self-differentiation. And note that being an ally is most effective when it's in collaboration and conversation, on common ground, in community and accountability, with people you are allying with.
And finally, an ally is somebody who comprehends deep-down that the privilege they've been (arbitrarily) afforded is less valuable than the right-relationship of common ground, and willing to do the hard work of dismantling the privilege/oppression paradigms, thereby turning that which each of us inherently *deserves* into RIGHTS.
Back to the importance of the presentation itself, and what I see as a clear call to work for the larger vision of holistic justice: I believe that when women and girls of color (all colors actually -- from 2B1505 to F5F1E9 to 4D7BD1) achieve/receive/perceive equity and justice, we will ALL be free in an age where we each can be our authentic selves. ALL justice is connected, and the human rights (or lack thereof) in this area is a clear indicator of the condition of justice at present.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: 1st UU principle, 2nd UU principle, anti-oppression, classism, Community, education, equal rights, oppression, sexuality, universal health care, women, Women's Rights
Tuesday, February 5, 2013
Sermon from Last Sunday: Owning and Atoning the Wounds of Judgement
Owning
and Atoning the Wounds of Judgement
Delivered to First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh,
February 3, 2013
Well........ today is Superbowl Sunday. And I recently heard that 27% of Americans polled believed that God plays a part in how teams perform at sports. Now I know that our group here tends to be a big mix of theists, atheists, and agnostics. However, on behalf of this town's definitely very faithful fan-base, it crossed my mind to offer a prayer for a miracle. Namely, that today, the Steelers might be able to pull off their seventh Superbowl win.... though I think the odds are probably pretty low of seeing that today. Yet, if I recall correctly, there are things that we see at pretty much every football game. I haven't watched much football in the last decade, so please straighten me out if any of these things have changed. There's still a coin toss, followed by a kick-off, yes? Do coaches still make frustrated faces at the referee or quarterback, and go like this [hand motion, hit head, wave downfield]? And are there still people with giant John 3:16 signs in the section just behind the field goal?
I
want to talk to those folks. Ever since I read it growing up as a
Lutheran, I have felt that John 3:16 is entirely incomplete without
the important clarifications of the next verse. Many of you who are
come-outers from Christian religions – or those of you have been
frequently evangelized – likely know the gist of John 3:16, “For
God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that everyone who
believes in him may have eternal life.” Now, John 3:17, printed at
the top of your bulletin, goes on to clarify that the reason for this
offering was not for the purpose of judgement, but rather for saving.
In
December from this pulpit, I offered my thoughts against
the theology of substitutional atonement in which one person may
expect to be saved by the distant actions of another. I also take
issue with the male-gendered language regarding God, and the way many
people interpret their salvation as coming exclusively from the
person known as Jesus of Nazareth, putting him on a pedestal,
separate and far-removed from everyone else. I imagine many people
in this room have their own thoughts and history around such a
theology, some perhaps painful. Today I hope to name some of the
pains, and to offer some balm for healing to begin.
The
important thing in my mind is that judgement was not Jesus' purpose
and should not be ours. “Judgment” here I see as similar to
condemnation, rather than judgement as discernment or
recognition. Condemnation says, “This is unworthy, or is
qualitatively lesser, and should be cast out,” whereas discernment
more neutrally says, “Things appear to be this way, or that way,
and perhaps these steps will work toward making the situation
better.”
A
problem I see is that in many of this world's cultures (including our
own), on several levels, we've gravitated toward an expectation of
judgment, of condemnation as the natural order of the day. This
expectation and acceptance of judgement has created a wound so
profound and pervasive that we are immersed in it. More often than
not, we do not recognize the omnipresence of condemnation.
Condemnation appears anywhere there there are situations reflecting
an attitude in which a person sees their agenda as more important
than the life or well-being of another person.
For many in the world, there is a theological understanding of a deity fit for meting out punishment. We may identify somebody else as evil-doers, and hope they get what's coming to them. Or we may condemn ourselves as somehow unfit, and expect that we will be individually punished for our nature, or our bad life choices. While indeed, bad choices sometimes lead to bad results, I don't view this punishment-and-guilt-based framework as healthy. When we see someone as the evil-doer, is it possible to meet them on common ground? When we feel unworthy somehow, are we then really capable of stepping up to meet others on common ground?
On
the social level, these condemnations can come from oppressive
prejudices – a word that means “early judging, before taking time
to check out assumptions.” This is often a result of categorical
thinking, in which a group of people are thought to deserve different
treatment. This can appear in the amount of pay different classes of
people should receive for their contributions to society; Prejudicial
condemnation appears in expectations about racial segregation by
neighborhoods – still
very much an
issue in 2013! – and a status quo many people continue to take
for granted. And of course, this condemnation appears as roadblocks
preventing marriage equality to same-sex partners. In a host of
other ways certain categories of people are condemned to second-class
status, because they do not conform to the dominant mono-culture's
narrow expectations. Here, of course, I'm speaking to the culture in
the USA, but also to the culture right here in Unitarian
Universalism.
“We
also underestimate the reality of resistance in our congregations, a
resistance rooted not so much in racism as in matters of class and
culture. We forget when we talk about cultural competence in
ministry, or cultural change in ministry, that it is not just those
other people who have a culture. Unitarian Universalist congregations
have a culture. Consider who many of us are, and who we are pretty
proud about being, no matter what our race or ethnicity. Many of us
are the people who brag about not owning televisions because there is
nothing worth watching, unless it is PBS. Many of us are the people
who refuse to listen to popular music because it is misogynistic and
violent, and more than a few of us regard rap music as nothing more
than noise and confusion. Many of us change the channel, and listen
to NPR and love Garrison Keillor and Prairie
Home Companion,
and laugh when Keillor makes fun of us.... Many
of us are unapologetic nature lovers, and the only thing we might
love more than hiking in the woods is building our congregations in
the woods, complete with tiny elegant signs that blend in well with
the natural environment but cannot possibly be seen by a seeker on
the highway.
Many of us eat locally, we shop at farmer’s markets, and we would
never be caught in Wal-Mart, unless it was a dire emergency. Many of
us do look ahead in our hymnal to see whether we agree with the
words, and forget that the person sitting next to us may need exactly
the words we are refusing to sing.”
*Gray
part is edited out. See this
link for her full lecture and here
for Paul Rasor's accompanying lecture.
When
we strongly identify expectations about the culture that McNatt names
(or whatever ours tends toward), who are we condemning to somehow
feel outside? In what ways are we advertising ourselves as
multicultural, only to have newcomers arrive, or members stay, trying
to make a good fit, but feeling the way I do when I try the
one-size-fits-all gloves at Home Depot? These extra-large hands
those gloves would not fit, but if my hands were cold, I'd see them
as the best thing going to keep my hands warm. I wonder how many
people are here not because Unitarian Universalism (or First
Unitarian) as it stands is a perfect fit, but because it's the best
thing going. AND I invite you, to make space, here, for your
authentic self. If you are willing, to do the work of transforming
our culture to be a bigger fit – to wear the not-quite-perfect
gloves until they're broken in to fit your (figuratively) knobby
hands, your long fingers, or your giant thumbs until they become
gloves finally comfortable – so that our culture (or more properly,
our cultures)
make a good and welcome fit for people like YOU.
In
institutions, mono-cultural ways of being find their ways into our
codified laws, bylaws and policies, which serve to favor the groups
with the loudest voices. It is likely not surprising that members of
these most vocal groups also tend to conform to cultural norms which
offer privileges. And that these in-group members are often among
the decision-makers who create the policies. In these cases, the
policies created and maintained may still reflect an agenda that
subverts the well-being of some categories of people, yet may not
even be consciously intended. Systems of privilege and oppression
can sometimes be very very difficult to discover
and root out.
There is perhaps no stronger evidence of an attitude of one person's agenda being more important than another's well-being – or their life – than the intentional use of violence. My choice for today's sermon on judgment came as a result of the recent spate of gun violence. Guns are tools useful both for coercion and for absolute judgement. There is a wound of judgment there, a wound that goes deep maybe in every one of us, and I believe it needs attending to. The Sandy Hook massacre brought upon me a moral doubt so deep, I asked the question, “What is the worth of our culture at all, if we cannot respond with a collective will to do what is necessary to safeguard our children, and dismantle this thing underneath our culture that keeps bringing this violence?” Then only a week later, during our time-for-all-ages, a child suggested shooting somebody as an answer to the problem in the story I had told. While I imagine the parents may have been mortified, I knew the same could happen from my own child. In fact, at Christmas when given a gift of a lovely and ornate cross made by an uncle, Henry's immediate response was quizzical (not being very familiar with crosses), followed by him grabbing one side of the cross and aiming it like a gun.
This
is after we have done so much to dissuade him from guns. What is
happening in our culture that young children think of guns so easily?
What pressures are built into our culture that young adult males
decide to pass judgement in such an indiscriminate way? The
solutions to this must be multi-faceted, and I believe they must move
away from the mindset of “punishment for perpetrators.”
Answering one type of condemnation with further condemnation does not
build a just society, but instead it serves to further undergird a
culture in which we pass judgement on each other.
There
is a better answer than punishment, one that would produce lasting
positive results, but it has heretofore been rejected. This better
way is restorative
justice. Whereas a system of punitive justice assumes that
“Penalizing this particular perpetrator will bring justice,” in
contrast, restorative justice asks “What must be done – what must
change – so this crime doesn't continue to happen?” This is a
radically different approach that calls upon us to be both mindful
and dutiful. We must be mindful to pay attention to the present
moment, without judging, without assigning a value to what is
happening or introducing non-observable interpretations. And our
call to duty then is to find the source of the injustice, or the
cause of the prevention of justice, and work to lessen the energy of
that source.
Because,
as Allan G.
Johnson tells us [in today's
reading], even though we should be able to find ways to
get along just fine, something powerful is keeping us from it.
I believe that something is inertia – participation within a
system that doesn't value life, a system that encourages us to
compete against each other, to value our agendas more than right
relationships and beloved community.
Black
History month has just begun, and Women
of Color Herstory month begins February 15th. In
recognition of that, I will share this quote from Harriet
Tubman, an African-American abolitionist and women's suffrage
advocate : “I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a
thousand more if only they knew they were slaves.” I do not know
for certain who these “thousand more” might be that she refers
to, but I interpret this as a broader all-encompassing statement
acknowledging the bondage we have to participating in systems that
does not allow us our full freedom, and acknowledging the difficulty
we have even recognizing that participation. But our duty to justice
asks us to find our way to freedom.
We find our way free when we recognize the truth within our theologies. That the judgment so many people expect upon the return of some great prophet is already laid bare in the crucified condemnation of Jesus of Nazareth and the various condemnations put upon countless other prophets and light-bringers, as recently as former CIA agent and whistleblower John Kiriakow, sentenced to prison while the torture crimes he brought to light remain un-investigated. We live in an upside down world where those who most loudly advocate for justice are often most quickly cast out.
If
and when the new great prophet comes, whether in the form of a
returned Zoroaster, Elijah, Jesus, or Mohammed, or somebody
unrecognizably new, they will not need to bring down fire, and their
message will not have to be anything special. It will be not much
different than before, saying to the people of the world, or the
people in their sphere of influence: “Look around you. The
cornerstone the builders rejected was one of love and justice! The
cornerstone they chose has a nature of avarice, and uneven privilege.
Look at what the building created from this cornerstone has
wrought.”
“LooOOK!”
would be fire-from-the-sky enough. But according to his gospel
biographers, Jesus' attitude was one of forgiveness. Somewhere
between harshness and mildness, he found the middle ground of mercy,
in which the gospels record him as saying, “Forgive them Father,
for they know not what they do....” Rather than the sword of
condemnation, which would have been understandable, he offered an
olive branch of hope for reconciliation, to which the powers of this
world have yet to respond in kind. The invitation remains: How can
we build each other up to create a world more heavenly, rather than
grind one another down as the world descends into something that
represents our values less and less? Restorative justice asks what
must change so that sibling is not set against sibling in an ongoing
state of adversity.
Restorative
justice asks what must we do to be in true equitable relationship, to
create the deepest form of solace in our hearts by reaching for
common ground? I believe we must not have a too-high or too-low
opinion of ourselves. We must recognize our equal inherent value –
not superior or inferior – to the person who drives the fanciest
car to the halls of great power, and to the person who walks in
ragged clothes to ask for spare change a half-block from the Market
District grocery. I believe that to achieve the destiny of authentic
common ground, we must include all voices as valid, and listen
non-judgmentally without feeling a need to interpret or immediately
respond.
Restorative justice
also asks “What must we do to keep our bodies and our communities
safe?” A start is to educate ourselves and our children of the
moral
injury brought on by living in a world where weapons of
condemnation are normative. I do believe that to respect each
others' dignity, we ought to minimize the energy that goes toward
creating, owning, and using weaponry that works to harm life, and we
must add to energies that uplift our connection to each other, which
in itself increases our safety.
I
will close with this quote from Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King: “Power
at its best is love implementing the demands of justice, and justice
at its best is power correcting everything that stands against love.”
I
advocate that we recognize the power we do
have. I advocate that we build
our love by committing
our
power to tear down any system that denies life, or impedes
flourishing, or quashes organic harmony. And may we at the same
time, build up new systems based on a cornerstone of love and
justice, with respect for harmony, individuality, and lives that may
flourish and bloom. Amen.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
Labels: 0th UU principle, 1st UU principle, 2nd UU principle, anti-oppression, anti-racism, Community, freedom versus freedom, John 3:17, multiculturalism, peace, prophetic voices, racism, restorative justice, sermons
Saturday, January 26, 2013
WWHATSUP? Workshop on White Supremacy in the Workplace
This workshop at the 15th Annual Summit Against Racism in Pittsburgh was a powerful experience, and I want to make sure that it gets documented. I am hoping my church, and other churches, and other institutions are ready to go through this educational experience, and to prepare/plan for a blessed change.
For now, just the pictures:
(note there are ten pictures here, and usually every picture is worth a thousand words. that would make 10,000 words. but i don't think there are actually that many here. :D)
(note there are ten pictures here, and usually every picture is worth a thousand words. that would make 10,000 words. but i don't think there are actually that many here. :D)
 |
| In my thinking this is different nomenclature for what Unitarian Universalists call a "group covenant" |
This is a no-bones about it clear statement of shared axioms
Here's a link to the AORTA Collective.
 |
| Some definitions of White Supremacy, as discovered in small group conversations |
 |
| Great definition that covers a lot. I've also heard: "Racism = prejudice + power." |
 |
| Getting to the causes of institutional perpetuation is a key to unraveling inherent/instrumental racial oppressions, in my mind. |
In case you prefer no headache from looking at the blurry words in the picture below:
Some Characteristics of White Supremacy Culture
- Perfectionism
- Sense of urgency
- Defensiveness
- Quantity over quality
- Worship of the written word
- Only one right way
- Paternalism
- Either/or thinking
- Power hoarding
- Fear of open conflict
- Individualism
- "I'm the only one"
- Progress is better
- Objectivity
- Right to comfort
Labels: anti-oppression, anti-racism, personal growth, racism, religious community, sacred texts, white identity
Thursday, January 24, 2013
For MLK Interfaith Event at Heinz Chapel on the University of Pitt Campus
Greetings,
my name is Joel Gilbertson-White. I am the coordinator for the
Unitarian Universalist Campus Community at First Unitarian Church of
Pittsburgh. My other role at First Unitarian is working as our
Social Justice Coordinator, so it gives me great pleasure to be here
tonight, for the invocation of this Interfaith event commemorating
the life of Martin Luther King, Jr -- a leader who played a pivotal
role in helping bend the arc of the universe toward justice.
This is a critical time for justice – as much as ever, people's lives are on the line – in Pittsburgh, in Pennsylvania, the United States, and the world. And you are the young adults and the people who care, with energy, passion, and strong dreams about things that really matter. I pray each of us will firmly remember our time together today, on January 18, 2013, and hear this day call to you to bring the people in your life together for the issues that most make you come alive – be it racial equity, gender equity, a just distribution of wealth, safe streets, marriage rights, or any of scores of other issues that would benefit from our attention.
And as we do that, I beseech that you consider your passions more than your thoughts of duty to action that you've been told you should, or that you think you should be doing. Rev. Dr. Howard Thurman played an influential part in the ministry of Dr. King. He said, “Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.” May this be our year to more fully come alive, and bring others to life!
This is a critical time for justice – as much as ever, people's lives are on the line – in Pittsburgh, in Pennsylvania, the United States, and the world. And you are the young adults and the people who care, with energy, passion, and strong dreams about things that really matter. I pray each of us will firmly remember our time together today, on January 18, 2013, and hear this day call to you to bring the people in your life together for the issues that most make you come alive – be it racial equity, gender equity, a just distribution of wealth, safe streets, marriage rights, or any of scores of other issues that would benefit from our attention.
And as we do that, I beseech that you consider your passions more than your thoughts of duty to action that you've been told you should, or that you think you should be doing. Rev. Dr. Howard Thurman played an influential part in the ministry of Dr. King. He said, “Don’t ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do that. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive.” May this be our year to more fully come alive, and bring others to life!
I
will close with this charge from the classical Sanskrit Poet
Kalidasa,
“Look to this day!
For it is life, the very life of life.
“Look to this day!
For it is life, the very life of life.
In
its brief course lie all the verities
and
realities of your existence:
The
bliss of growth,
The
glory of action,
The
splendor of beauty;
For
yesterday is but a dream,
And
tomorrow is only a vision;
But
today, well lived, makes every yesterday
A
dream of happiness
And
every tomorrow a vision of hope.
Look
well, therefore, to this day!
Here
and now is the only time for accomplishment. May today's
accomplishment be the commitment of our hearts and minds to Rev. Dr.
King's vision, and making plans to make the dreams real. May our
gathering together in community be a blessing to the world. Amen.
Labels: anti-oppression, favorite scriptural passages, inter-faith, prayer, prophetic voices, racism
Monday, January 21, 2013
"Pursuit of Happiness" Gets a Shout-Out in Barack Obama's 2nd Inaugural Address
"Our journey is not complete until all our children, from the streets of Detroit to the hills of Appalachia to the quiet lanes of Newtown, know that they are cared for, and cherished, and always safe from harm. That is our generation’s task – to make these words, these rights, these values – of Life, and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness – real for every American. Being true to our founding documents does not require us to agree on every contour of life; it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness." -Barack Obama, Jan 21, 2013
http://blogs.suntimes.com/
I love these words, and I hope for and wonder if he really means this.
http://blogs.suntimes.com/
I love these words, and I hope for and wonder if he really means this.
pax hominibus,
agape to all,
joel
joel
Labels: anti-oppression, LGBT, marijuana, multiculturalism, politics, USA
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Sermon:Tending a Sensitized Conscience
Tending
a Sensitized Conscience
Delivered November 11, 2012 at First Unitarian Church of Pittsburgh
During
my twenties, I drove taxi for a year at Union Cab in Madison,
Wisconsin. I remember early on, the dispatcher – his name was Tim,
but everybody called him “Hat” – I remember Hat telling me,
“You've got to really
listen
to your radio.” I thought to myself – Did he mean just always be
tuned in to the CB radio so we could listen and put in a bid when a
trip became available in our area? Did he mean to listen closely to
the songs on the FM radio stations? Or did he mean to really listen
to the voice of the dispatcher, to hear the tone of his voice, and
try to find out from his inflection whether the calls he was giving
were good calls that would take me and my fare all the way across
town, or they might be just a few blocks, for which I'd have to drive
a couple miles to get there? Or I thought maybe he meant even deeper
listening, and his use of the word “radio” was a metaphor – in
which he wanted me to listen to others so closely, and figure out the
stories prior to the stories, to hear what was happening in their
hearts and their heads. Then again, maybe it wasn't about people at
all. At the very beginning of the teal hymnal, we have a song that
says, “Listen more closely to things than to beings...”
This
is a sermon about listening deeply. Listening with the purpose of
educating our conscience – our internal sense of right and wrong,
also known as that still, small voice within. This education I'm
talking about assumes that our conscience is not some static entity.
That our sense of right and wrong is dynamic. It assumes that as we
open to receive new experiences, the conscience is capable of
fine-tuning its compass toward the good, and also of becoming more
keenly attuned to nuance. The invitation I'm investigating today is
for each of us to consider sensitizing our conscience, according to
our present ability and desire. To make it capable of detecting
things that it previously could not.
First
comes the question of why
to
do this. Having a sensitized conscience means being ready to take on
some of the sting of life, feeling a little more tender, maybe even
raw. It may be preferable or easier to just go out and numb the pain
we already have. And maybe your life does have a lot of pain. And if
that's the case, this sermon may well not be for you, at least not in
this moment. But if you are willing and have the capacity to move to
a deeper level of connection with suffering, the question of why
still looms.
I think of the enlightened Bodhisattva from the Buddhist
tradition who, upon reaching a state of enlightenment and
understanding suffering, then and there makes a vow to go back to the
human world and work to guide people to the alleviation of their
suffering. To choose that is to enter into a world of discomfort.
There's a good reason
to
go back and engage (from whatever state of enlightenment you already
have). Taking on some level of discomfort is bearable, especially
with the knowledge that the discomfort you take on with a new sense
of awareness may help alleviate some actual pain in the lives of
others. To my understanding, pain
is an order of magnitude stronger than discomfort.
There's
another reason why you might want to develop a more sensitized
conscience – spiritual growth. There is always room for increasing
our awareness, thereby allowing for a better-informed conscience. I
have a brief story to illustrate this point. The first General
Assembly I attended was Portland in 2007. I was staying in a hostel 3
miles from the assembly floor. I got on the bus in the morning, and
got halfway there, and realized I'd forgotten my name badge. If you
forget your name badge, there is no way you can get onto the floor.
So I turned around, knowing I would be at least 45 minutes late, and
wouldn't be able to make it to any of the workshops during that
morning session. And I had an epiphany! There were three different
workshops all at the same time I had wanted to attend, and I would've
been unable to take in two of them anyway. Missing all three wasn't
really that much different, in a way. Right there on the bus I
realized that if I were at GA, I wouldn't be able to pay attention to
what was going on on the bus! And from there, I realized that we
are missing almost everything, all the time.
I imagined there were even a million things going on in that bus that
I wasn't aware of and would never be aware of. But that's no excuse
not to try and pick at least one thing to pay attention to. The key
is to prioritize what gets your attention.
So,
a second question then is 'How
to cultivate a sensitized conscience?' The first step is to be
curious. Ask questions – of yourself, and in dialog with others.
“What am I experiencing? How do I feel about it? What experiences
have I had in the past that lead me to feel this way, and not some
other way?” Can you imagine how others with different perspectives,
based on different life stories might feel in the same experience?
It's easier to do if they're right there in the room sharing the
experience with you, especially if you can just ask them.
A
really good way to sensitize is to ask, “What am I missing?” The
things on the surface, at least, you and I try to catch. But, as I like to interpret my
old taxi dispatcher “Hat” as saying, find out what's under the
surface there. When there's a conversation or dialog, it's often more
telling to listen into the noise-floor for what's NOT being said,
either something that's under the surface, or may actually just be an
elephant in the room that people are focusing away from, either
consciously or unconsciously. I've learned to know my senses only
take me part way. As humans, using our senses, we do not have the
ability to see in the Infrared or Ultraviolet light, we cannot hear
the high-frequency sounds that dogs can hear, or the 7.8 Hz
low-frequency sound of the earth's constant rumble. We do not have
the inherent ability to detect radon gas in basements, not can we
detect radioactivity. We have to stop and ask, I wonder if there's
something I'm missing here, and then go out and get (or devise) an
instrument to find out. The same is true with developing a keener
sense of conscience.
So
once we do begin to have a more sensitized conscience, what happens?
We do, indeed, start having to ask questions of ourselves, and begin
calling ourselves into accountability. Accountability is
uncomfortable, especially when one is less-than-willing to engage, or
not sure how to go about engaging (I have been in both situations
myself). You may start to feel guilt or shame for things you've done
or left undone, or you may feel fear of what might happen (such as
'doing it wrong') now that you're doing something. Another thing
that happens is that we begin to see and feel new nuances from new
perspectives, and may feel compelled then to report back on what
we've discovered on this free and responsible search for truth and
meaning. A sensitized conscience is a very good tool for that search,
and practicing the right of conscience may very well be the result of
that search.
There's
a sacred text -- actually a rather profane text, but sacred in that it serves a purpose worth studying -- I came across in late-August of this year. In this
case, the sacred text was words spoken by Clint Eastwood, at a
political convention. I don't mean for this to be a political sermon.
In fact, the only way I see it as political is that the root of the
word 'politic' refers to “how we choose to be together in
community.” Eastwood's way of being in community was quite
remarkable, actually.
Near the beginning of his speech, he says: “So I -- so I’ve got Mr. Obama sitting here. And he’s -- I was going to ask him a couple of questions.” I thought to myself, “Is this performance art? Is he acting? He must be acting.”
He went on to ask the silent and invisible man in the chair questions regarding his 2008 promises vs his record regarding Guantanamo and then interrupts himself, saying, “What do you mean shut up?” He continues to ask questions to which the invisible man in the chair remains silent, and then Eastwood interrupts himself again... “I am not going to shut up, it is my turn.” He speaks for a while longer, and interrupts himself again, responding indignantly to the chair... “What do you want me to tell Romney? I can’t tell him to do that. I can’t tell him to do that to himself.” Then later, “I’m sorry. I can’t do that to myself either.”
I
felt so appalled, I had to pause the video. It took me a day or so
after experiencing this for my conscience to begin to sort things
out. The issue was not with just the words. The real issue I saw was
with the process, the way it was done. I can only imagine President
Obama sitting with his family in the White House living room, or at work with his
staff, watching this pseudo-conversation. Were it me, I would be
nonplussed perhaps, and I don't know whether I would be amused or
very not
amused. Here, Eastwood had brought an imagined likeness of the
president, the most powerful man in the world, and dressed him down.
He made this man – this African-American man who had been vested
with power by over 50% of the voters three years ago – he made him
invisible, put him there into the narrative without his permission,
and then, of all things – he made this imagined character into the
fabled (and fearsome) angry black man, without ever having his invisible man in the chair even speaking a word of his own. For all
listening, it was like hearing one end of a telephone conversation –
the profanities were unspoken, but they were there to be sure. After
almost four years of keeping his cool amid being treated like a
second-class president in so many ways -- as if he can't be
legitimate, or "our" equal or better than us -- finally somebody had
conveyed anger on his behalf, and strangely, it was Clint Eastwood
who did so. Wordlessly. Unexpectedly. Without permission.
What
did it mean to me? I still don't fully know. Not without
complexifying, by being in conversation. My conscience tells me that
what Eastwood did was mean-spirited and unethical, and may eventually
somehow serve something good – but at a huge cost. This was not
microaggressions, this was aggression. And to be clear, I call this
racism. And by shining his light in this way, Eastwood unconsciously
gave others permission to do the same. In this sacred text, is a
conversation that needs to be had, if we are to come together.
Throughout
this election cycle, and since the results came in, I have been
feeling the gravest sense of broken community. Among white people,
straight people, and men, with the unacknowledged privilege of being
white, or straight, or male, it seems there are large groups of
people feeling their privilege slipping away. I see them in fear and anger regarding this change, and believe they are avoiding invitations to come to common ground. I
see a power still entrenched, and refusing to let others speak for
themselves, instead speaking for them and plastering them with
labels.
With
no universal conversation happening, the signal-to-noise ratio is low
[the children's story involved exploring the noise
floor
of various situations with respect to audio recording]. In order to
hear each other, to have a conversation that doesn't make the Abby in
each of us want to cry, we need to turn the noise down AND come to
common ground. Until all parties are ready to come together and talk,
however (and some are still not ready), I will be taking my
dispatcher's advice, and listening to the radio, trying to find
what's underneath and behind this. I want to see more than just the
surface of this pain, fear, and anger. And I want to get to a place
where we desire to have this conversation not
only
for the instrumental purpose of creating greater community, but also
for the intrinsic value of bringing each person back. to. wholeness. As one granted privileges in several ways, who seeks to be a
better ally, I want our congregation to be ready to call out
oppressions wherever we see them. And I don't want the people with
dark skin to have to call out their examples of oppressions each time
they come. Or the women to call out theirs, or the LGBT folk, or the
people who have disabilities, or the people with oppressions
marginalized enough that they didn't even make this list. I want us
to be sensitized allies, who step up and into the conversations
before the persons on the receiving end have to become their own last
line of defense. And because I want to honor the dignity of all, when
I do step up and speak, I will try not to speak on behalf of others.
I will speak for myself. It has taken me a long time to figure that
out, and I doubt I still have it completely right. This spiritual
growth is a work in process.
So,
now. How to tend
a sensitized conscience? The rewarding part is knowing you're coming
into closer connection with others, and making room for – as Leslie
Takahashi Morris states
it – the more gorgeous rainbow world, where there is room for a
river of identities. The reward is knowing that in closer connection,
you're listening back in time for the seeds (both the wondrous and
the tragic) that made them what they are. And you're listening
forward in time for the flowers they hope to bloom, that make them do
as they do.
Another
way to cope with this new awareness is to know the reason why you
chose it. Principle zero – love! – the foundation and predecessor
for all our
principles.
Principle zero says step forward with a spirit of confident
love.
That spirit of confident love says your still small voice within is
not
a burden to carry
as you make your way, but is a
blessing to guide you
each and every day.
Amen.
Labels: 0th UU principle, 2nd UU principle, 3rd UU principle, 4th UU principle, 5th UU principle, 6th UU principle, anti-oppression, Community, our mission, racism, sacred texts, sermons
