Scrutinizing Gender

Over the past weeks, I've heard a lot of people talk about the now infamous North Carolina "bathroom bill."  It's a new law in North Carolina that says a person must use the bathroom that matches the gender they were assigned at birth.  This all comes after the relatively recent phenomena of high profile celebrities coming out as trans (i.e. Caitlyn Jenner) or trans people becoming celebrities (i.e. Laverne Cox).  But these celebrities entering our national conscious does not make trans people feel "real" to the vast majority of people.  You don't ever have to imagine existing in the same space as a Laverne or a Caitlyn.  Most people can compartmentalize the existing of trans people into some foreign "other" category that they'll never have to actually deal with.

But now comes the "bathroom bill."  And celebrities and businessess and politicians and even sports teams condemning the bill and even boycotting the state.  And suddenly, people are being faced with the idea that *horror* a trans person might be sharing a bathroom with them.

And, of course, the right wing media hypes it up and tells horror stories of a creepy man putting on a skirt and wig just to enter a women's bathroom and assault some poor helpless woman.

So, first of all, lets get some things perfectly clear: there has never been a proven, documented case of someone using the cover of an anti-trans discrimination bill in order to sexually assault someone.  There have been cases of mentally ill or criminally deranged men entering women's bathrooms and assaulting them, and the timing happened to coincide with a state legislature's debate over a new bathroom bill, so the legislators co-opted the tragedy as fodder for their own views.  But those mentally ill or criminally deranged offenders?  They'd never even heard of the political debate that they had unwittingly become a puppet in.  There will also likely always be sexual predators who will assault people, and no law telling them what bathroom they are allowed to enter will suddenly stop them.

Imagine, for a moment, that sexual predator you are so worried about assaulting some token woman in your life.  Imagine that he is following that woman, stalking her as she walks around a store, browsing for clothes, and keeps following her as she heads to another area of the store.  He's excited and planning his own sick plan, when suddenly he realizes that the other area of the store your token woman is heading towards is a restroom with a little stick figured, skirted person on it.  Do you really think, for even one iota of a second, that skirted stick figure will slow that predator down?  The ONLY thing that will slow that predator down is if there are other people visible in the area.  The state of trans protections or discrimination for use of public restrooms in that particular jurisdiction will not even factor into that predator's calculations, I can promise you.

But couching this debate in terms of "protecting" women from these "freaks" who "pretend" that they're women makes the whole thing nice and easy to scream about, to post memes about, and even to have some surface-level understanding of the arguments.

In practice, however, these "bathroom bills" are about something much more complicated and sinister.

Imagine for a second that you're a man waiting outside of the restrooms at your local movie theater, waiting for the woman you are there with to finish.  You see three different people entering that bathroom.  The first person has a short hair cut, loose flannel shirt, slim jeans, and Doc Marten boots.  The second person has long, flowing blonde hair, is wearing a skin tight dress and high heels.  The third person is wearing baggy jeans and a button down shirt, has short hair and no visible makeup or jewelry.

As you were scrutinizing the first person, you couldn't detect any hint of a chest, they had short, trimmed nails, but they moved passed you too fast for you to be able to tell if they had any hint of an adam's apple or a bulge in the crotch-area of their slim jeans.  So you can't tell for sure if this person is a man or just a butch lesbian.

As you were scrutinizing the second person, you definitely saw a chest, but you can't tell if it's fake or not.  You see a well done manicure, shaved legs, and a gorgeous figure.  But you also think you might see the faintest hint of an adam's apple.  Could this possibly be a trans woman?

As you were scrutinizing the third person, you can't see any shape whatsoever under their loose fitting clothing.  Their hair styling is indistinct, and they'r wearing a pair of bland sneakers.  Is this just a soccer mom with no time or care for personal style or is it a man sneaking into the women's restroom?

What do you do to protect your woman?  There might be men and/or possibly trans people entering the same bathroom where she is trying to pee in peace.

And in those moments of scrutinizing every single inch of these three human beings who were also just trying to pee in peace, you became the potential predator.  You scrutinized and policed these people's gender and made your own snap assessments of whether or not they were "woman" enough.  And if you decided that one or more of these people did not meet up with your own assessment of who can or cannot be considered a "woman," what would you have done?  Shouted at them to get out of the women's restroom because they don't belong there?  Followed them into the women's restroom in order to physically drag them out?  Contacted theatre security or police so that they can physically drag them out?  Physically attacked them for threatening your woman by trying to enter this bathroom?

Since these bathroom bills have entered the national discourse, a short-haired lesbian has been attacked and physically removed from a women's restroom by some people who didn't think she looked female enough.  A cis woman was arrested for using the "wrong" restroom when really she was just a soccer mom with not the greatest sense of style.  And since the beginning of the year 11 trans women have been murdered because of their gender presentation.

There are real concerns at play here.

Sexual assault is rampant in this country.  But it's not happening by people pretending to be trans so they can force their way into a certain bathroom.

The question of trans bathroom use becomes a little more tricky when you're dealing with high school and earlier educational settings.  But that conversation needs to be nuanced and compassionate, not based in fear and myths.

Trans people and people who do not conform to strict norms of gender presentation (including lesbians, and, yes, even soccer moms) are targets under these bathroom bills.  They are already targets.  Trans people and masculine-presenting cis women already face discrimination, harassment, and even violence.  The "protecting our women" line is a red herring and an excuse for state-justified discrimination against a group of people who aren't deemed "worthy" of the right to just pee in peace.

Blessing versus Privilege

I grew up in very religious family.  Even today when I have dinner at home,  my family regularly prays and thanks God for the "blessings that He has provided us."  I'm not writing this to dispute the idea of being grateful and praising God for things that we have every right to be thankful for, and especially those things for which we do nothing to deserve.  But as I've grown up and become immersed in the world of feminist philosophy, I have, in my own life, begun to recognize my "privilege" much more often than I recognize God's "blessings."  And it's not that I think that the two concepts are in direct contrast or competition with each other, but I do believe that talking only about blessings can lead to a form of apathy and even smug indifference to the plight of those around us that is exceedingly dangerous.

Talking about and acknowledging privilege, in the feminist and progressive movements, is an active process.  It's about recognizing those things that we have simply by nature of our economic, social, political, racial, or gendered place in life that those who are oppressed in those same areas do not have.  It's also (and this is, in my opinion,  a far more difficult and important process) recognizing and combatting those systems that allow the privilege to remain.

Talking about blessings, specifically in a religious or spiritual context, doesn't ever call the acknowledger to action.  I can acknowledge the great blessing that I have because I was born in and now live in two countries which both, respectively, allow me to practice my religion without condemnation or any real constraint.  This is a frequent refrain in both Canadian and American church prayers.  But this acknowledgement is passive. I can acknowledge this religious freedom, thank my God for it, and then move on with my life.  But if, instead, I acknowledge that this religious freedom is a privilege that originates in my socio-economic, national, and racial status, I must then also realize that there are oppressive systems (whether political, social, or cultural) at play in countries across the world that deny other people this same privilege. When I acknowledge this hard truth, I must also commit myself to changing these oppressive systems in any way that I can.

This same thought process is true for countless other hard truths.  And I think this difference between passively acknowledging and being grateful for undeserved blessings and actively recognizing, checking, and committing to changing systems of privilege and oppression is one of the major reasons why churches in the Western world are plagued by apathy.

I think we Christians do ourselves and our God a disservice when we acknowledge these same truths using the language of blessing and gratitude.

How can I thank God for my whiteness?  Or my wealth?  Not only did I not do anything for these attributes, but God didn't give them to me as a positive thing to be grateful for.  To think that way is to place the different races and socio-economic statuses on a scale of good to bad, blessing to curse.  If I were to thank God for my whiteness, then doesn't that mean that being black would somehow be a negative?  A non-blessing?  A burden? A curse?

How could I think this way?  How could anyone (or at least anyone who doesn't openly and joyfully embrace racist ideology)?  But if I call my place in this country, my freedom from the tensions embroiling Ferguson a "God-given blessing," isn't that exactly what I'm doing?

I think churches and religious people across the Western world need to move beyond this passive gratitude. There's nothing wrong with thanking God, but I think we need to critically analyzing the thing which we thank God for.  We need to ask ourselves, is this really something to be grateful for? Is it a blessing? Or is it just me enjoying the benefits of being on the winning side of an injustice?  And if that's what it is, then I will not be grateful.  And neither should you.  We should all commit ourselves to analyzing and acknowledging when we are on the winning side of such an injustice, and instead of thanking our Deity for the win, we should commit ourselves to fighting to end the injustice that allows for someone else to be on the losing end of the equation.

I am not grateful for my whiteness.  Instead, I recognize it, acknowledge it, and commit myself to the lifelong process of checking my privilege at the door, seeking out the voices of those who are not white, so I can come to know the best, the most effective ways for me to engage in the struggle to end the racial injustice that allows the colour of my skin to be a privilege at all.

I know a lot of people who strive to view themselves and to be what they label "colour-blind."  I know my Dad will always answer the question of what race he is with the answer, "human."  And while for a long time I loved this response,  and even used it a few times myself, we can't whitewash the systems of racial injustice away simply by pretending that we don't see them.  We can't pretend that I would've faced the same treatment walking down the street in my Naperville, IL next to a cop car that Michael Brown faced in Ferguson, MO.  Calling yourself colour-blind or labeling yourself human instead of white doesn't change the vastly different treatment that Michael Brown and young black men across this country face every time they encounter a member of law enforcement.

If I went to any number of local churches this coming Sunday, I could no doubt hear many a pastor include in a prayer a message of gratitude for the supposedly God-given blessing of living in an area that is not plagued by the racial violence and unrest that is facing Ferguson, Missouri right now.  But what good does such an acknowledgment of supposed blessing actually do?  It allows for and even enables our own innate inclinations towards apathy.  I can easily sit idly by and simply acknowledge that I am blessed to live in a majority upper middle class, white area of the county.  But if, instead, I recognize and proclaim the hard truth that I am not faced with the violence and unrest here in DuPage County precisely because of the privilege I have because of the systems of privilege I enjoy due to my skin colour and my socio-economic status, I must then also recognize that other people, through just the same non-existent effort as my own, do not have this same privilege.  Instead these people are oppressed by these same systems because they live in poorer areas and/or were born with brown or black skin.

And this isn't just about race.  There are so many other hard truths in the world, so many injustices that can just as easily  be viewed as "God-given blessings."  We have got to stop being passive.  Stop being grateful.  We have got to "ready our heart's teeth.  Chew through the etiquette leash," to begin fighting injustice everywhere we see it, every time we contribute to it or benefit from it.

Apathy and Ellen Page

Like so much of the queer world, I freaked the fuck out when Ellen Page came out this past Friday.  And not because I was in any way surprised that Ellen Page is gay.  I wasn't.  Like so many other people, gay or straight (or anywhere else on any spectrum), I was about 99.999% sure that Ellen Page is gay.  And yet, as much as there may be a decent sized list of people who the queer community (especially the online queer feminist community to which I belong) "knows" is queer, every single time one of them actually takes their own affirmative steps to come out of their closets, to declare their own truths, we all cheer and freak out so loud and for so long that we start to forget there was ever a time when that person actually wasn't out.

For days after I saw the internet explode with Ellen Page's announcement, I carried on my life with a huge, probably incredibly goofy-looking grin on my face.  And at first I couldn't figure out why this one person's coming out was making me so incredibly happy.  I mean, I cheered and celebrated when Raven-Symone and Michelle Rodriguez came out last year.  I was happy.  But neither Raven's gay marriage celebrating tweet nor M-Rod's bisexual rumour confirming interview made me this ecstatic for days on end.  At first I thought it was just because of how much I love Ellen Page's movies or how much I crush on her, but, let's be honest, Michelle Rodriguez definitely falls more into the latter category for me than Ellen Page does.

And then I thought maybe it's because Raven and Michelle Rodriguez both have histories of awkwardly, defensively, and at times destructively denying rumours of their respective queerness.  And Ellen Page just avoided the subject (or even tongue-in-cheek poked fun at in that 2008 SNL skit).  Or it could be because Ellen Page is still a huge, and likely still rising star, while M-Rod has a long-term and at times messy career of always playing the same bad-ass type of character and Raven's claim to fame rises mostly out her career as a kid on the "Cosby Show" and a teen in Disney's "That's So Raven."

But I think the real reason behind my joyous reaction to Ellen Page coming out is simply because of the way that she came out.  As the icon of gay Ellens would put it, she owned her own truth.  Ellen Page got on that stage and didn't just say, "hey world, I'm gay, now explode!" (even though that's pretty much all that got reported/tweeted in the immediate aftermath).  Instead, she stood up there and slowly built up to her announcement through an exposition of Hollywood culture and societal pressure, both on gender presentation and sexuality.  And, yeah, Ellen Page said those three words "I am gay," and those may forever be the most memorable words from her speech (and after those seemingly simple words, you could see her entire body sigh).  But I truly hope that those words are not the only ones remembered from her speech on Friday.  Because that wasn't the pinnacle of her speech, not by a long shot.  Instead, she went on to explain her own coming out (and why she hadn't until this point), acknowledged her own privilege in being able to come out in such an accepting setting, and ended by saying "thank you" to everyone who enables young people to find the strength to claim their own truth.

Now, while most of the response to Ellen Page coming out was positive and supportive, and I honestly didn't see much hateful or negative backlash, I did see way too many dismissive comments, as Riese over at Autostraddle so beautifully dissects:

Ellen Page said she’d been scared to reveal her truth, and in response way too many people responded with, ”In other news, the sky is blue.” The fact that so many felt comfortable being that rude to someone who’d just publicly shared a private struggle speaks volumes about how important they consider the issues of gay women to be. We should be wary of these people. People like them are why so many believe this country is post-racial or post-feminist when this country is racist as fuck and hates women. This country loves to pass a few laws and then declare everything officially fixed forever. This country has a short memory.

When people respond to a high profile celebrity coming out with some variation of "so what?" or "well duh! who cares?" they perpetuate the notion that the fight is over.  That gay youth don't still face rejection, homelessness, drug addictions, depression, and suicide at exponentially higher rates than non-queer youth.  And the vast majority of these issues stem from familial or communal rejection of them once they come out or are outed.

It can be soul-crushing for a queer person who is struggling with the possibility of coming out of the closet to less than supportive family and friends to see those types of responses to the beautifully eloquent coming out of someone like Ellen Page.  When you are sitting in the darkness of your own closet, having just felt a little bit of warmth and light shine on you because of the encouragement of Ellen Page, and then you see so many self-proclaimed "allies" shun the idea that there is any bravery at all (or even any point for that matter) in someone like Ellen Page ever publicly declaring her label, her truth, you want to slam yourself so tightly back into that closet, nearly forgetting to take note of the incredible support that Ellen Page and her true supporters and community have to offer.

I know what it's like to live for years in a closet.  I've been there.  I spent so much of my life refusing to even let myself face my own truth, the reality of my own attractions and desires.  I wouldn't even acknowledge it in my head because I knew (or thought I knew) that as long as I never faced it myself, I would never have to face even the slightest possibility of sharing that truth with anyone around me.  And I had the vast majority of these frightened and denial-ridden conversations with myself while attending American University, a place so imbued with support and pride for LGBT issues that Westboro Baptist Church (ahem...cult, not church) came to protest us.  And while I felt (and still feel) so much pride at how incredible my school was at embracing and encouraging queers, I still engaged in this circular, internalized-homophobic thought process.  I didn't come out to myself until a good year after I left American.  And, yes, there are many other personal reasons behind the timing of my own journey, but what I know is this: having an immediately supportive community doesn't make it somehow magically easy to come out of the closet.  Sure, on some surface level, would it have been easier for me to face my own truth, to come out as queer, while still at AU?  Of course, without a doubt.  But I also know that if I had come out publicly while at AU, chances are I never would've moved home, never would've put in the work, the sweat and tears, to rebuild my relationship with my family.  Instead, I waited until my family and I were on solid ground for the first time in years before I felt I could even face my own truth for myself.  And then I came out to my family.  And then to the rest of my world.  Now, from a distance, this might seem like I waited until my family and I were on solid ground only to rip the metaphorical rug out from under us by coming out.  I've had people, family members even, say this very thing to me.  But what I know is that I put far too much blood, sweat, and tears into rebuilding my relationship with my parents to allow even a portion of that relationship to be built on the lie that I was perpetuating, by omission if nothing else, that I was straight.  I needed to rebuild that relationship, and then I had to reveal my whole truth, before we could ever be on truly solid ground.  That's my journey.  That's my story.

So when people try to make the argument that coming out in front of an overwhelmingly supportive community like the Human Rights Campaign isn't brave at all, they are flat out wrong.  Because coming out, declaring the truth of your queerness, involves so much more than just needing an immediate pat on the back by those in close proximity to you.  Coming out is a process of finally facing yourself, acknowledging your own truth, and then figuring out where that leaves you in the many different worlds that you navigate.

Some people think that, because they aren't actively spewing hate at a gay person, they don't pull the trigger when a black person makes them nervous (or do but justify it by claiming stand-your-ground), and they don't intentionally try to treat the women in their workplace as less important/intelligent/etc. than their male colleagues, they are not in any way perpetuating the institutions of homophobia, racism, and sexism, respectively.  But for anyone who really takes the time to dig into any of these issues, they have to at some point come to the realization that these oppressive institutions are still very much alive and well.  And once you reach that conclusion, but look around and don't see public lynchings, anti-sodomy laws, or lack of women's suffrage, at some point you also have to realize that it's not just the faceless, nameless "other" that perpetuates these institutions.  It's us.  It's you and me.  Every day we let our own apathy lull us into contentment, every time we let ourselves believe that we don't play a role in perpetuating these oppressive institutions, we are, by that very act of apathy, perpetuating them.

 For the past couple months I've been wrestling with the idea of how to fight against the pull of my own apathy, to truly fight for the things for which my heart breaks.  There's this poem, "Etiquette Leash," by the amazing queer spoken word artist and activist, Andrea Gibson, that has opened my eyes and challenged me so much that I find myself repeating it to myself over and over again each day.  As I was editing this post, I kept trying to figure out which section of the poem I wanted to include, but I don't think it carries nearly the same weight in snippets.  So here's the whole thing:

I want a good heart

I want it to be made of good stuff

I want the stain glass window builder to be my drinking buddy

I want to drink only the punch

of a million genderqueer school kids

taking free martial arts lessons to survive recess

I stopped calling myself a pacifist

when I heard Gandhi told women

they should not physically fight of their rapists

I believe there is such a think as a non-violent fist

I believe the earth is a woman muzzled

beaten, tied to the coal slinging tracks

I believe the muzzled have every right

to rip of the Bible Belt and take it to the patriarchy's ass

I know these words are going to get me in trouble

It is never polite to throw back the tear gas

Just like it's never polite to bring enough life rafts

They crowd the balcony where the wealthy shine their jewels

But sometimes love

sometimes real love

is fucking rude

It's interrupting a wedding mid-vow

just as the congregation is about to cry

to stand up your pew to say

"Is everyone here clear on how diamonds are mined?"

Hallelujah 

to every drag queen at Stonewall

who made weapons out of her stiletto shoes

Hallelujah 

to the Blues keeping the neighbourhood awake

To the activist standing in the snow outside of the circus

holding a ten foot photograph of a baby elephant in chains

when it's probably some little kid's birthday

Hallelujah 

to making everyone uncomfortable

To the terrible manners of truth

To refusing to clean the blood off the plate

Bend this spine into a bow

I can pull across the cello of my "Speak up!"

Love readies its heart's teeth

Chews through the etiquette leash

Takes down the cellphone tower

after millions of people die in wars in the Congo

fighting for the minerals that make our cellphones

Love blows up the dam

Chains itself to the redwood tree, to the Capitol building

when a trailer of Mexican immigrants 

are found dead on a south Texas roadside

Love insists well-intentioned white people

officially, stop calling themselves colour-blind

Insists hope lace its fucking boots

Always calls out the misogynist, racist, homophobic joke

refuses to be a welcome mate where hate wipes its feet

Love asks questions at the most inappropriate times

Overturns the Defense of Marriage Act

then walks the Pride Parade 

asking when the plight of poor, single mothers

will ignite our hearts into action like that

Love is not polite

deadlocks rush hour traffic 

with a hundred stubborn, screaming bikes

Hallelujah

to every suffrage movement hunger strike

Hallelujah

to insisting they get your pronouns right

Hallelujah

to tact never winning our spines

To taking our power all the way back

to that first glacier that had to learn how to swim

To never turning our heads from a single ugly truth

To knowing we live in a time when beauty

recruits its models outside the doors of eating disorder clinics

That is not a metaphor

This is not a line to a poem

An Indian farmer walks into a crowd of people 

and stabs himself in the chest

to protest the poisoning of his lands

A Buddhist monk burns himself alive 

on the crowded streets of Saigon

A U.S. soldier hangs himself

with his enemy's dog tags around his holy neck

May my heart be as heavy as a tuba

in the front row of the Mardi Gras parade five months after Katrina

May it weigh the weight of the world

so it might anchor the sun

so it might hold me to my own light

till I am willing to sweat as much as I cry

till I am willing to press into the clay of our precious lives

A window

Might our grace riot the walls down

May the drought howl us awake

May we rush into the streets

to do the work of opening each other's eyes

May our good hearts forever be too loud

to let the neighbours sleep

It's so very easy for me to rest in my own privileged apathy, to not do that hard work of opening the eyes of those around me.  To know and feel the pain and the heartache caused by so many different problems in the world, but to justify my own silence, my own lack of action by claiming that I'm not actively perpetuating any of these institutions (at least not purposefully).  But this shuffling of blame and responsibility is precisely what allows these institutions to remain so active.

Every time a celebrity comes our or there's a story of a young gay kid committing suicide, and so many self-proclaimed "allies" respond with "so what?" to the former and "I would never bully a gay kid" to the latter, the institution of homophobia rolls on.  Every time we see stories of black boys like Trayvon Martin and Jordan Davis being killed and either refuse to acknowledge the role racism plays in their deaths or separate ourselves from it by saying that we don't shoot every black kid we see walking down the street in a hoodie, we are turning our eyes from the overwhelming racism that is ravaging this supposedly great nation.

How do we not see that I, a cisgender, upper class, well-educated white woman, will never have to justify wearing a hoodie, listening to headphones and walking home alone at night to the man with a gun.  That man with a gun isn't going to assume that I'm casing every house I walk by trying to figure out which one I should break into.  But if I were a young black man walking home alone with my hood up and my headphones in, that's what people assume.  That's what George Zimmerman assumed.

I drive around in my economy car blaring my music, mostly alternative but sometimes hip hop, and even at gas stations, sometimes I'll let it blare while I run inside to grab a snack.  I have never once had to worry that if I don't turn my music down when someone asks, that person may pull a gun on me because my music in combination with my skin tone made him "justifiably" afraid.  But that's exactly what happened when Michael Dunn saw Jordan Davis blaring his music at a gas station.  I'll never have to face that.

My parents have never once had to instruct me on how to act when I'm around a police officer.  They've never had to tell me to be constantly aware of how fast my hands move to my pocket for ID in connection with how quickly the cop's hand can move to unbuckle his gun holster.  I've never had those conversations.  I never will.  Because I am white.

My criminal procedure professor from last semester told us that her African-American husband, an Ivy-educated, powerful attorney, would never feel comfortable saying "no" to a cop who asks to search his car.  Not because of the law.  This man knows the law and knows he has every right to deny a consent-search.  But because his skin colour immediately makes most cops suspicious.  It doesn't matter that this man drives a really nice car, is well-educated, articulate and upper class.  His skin is black, so he does not feel safe exercising his full Constitutional rights.

That is the world that we live in.  That is a society that we perpetuate.

For years, I've wanted to be a prosecutor.  I still do.  I clerk at a local State's Attorney's Office and I'm earning my Criminal Litigation certificate along with my J.D.  But increasingly I find myself wondering how I'm going to operate within the modern criminal justice system when I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the modern criminal justice system operates as a new slave system, a modern Jim Crow.  Is it my own apathy towards these heart-wrenching truths that keeps me on this path?  Or am I simply allowing myself to prioritize the feminist struggle over the anti-racist struggle?  Is that prioritization in itself a form of apathy?

These are my digressions, my internal struggles.  And I will likely wrestle with these issues for years to come.  Finding intersectional answers to the intertwining problems of this worlds is never easy.  But what I do know is that I refuse to remain silent about these issues.  I won't stand by and let people claim that Ellen Page's courage doesn't matter.  I won't stand still when I hear those around me, subtly or otherwise, perpetuating racism and sexism.  I have to speak up.  I have to give voice to the screams inside my chest.

Right before Ellen Page uttered those simple words "I'm here today because I am gay," those words that shattered the internet for a little while, she said that she drew on the "strength and support" of the people at the conference.  Likewise, people like me and other queer youth, whether out or still in the closet, draw on the strength of high profile and courageous people like Ellen Page.  And like Ellen Page, "maybe I can make a difference.  To help others have an easier and more hopeful time.  Regardless, for me, I feel a personal obligation and a social responsibility."  This blog is a part of that speaking up and fighting back.  But I know that I have to do more.  I'm constantly learning and trying to figure out how to keep fighting, to figure out the balance.  What I've realized over the last couple years though, what has become increasingly clear to me, is that I cannot afford, this world cannot afford, for me or anyone else to remain politely silent, waiting our turn to speak or holding our tongues to allow those around us to remain apathetic and comfortable.  We must speak up.  We must fight back.  We must do the work to make each other see, to not rest, to not be afraid.

To end, I will quote Andrea Gibson once more:

I don't believe we're hateful
I think mostly we're just asleep
But the math adds up the same
You can't call up the dead and say,
"Sorry, we were looking the other way."

There are names and faces behind our apathy
eulogies beneath our choices
There are voices deep as roots
thundering unquestionable truth
through the white noise that pacifies our ears.
Don't tell me we don't hear
Don't tell me we don't hear
When the moon is slain
when the constellations disperse like shrapnel
don't you think it's time
something changed?

Advancing the Dream

Note: This post is long overdue.  I wrote it a few weeks ago, but just kept forgetting to finishing editing it and then post it.

As I watched a re-airing of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech in commemoration of its 50th anniversary, I wrote the following Facebook status update: "Watching the indescribably breathtaking 'I Have A Dream' speech being re-aired in its entirety on MSNBC right now with tears in my eyes and so many emotions in my heart.  How far we've come.  How far we must still go."

Over the past couple months, the reality of the latter statement became explicitly clear to me.  Watching the George Zimmerman acquittal, I came to realize that the biggest problem with the verdict wasn't the fact that Zimmerman "got away with it" (because, truthfully, the prosecution's case wasn't that strong, so I really don't fault the jury for reaching that verdict).  Instead, I struggled so strongly accepting the reality of the legal precedent that it sets: if someone with racial animus in their heart sees someone in their neighbourhood that (in their opinion) doesn't "belong there," s/he can follow that individual, say or do something to instigate a fight (even if it's just making the person feel intimidated by being followed), and then pull out a gun and shoot that person.

I was particularly struck in the aftermath of the acquittal by one viral tweet: "How cool would it be to live in a world where George Zimmerman offered Trayvon Martin a ride home to get him out of the rain that night" (Tom Crabtree @itscrab).

A few weeks ago, I watched Fruitvale Station, the movie chronicling the final day in Oscar Grant's life.  This was a young African American man (my same age, 22 years old, at the time of his death) who wasn't perfect, but he was a good man.  And yet, after getting in an altercation with someone on an Oakland train, was pulled off the train, had his head smashed into the ground repeatedly, and then shot in the back by an Oakland cop (who claimed to have mistaken his gun for his tazer).

And then you have the spotlight being put, in recent weeks, upon the "Stop & Frisk" program in New York City which, even the law's proponents admit, highly unequally targets young African American males than any other demographic group.  And I hear stories of young men, my own age, who, since they were as young as ten years old, have been frisked by the police up to a dozen times.  And how, after so many times, you just stop trusting the police.  You stop looking to them for help, because you assume that they'll immediately look on you with suspicion simply by virtue of your skin colour.  One young man said that he didn't even call the police when he was robbed for this very reason.  And I highly doubt that his story is an anamoly.

Sure, you can make arguments and justifications and excuses for all of these things.

But is that really the type of country that we want?

Why are we still settling for excuses and justifications behind unequal treatment based upon race?

Yes, things have absolutely gotten better since Dr. King shared his dream with us 50 years ago.  You'd be hard-pressed to find a single person who would disagree with that.  There are no more weekly lynchings or images in the media of elementary school kids being sprayed with fire houses.

Yes, the world has changed.

We have an African-American president, dozens of African-American members of Congress, and an African-American attorney general.  And those are just the most high-profile figures nationally.  There are hundreds of African-Americans in positions of power in dozens of fields across America, without such a stark contrast anymore between the northern and southern states.

But we still have a long ways to go.  Changes still have to be made before we can say that we have finally fulfilled the dream which Dr. King prophecied over America 50 years ago.

Dr. King's dream is about more than just having most people be "judged by the content of their character" instead of their skin colour.  It's about economic equality.  It's not just about universal voting rights, but about having something worthwhile to vote for.

I'm not going to pretend to understand every length to which this nation must still go before we reach Dr. King's dream.  Because I think there's more to it than the specific examples that Dr. King proclaimed.  It's about living in a world where no one goes hungry, no one is denied rights due to some demographic category, no one is without the highest quality education, no one is left behind.

And Dr. King's dream doesn't stop at the edges of this nation.  It extends far and wide to every nation on earth.  It's ambitious, and will likely never be fully reached.  But that's not to say we should stop trying, stop reaching, stop changing, stop advancing the dream.

It's been 50 years, but so much of King's speech is just as relevant today as it was 50 years ago.  And his dream will never become irrelevant.

My Apology for Homosexuality

Note: I know this post is way longer than I would normally write, but please bear with me.  This is a hugely important issue and I am getting there. 

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again, but one of my greatest heroes in life is the 20th century suffragist, Alice Paul.  She was willing to be jailed, go on a hunger strike, and be force fed, all in the name of taking the first of many steps on the road to female equality: the ballot.  And I often think that I would be willing to go those same length to fight for my convictions.

But here's the thing: it's not the United States government that I worry about disagreeing with my beliefs.  I don't worry that, by standing up for myself and my convictions, the government will choose to find an excuse to lock me in a cell and throw away the key.  

But there is another institution that I worry about rejecting me and people that I know will not accept the things that I have to say.  That institution is the Christian church and those people are many of my closest family and friends.  But I can't let that stop me.  I just can't anymore.

Throughout my years in high school and college, I remember pastors and youth leaders calling for "revolution."  But they were never very clear about what that revolution was supposed to mean or do.  Yeah, they made vague references to influencing the world towards "Christian" ways or somehow re-shaping our culture, but there was no specific call to action.  I think part of that was because they simply had no clue what a revolution truly is.See, the Christian church has gone through revolutions before, although it is more commonly called a "reformation."  Yes, I am talking about the "Great Reformation," sparked by that quintessential moment when Martin Luther nailed his 95-Theses to the door of the Catholic church in Wittenburg, Germany.  And while, for years, I've known about this unilateral act by Martin Luther, I don't think I ever really considered what that must have meant for him.  Specifically, I never contemplated how very much courage it must have taken not only Martin Luther, but every single one of his followers to actually be willing to turn away from the Catholic church, risking (according to the Catholic church) their very souls.

Going against the established church back in the 15th century was, or course, far more courageous than any push against the established church today because, for Martin Luther and his contemporaries, there was only one church.  Today, the organized church is not one whole unit; it is splintered into dozens or even hundreds of different denominations, some with only minute disagreements among themselves, others with near catastrophic differences.  So I'm not claiming to even come close to comprehending the amount of courage that it took for Martin Luther to nail that document to that church door.  I just don't know.  But I do know something about fearing rejection by the established church, even with a definition of such a thing as the "established" church being murky at best.

But nonetheless, I do believe that the church today, however it may be defined, does desperately need revolution.  And although it is a different scale, it does still take courage to stand up and call for it.  And it is a lack of courage that has kept me from speaking out and calling for change for a long time now.  But it has kept me from even coming to my own personal conclusions, despite my own convictions, for even longer.

One of the things that Martin Luther fought for was the ability of everyday man to have access to the very pages of Scripture that the Catholic church was abusing.  Since that day, people, through reading the Bible themselves, have had the power to figure out for themselves what to believe about specific passages and the ways that those passages should impact their lives.

Over the last several decades, though, something else has changed: the church has decided that, on a vast many topics, only one interpretation is considered valid.  Now, people are supposed to just accept the English interpretations of some, at times, very obscure texts written hundreds of years ago in ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.  These interpretations can range from only slightly subjective to extremely biased.  And yet we, as Christians, are simply supposed to blindly subject our belief systems and actions to the choices that these translators have made.  And for a lot of issues, that wouldn't bother me.  But there is one issue, in particular, that I can't just blindly accept anymore.  In fact, I haven't been able to blindly accept it for a long time.  

The issue I'm talking about is one that is, in so many Christian circles, seen as the "worst of the worst."  It's used to hate and bash and blame and yell and diminish and hurt.  Oh, so much hurt.

Some of you may already have figured it out, but just to be explicitly clear: the issue that I'm talking about is homosexuality.  And, to be clear, when I say in the title that I'm making an "apology" for homosexuality, I'm not saying that I'm somehow trying to make amends.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  I'm using the term "apology" in the context of a theologically based argument.

So I've studied the issue, looked at the original Greek or Hebrew words, examined context and culture, all to try and make the most informed decision I can about what an accurate interpretation of these passages should be.  Now, I don't claim to have any training in original language interpretation.  So all I can do is read as much as I can and then go with my convictions (and that, by the way, is all that I can ask of anyone else).

There is, and probably always will be, more to say on this topic, so I'm not going to even attempt to make a comprehensive apology for homosexuality not being against the Word of God.  Also, for anyone reading this who doesn't believe that the Bible is God's Word or should be used as applicable to our lives: you are not the people that I'm writing this to.  Because, for you, it just doesn't matter.  But for me and for my family and many of my friends and my church, this issue is crucial.   And, far more importantly, it is crucial to anyone who is not a heterosexual, no matter what label they carry, who has been hurt or rejected or shamed by the church. So, because I started by talking about Martin Luther, I too am going to break down what I have to say into a number of different points.  Although I don't have 95.  I don't think I'd ever finish...

1. First and arguably most importantly, we need to be constantly aware about the context in which we are speaking, specifically about the impact that what we have to say has on people's lives.  No one lives in a vacuum, so simply making a proclamation such as "homosexuality is wrong" or any variation similar to that touches people's lives.  It is a statement about someone's very identity.  Even if you hold the belief that people can "choose" whether or not to be gay, you still need to be aware that the majority, if not all non-heterosexual people feel that their sexual orientation is a part of who they are as a person.  So making the aforementioned proclamation attacks a person's very identity.  It can lead others to a lack of understanding, fear, and hatred.  These things, in turn, can and do lead to violence.  We need to be aware of this context before going any further.
2. We need to be open to learning new truths from the Bible, even if that means changing long-, strongly-, and traditionally-held beliefs.  The apostle Paul had to be struck blind by God to turn from traditional Judaism and the apostle Peter saw a sheet lowered from Heaven in a dream in order to change his beliefs about Biblical teachings.  Martin Luther sparked the Protestant Reformation.  Churches across this country for years believed and taught that slavery was Scripture-sanctioned, interracial marriage was wrong, and women should hold no leadership roles.  Yes, we believe that the Bible and God are both infallible, but that says nothing of you or me.  We, as humans, are far from infallible.  We are prone to errors, mistranslations, and misinterpretations.  And it's prideful to think otherwise. 
3. Now, I think another important thing to be aware of when digging into this issue on a Biblical level is realizing that every book, chapter, and verse of the Bible fits together to tell a single story, all revolving around God's radical love for mankind manifested most fully and most poignantly in the personhood of Jesus Christ.  So, when examining a specific and, at times, seemingly obscure passage that seems to address homosexuality, it is primarily important to put that passage into context.  It's important to ask how this passage furthers God's message of love and salvation.  So, when looking at specific passages for an answer to questions about sexuality or sex, it's crucial to remember that the Bible is not a book written about sex or orientation or identity.  It's a book about God and by God about who He is and His love for us.
4. Furthermore, there was no definitive word in the Biblical languages that is equivalent to a modern understanding of monogamous, committed homosexual relationships.  There just wasn't.  I'll get into what the words sometimes translated as "homosexual" are talking about in a bit, but for now it's important to be aware of this simple fact.
5. Now, moving on to those specific passages used by people to try to condemn homosexuality.  First, and most notably, there is the infamous story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 18:16-19:14).  This story is the origin of the degrading term "sodomy" and its derivatives.  We likely all know the tale: two angels who came in the form of men, go to Sodom to retrieve Abraham's nephew, Lot, in advance of the city's predicted destruction.  Now this is an important point: the city was already doomed even before the angels entered the city.  Now, the saga that occurs once those angels enter the city have nothing to do with homosexual relations as we know them today.  It is a story of a complete lack of hospitality and, yes, of savagery.  But that savagery is in relation to an attempted gang rape.  Yes, the intended perpetrators were men and, yes, their intended victims were men.  But rape has NOTHING to do with sex, and EVERYTHING to do with exerting power and control.  We don't have any clue what the sexual orientation of those offenders was!  But you don't have to take my word for it.  The prophet Ezekiel makes clear that the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah that doomed them to destruction was that they were rich and prosperous but did not care for the poor and needy among them (Ezekiel 16:48-49 - "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy.  They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes.").  Likewise, in Matthew 10 and Luke 10, Jesus refers to the sin of Sodom as the sin of inhospitality.  So the point that God is making in this story is heard clearly in Micah: "do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with your God" (Micah 6:8).
6. The second most oft quoted passage used to condemn homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22; 20:13.  These are the verses that declare that, if a man lies with another man, it is an abomination and they should be executed.  But let's put these verses into context: just around these verses are "condemnations" of a man sleeping with a women while she is on her period.  It declares that this is an abomination and that both the man and the woman should be executed!  Leviticus also seemingly condemns tattoos (oops!!), wearing clothing of mixed fabrics (no cotton/poly blends for you!), eating pork or even playing with its skin (so, sorry Ravens, no Superbowl title for you. It's an abomination!)  My point being, the Levitical code needs to be taken with a grain of salt and understood in context.  It's a book written by Moses primarily to the Levitical priesthood about how the priests should conduct their lives.  Some of it is addressed to the Hebrew nation as a whole, but the entire point of it was to call Israel to a higher, nay an impossibly high standard so that Israel would be a nation set-apart, completely distinct from every surrounding culture.  Furthermore, the word "abomination" that is used throughout this Holiness code has a very different meaning from the way it is commonly understood.  The Hebrew word was "TO'EBAH" and it is in reference to behaviours that people in a particular place and time find tasteless and offensive.  Ergo, which acts are "TO'EBAH" will change depending upon your circumstances.  When Paul declared that it is ok for Christians to eat pork, he was talking about the requirements listed in this Levitical holiness code, and he said that it does not pertain to Christians!  Likewise, the Levitacal holiness code said not to work on the Sabbath, yet Jesus openly declared that to be not applicable.  So why, according to this Levitical code, was it "TO'EBAH" for a man to sleep with another man?  It's the same reason why Genesis 38:9-10 condemns a man "spilling his seed on the ground" (this has been used to condemn masturbation or even "pulling out" as an act of birth control).  It was because they believed that man's seed contained the entire essence of life (and woman was just the incubator for that seed) and the Israelites were trying to expand their nation in order to fulfill God's command and promise that they reproduce and fill the earth.  So, in today's context, there are and probably should be a certain standard of sexual conduct expected for Christ followers, but it doesn't find its root in the Levitical code.  Furthermore, we now understand the biological process of reproduction exponentially better than the Israelites ever did, and most Christians agree that we are no longer under the strict command to "fill the earth" (i.e. reproduce endlessly without birth control).
7. Next, I want to talk about two passages together: the creation story in Genesis 1-2 and the passage in Romans 1 used to condemn both gay and lesbian relations.  So in the Genesis story, you see God displaying awesome power in his creation of the entire world, from the sky above to the earth below, to the plants and the animals, and finally, to man and woman.  Throughout the entire creation process, God keeps stopping and declaring an end to every day of work with "It is good."  When he creates man, he declares him "very good."  But then something happens: God declares something "not good."  He says, "it is not good for man to be alone."  And so he creates a woman, Eve, to be his suitable companion.  And again he declares it "very good."  Now here is where most critics of homosexuality from a Biblical perspective come in with snarky signs that say "God created Adam and EVE" not "Adam and STEVE."  And it's true.  For Adam, his suitable companion was Eve.  But does that inherently mean that EVERY man's suitable companion is a woman? And vice versa?  Well, first, from a practical perspective, if God had made two men, there could have been no children, no "reproduce and fill the earth."  And equally if He had created two women.  So, for Adam, with his duty to reproduce, the only suitable companion for him was a woman.  But let's go back to that first premise: "It is not good for man to be alone."  Now, the traditional interpretation and application of Christian doctrine on homosexuality is that, for a homosexual, he/she must necessarily remain alone, for although their suitable partner would be someone of the same gender, and, if that is morally wrong, he/she, as a Christian must refrain from acting on it.  Forever.  So, I have to ask: how can it be "good" for a gay person to forever remain alone?  Doesn't that fly in the face of that first declaration of "not good" in reference to man's isolation?  Now, Paul's teaches in Romans 1:26-27 that a man exchanging "natural" relations with a woman for "unnatural" relations with a man (and likewise, women exchanging "natural" relations with men for "unnatural" relations with each other).  The passage is clear that it is talking about someone abandoning his/her former state (i.e. heterosexuality) for one that is unnatural for him/her.  The verses preceding this passage are talking about people who previously knew God but abandoned Him to pursue worldy idols.  So, in this light, for a straight man, any straight man, of course it is inherently "unnatural" for him to have sex with another man.  But what about for a gay man?  Wouldn't it be just as "unnatural" for him to stop sleeping with his male partner and start sleeping with a woman?  For the passage is clear that the people in question were, in fact, already having relations with people of the opposite gender.  So it is arguably safe to say that these people were, according to today's terminology, straight.  Furthermore, let's look at the context surrounding this passage: Paul had just returned from Rome where he witnessed the odd sexual practices of priests and priestesses in the pagan temples.  These practices ranged from drunken orgies to sleeping with young temple prostitutes (more on this in a minute) to castrating themselves.  So he we exhorting the recipients of his letter to not be overtaken by a sexual obsession and sink into sexual depravity.  So God gave them over to the natural consequences of their obsessions.  To me, this says nothing of a lesbian woman and her life-long partner/wife (depending on the laws in their state) engaging in a healthy level of commitment, love and devotion in pursuit of honouring God comparable to a "traditional," Godly, heterosexual union.  Furthermore, the one other time that Paul uses this term "nature" is in 1 Corinthians 11 wherein Paul describes it as "unnatural" for a woman to pray with her head uncovered and for a man to have long hair.  The contexts and words used in these two passages are remarkably similar, but the way in which they are traditionally understood is markedly different.  So the terms "natural" and "unnatural," it would seem, refer to customs of the time.  It does not refer to biology or sexual orientation, but to customs and idolatry and unbridled passions.
8. Finally, and on this I want to be perfectly clear and very blunt: the word "homosexual" never appeared in the Bible until the late 1940s at the earliest.  It is now used to translate the Greek word "arsenokoitai."  This word first appears in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and again in 1 Timothy 1:10 and its translation is murky, at best.  Also appearing in these verses is another troublesome Greek word, "malokois," often translated as either "effeminate call boys" or as "male prostitutes."  The primary interpretation of the second word, "malokois" refers to young boys who were shaved clean and traded at the temple for money.  Others say that the literal interpretation of "malokois" is "soft" and refers to people who are lazy or cowardly.  Whichever may be more accurate is unclear, as this is a vague term often used in lists of general vices.  And, although the word "arsenokoitai" is hardly ever found in any of Paul's contemporary Greek literature, we can be pretty sure, from the context in which it is written, that the term refers to those people whom today's society would label "dirty old men" or, to put it more bluntly, the pedophiles who pay for sex with the "malokois."  Every other use of the term following Paul's (which is the first known use of the word) refers to some form of sexual and economic exploitation.  So this word, as best we can tell, has nothing whatsoever to do with a loving, faithful same-sex relationship.  Therefore, it would seem that Paul's condemnation of "arsenokoitai" and "malokois" is a condemnation of exploitative, sexual relationships, especially pedophilia.
9. And  my final and most crucial point comes from Matthew 19:4-5, 11-12.  These long-forgotten passages specifically affirm homosexuals who are "born that way" (yes, apparently, Jesus knew of Gaga even before Gaga existed).  In the first portion of the passage, it is Jesus' explanation of the reasons behind marriage.  He says "Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female... For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh?  Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate."  Jesus then allows for three exceptions to this rule, "Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given.  For some eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven.  The one who can accept this should accept it."  So, what on earth is this talk of "eunuchs?"  Well, eunuchs were highly ranked but socially "deviant" men who were supposed to protect and serve the female royalty without feeling sexual or romantic attraction for them.  So, in layman's terms, the last one seems pretty simply: those who choose celibacy to serve God (Paul would probably fall into this category); those who are castrated (or otherwise made impotent at the hands of man); and those who innately do not feel sexual attraction to women.  Now, this last category could, in theory, apply to that EXTREMELY small group of people who are born without "parts," for lack of a better term.  But, because this is so incredibly rare (and it's unlikely that society even recognized this group of people during Jesus' time), it is far more likely that, here, Jesus is referring to men who are not attracted to women because they are, in fact, attracted to men.  As I already emphasized, there was no language in Jesus' time to describe homosexual orientation as we know it today, so it seems to me that Jesus expressed his affirmation of homosexual orientation in the only language that he knew how: through a seemingly obscure reference to "eunuchs" who are "born that way."  Furthermore, when this reference to "born eunuchs" is used in other writings around that time, it is associated with men who are sexually attracted to each other.  And Jesus stated that those with that orientation "should accept it."  This, to me reads that homosexuals should embrace their orientation as natural and live their lives accordingly.  Furthermore, when Phillip comes across an Ethiopian eunuch on his travels, although we do not know for sure if he was a born eunuch, it seems like a fair assumption, especially in light of his reading material (Isaiah 53's passage regarding suffering and rejection) that he was, in fact, gay, Philip does not condemn or tell him that he cannot be baptized.  Instead, he says if you believe with all your heart, you may." (See Acts 8:26-40).

I know that not everyone who reads this will "accept it."  But I ask you to at least try and understand.  Try to look past yourself, your own lack of understanding about same-sex attraction, your own traditions.  I may not be able to change anyone's minds.  But this is no longer just me spewing a political belief.  It is an apology, a call to action, a call for reformation.  I believe that revolution is coming, particularly on this issue.  It will change the church forever, and so I ask you, do you have the courage, like Martin Luther and his followers, to answer that call?  I know it's scary, and you may have to risk everything, but you are called to scrutinize teachings in light of the Bible.  And, once you have sought and found the truth, you are called to action.  And you are called to reformation.

One final word, and with this I actually am making an apology in the traditional sense of the word.  To anyone and everyone who has been hurt by the church's traditional views on sexual orientation: please know that I am so sorry and heartbroken that we, the church, have hurt and attacked and shamed you.  That is not who Jesus is.  That is not who I am.  I am sorry for every last tear, every fear, every feeling of shame and rejection.  You are not alone.  You are loved,.  You are loved for exactly who you are.  And who you are and who you love, God has declared it "very good."

Sources:
http://www.soulforce.org/
http://matthewvines.tumblr.com/
www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/
"For The Bible Tells Me So"
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibl.htm
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/

It's All About History

I've often wondered why I’m so uncomfortable with the thought of claiming to be a victim of racism (or reverse racism as it is sometimes worded).  I’ve also always bristled at the thought of arguing that African Americans are no longer oppressed, that racism is over, and that we should all just move on.  I think I've touched on why these ideas bother me so much in my own private musings or  academic writings at one point or another, but it wasn't until I heard U.S. Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps say "It's all about history" (talking about his drive to take so many Olympic and World records) at the same time as I was reading SimpleJustice by Richard Kluger (an in-depth history of African-American's struggle for equality culminating in Brown v. Board of Education, the monumental Supreme Court case mandating school integration) that I was able to fully articulate my discomfort and (at times) outrage at such hypocritical claims of "racism" by people who look like me.

You see, racism isn't some simplistic notion of just reducing an individual to the colour of their skin and nothing more.  Racism involves the systematic and long-term oppression of an entire race by those in power.  The most obvious and clear example of this is the institution of slavery that dominated the political and economic landscape of this country, finally coming to a dramatic and oh-so-bloody clash at the Civil War.

Now, everyone (at least I hope) knows this part.  The part about black people in the South being reduced to chattel from before the very beginning of the Union up until the end of the Civil War.  But I've heard people argue, in one way or another, implicitly or explicitly, that, because the Civil War ended nearly one and a half centuries ago, black people should, essentially, "get over it" and "stop being so sensitive."

But I’ve never been able to wrap my mind around that logic or make that claim myself.  I think that I resisted making such arguments out of the simplistic mentality of not wanting to tell someone else how to feel, especially regarding a sensitive topic like racism, because I have never and will never be able to know what it’s like to be an African-American growing up, living, and working in America.

I don’t know what it’s like to live with the knowledge that the highest court in this land has said that people of my race are “beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the [dominant] race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior that they had no rights that the [dominant race] man was bound to respect.” (Dred Scott v.Sanford, 1857).  It was blacks that were deemed property, and nothing more, by the United States Supreme Court.  It was blacks that the United States Constitution declared to be only three-fifths of a person, and that compromise was only made, blacks were only given even that much humanity, because Southern states wanted to be able to have more Representatives in the United States Congress.

I don’t know what it’s like to know that the same Court that declared African Americans less than human, even after the U.S. Constitution was amended by Congress and the States, reduced those some amendments and protections to something between blank verse and utter rubbish.  And the ex-Confederate States, though harshly scolded during Radical Reconstruction, were allowed to reshape the olive branch handed them by Congress and the Union into a whip to de facto re-enslave the black populace.

I could keep going.  I could go on and on (and on and on…) about all of the ways that the dominant white race in this country has chosen to keep African-Americans in a perpetual undercaste, both socially and politically.  But here is the crux of it: while the Civil War may have ended and thus killed the institution which we openly called slavery, black people could not even claim a prima facie case of political equality until the Civil Rights Movement came to a close less than 50 years ago.  And since then America has been devising and implementing a new racial undercaste scheme: the American mass imprisonment system. Few people recognize the criminal justice system as a tool or racism, and those who point it out are often ridiculed, especially by those on the political right.  But the statistics do not lie (and you can read my senior capstone if you want all of the evidence I have amassed): African Americans, while no more or less likely to commit a crime, are exponentially more likely to both end up in prison and stay in the grasp of the criminal justice system for the rest of their lives.

I cannot claim this history about my race.  I can try to shift the blame and claim that it was never my ancestors holding the whip, that my family members weren’t even in this country till my generation and they weren’t even on this continent until a couple generations ago, but it is still me and the members of my race who share in the privileges of being the perpetual dominant race in this country (since the hostile take-over of the continent by Europeans, that is).

I once did an exercise in a class where I listed both the privileges and struggles I face due to my demographic position in life.  While it was initially uncomfortable to begin verbally listing the number of privileges I benefit from as a white individual, I found the experience unbelievably eye-opening.  Here are just a few on a very long list:

1.     I can hail a cab or get on a bus at any time, day or night, without wondering whether or not the driver will slow down and stop for me.
2.     I can shop in nearly any variety of stores without being eyed by store associates wondering if I’m going to shoplift or steal items.
3.     I can drive my car nearly anywhere, any time without being worried that I will be suspected of doing illicit drugs.
4.     If I wanted to, I could even partake in illicit drugs with little fear of criminal sanctions, as, even in the extremely unlikely scenario that I were caught, I would simply get a slap on the wrist instead of a felony record and 5+ years behind bars.
5.     Despite growing up with an American work visa, then a green card, and, recently, a naturalization certificate, I never have to worry about carrying any of these papers with me, no matter which of the 50 states I travel to.
6.     I can attend prestigious universities or get good jobs without people making the untrue assumption that I was accepted or hired to fulfill some quota or otherwise “politically correct” agenda.
7.     I am positive that I will never be asked to speak on behalf of my entire race nor will any of my successes make me some “star” to represent my race.
8.     I can walk into nearly any store that sells magazines, dolls, posters, or books and find the aforementioned items featuring people of my own skin colour.
9.     I know that the way I dress and talk will never be seen as a testament to the overall poverty, illiteracy, or immorality of white people in this country.
10. When I learned about the history of this nation, I was told stories nearly entirely filled with filled with and championed by people of my own race.

Now I am incredibly used to and comfortable with writing blogs railing against the injustices I face as a women or otherwise decrying oppression of some form that I have faced in my own experience.  It’s a much different, more humbling, and challenging experience to try and write a blog post about a form of oppression that I have never experienced first-hand and that I really only have an academic understanding of. 

So I have a few things I want to clarify: first, I’m not writing this as some form of not-so-subtle jibe at my white peers.  It was just something I needed to get out there.  Second, I’m not writing this to appear as or in any way try and be some “courageous” and outspoken “champion” for black people.  That’s not my role in life.  Just as I wouldn’t want some man, no matter how well-intentioned, to try and put on the mantle of “champion” for all oppressed females, I don’t want to assume that unnecessary role for African-Americans.  One of the greatest forms of oppression is silencing the voices of the oppressed, and such outside “championship” can often have a silencing effect, intentionally or otherwise.  I will, however, always be an ally, just as I invite any and every well-intentioned and (preferably) duly-informed man to be an ally for women in their continual struggle for full equality.  Third, I think the biggest thing that I am continually learning on the topic of racism isn’t about history.  It’s about the present, and it’s about me. 

No matter how much I hate the notion that I have even the tiniest racist bone, cell, or even atom in my body, I live in a country where the unconscious privileges of white people are so omnipresent that it is something that I must continually fight.  I have to suppress the unconscious and deeply loathed instinct to get nervous when I see a group of young African-Americans rowdily walking towards me in a big city.  I have to consciously stop myself from suspecting that every tattooed African-American who walks in wearing street clothes to the Cook County Sheriff’s Office where I intern is either a convict or the family member of one.
Now, it’d be easy for me to try and justify some form of logic behind either one of the aforementioned statements, but the truth is that my logical reasoning applies no more greatly to those of the African-American race than to those of my own race.  My assumptions about those individuals have everything to do with their circumstances and nothing to do with the colour of their skin.  Again, circular reasoning could be used to somehow argue that those circumstances correlate to their skin colour, so there’s nothing wrong with making such assumptions because the assumptions correlate to their circumstances and the circumstances to the skin colour…and on and on…  But as I already stated: it’s circular reasoning.  And the fact of the matter remains that socio-economic standings contribute nearly entirely to these circumstances.

No one deserves to be judged by the colour of their skin alone, but whites do not live with the history and knowledge of longstanding and perpetual subjugation to those of other races.  I will not presume to be able to change the way that my entire race will react to this fact, but I can consciously choose to change the way I react.    And I will merely ask that the rest of us will contemplate these same thoughts, will search out the truth of history and of the present, and will never stop fighting to change the injustices that we live with every day.  It’s not easy and it is rarely readily apparent, but the world can continue to evolve and become a more equality- and justice-filled place.

And there is always hope.  This world will never be perfect and there will always be oppression, injustice and subjugation to contend with, but there is this: I am confident that there will come a day when injustice is eradicated, when personal appearances and circumstances play no part in the way we treat one another.  The day will come when we will be surrounded by the true and full majesty of the Shekinah glory, and on that day, nothing else will matter but our utter awe for Yahweh Himself and our complete and total love for Him and for everyone around us, all of us made in the image of Him whom we worship.  Each of us will be siblings, no matter our appearances, and we will forever stand together as such through Christ’s holy sacrifice. 

Oh, how I long for that day.