Hi everyone. I think we only have 3 more weeks of this class! Isn’t that amazing. I keep wondering where the time went but it will be over soon enough and we will be all off on our merry way to another semester!
The readings this week seemed to be a repetition of the ideas discussed in the texts the last couple weeks. From Recovering the Sacred within part 3 I found the most interesting section to be the part on wild rice, not only did I find it fascinating I can walk away from the reading knowing that wild rice is the state grain of Minnesota, which I am sure that knowledge will surface sometime in the future and impress someone! J It seems though that wild rice is not the only food that has been imposed upon by colonialzation, as well as globalization and the ever-growing capitalist society (who’s only concern is the profit that will be gained.). The very same thing in this present day is happening on rural farms throughout the Midwest with the corn and soybean crops, only the government and private corporations are not using the crops for food products, but now they have shifted to making fuel out of the crops. I am not sure how many of you are aware of this situation, but me being an Illinois farm girl at heart, I will let my inner farmgirl shine and illustrate this to the best of my knowledge. The main ingredient in ethanol is corn. With a nation that has become so hell bent on “going green”, which I cannot argue is a bad thing, the alternative fuel to gasoline and other oil products is corn based ethanol. The private corporations are now making their way across the Midwest offering farmers a very high price for their corn crops, and giving the irresistablity factor of such a high profit, many farmers are agreeing. This though leads to a lesser amount of corn being produced for food products, and that shortage raises the price of corn that food manufacturers have to pay and that makes the price of the final food product higher. We as consumers pay a higher price for our items. But there is one other factor in this capitalist sweep of our Nations farmlands and that is the animals themselves that live on the farms. The rising price of corn also leads to higher costs of feeding and maintaining healthy livestock. Farmers are forced to find alternative foods, but more or less are choosing to breed less. Since the farmer cannot afford to feed larger herds anymore ( I am going to use cows as an example, but any animal that is bred for human consumption can also be inserted in this argument) the meat price of that herd is there for increased. This also is tied directly to the price of milk, eggs, butter and other dairy products being increased so dramatically lately. Milk producing cows need an abundance of nutritious feed to maintain ample milk production and since it is costing so much to keep that cow healthy and producing quality milk in large amounts, the price of milk has to increase. It has come to the point now that we have the option of spending 4 dollars on either a gallon of milk or a gallon of gas. But opting out and using an ethanol powered car, still leaves you paying 4 dollars for a gallon of milk, and in the long run perhaps your ethanol car that you are so proudly driving is the reason that you just spent 4 dollars on a gallon of milk.
This might have been an out of nowhere example but I see a lot of what has happened to the wild rice crop in Minnesota still happening today it is just not a lot of people actually stop to think about exactly what has gone on to allow you to consume the things that we are consuming.
One more point from the wild rice chapter (yes, I liked this chapter) was the mention of “terminator” seeds, which are genetically engineered to not produce further crop after there has been one growth from that seed. That is a brilliant marketing strategy and a good way to make sure that one stays in business. The corporations in this reading WERE the “terminator” seeds because they are the ones who went in and changed an area’s natural resources forever. I am not sure you could even call it a natural resource anymore since its continuation depends on the hands of humans. That natural part just falls away.
To relate this to my comparison with today’s economy and the degree in which ethanol is so glamourized yet killing the corn crop, is an aspect that I am sure scientists are working on, but I have yet to hear anything. If ethanol takes off they may encounter one slight problem with maintaining an ample corn supply. There is a reason that Midwest farms produce corn AND soybeans, not just for food or now fuel production, but because corn does something drastic to the soil. When corn grows it requires a whole lot of nutrients and those nutrients are in the soil, but they aren’t just magically there, they are put there by the soybeans. This is why farmers one summer will have a field of corn and then the next summer will have a field of soybeans, they have to rotate them or else the soil is pretty worthless. So given this relationship between soybeans and corn, how is the government going to make sure that the soil is nutrient rich for the growing of such large demanded amounts of corn?! I am sure they are genetically modifying the soils as we speak, but do you think they ever stop to think “hey guys, we are genetically engineering dirt, are times really this bad and have we really depleted our natural resources this much that dirt is something to be altered?!”
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Sacred Ecology Speech
Sacred Ecology Speech
I attended the speech at Sonoma State last Wednesday night on Sacred Ecology. Overall, it was alright. The main question that the speaker posed was ‘have we lost our connection to nature?’. He opened the speech with what he called “new age” people crying in the woods about the loss of the trees and they were expressing their sadness and anger and what was happening to nature around them. Although the clip was absurd it was weirdly nice to see people caring so much for something, even if it just was trees. (just on a side note, its rare to see anyone get that worked up over anything anymore just because society seems to be so busy and individualistic that the better question to be asked instead of if we have lost connection to nature, but rather have we lost our ability to connect emotionally with anything anymore? But that is just me). He went through world religions and how they view nature in a quick half hour. The most interesting was the animal kinship that Native Americans have with animals. He said there is an “endless recipriocity between humans and animals” which I can agree with. He also posed the perspective that “nature” is a man made category and before it was defined it was just the space people lived in, where ever it may be, and the relationship one had with that space.
He also showed a short biography film of Ansel Adams, a nature photographer who people claimed could see life in a still moment in time in nature. Perhaps.
The question and answer part of the speech was rather uninformative except one lady stated something that I had yet to consider. She said that this generation (my generation) is forced to feel guilty about the state of the environment and are also being held responsible for somehow picking the pieces up and putting it back together, but in fact my generation has inherited a wounded environment that has been abused throughout the many generations before mine. That was the best point of the whole night.
Overall, the speaker seemed well informed and passionate about his perspective on Sacred Ecology, but I have to argue and wonder how realistic he really is. His best quote was this “ if your too romantic about it and don’t look at the dark side, that is not the approach, see the dark with the light”. This is true about everything, not just ecology.
I attended the speech at Sonoma State last Wednesday night on Sacred Ecology. Overall, it was alright. The main question that the speaker posed was ‘have we lost our connection to nature?’. He opened the speech with what he called “new age” people crying in the woods about the loss of the trees and they were expressing their sadness and anger and what was happening to nature around them. Although the clip was absurd it was weirdly nice to see people caring so much for something, even if it just was trees. (just on a side note, its rare to see anyone get that worked up over anything anymore just because society seems to be so busy and individualistic that the better question to be asked instead of if we have lost connection to nature, but rather have we lost our ability to connect emotionally with anything anymore? But that is just me). He went through world religions and how they view nature in a quick half hour. The most interesting was the animal kinship that Native Americans have with animals. He said there is an “endless recipriocity between humans and animals” which I can agree with. He also posed the perspective that “nature” is a man made category and before it was defined it was just the space people lived in, where ever it may be, and the relationship one had with that space.
He also showed a short biography film of Ansel Adams, a nature photographer who people claimed could see life in a still moment in time in nature. Perhaps.
The question and answer part of the speech was rather uninformative except one lady stated something that I had yet to consider. She said that this generation (my generation) is forced to feel guilty about the state of the environment and are also being held responsible for somehow picking the pieces up and putting it back together, but in fact my generation has inherited a wounded environment that has been abused throughout the many generations before mine. That was the best point of the whole night.
Overall, the speaker seemed well informed and passionate about his perspective on Sacred Ecology, but I have to argue and wonder how realistic he really is. His best quote was this “ if your too romantic about it and don’t look at the dark side, that is not the approach, see the dark with the light”. This is true about everything, not just ecology.
Sacred Ecology Speech
Sacred Ecology Speech
I attended the speech at Sonoma State last Wednesday night on Sacred Ecology. Overall, it was alright. The main question that the speaker posed was ‘have we lost our connection to nature?’. He opened the speech with what he called “new age” people crying in the woods about the loss of the trees and they were expressing their sadness and anger and what was happening to nature around them. Although the clip was absurd it was weirdly nice to see people caring so much for something, even if it just was trees. (just on a side note, its rare to see anyone get that worked up over anything anymore just because society seems to be so busy and individualistic that the better question to be asked instead of if we have lost connection to nature, but rather have we lost our ability to connect emotionally with anything anymore? But that is just me). He went through world religions and how they view nature in a quick half hour. The most interesting was the animal kinship that Native Americans have with animals. He said there is an “endless recipriocity between humans and animals” which I can agree with. He also posed the perspective that “nature” is a man made category and before it was defined it was just the space people lived in, where ever it may be, and the relationship one had with that space.
He also showed a short biography film of Ansel Adams, a nature photographer who people claimed could see life in a still moment in time in nature. Perhaps.
The question and answer part of the speech was rather uninformative except one lady stated something that I had yet to consider. She said that this generation (my generation) is forced to feel guilty about the state of the environment and are also being held responsible for somehow picking the pieces up and putting it back together, but in fact my generation has inherited a wounded environment that has been abused throughout the many generations before mine. That was the best point of the whole night.
Overall, the speaker seemed well informed and passionate about his perspective on Sacred Ecology, but I have to argue and wonder how realistic he really is. His best quote was this “ if your too romantic about it and don’t look at the dark side, that is not the approach, see the dark with the light”. This is true about everything, not just ecology.
I attended the speech at Sonoma State last Wednesday night on Sacred Ecology. Overall, it was alright. The main question that the speaker posed was ‘have we lost our connection to nature?’. He opened the speech with what he called “new age” people crying in the woods about the loss of the trees and they were expressing their sadness and anger and what was happening to nature around them. Although the clip was absurd it was weirdly nice to see people caring so much for something, even if it just was trees. (just on a side note, its rare to see anyone get that worked up over anything anymore just because society seems to be so busy and individualistic that the better question to be asked instead of if we have lost connection to nature, but rather have we lost our ability to connect emotionally with anything anymore? But that is just me). He went through world religions and how they view nature in a quick half hour. The most interesting was the animal kinship that Native Americans have with animals. He said there is an “endless recipriocity between humans and animals” which I can agree with. He also posed the perspective that “nature” is a man made category and before it was defined it was just the space people lived in, where ever it may be, and the relationship one had with that space.
He also showed a short biography film of Ansel Adams, a nature photographer who people claimed could see life in a still moment in time in nature. Perhaps.
The question and answer part of the speech was rather uninformative except one lady stated something that I had yet to consider. She said that this generation (my generation) is forced to feel guilty about the state of the environment and are also being held responsible for somehow picking the pieces up and putting it back together, but in fact my generation has inherited a wounded environment that has been abused throughout the many generations before mine. That was the best point of the whole night.
Overall, the speaker seemed well informed and passionate about his perspective on Sacred Ecology, but I have to argue and wonder how realistic he really is. His best quote was this “ if your too romantic about it and don’t look at the dark side, that is not the approach, see the dark with the light”. This is true about everything, not just ecology.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Recovering The Sacred
Recovering The Sacred.
This reading was an interesting turn in the direction that this class has been heading. All of the sudden we shifted from the fear Americans have of one another and the different religions to the “termination” (the term the author used in the reading referring to, in simple terms, the ridding out of Native peoples in certain areas) of entire groups of Native peoples. In a way this shifts fits appropriately. It seems that before the fear and exclusion of the different religions that is taking place today, as evident in ‘A New Religious America’, that Americans (white anglo Christian males to be exact) felt a sense of entitlement and that the Unites States was for them and therefore they had the right to do as they please with it, even if it meant wiping out entire populations of people who had been here way before the white male arrived. In another strange relation to past topics of class, perhaps this is the precise history, that the people who have been committing hate crimes in the direction of the different religions affiliations, cling to and see as an absolute truth and therefore as white American men they have to maintain the tradition of superiority, a tradition that is perhaps a legend of dominance in their minds now.
The reading opened up with the University of Arizona/Christians/white males vs the Apache tribe. The University was purposing building a multi-million dollar telescope on the top of Mt Graham, a sacred place for the Apache. From an outsider perspective this sounds like a logical argument that both sides could be heard and finally come to some sort of agreement or what not. The interesting part that I found was the issue of the Catholic Church stepping in with this project. What do Catholics have to do with space exploration and education? Everything. There was a quote on page 27 that states (spoken by a Vatican astronomer) “should intelligent life be found, the church would be obliged to address the question of whether extraterrestrials might be brought within the fold and baptized”. Am I the only one who found this quote to be borderline humerous? Is this astronomer suggestion that even aliens can be Catholic? Beyond the absurdity of this statement lies something else. The Catholic Church HAS to be the first one to know about extraterrestrials and other life forms that space exploration exposes, for if something was found elsewhere, not on THIS planet that was created FOR man, would their religious beliefs be undermined and questioned? Would the Catholic Church lose their authority within the religious world? In a religion that is often too quick to judge others and exclude people from their religious affiliation, this seems like an awful quick jump to acceptance of all. Is this making assumption that Catholics do not support homosexuality but yet be the first to baptize an alien? I hope that I am not the only one who noticed the misplacement of this quote and the confusion that it raised. I felt that there could have/should have been a lot more exploration and explanation around this idea presented by saying that Catholics would baptize aliens. Perhaps the Catholics feel threatened by this technologically advanced space exploration and feel that they need to appear to be for it and a part of it so that the Catholic Church followers could be told what to believe about alien life forms if they were to be found.
The next few chapters illustrated a few instances where the Native peoples were losing their land, basically they were being screwed out of their land, by the modernization that the white man was involved in. The amount of water that was/is being used to push coal through the transport system should be of concern for all citizens of the United States. Why is this issue not being raised and why do we not hear people talking about this more? The country has been aware of the water shortage that is going to effect us all in the near future, yet why is this transport system still in place? It reminds me of Mulholland’ aqua duct that was built through central California and fed water to Los Angeles county. Muholland has been accused of being greedy and not caring about what he was doing. Once his source for water was used up and there was none left, he just built and robbed another lake until that one was dry and this cycle continued. Mono Lake was destroyed by the greed of this man and Muholland never considered the harm he was doing to the earth or the Native peoples who relied on these stolen lakes for their survival.Its all about greed and people have lacked respect for the earth itself.
This lack of respect is the main theme throughout this reading. Native people have in them the ability to see the earth for its beauty and respect its natural resources. The white man believes that it is his way that is best and his religion that is superior and therefore these Natives customs and traditions are being lost. This is the way I see most organized religions in America behaving. As if their religion is superior and the correct way to live and anyone who does not believe what they believe or have the same morals are considered heathens and not living in the correct way under the eyes of God. Their god. Which in their eyes is the right god.
Overall I have to add that out of all the readings we have done so far this semester, this is the one in which I see them most accurate description and illustration of the greed within the white mans Christianity. The past readings have touched upon this, but before this reading it was all circled around fear, but this reading illustrated more of the greed then fear. Although everyone should be fearful of a religion waiting to baptize aliens.
This reading was an interesting turn in the direction that this class has been heading. All of the sudden we shifted from the fear Americans have of one another and the different religions to the “termination” (the term the author used in the reading referring to, in simple terms, the ridding out of Native peoples in certain areas) of entire groups of Native peoples. In a way this shifts fits appropriately. It seems that before the fear and exclusion of the different religions that is taking place today, as evident in ‘A New Religious America’, that Americans (white anglo Christian males to be exact) felt a sense of entitlement and that the Unites States was for them and therefore they had the right to do as they please with it, even if it meant wiping out entire populations of people who had been here way before the white male arrived. In another strange relation to past topics of class, perhaps this is the precise history, that the people who have been committing hate crimes in the direction of the different religions affiliations, cling to and see as an absolute truth and therefore as white American men they have to maintain the tradition of superiority, a tradition that is perhaps a legend of dominance in their minds now.
The reading opened up with the University of Arizona/Christians/white males vs the Apache tribe. The University was purposing building a multi-million dollar telescope on the top of Mt Graham, a sacred place for the Apache. From an outsider perspective this sounds like a logical argument that both sides could be heard and finally come to some sort of agreement or what not. The interesting part that I found was the issue of the Catholic Church stepping in with this project. What do Catholics have to do with space exploration and education? Everything. There was a quote on page 27 that states (spoken by a Vatican astronomer) “should intelligent life be found, the church would be obliged to address the question of whether extraterrestrials might be brought within the fold and baptized”. Am I the only one who found this quote to be borderline humerous? Is this astronomer suggestion that even aliens can be Catholic? Beyond the absurdity of this statement lies something else. The Catholic Church HAS to be the first one to know about extraterrestrials and other life forms that space exploration exposes, for if something was found elsewhere, not on THIS planet that was created FOR man, would their religious beliefs be undermined and questioned? Would the Catholic Church lose their authority within the religious world? In a religion that is often too quick to judge others and exclude people from their religious affiliation, this seems like an awful quick jump to acceptance of all. Is this making assumption that Catholics do not support homosexuality but yet be the first to baptize an alien? I hope that I am not the only one who noticed the misplacement of this quote and the confusion that it raised. I felt that there could have/should have been a lot more exploration and explanation around this idea presented by saying that Catholics would baptize aliens. Perhaps the Catholics feel threatened by this technologically advanced space exploration and feel that they need to appear to be for it and a part of it so that the Catholic Church followers could be told what to believe about alien life forms if they were to be found.
The next few chapters illustrated a few instances where the Native peoples were losing their land, basically they were being screwed out of their land, by the modernization that the white man was involved in. The amount of water that was/is being used to push coal through the transport system should be of concern for all citizens of the United States. Why is this issue not being raised and why do we not hear people talking about this more? The country has been aware of the water shortage that is going to effect us all in the near future, yet why is this transport system still in place? It reminds me of Mulholland’ aqua duct that was built through central California and fed water to Los Angeles county. Muholland has been accused of being greedy and not caring about what he was doing. Once his source for water was used up and there was none left, he just built and robbed another lake until that one was dry and this cycle continued. Mono Lake was destroyed by the greed of this man and Muholland never considered the harm he was doing to the earth or the Native peoples who relied on these stolen lakes for their survival.Its all about greed and people have lacked respect for the earth itself.
This lack of respect is the main theme throughout this reading. Native people have in them the ability to see the earth for its beauty and respect its natural resources. The white man believes that it is his way that is best and his religion that is superior and therefore these Natives customs and traditions are being lost. This is the way I see most organized religions in America behaving. As if their religion is superior and the correct way to live and anyone who does not believe what they believe or have the same morals are considered heathens and not living in the correct way under the eyes of God. Their god. Which in their eyes is the right god.
Overall I have to add that out of all the readings we have done so far this semester, this is the one in which I see them most accurate description and illustration of the greed within the white mans Christianity. The past readings have touched upon this, but before this reading it was all circled around fear, but this reading illustrated more of the greed then fear. Although everyone should be fearful of a religion waiting to baptize aliens.
Monday, April 7, 2008
This weeks reading in ‘A New Religious America’ left me feelings unfulfilled. The title of the chapter was “Are We Afraid Of Ourselves” and the opening paragraph illustrated what the forthcoming pages may be about, the way in which Americans have an fear and intolerance of otherness (in this case of religious differences), but then the author did not expand on this idea or illustrate any intellect about the subject. Instead the pages were filled with example after example of the violent acts that have been committed upon various religious establishments. Examples are always good, and it can be said that we learn from the mistakes of others, but I think that amount of examples the author used was rather excessive. There was no depth to this chapter and it seems that the author just cut and pasted facts about incidents together, very quickly, and did not give the incidents or the motives behind the incident any intellectual thought. What is driving these people to a state of fear in which they act out in violent ways? She mentioned the hijab (the head piece that women choose to wear) but she did not give that any intellectual thought, but just mentioned about how women who choose to wear the hijab have judged by the way they look. There were so many aspects of this chapter that she left untouched by intellect and I did not enjoy reading this chapter at all. Why didn’t she interview the ones committing these violent acts and ask them why they feel the way they do, why do they commit such violent acts and what societal pressures are they dealing with in which they feel like their violence is somewhat acceptable? Is their violent acts rewarded by their society and or their peer group? I felt like this chapter did not go in depth about what it introduced, but just skimmed the surface of what could have become a very powerful chapter. That jump into awesome writing was never made.
There is one factor that the author did touch upon, at least in minimal detail was the idea of fear of others within society. We are a country governed upon fear. Fear is a tool that we have used against each other since the beginning of time. Why did people supposedly follow Jesus and jump into christrianity? Because they were told that if they didn’t they were going to go to hell and spend their entire afterlife in the flames of damnation. So in that aspect could the beginnings of religion be based on the idea that people can overpower and control others through fear?
These crimes illustrated in this chapter were hate crimes, which essentially are crimes against humanity. The people who commited theses crimes are most likely uneducated and have been fed hate, labels and stereotyped through their peer groups and immediate family and obviously these are negative viewpoints where they have somewhere along the way received some sort of positive reinforcement, something telling them that their actions are somewhat acceptable, and that leads to these behaviors.
These people who are committing these unacceptable hate crimes are victims of the typical American white heterosexual male viewpoint that being such is the norm of American society, and any variation from this man-created stereotypical norm is considered other and should not be tolerated and welcome in this society. If people would just educate themselves and learn about that they have “othered” that other category would go away and everyone could view each other as human beings. If we get rid of our labels of others, then this othering would not exist and the tension between difference would disinagrate and there would be the possibility of equality. This could mean equality not just amongst the various religions of the United States, but also amongst the very different races that are present in the United Sates, and also amongst the different sexes and sexual orientations.
I must say that these uneducated people committing these hate crimes spend an awful lot of time and energy to hate so much. They probably find it exausting to live their daily lives and maintain such a level of ignorance and rage against other human beings. How do they do things such as go to the grocery store? Do simple daily tasks like grocery shopping become stressful situations? Are they walking up and down the grocery store aisles in fear of maybe running in to that “other” and constantly debating in their own head how they are going to react in that particular situation? I have a hard time understanding this level of hatred and the energy it must take to maintain it.
This is the way that the current government has been able to maintain control. The bush administration tells the American people that there are terrorist among us and those terroists are ready to attack and unless you trust W bush then these people will take over our safe country of America. The government is reinforcing this othering of other people, which in a way is justifying the behavior of these hate crimes as in these people feel that their fear is encouraged and accepted by the government. Fear installed into the American people has allowed the current government to do what it wants and have its way within the power structure, and look at the damage that has been caused. All in the name of hate and intolerance. It’s a sad situation. A sad situation that could easily fixed if people took a deep breath and let go of all there inherited sterotypes and open their eyes to the diversity around and realize how boring the world would be if we truly all were the same.
There would be no forward progress without the diversity that is present in the united states today. Change and enlightenment could come through education, and most importantly a new form of government that does not prey on its people through the tool of fear
There is one factor that the author did touch upon, at least in minimal detail was the idea of fear of others within society. We are a country governed upon fear. Fear is a tool that we have used against each other since the beginning of time. Why did people supposedly follow Jesus and jump into christrianity? Because they were told that if they didn’t they were going to go to hell and spend their entire afterlife in the flames of damnation. So in that aspect could the beginnings of religion be based on the idea that people can overpower and control others through fear?
These crimes illustrated in this chapter were hate crimes, which essentially are crimes against humanity. The people who commited theses crimes are most likely uneducated and have been fed hate, labels and stereotyped through their peer groups and immediate family and obviously these are negative viewpoints where they have somewhere along the way received some sort of positive reinforcement, something telling them that their actions are somewhat acceptable, and that leads to these behaviors.
These people who are committing these unacceptable hate crimes are victims of the typical American white heterosexual male viewpoint that being such is the norm of American society, and any variation from this man-created stereotypical norm is considered other and should not be tolerated and welcome in this society. If people would just educate themselves and learn about that they have “othered” that other category would go away and everyone could view each other as human beings. If we get rid of our labels of others, then this othering would not exist and the tension between difference would disinagrate and there would be the possibility of equality. This could mean equality not just amongst the various religions of the United States, but also amongst the very different races that are present in the United Sates, and also amongst the different sexes and sexual orientations.
I must say that these uneducated people committing these hate crimes spend an awful lot of time and energy to hate so much. They probably find it exausting to live their daily lives and maintain such a level of ignorance and rage against other human beings. How do they do things such as go to the grocery store? Do simple daily tasks like grocery shopping become stressful situations? Are they walking up and down the grocery store aisles in fear of maybe running in to that “other” and constantly debating in their own head how they are going to react in that particular situation? I have a hard time understanding this level of hatred and the energy it must take to maintain it.
This is the way that the current government has been able to maintain control. The bush administration tells the American people that there are terrorist among us and those terroists are ready to attack and unless you trust W bush then these people will take over our safe country of America. The government is reinforcing this othering of other people, which in a way is justifying the behavior of these hate crimes as in these people feel that their fear is encouraged and accepted by the government. Fear installed into the American people has allowed the current government to do what it wants and have its way within the power structure, and look at the damage that has been caused. All in the name of hate and intolerance. It’s a sad situation. A sad situation that could easily fixed if people took a deep breath and let go of all there inherited sterotypes and open their eyes to the diversity around and realize how boring the world would be if we truly all were the same.
There would be no forward progress without the diversity that is present in the united states today. Change and enlightenment could come through education, and most importantly a new form of government that does not prey on its people through the tool of fear
Friday, March 7, 2008
White Theology Blogging
White Theology blogging.
In this blog I am going to confront a question that Mo raised in here presentation of the reading. The question is “Do you think that being the people that we are, coming from the society we are currently in, we need labels on everyone and everything? Do you think we would feel comfortable not classifying each piece within our lives?” Well, yes and no, but mostly I would have to say no. The only reason I can even see where labels COULD be needed (this is also quite debatable, but that could be a whole other response [response idea for someone! J]) would be for the simple fact of education. Learning about specific groups of people would be quite hard if that group hadn’t been named in the first place. We don’t have to agree with the way in which a particular group is lumped together, but enlightenment though education comes from studying the ways in which groups are oppressed and this enlightenment carried with it the realization that one does not need to group people together in terms of commonalities/race/sex/gender/sexual orientation and all other group labels that have been assigned throughout the centuries. We learn from the labels of the past that labeling is oppressive and is un-needed, but if they weren’t in place in the first place in history, would we ever learn this?
Other than the previously stated argument/observation, labels have no place in society for their existence is a way to reinforce the power structure in place (the white heterosexual gaze?) and to reassure the powerful (white heterosexual man) that he is in fact the dominant being and social force within society. If labels didn’t exist, since they have for so long, the majority of people would not know what to do with themselves and succumb to almost the state of the neurasthenic man of the early century, where nervousness about one’s status/standing/participation in civilization (normalcy?) overcomes ones overall well-being and he therefore retreats into a state of unproductive nervousness and anxiety. How can a society be productive if its citizen’s are retreating to a state in which no forward growth within civilization can occur?
To paint a simpler picture, when one hears the word labels, one thinks of cans, as in a can of soup or vegetables or some other ration that is marketed in a can. What do these labels tell you? They tell you what is in the can! Would you be able to have a cupboard full of unmarked cans and every night at dinnertime, picking a can not knowing what is inside, but you know that whatever is inside is what you are going to have for dinner? Would you want to know what is coming because there is a chance it may be something that you haven’t liked your entire life, or are you willing to excite yourself on the fact that every dinner is a surprise and you always welcome it and make the most of it? Are you really that predictable? Or what about your recipes? Would you be bitter and stop making your recipes because you cannot be sure that you are going to grab the correct unlabeled can? Would this frustrate you? Maybe you should look for a new recipe, maybe one that doesn’t require a canned item to be used.
That may or may not have worked to illustrate the controlling power of labeling, but I tried to make it simple as possible. But that anxiety of needing a can, but not knowing what can you are going to get, and having that anxiety lead you to the decision of saying “oh well, I just wont eat since I am not going to get that I want” that is the state of regression that the neurasthenic man is experiencing when he throws himself out of civilization because simply, he cant hang anymore.
This is the stress that labels cause! Why is it necessary to know everything and how one’s ranks next to a certain someone or something? This reading illustrated the supremacy that one who does the labeling is reinforcing within him. This is also very much like the “white/male gaze”, while although this “gaze” does not carry along with it certain labels to control and oppress others, it does it in a silent way. The “white male gaze” even if we don’t admit it, controls us (most of us, but I have yet to meet someone who there isn’t at least one aspect of life in which this “gaze” affects them) by instilling within us that our validation as true civilized acceptable human beings in society lies in the eyes of another. We need (or think we need) validation from others and without it true personhood is an unachievable goal. Even in the hetero husband/wife relationship one see’s themselves in the other. The teacher/student relationship (as in Ishmael!) ones enlightenment lies in another. This could be where religion comes into question. For religion is a social construction of the “gaze” and ones salvation lies in the blessing of another, even if it is just silent through a prayer. Society is loses its individuality within the “gaze” and then, in an abrupt turn, tries to regain that individuality that was lost by labeling others and attempting to regain superiority.
It would be hard for society to give up its labels of others, maybe even impossible, but with the enlightenment that education brings one can see how unnecessary and destructive labeling can really be and also see how hard it is to change the way in which people view others. There are so many queer things in society that make is such a fun and exciting environment, if you are hanging out trying to find where you fit, you are probably missing it all. Accept the queerness and move on.
This has been a hard blog to write. My mind is going faster than my fingers can type! It is hard to dissect something so concrete within society
Love, Liz
In this blog I am going to confront a question that Mo raised in here presentation of the reading. The question is “Do you think that being the people that we are, coming from the society we are currently in, we need labels on everyone and everything? Do you think we would feel comfortable not classifying each piece within our lives?” Well, yes and no, but mostly I would have to say no. The only reason I can even see where labels COULD be needed (this is also quite debatable, but that could be a whole other response [response idea for someone! J]) would be for the simple fact of education. Learning about specific groups of people would be quite hard if that group hadn’t been named in the first place. We don’t have to agree with the way in which a particular group is lumped together, but enlightenment though education comes from studying the ways in which groups are oppressed and this enlightenment carried with it the realization that one does not need to group people together in terms of commonalities/race/sex/gender/sexual orientation and all other group labels that have been assigned throughout the centuries. We learn from the labels of the past that labeling is oppressive and is un-needed, but if they weren’t in place in the first place in history, would we ever learn this?
Other than the previously stated argument/observation, labels have no place in society for their existence is a way to reinforce the power structure in place (the white heterosexual gaze?) and to reassure the powerful (white heterosexual man) that he is in fact the dominant being and social force within society. If labels didn’t exist, since they have for so long, the majority of people would not know what to do with themselves and succumb to almost the state of the neurasthenic man of the early century, where nervousness about one’s status/standing/participation in civilization (normalcy?) overcomes ones overall well-being and he therefore retreats into a state of unproductive nervousness and anxiety. How can a society be productive if its citizen’s are retreating to a state in which no forward growth within civilization can occur?
To paint a simpler picture, when one hears the word labels, one thinks of cans, as in a can of soup or vegetables or some other ration that is marketed in a can. What do these labels tell you? They tell you what is in the can! Would you be able to have a cupboard full of unmarked cans and every night at dinnertime, picking a can not knowing what is inside, but you know that whatever is inside is what you are going to have for dinner? Would you want to know what is coming because there is a chance it may be something that you haven’t liked your entire life, or are you willing to excite yourself on the fact that every dinner is a surprise and you always welcome it and make the most of it? Are you really that predictable? Or what about your recipes? Would you be bitter and stop making your recipes because you cannot be sure that you are going to grab the correct unlabeled can? Would this frustrate you? Maybe you should look for a new recipe, maybe one that doesn’t require a canned item to be used.
That may or may not have worked to illustrate the controlling power of labeling, but I tried to make it simple as possible. But that anxiety of needing a can, but not knowing what can you are going to get, and having that anxiety lead you to the decision of saying “oh well, I just wont eat since I am not going to get that I want” that is the state of regression that the neurasthenic man is experiencing when he throws himself out of civilization because simply, he cant hang anymore.
This is the stress that labels cause! Why is it necessary to know everything and how one’s ranks next to a certain someone or something? This reading illustrated the supremacy that one who does the labeling is reinforcing within him. This is also very much like the “white/male gaze”, while although this “gaze” does not carry along with it certain labels to control and oppress others, it does it in a silent way. The “white male gaze” even if we don’t admit it, controls us (most of us, but I have yet to meet someone who there isn’t at least one aspect of life in which this “gaze” affects them) by instilling within us that our validation as true civilized acceptable human beings in society lies in the eyes of another. We need (or think we need) validation from others and without it true personhood is an unachievable goal. Even in the hetero husband/wife relationship one see’s themselves in the other. The teacher/student relationship (as in Ishmael!) ones enlightenment lies in another. This could be where religion comes into question. For religion is a social construction of the “gaze” and ones salvation lies in the blessing of another, even if it is just silent through a prayer. Society is loses its individuality within the “gaze” and then, in an abrupt turn, tries to regain that individuality that was lost by labeling others and attempting to regain superiority.
It would be hard for society to give up its labels of others, maybe even impossible, but with the enlightenment that education brings one can see how unnecessary and destructive labeling can really be and also see how hard it is to change the way in which people view others. There are so many queer things in society that make is such a fun and exciting environment, if you are hanging out trying to find where you fit, you are probably missing it all. Accept the queerness and move on.
This has been a hard blog to write. My mind is going faster than my fingers can type! It is hard to dissect something so concrete within society
Love, Liz
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The Mission
I am not sure if it is required that we post about The Mission, but i am thinking about it. The movie illustrated the one of the very things that bother me most about religion (Christianity to be specific in this case). Religion is something that i assume is suppose to be a personal connection with a higher power, and that connection i am sure vaires within each individual, but how does one go about sharing that connection when in reality no one can feel what that individual feels the way they feel it. Chrisianity is especially good at trying to share/spread this connection with a higher power upon other people. This is always something that i looked down upon and found it irritating. I call this act 'fishing'. Fishing for people to listen and to accept that they too can have the same uplifting connection with a higher power. This spread of religion in this way is disgusting in my eyes, and predadory to an extent.
The movie The Mission was a prime example of fishing for people. The jezawits (i KNOW that is not spelled right!) appeared to have stumbled upon a civilization "above the fours" who were living and had not been influenced by progressions of society going on, i guess, under the fours. (was the "fours" referring to the waterfalls?). It was illustrated in the beginning of the film that this civilization appeared "barbaric" and "uncivlized" and as a community their greatest threat was the growing profitability of the slave market taking place under the fours. This is where my problem with Christian fishing became illustrated. The movie percieved this community as an unstable community who needed to be saved from their own simple existance. Someone, a prophet perhaps, was truly needed to go up into their jungle home and make them aware of the fact that they were in fact in need of being saved. (the prophet also in this movie that was couragous enough to climb the dangerous waterfall barefoot and risk his life to "save" these people was of course a white (heterosexual?) male. and of course he would be, Jesus was supposedly white. right?)
Their "need to be saved" puts them in a situation that the jezawitts view as vulnerable, there for the "uncivililzed" community is weak and easy to take advantage of. This is what the Christian religion i have observed is where how they prey upon people. Finding people in weak states, whether emotionally or physically or any other, and taking advantage of their simple need for positive human interaction.
The community did change and maybe to some "progressed" to a better living situation, but how can anyone judge what is best for them? People, including the jezawits in the movie, have a very narrow view of what it means to be civilized, for what they know of civilization is all created in white heterosexual norms. Perhaps this community above the fours was civilized, they just had a different definition of what being civilized means.
As the village became more "civilized" in the white definition of the term, the community seemed rather akward. The people of this community before the jezawitts came wore very little clothing, but as the white civilization progressed they began covering up more and more. The scene in which the high powered authority figure (i think he was the King, but never quite got exactly what his title was) is taking a tour of the Mission above the fours as he walked into the church the people in the church were all wearing white tshirts and covering themselves. This illustrated the progression into white norms, for good christians dont show off their naked bodies in public. It was rather akward seeing and hearing them sing these christian songs. It seemed like it just didnt fit. Christianity was like a plague that intruded upon this community and was changing every aspect of these peoples prior existance. This bothered me.
Then in the end what happened? To be honest, Christianity is what killed these people. Would the King have ever wandered up above the fours to learn of such an existance if the jezawitts hadnt invited him? The villian (the selfish rich slave trader whom was seeing the mission properties with the king) also had the opportunity to see these Missions which even more enhanced the idea that these people made good workers, as illustrated by their elaborate and profitable missions, which just fueled his desire to claim/hunt these people for slavery and turn a mighty profit for him. Christianity did nothing for these people who had been living above the fours, maybe they did learn some simple social skills and had some fun at times, but as far as Christianity as a saving mechanism, it was in fact the opposite, the reason for their death.
and DeNiro was pretty sexy huh!!!
liz
The movie The Mission was a prime example of fishing for people. The jezawits (i KNOW that is not spelled right!) appeared to have stumbled upon a civilization "above the fours" who were living and had not been influenced by progressions of society going on, i guess, under the fours. (was the "fours" referring to the waterfalls?). It was illustrated in the beginning of the film that this civilization appeared "barbaric" and "uncivlized" and as a community their greatest threat was the growing profitability of the slave market taking place under the fours. This is where my problem with Christian fishing became illustrated. The movie percieved this community as an unstable community who needed to be saved from their own simple existance. Someone, a prophet perhaps, was truly needed to go up into their jungle home and make them aware of the fact that they were in fact in need of being saved. (the prophet also in this movie that was couragous enough to climb the dangerous waterfall barefoot and risk his life to "save" these people was of course a white (heterosexual?) male. and of course he would be, Jesus was supposedly white. right?)
Their "need to be saved" puts them in a situation that the jezawitts view as vulnerable, there for the "uncivililzed" community is weak and easy to take advantage of. This is what the Christian religion i have observed is where how they prey upon people. Finding people in weak states, whether emotionally or physically or any other, and taking advantage of their simple need for positive human interaction.
The community did change and maybe to some "progressed" to a better living situation, but how can anyone judge what is best for them? People, including the jezawits in the movie, have a very narrow view of what it means to be civilized, for what they know of civilization is all created in white heterosexual norms. Perhaps this community above the fours was civilized, they just had a different definition of what being civilized means.
As the village became more "civilized" in the white definition of the term, the community seemed rather akward. The people of this community before the jezawitts came wore very little clothing, but as the white civilization progressed they began covering up more and more. The scene in which the high powered authority figure (i think he was the King, but never quite got exactly what his title was) is taking a tour of the Mission above the fours as he walked into the church the people in the church were all wearing white tshirts and covering themselves. This illustrated the progression into white norms, for good christians dont show off their naked bodies in public. It was rather akward seeing and hearing them sing these christian songs. It seemed like it just didnt fit. Christianity was like a plague that intruded upon this community and was changing every aspect of these peoples prior existance. This bothered me.
Then in the end what happened? To be honest, Christianity is what killed these people. Would the King have ever wandered up above the fours to learn of such an existance if the jezawitts hadnt invited him? The villian (the selfish rich slave trader whom was seeing the mission properties with the king) also had the opportunity to see these Missions which even more enhanced the idea that these people made good workers, as illustrated by their elaborate and profitable missions, which just fueled his desire to claim/hunt these people for slavery and turn a mighty profit for him. Christianity did nothing for these people who had been living above the fours, maybe they did learn some simple social skills and had some fun at times, but as far as Christianity as a saving mechanism, it was in fact the opposite, the reason for their death.
and DeNiro was pretty sexy huh!!!
liz
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Liz!
Hi! since i have not done it yet, here is my introduction. first off, somehow technology left me behind in the last 7 years and i have no idea how to work this blog page , but i think i am kind of figuring it out. it seems like this class hasnt really started yet for some reason. we go to 2 classes, then have 2 weeks off, it just feels odd like its really not part of my schedule yet. but i am sure that will change in the next couple weeks. I did read Ishmael and it wasnt the spiritual uplifting experience that everyone seems to see it as. Maybe i am spiritually stunted or something. My mind just doesnt think like that, or perhaps it does and i just dont stop to take the time to realize it. So this semester is going to be interesting to say the least.
Anyway. my introduction. My name is Elizabeth Mackey, i go by Liz as you all have probably figured out. Its funny when sitting writing about myself i have to stop and think, people actual read this?! Josh Homme from Queens of The Stone Age said once that people who are "bloggers" like on myspace or livejournal are dillusional in thinking that people actually read their "blogs" and care. that always made sense to me because in reality, do you ever read anyone's blogs on myspace or livejournal? Which is a interesting turn because people usually write very well and elaborate on ideas about themselves rather extensively in "blogs", just sucks that they dont get read...
I am 25 years old, ill be 26 in March. I have the life experiences of a 150 year old, but my lifestyle and mindset is that of a 18 year old. I am blissfully unemployed and go to school full time. I am a Women's and Gender Studies major with a minor in Women's Health and i have no intentions of doing social work when i am done with my schooling. Madeline Albright said "there is a special place in hell for women who dont help other women", and that is entirely true, but social work is not what i see myself doing, but i do intend to surround myself women in my career field.
I am a single mother of a little boy. His name is Avery Vengeance Mackey, named after the RAD guitarist of Avenged Sevenfold (that is a story in itself that i shall spare you.). he turned 2 on january 12th and i am very thankful that i chose to have children, well A child, in my young adult years because i dont think that in 10 years my body would have the energy that it takes to keep up with a 2 year old. Me and Avery's life is one giant learning experience for the both of us.
i am obsessed with music and everything about music. its what i live my life in and what i live for. and i think the best place in the world to be is at a live show. (thats where the only spirituality really exists in my life) standing there at a live show closing your eyes and feeling the music is the best high anyone could ever ask for.
i live in Novato CA. i love Novato, its my town and my people. i have moved around a whole lot all over the country, but always end up back in novato.
anything else, just ask, i dont hold anything back and tell the truth, so shoot!
love liz
Anyway. my introduction. My name is Elizabeth Mackey, i go by Liz as you all have probably figured out. Its funny when sitting writing about myself i have to stop and think, people actual read this?! Josh Homme from Queens of The Stone Age said once that people who are "bloggers" like on myspace or livejournal are dillusional in thinking that people actually read their "blogs" and care. that always made sense to me because in reality, do you ever read anyone's blogs on myspace or livejournal? Which is a interesting turn because people usually write very well and elaborate on ideas about themselves rather extensively in "blogs", just sucks that they dont get read...
I am 25 years old, ill be 26 in March. I have the life experiences of a 150 year old, but my lifestyle and mindset is that of a 18 year old. I am blissfully unemployed and go to school full time. I am a Women's and Gender Studies major with a minor in Women's Health and i have no intentions of doing social work when i am done with my schooling. Madeline Albright said "there is a special place in hell for women who dont help other women", and that is entirely true, but social work is not what i see myself doing, but i do intend to surround myself women in my career field.
I am a single mother of a little boy. His name is Avery Vengeance Mackey, named after the RAD guitarist of Avenged Sevenfold (that is a story in itself that i shall spare you.). he turned 2 on january 12th and i am very thankful that i chose to have children, well A child, in my young adult years because i dont think that in 10 years my body would have the energy that it takes to keep up with a 2 year old. Me and Avery's life is one giant learning experience for the both of us.
i am obsessed with music and everything about music. its what i live my life in and what i live for. and i think the best place in the world to be is at a live show. (thats where the only spirituality really exists in my life) standing there at a live show closing your eyes and feeling the music is the best high anyone could ever ask for.
i live in Novato CA. i love Novato, its my town and my people. i have moved around a whole lot all over the country, but always end up back in novato.
anything else, just ask, i dont hold anything back and tell the truth, so shoot!
love liz
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Ishmael post.. i posted in the right spot i think now.
Liz Mackey
Ishmael
This book surprised me in many ways that I did not expect it to. First, in asking around and wondering what people thought of this book that had already read it, they expressed great satisfaction in the book and seemed to explain it with some sort of excitement as if I was reminding them of a past time that they were greatly invested in. I was not surprised by people’s descriptions, what I was surprised about its why didn’t I experience this book the way that other people had. I did enjoy the ease of the book but still after reflection I am not getting this great profound experience.
Another issue that surprised me was the white male patriarchal views expressed throughout the book. Even the fact that there was a giant black gorilla in explaining to the white student (assuming he was white) what exactly captivity meant and the way in which the white male society has seemed to mess up the civilized experience for all, especially the ones who live within captivity. This is what I saw as “man’s greatest flaw’ the act of one human objectifying another human being and force them to live in captivity. Yes, the “white, patriarchal man” has succeeded in systematically destroying the earth and robbing the earth’s natural recourses, but he has also been very successful in the downfall of civilized people. Essentially this “white, patriarchal man” is the threat that is the main focus point within the interaction between Ishmael and his student.
Ishmael
This book surprised me in many ways that I did not expect it to. First, in asking around and wondering what people thought of this book that had already read it, they expressed great satisfaction in the book and seemed to explain it with some sort of excitement as if I was reminding them of a past time that they were greatly invested in. I was not surprised by people’s descriptions, what I was surprised about its why didn’t I experience this book the way that other people had. I did enjoy the ease of the book but still after reflection I am not getting this great profound experience.
Another issue that surprised me was the white male patriarchal views expressed throughout the book. Even the fact that there was a giant black gorilla in explaining to the white student (assuming he was white) what exactly captivity meant and the way in which the white male society has seemed to mess up the civilized experience for all, especially the ones who live within captivity. This is what I saw as “man’s greatest flaw’ the act of one human objectifying another human being and force them to live in captivity. Yes, the “white, patriarchal man” has succeeded in systematically destroying the earth and robbing the earth’s natural recourses, but he has also been very successful in the downfall of civilized people. Essentially this “white, patriarchal man” is the threat that is the main focus point within the interaction between Ishmael and his student.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)