There are only two movies in my lifetime that I ever cried on–or rather allowed myself to cry on. The reuniting scene of Celie and Nettie in “The Color Purple” was the first one at age ten when I snuck and finished watching the movie and was careful to keep my back turned so my parents wouldn’t know I cried over it, and last night the movie “Precious” prompted me to shed a tear.
In short, “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire” is the story of 1987 Harlem with an overweight, daresay obese, black, dark-skinned, teenage girl who has been impregnated twice by her father and lives in an apartment with here extremely abusive mother, named Mary, who not only hurls vehement verbal assaults against her, but indeed commits extreme physical violence against her own daughter. This is the basic story line of a tranche de vie movie that doesn’t have a simple plot line per se, but seeks to tell a story. The movie was adopted from the novel Push by the author Sapphire.
I had heard the hype about the movie and how it got rave reviews at the Sundance Movie Festival, and I heard two interviews on NPR from the director Lee Daniels and from the author Sapphire herself. But much more I hadn’t heard prior to the opening weekend one week ago from the date of this blog post. That being said, I had seen the trailers, and had heard that it shattered box office expectations last week with its limited release, and last night it was a sold out crowd in the movie house.
What has surfaced was a chorus of harsh criticism that at the base is alleging exploitation of the stereotypical “big, black and ugly” black woman. Leading the pack has been Armond White with his online review or just as harshly Anthony Smith with his title “‘Precious’ Fails the Black Community” and of course some others throughout the online world have touted this as nothing more than “poverty porn.” I think what this highlights above nothing else is the vast class differences amongst our own community.
Aside from the run-of-the-mill hating that most blacks heap upon Oprah Winfrey and Tyler Perry for various and sundry reasons, what I noticed was that largely the black community doesn’t know how to handle a “Precious” motif. Smith wrote
Yet in marketing the motion picture “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphired, the producer and director, Lee Daniels boldy affirms that, “I know this chick. You know her. But we just choose not to know her.” Rather by choice or circumstance, let me be the first to say that I do not know Precious, and I have a hunch that most other black Americans don’t know her, either.”
For those that “don’t know Precious” I must ask the questions why don’t you know her, and what’s so wrong with getting to know her? In the grand scheme of things, why many (I won’t say most) black Americans don’t know “Precious” is because of the vast class differences in which many of exist.
Now the movie had interesting cinematography which made it borderline documentary to some sort of Disney channel show; showing the various mental breaks with reality that Precious had when she had her various low moments such as her raping her. The movie went from the stark reality of life to her being some glizty and glamorous showstopper on the red carpet or dancing in a ball room–all accompanied by her light skinned boyfriend. But, I think that’s reality. Too many in the theaters actually laughed at those scenes because of the perceived idiocy of the idea of a big, dark skinned female being able to walk a red carpet, or to even have a light skinned boyfriend. There was the ballroom scene and the imaginary boyfriend was licking her in the ear, and the audience responded with an “ewwww” especially the two young women sitting next to me. I couldn’t help but wonder if a Shemar Moore was licking the ear of a Nicole Ari Parker if the “ewwwws” would have turned into sensual “ooooohs.”
What I’m saying is that society has made “Precious” a caricature and exploitative, not the director Lee Daniels and certainly not executive producers Tyler Perry and Oprah Winfrey. And in Oprah’s defense, we all know her story, she was told as a youngster that she was “too big” and “too black” so why would anyone be shocked at her support of this movie. I think this movie offends the sensibilities of too many middle class blacks. It automatically makes them thankful for their current situation which really sets up a judgmental ideal of really saying “I’m glad I’m not the ‘other.’” Moreover, middle class blacks in order to remain in relative comfort must view “Precious” as a caricature in order to maintain their own sanity and not be consumed by guilt.
And let’s be clear about the caricature status because it’s essentially declaring “Precious” as not real. If middle class blacks can somehow see the “Precious” motif as not real, then the rest of the movie and the rest of life is viewed as mere hyperbole and unrealistic and really not worthy of our time and effort. This is an easy jump for many middle class blacks who had to drive into the inner cities to movie theaters that actually were showing the movies because many of them were driving back to the suburban and ex-urban homes never to think about this movie again. This idea is supported by Smith who writes:
This film is as dangerous as it is offensive, and it is not representative of any community, past or present. The narrative about a young, unloved victim is intellectually and socially dishonest. Daniels relies on overly objectionable imagery and perverse cinematic devices to provoke emotion from the audience, all the while offering no true explanation of events, no link between cause and effect, no solution and no opportunity to deliberate, just action — vile, disgusting, and inhumane acts of violence, apathy, abuse and rape. [emphasis added]
I think what’s at issue is that blacks are still struggling for a unified identity that always pits a “The PJs” versus “The Cosby Show” dichotomy. While this movie highlights stereotypes such as Precious stealing a bucket of fried chicken–because her mother didn’t have food in the refrigerator–middle class blacks seems to forget that indeed this is a lived reality for many people. We can get too caught up in trying to portray the Cosby’s not just for the sake of white sensibilities, but also for our own appeasement. I’m of the school of thought that we must continue to hold the mirror up to ourselves and use it not just as a reflecting tool, but as a correcting tool.
If we would believe those of the Smith and White camps, they would have you believe that “Precious” is a machination of Perry, Winfrey and Daniels for the sake of capitalizing on black stereotypes just to make an easy buck and shift our collective concerns away from real issues. Neither of them suggest indeed what the real issues are and come off as two individuals so secluded in the ivory tower that if “Precious” walked up to them, they’d dismiss her as a figment of their imagination.
On the other hand,I chalked up the roles of Ms. Rain, the welfare social worker and the obstetric nurse played by Paula Patton, Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz respectively as yet again real life. All of the nice people in this movie were played by comparatively light skinned individuals. Some took issue with casting as such, but first, I was so rocked by the performances of Mo’Nique as Mary, the mother of Precious and of Gabourey Sibide as Precious, that I didn’t even really notice skin color until I saw a tweet from Thembi who made note of it. In real life, light skinned people tend to be in the upper ranks of the society.
Seriously, drive through the local hood of your city, town or hamlet and tell me how many light skinned people do you see standing on the street corner?
Granted this movie might have been cinematically schizophrenic from the relative high comedic moments of the other girls in the remedial reading class at the alternative school from both Joanna (who I might add with her dress looked more circa 2009 than 1987) and from the Jamaican student named Rhonda, to the low moments when you could clearly see Mary having had a break with reality and how Precious was forced to navigate the waters of living with a mentally insane, it was indeed, reality. Some took issue that this movie had no ending and was very open ended, to those I simply ask, is that not life? Life never truly answers questions, we want it to, we at times need it to, but just like Precious, we take what we have and we walk off into the unknown unaware of what the future holds, just desperately hoping and praying that we know the One who holds the future.
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
Filed under: Church and Society, Down in the Bookstore: Musings from the Classroom, Politics, Religion, The Color Line
As I was writing the first post, I thought about the fact that there really is a segment of Christianity in this country that truly feels that politics and religion don’t mix. That is to say, that all they need to do is preach Jesus, and him crucified, dead, buried and resurrected and all will be okay. Some black preaching scholars, such as Cleophus LaRue in his book The Heart of Black Preaching and Olin P. Moyd in The Sacred Art don’t necessarily agree that by divorcing politics from the pulpit is standing in the black preaching tradition. Most recently Obery Hendricks wrote the widely popular, yet criticised book The Politics of Jesus and that even gained him a spot with Bill O’Reilly along with local Atlanta pastor Timothy MacDonald in the midst of the Jeremiah Wright fallout spring of 2008.
The clip notwithstanding, black Pentecostals are a largely underrepresented, if not unrepresented group of black Christians who are a significant part of Black America. The majority of them identify with the Church of God in Christ which today is finishing up their annual pilgrimage (literally) to Memphis, Tennessee where their world headquarters is located for what is known as Holy Convocation which spans eight days the first full week of November of every year. They’ve been in existence for now 102 years. Other black Pentecostal denominations are Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW), Church of Christ (Holiness) and other smaller fellowships such as Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ, such as Fire Baptized Holiness and even still Mt. Calvary Holiness Church (which is famous for their megachurch in Washington, D.C. pastored by Bishop Alfred Owens). And there are many others which I haven’t mentioned.
To their credit, they often times ascribe to asceticism in the belief that they will get their rewards in the sweet by-and-by. The major criticism that many social justice and non-Pentecostals blacks ask is “what about the nasty now-and-now?” Historically speaking, you rarely heard about black Pentecostal ministers aligning themselves with the modern-Civil Rights movement and even still today, you rarely hear about black Pentecostal churches speaking about about local civil rights issues in various cities. The big joke in ecclesiastical circles is that the Church of God in Christ (COGIC) solidified themselves with the Civil Rights movement because Martin Luther King gave his final “I’ve Been To The Mountaintop” speech at the famed Mason Temple COGIC which was the largest meeting place for blacks at the time and named after their founder Bishop Charles H. Mason.
Damn if that wasn’t a good speech.
Sorry, back to the topic at hand…
That being said, there is a significant section of the black populace that has no real issues with the political climate of this country. They believe that if they do good, follow Jesus and all that other good church stuff, believe in this “kingdom theology” that indeed, somehow, God will work it all out. I daresay that taking that mindset still buys into the ideals of the Empire.
I say that because Pentecostalism in this country is a safe religion.
Pentecostalism doesn’t challenge the empire, or rather the government. By believing that indeed “God will fight your battles” and you need do nothing but pray, tarry, tithe in addition to all of the other good church stuff, then you’re doing nothing to upset the government. While I’ve visited a few Pentecostal churches, ranging from big megachurches to small storefronts, I’ve never directly heard from the pulpit the direct connection to materialism that I’ve heard far too often from some Baptist preachers and of course from those who make it on TBN and the Word Network. Generally, I hear the sermons that are birthed out of the “holiness or hell” theology that generally is a call to some sort of personal piety. However, while you never hear sermons about material abundance, you always hear this mantra that seems to be the catch phrase in this neo-Pentecostal age that says “Favor Aint Fair.”
To be honest, this whole two part blog was birthed when the choir director who I’m playing with asked me to learn Vashawn Mitchell’s “Favor (Aint Fair)
I can’t to explain, ain’t gon even try
He’s granted me special praise
and I don’t the reason why.
He’s got his hands on me, I got to testify
I can’t explain it but our God is ableDont ask me how, don’t ask me why
When you see the rain falling, get under the clouds
He’s got his hands on me, I got to testifyNot that I’ve been so good, but He’s been kind
Don’t deserve his praise, but He still provides
but he keeps blessing me, I’ve got the victoryFavor, aint fair. But it’s, on me.
We use this “favor aint fair” as an excuse to explain our material trappings and what God has done to bless us. Kind of like in that old black and white movie with the all black cast “Cabin In The Sky” when Little Joe won the sweepstakes of $10,000 (a lotta money in 1941) and it was really the devil that had set him up with the money, but Joe had declared that it was a blessing from God. Well, it similar. We interpret our materialism as a blessing from God, so while we may preach a meek and mild and lowly Jesus, one who was so poor and broke, he didn’t even have somewhere to stay and was dependent upon the benevolence of others, the “favor aint fair” ideal explains why pastors and big time preachers have tailor made suits, live in the suburbs far from the communities their churches are situated, have three and four cars and fly off to conferences all across the country preaching and getting $50,000 in an offering.
“Favor aint fair” runs into a problem however when you start talking about why do bad things happen to good people. In comes the Word of Faith movement that says it’s because you haven’t given enough money to the church and that your faith isn’t strong enough.
Perhaps favor wasn’t fair in the Old Testament where clearly Yahweh was aligned with the Israelites and was anti-anything else, but in the New Testament, clearly, I mean CLEARLY there’s soooo many verses that speak against “partiality” and encouraging others to not be a “respector of persons.” So why would God do that if we’re not supposed to?
Yet again, this “favor aint fair” allows for Christians to engage in the full participation of the religion of Americanity and worship the twin gods of Capitalism and Consumerism. I believe even as Paul mentions the “altar to the unknown God” in Acts 17 as he gives his speech in the Areopagus, that many of us do that with Christianity–we’ll leave the door open to get away with some stuff as a “just in case” mindset. That just in case God is okay with me having the big house, then let me go ahead and get it. Or you can fill in whatever material trapping you want.
I’m merely suggesting that we be aware of what we’re doing here when it comes to our religion versus our citizenship.
It’s easy for African Americans to say that we historically were and even now forced to choose between our culture versus being an American citizen, just ask W.E.B. DuBois and his excursus on “double consciousness” so it’s not a new question for us in this Second America, but rather, we’ve always thought of religion to be some pure entity directly from a deity. I’m suggesting that for the most of us as Christians in this country, we take our cue from society and the secular–Americanity–and then somehow make God and the church fit into that paradigm.
Don’t feel bad though, we’ve been doing that since the first state run church was established with Constantine with the Edict of Milan (I think) in the early 300s when he did away with Christian persecution. Perhaps the closest we came actually was the United States to breaking away from church and state, but that was mainly because the framers of the Constitution were damn near atheists (in actuality they were Deists) and for them they had already seen what religion had done. However, thanks to the First Great Awakening, American Christianity already had a foothold in colonial life that easily spilled over after the establishment of the United States. This American brand of Christianity that came out of the First Great Awakening laid the ground work for the dominion of this country in the name of God. It gave fuel to the slavery movement down south (well, up north for that matter as well) and it gave rise to the argument behind “manifest destiny” that allowed for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803 and the literal conquering of the already inhabited land.
This, believe it or not goes in part and parcel with the conquest stories found in the book of Joshua. Do not the Israelites send out Joshua and Caleb to spy into the land much like the Merriwether Lewis and William Clark, bka. Lewis and Clark Expedition of 1804, they come back and then encourage people to settle the land (think Oregon Trail with the thousands of settlers moving out west) and they have many battles over the next 50 or so years literally killing off the inhabitants (think of the the numerous Indian massacres that happened out west). And between the Christian canonical books of Joshua to 1 Kings, you have the former inhabitants become assimilated into the new dominant culture and you finally have the story of the victors with the pinnacle of the story being King George W. Bush David.
If you’ve never made those connections, don’t feel bad, this was not that one Sunday you skipped for the big game or to go shopping for a holiday weekend sale, because they didn’t teach that in Sunday school. We’re not taught to think like that, because it’s considered anti-American Christian. I mean, nowadays progressives and liberals side with the Indians, but these same progressives and liberals never once think about the Amalekites, the Amorites, the Gibbeonites, the Cannanites or the Perizites in the same way–because Joshua had a mandate from God to do what he did.
Hmm, I guess favor really aint fair.
What are your thoughts on this topic? Have I just blasphemed God–or blasphemed America with this topic? How hard is it to change your traditional ways of thinking on subjects such as this? Or do you outrightly reject this notion simply because it goes against the core of your traditional and embedded beliefs? What would it take for you to change your thoughts?
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
This is for those who don’t seem to get it:
CHRISTOPHER MAURICE BROWN, AKA CHRIS BROWN WAS WRONG AND SHOULD NOT HAVE HIT ROBYN RIHANNA FENTY, AKA RIHANNA. NO EXCUSES, NO EXPLANATIONS!
That being said, here goes.
As our respective Twitter followers discovered last Friday night, me and Thembi of What Would Thembi Do? got into a discussion surrounding the Chris Brown and Rihanna domestic abuse situation. As I understand the situation, Chris Brown was wrong. There’s no way he should have beat his girlfriend the way he did.
And that’s usually about where I get off on the bandwagon with people.
I get off because generally I go elsewhere with how to address the situation. First for me, I always ask what did the woman do to provoke the man. Yes, by far there are some crazy men like Blair Underwood’s character in “Madea’s Family Reunion” but then there are some men who are henpecked and just snap, or their are other men who seriously have been provoked by the woman beating on them or hitting on them unnecessarily. Usually when I bring up this subject with black women in the blogosphere it somehow causes some of them to go into angry black woman territory.
And as a side note, I have a history of falling out with black women in the blogosphere. Just ask about Christian Progressive Liberal over at Jack and Jill Politics. Had to do a whole blog about that. And believe it or not, we fell out on the same subject of Chris Brown and Rihana.
Anywayz…
It seems that when I admit a fault about black men–those who can’t keep their hands to themselves–that the women acted as if, pardon the pun, their shit don’t stink. I’m not at all advocating a black woman who should be docile and quiet, but there are times when black women I think ought not be so provocative.
That’s IMO.
From hearing younger black women and older black women at my school, black women have been severely hurt and traumatized by the society we live in. They’ve had the double negative of being black and being a woman in a world run by white heterosexual men. You easily hear stories about black female angst however. Take Lorraine Hansberry’s “A Raisin in the Sun” or “The Autobiography of Miss Jane Pitman” or even the famous choreopoem “For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow is Enuf” and not to mention the world famous “The Color Purple.” But often times, those works of art that we in the black community hold near and dear to us elevate black women at the expense of black men.
I remember my mother when I was about nine or ten and watched “The Color Purple” for the first time that my mother was quite clear that she had a problem with their being not one good black man in the entire movie–not even Shug’s daddy who was a preacher because he put her out when she was a young girl. Now, as I got older, I see why the black feminist and womanist movement exist, but this idea that “we don’t need men” is detrimental to the black community and ultimately the black family.
Usually the black trumps the man when they say “we carry your babies for nine months and go through labor. If it wasn’t for us there wouldn’t be you!” and storms out the room.
What kind of asinine thinking is that?
Hell, what’s wrong with saying that we both help in the pro-creation process and that we need each other? I guarantee that if there weren’t any men, women wouldn’t be falling on each other expecting babies to magically appear.
Black women have their own set of issues that, from my point of view, generally some how come around to placing blame on someone. Namely the black male. I’ve never heard an argument here in grad school or undergrad that spoke about the powers that be or anyone else, but generally spoke to how black women have to go it alone with jobs, kids, and other issues and that if the black man stepped up to the plate everything would be alright.
Well, I have news for you sistas: even if more black men stepped up to the plate, we’d still have issues because both genders have their own specific issues that need to be addressed communally and not individually.
#1 First for me is the idea of gender roles. Black women still want to be Miss Independent, but then still want a man to open the door for them and pay for their meals–without questions. I’m all for equal pay in the workplace and that sexual harassment is just abominable, but then attractive women know how to play the game and use their beauty to get what they want.
Let’s just admit it’s a double standard.
Which brings me back to the domestic abuse case surrounding Chris and Rihanna. We easily take on Rihanna as some petite, fragile creature who’s a woman = she can’t defend herself and how dare the big bad and burly Chris Brown hit and such a delicate and beautiful young woman. Well, I wanna know what happened to the women’s empowerment platform? Couldn’t she have knocked him back or scratched him up or something?
And I know the black community had a totally different reaction to the Juanita Bynum and Bishop Charles Weeks III incident. It was much more common to hear on the morning black radio shows of Tom Joyner, Steve Harvey and Ricky Smiley about Juanita Bynum possibly having incited her husband to pushing her to the ground. Seriously, what’s wrong with that image?
In all seriousness, gender roles really are asking one to define what is masculinity and what is femininity. As I’ve discussed concerning the skinny/fitted jeans and metrosexual fashion, those traditional paradigms concerning masculinity are changing and are being challenged. Fact of the matter is that some black women said they’re not attracted to it–I still think it’s code for “he’s too gay” and whatever else that means. By the same token, some women are. What I will say is that this is an issue that needs to be dealt with communally, not by going off somewhere to address it.
#2 Be aware of outside forces. Yes, black women have gotten the shaft, the ROYAL shaft, but I beg the sistas to be aware that so have the men. While women have the gender privilege of always going off, and voicing their opinion ad infinitum and even being the stereotypical nag, black men have the gender privilege of being quiet and holding it all in. Black men of my dad’s generation and definitely older, can easily count on their one hand the number of times they saw their father’s cry, and still have fingers left. Black men were required to endure just as much as black women were–just different trials.
While black women were forced being raped physically in the antebellum and Jim Crow days of the South, I think it was just as much of an emotional and spiritual rape for black fathers and men to know about it and not be able to do anything–and frankly I don’t know which one was worse or if they should even be compared.
That being said, historically, there’s been tracked pathologies as to the government breaking up the African family, all the way from slavery to at least the 1960s. I mean, in order to receive a public aid check, the black male couldn’t be caught living in the house with the woman. Which means that there was always some kind of cat and mouse game that had to go on with the father whether he could actually live there, sleep there or just come and visit–whatever the case, the black man wasn’t at home like he should have been. And even if he was, it was hard as hell for him to get a job that would easily support his wife and kids. Far as I know, black families have always been double-income families. Don’t know of many black stay-at-home mothers.
I mean, just think in “Good Times” where you had a black man killed by the system and everyone focused on the woman–not saying she didn’t need anything–but it was done so at the expense of the black man: hell he was dead!
So now, when we see the after effects of black men not being in the home, we have this cycle of violence that Thembi appropriately pointed out that must be stopped.
I really don’t have time to go into the details of the crack/cocaine conspiracies, the lack of opportunities, the lack of education, mistrust from the police, the failure of public housing and just how humanity has failed black males to fully give voice to the myriad of concerns surrounding black males. But I will say this, it’s not as simple as it seems.
#3 Be willing to work together. I’ve never heard a black man say that he doesn’t need a woman, but I’ve heard a few black women say “I don’t need a man.” And then black women wonder why some black men are running to white women. Well, why in the hell would I want to get with someone who said she don’t need me?!!?
Commone sense people.
Black women need to understand that we’re on the same team fighting for them; that black men are not the enemy. Stop pushing us away and we’ll stop going to others looking for comfort. It’s true, other races don’t give us as much guff for being men, and moreover for being black men. On a practical basis, again, why would I want to get beat up for being a man? Seriously, I wanted to tell Yvette in “Baby Boy” to “shut the fuck up” in Bernie Mac style (check minute 2:55) a couple of times, despite Jodie being the epitome of an immature black male.
Also, black women need to realise that some times black men marry white women because they actually grew up in white neighborhoods. I have a cousin who went to school in Iowa and he married a white woman–big whoop! I’da been more shocked if he had married a black woman. At the end of the day, they have a marriage that works and they have four kids who are my blood relatives–anyone who sees it as different needs to get their mind checked.
Let black women tell the story over 50% of black men are in interracial relationships. Only 6.6% of black men have married a white woman of the 8.4% of black men total who are in an interracial marriage.
Of the issues that are numerous in the black community, separating the genders isn’t going to address these issues. By telling black men to go off and get their ish together then come back and holla at the sistas is a recipe for disater unparalleled. I guess for me, doing the opposite of what was done to you–the oppressed becoming the oppressor–does nothing but perpetuate a vicious cycle on some phantasmagoric merry-go-round from hell that spins so fast no one can get off.
*************
For interested parties, this was really the timbre of the discussion that spurred from me and @thembithembi from What Would Thembi Do? as we were all watching the 20/20 interview with Dianne Sawyer interviewing Rihanna. Make sure to check out her blog and much love and respect to her.
*************
For my actual take on the Chris Brown and Rihanna situation, that interview didn’t change much of my original take on the situation. To know how I felt check out my earlier posts “Things I Learned From Chris Brown and Rihanna” and “Oh, P.S., On a Final Note…Since I Have The Floor.”
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
Filed under: Church and Society, Down in the Bookstore: Musings from the Classroom, Politics, Religion, The Color Line
It’s kind of like the Civil War where brothers fought across the Mason-Dixon line. I don’t want to stain my faith. I don’t want to stain my fellow Muslims and I don’t want to stain my country’s flag.”
– Ardi Arkun, 32, of Lindenhurst, N.Y., who joined the Marines in 2000 and was deployed to Iraq, on the complicated position of soldiers who are Muslim.
After Paul and Silas had passed through Amphipolis and Apollonia, they came to Thessalonica, where there was a synagogue of the Jews. And Paul went in, as was his custom, and on three sabbath days argues with them from the scriptures, explaining and proving that it was necessary for the Messiah to suffer and to rise from the dead saying, “This is the Messiah, Jesus whom I am proclaiming to you. Some of them were persuaded and joined Paul and Silas, as did a great many of the devout Greeks and not a few of the leading women. But some Jews became jealous, and with the help of some ruffians in the marketplaces they formed a mob and set the city in an uproar. While they were searching fro Paul and Silas to bring them out into the assembly, they attacked Jason’s house. When they could not find them, they dragged Jason and some believers before the city authorities, shouting “These people who have been turning the world upside down have come here also, and Jason has entertained them as guests. They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying there is another king named Jesus.”
–Acts 17:1-8, New Revised Standard Version
I woke up this morning and saw the first quote on the New York Times mobile email I get sent to my phone about 6:45 every morning. And it yet again dawned on me on the duality that many people are forced to live in as citizens of an empire.
Let’s be clear, any of us living here in the United States of America are not merely citizens of a country, nor a kingdom, but indeed an empire. Think about it, when your country has to spend vast amounts of money on the military, it is indeed an empire. Generally empire’s are not thought of well outside of the empire–and our international image still has a long way to go. Historically empires have been seen as some ad-mixture of political and most certainly military domination of an entire region that encompasses one or more different types of ethnic backgrounds. That is to say, the United States from the beginning was an empire in the making; clearly this country is a melting pot.
Now, I’m not going so far as to say that the United States is an empire of old just running roughshod over any and everyone unchecked–although you could ask certain ethnic groups that question and they’d probably spit in your face–however, I am quite clear that the U.S. is a new updated, 21st century model of what an empire is. Empire 2.0 if you will.
That being said, I think it’s awful that we live in conditions where one is forced to check their religion at the door for the sake of citizenship. Which therefore means that the gods of Americanity, Capitalism and Consumerism are supreme to the individual deity that the First Amendment guarantees.
Work with me here.
Without the shadow of a doubt, we, as American citizens worship the supreme god of Americanity, lock stock and barrel. We give over tithes and offerings every time we walk into a mall. We sacrifice our morals and our basic standards just to appease the gods when we walk into the altars WalMart and Target and watch our money be burned up–we offer the best to them. And then in typical imperial fashion, we’ve allowed our individual religion to be tainted and understood in the terms of Americanity–that’s why we have the Word of Faith movement, prosperity gospel, this “kingdom theology” and good-God, yes, even Joel Olsteen.
Americanity allowed Joel Olsteen to get on “The View” last week and declare that God wants us to have homes, cars and a good job and promotions on that job. Really? Once we begin to equate God’s blessings with our “stuff” we’ve missed the boat. If we interpret the John 10:10 passage about Jesus coming that we might have life “more abundantly” as to mean material goods, then we’ve totally succumbed to the god of Americanity. How is it that God is happy is when we get a new car, or get a new house, or get a new job with better benefits–or are we really saying that if we’re happy first, then God is secondary in the equation.
Any time we participate in the consumerism and capitalism of this society, we’re acting as accessories to the crimes against humanity that this empire, and that this system has allowed to promulgate unchecked and unregulated with no end in sight.
I highlighted the Acts 17 passage, not just because I preached it last week in class entitled “It’s Time to Act Up!” but rather because it highlighted the issue of dual citizenship with Jews living in Rome, but acting in the interest of the Roman Empire, rather than engaging in their Jewish ancestry and listening to Paul. And as if merely ignoring him wouldn’t have been bad enough, they decided to offer him up as a human sacrifice to Roman just in order to prove their Roman citizenship over their Jewish ancestry. For those Jews, being Roman was more important than being Jewish.
That’s a question many of us non-Anglo-Saxons are forced to ask every day: is our American citizenship more important than our African roots? And as highlighted by the first quote, now Muslim-Americans are asked to weigh their religion versus their citizenship. Despite Arkun’s analogy of the Civil War and the Mason-Dixon line division that some families had to endure, their moral dilemma was quite clear, it was the preservation of the Union versus the immorality of slavery; now the lines are much more blurred. Muslim’s have full citizenship here in this country, but still face discrimination in the workplace and still must endure xenophobic comments from members of Congress following the massacre at Fort Hood last week when former Democrat and former Vice-presidential candidate turned Independent fool Joseph Liberman most recently went on Fox News Sunday and said that the actions of lone gunman Major Nadal Hasan should be investigated to see if his actions should be seen as terrorism.
To those that outright say that their religion comes before their citizenship, I would say, “That’s what they want you to believe.”
Fact of the matter is that for the Christians, at least, if we really followed the teachings of Jesus as outlined in the Gospels (and not Paul necessarily) we’d be labeled anarchists. Honestly, do you believe that a government killed a man for preaching about love?!?!?!!? No, they killed him, or in church language, crucified him, because he was challenging the empire saying that he was the king and Caesar Augustus was like “Hell naw.” What I think is scary about it is that I’m sure the historical Jesus was barely a blip on the radar of Caesar Augustus all the way in Rome–it was really the kin folk, the “us folk” that surrounded Jesus who did more damage to him–which one could really interpret as the other Jews and the Pharisees and the Saducees–and lead more to the execution.
I mean, Paul, Silas and Jason were accused of turning the world upside down. The religious factor is scary to an empire because it threatens the very nature of its existence. Why do you think the Black Liberation Theology (with all of its gaping pot holes) was labeled anarchist and nationalist by FoxNews? Or why do you think even black people had such vast problems with Jeremiah Wright–the majority of us black and white have been trained to think America first, with all of its issues, and then somehow make our religion, namely Christianity fit into the tradition of Americanity.
That’s why the Muslim faith is seen as so other, it fails to conform to American standards. So it’s outrightly rejected from the beginning by most of us. It’s so “other” to us, we only recognize Islam when we talk about terrorism–which is a sad state of affairs.
I say all of this to say, on the surface, we’re really asked to pick our citizenship before our religion. Our citizenship however has become the religion of Americanity where we worship the gods of Capitalism and Consumerism. We play our parts in the imperial religion and we generally don’t question it because we’ve been so acculturated from birth with messages that support the rugged individualism of capitalism and that tell us to buy, buy, buy and then buy some more so that we can fit into the rest of the mold of this country. And for far too many of us, when we hear that message connected to God and Christianity, it’s a done deal as to what we really believe and really do.
Stay tuned for Part II
In what ways do you see how our citizenship and our loyalty toward America is directly tied into our religion, namely Christianity? In what ways do you see Christianity being non-related to each other? What are thoughts on this topic in general?
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
Filed under: Church and Society, Pop Culture, Random Thoughts from an Uppity Negro, Religion
Fellow clergypersons,
So it just hit me randomly this year that we, as self-professed American Christians really do worship the religion of Americanity rather than being true Followers of the Way. That is to say, we’ll follow what American capitalism says, dress it up in Christianity and the Bible and be okay with that. Here’s an example: we clearly associate God’s blessings with materialism. We recognize that God has blessed us when we receive a promotion, a new car, a new or bigger house or whenever our societal standings move upwards we thank God.
That’s problematic for me.
I’d be the biggest hypocrite if I didn’t acknowledge the fact that I do mumble silent thank yous to the heaven just about every time I step into my car with 152,000 miles on it now that has helped me maintain my current societal standing. Throughout the synoptic Gospels, particularly in the parables, Jesus is generally critiquing the social structures–I mean how often to many of us resonate with the self-righteous man by saying “Thank you God for not letting me like everyone else” which is really saying “Thank you God for not letting me live in the projects” or “Thank you God for not letting me have to take the bus to work, but thanks for the C-class Mercedes by the way.”
I believe we place our spirituality on the wrong things.
Which brings me to the business of Halloween.
As this date, November 1st has marked the beginning of the new holiday shopping season, we still here the traditional church and religious murmuring about how Halloween is of the devil and many churches opt for a “Hallelujah Fest” rather than a “Halloween Party.” This is to offer a “safe alternative” to trick or treating or other Halloween parties. I grew up in a family that didn’t celebrate Halloween, so much to the fact (and I doubt my mother remembers this) that I wasn’t allowed to go to my grammar school’s annual roller skating party because it was essentially a Halloween party–but my parents did let me go my 6th grade year which was my final year at that school.
What puzzles me is that these same Christians and church folk who complain about secularization or rather the commericialization of Christmas have only two months prior spiritualized a secular holiday.
Lemme break it down to you.
These same Christians do all kinds of research about All Hallow’s Eve and the true history of Halloween and try and find all types of underworld and netherworldly connections associated with a date that had more to do with agriculture and seasons changing than anything else, but then preach Jesus was born on December 25th in a manger failing to do the historical homework on Christmas. I mean just Wikipedia Christmas and you’ll see the plethora of meanings behind the date “December 25th.”
I say all that to say, Christians need to let Halloween be Halloween. It’s not harming anyone, particularly us in the black community. You don’t really hear about “us folk” running off to be Wiccans or joining some weird satanic cult that still believes in human sacrifices and what not. I mean given what comes on the evening news, I doubt letting the church group of high schoolers go to a Six Flags “Fright Fest” is going to suddenly “send the wrong message.” If nothing else, sitting around with flashlights and jack-o-laterns telling ghost stories about the “Headless horsemen” and the “Ghost at West End Lake” probably do more for stimulating a child’s imagination than anything else. What sends the wrong message is the fact that churches still have parties around Halloween which ultimately mean that churches are turning over their monies to the god of Capitalism because parents are going to still buy costumes, just not the ghosties and goulies, and churches are going to still buy tons and tons of candy.
So what message are you really sending?
Why waste time spiritualizing the secularism of Halloween? It really doesn’t need it, especially since we still practice the hedonism of both Halloween by throwing our Hallelujah Parties and don’t think we’re going to ever cancel Christmas. I mean, year after year churches decry the commercialization of Christmas–FOR REAL? I think it’s just good church hype so pastors and preachers can have a sermon topic. Seriously, since the creation of Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer in the 1930’sand particularly following the consumerism of this country post-World War II, Christians have been fighting a losing battle on that front. It isn’t getting worse, but it certainly isn’t getting to be a smaller problem. I mean, Christians are quite aware of the significance of Christmas–and Halloween–we need not hear tirades from the pulpits about it either.
So as we go into the holiday season of 2009, let’s be aware of what message we’re really sending. Are we celebrating the birth of a man who was so radical that his mere existence dominated religious thought 2,000 years after his death or are we really using this as another excuse to offer up our money as sacrifices to the twin gods of Consumerism and Capitalism? Are our mouths saying one thing but our actions saying yet something else.
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
Filed under: About The Uppity Negro
Anyone that knows me knows that I’ll use any excuse to make it to Washington, D.C.–I found one.
Actually, I had already blogged that I wasn’t going to D.C. which is why I made my trip to Birmingham, Ala. my birthday weekend which spurred the now widely circulated blog “Is It Okay For Young Black Men to Wear Skinny Jeans?” and some various derivation of that title. Currently it is on FreshXpress Blog via AverageBro’s website and getting some comments–yay! So, I’m definitely going to be out of commission until next week because I’m going to be in Washington with Howard University’s Homecoming events, through Saturday, come back, work and finally get an off day next Monday.
It’s a 9-10 hour drive so keep me and my homeboy mindful as we drive down the interstates.
Catch ya on the flipside.
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
Filed under: Politics, Pop Culture, Random Thoughts from an Uppity Negro, The Color Line
I had a commenter tell me that she had noticed marked disillusionment in the tenor of my posts and I didn’t really respond, but if you’re reading this, you’re more than correct. It’s hard being 25 years old and being an African American male who has a wider world view and broader understanding of, hmmm, shall we say epistemologies for the lack of a better word.
Wait? Epistemologies?!?!
I know most of y’all are saying “Using words like that makes you truly ‘uppity.’”
The traditional 25 year old African American male wouldn’t have a problem with using another word that has probably about three or two syllables, but of course not, this uppity Negro merely encourages the listener to pick up a dictionary and increase their own knowledge about knowledge (Hint hint!!)
It’s hard being in my position. I see things differently. It’s hard sometimes to not come off as elitist and distance when a certain issue is raised, most easily one concerning pop culture vis a vis politics, race and religion. I generally want to dismiss most conversations around those topics as surface and only dealing with symptoms of a root problem. I’m always interested in asking the hard questions; the one’s that are politically incorrect and that offend people’s sensibilities. So even when I try and sugar coat those questions as to not offend, my questions are summarily dismissed which makes me even more frustrated and stressed out.
That being said, a good case of me being frustrated is caught up still in the Morehouse College dress code policy.
As I’ve talked to some more people, I’m still hearing the same basic arguments: an infringement of personal rights versus the idea that this is an institution of higher learning and these young men need to know how to dress for a job.
Blah, blah, blah.
I’d rather talk about why certain young men on campus either felt the need to wear shades in class, wear the oversized clothes, wear the fitted caps or even wear the grillz in their teeth. I think it has something to do with black males and their understanding of cultural identity and masculinity. This is why I said in my previous post that for Morehouse to take away those particular cultural identifiers is to go down a slippery slope. I know they’re not advocating their students to be in a uniform, but still, this is a tacit assertion of what it means to be a black male in this country that is coded by saying what it means to be a man of Morehouse.
The problem I foresee with this is that to take these away is, as I said before, assimilationist. That is this is hearkening back to a mindset where blacks felt the need to assimilate to a point where it a) didn’t offend white people b) for the sake of garnering equal rights with regards to the Jim Crow segregated South. Newsflash to Morehouse: this isn’t the modern Civil Rights era. Engaging in modernist ideals in an ever-increasing post-modern society is not going to set a standard of excellence as many believe, able to produce the next Benjamin E. Mays or Martin Luther King, but rather render these young black men obsolete in a world that requires them to be in touch with lives of all in the global community.
Talking to Citizen Ojo of The Desultory Life and Times of a Public Citizen via Twitter earlier yesterday, he said he went back to his HBCU alma mater for homecoming this week and he simply said he didn’t like what he saw–with regards to dress. Okay, well tastes aside, are we really ready to impose on a younger generation our clothing tastes? It’s more than just the clothes. I’m sure alumni over the past few years have visited the school and done a double take at what they’ve seen. It is what it is, but I guess for me, this boils down to a few concerned alumni, trustees and various people within the administration being more concerned with outward appearances than what’s in the brain of the students.
The word education has it’s root in the Latin word educare which was a combination of ex and ducere which has a literal translation of out of and lead, guide or conduct respectively which leaves the word educare to pull out of–which is the exact opposite of the banking method of education which is to pour into with the expectations of replication for the purposes of a test or even in larger society. By forcing someone to change their dress doesn’t change their mind, if nothing else, it will do nothing more than make them want to do it even more.
And of course, I’m quite clear this letter was homophobic. (The fact that 24 of 27 member’s of Morehouse’s Safe Space Organization were in favor of this dress code is a bit beyond me–the oppressed becoming the oppressor can we say?)
Look, I’ll be honest, I don’t know or have the foggiest idea why someone with a male anatomy who wants to dress up in women’s clothing and attend Morehouse. It’s beyond me. Is this really who they be? Is this a political statement that they’re making? Or is this general undergrad B.S. that is really just some immature students who are doing it for the sake of garnering attention no matter what that attention is. Whatever the case, I’m convinced that failing to ask these hard questions contributes to the general “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy of the black community. This policy isn’t confined only to issues of sexuality, but as much as we are an oral and aural people, some stuff we just don’t talk about.
I’ll be honest, I’m a bit saddened and grieved that it’s 2009 and we’re still fighting silent injustices such as this. Most of us see this as a black and white, cut and dried, this or that situation; but of course this uppity Negro doesn’t. This world hasn’t been that simple in quite some time. I don’t know what the answer is, but I’d rather face reality and live in the liminality and struggle in the tensions that life presents, anything else is a detriment to my soul, to my community and to my God.
I write this because more or less this is my only outlet. I don’t really have the privilege of talking about these things with most people; when I bring it up it gets dismissed as me just being “the uppity Negro” and no one really ever challenges me on my ideas.
Meh. Such is life. You keep on living.
I came to the conclusion last month when actually I was challenged on a particular idea and the other person kind of hinted around “what’s the limit” or really asking how liberal are you willing to be when we were discussing the ethical and moral issues surrounding the universal health care plan and began talking about each and every person as a human being. I was saying that once we begin to see everyone else as human then I wonder if we’ll stop inhumane treatment toward others. That lead me to simply quote Dr. Martin Luther King “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” That is to say that wherever someone’s humanity is being threatened whether they be black or white, gay or heterosexual, old or young, homeless or own’s their own island, I personally, have a responsibility to say something.
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
First stated, what school doesn’t have a dress code somewhere on the books. I know my high school had one, that no one really enforced. My college, Dillard University, had one that they tried to enforce. They were having an issue, more so with young ladies who would come to the cafeteria on the weekends, when class wasn’t in session mind you, wearing flannel pajamas and of course something thin and revealing often times and their heads wrapped up in various states of being done and not–and sometimes the big stupidt Tweety Bird slippers ten times the size of their feet. Of course on the hotter days of late summer and early spring, young men would come in with slide on shower shoes, basketball shorts and for the more physically fit, tank top t-shirts or cut off t-shirts.
This in no way affected our education.
For the most part and I do mean more than 99% of the student populace would put on clothes and go to class Monday through Friday. Actually, for many HBCUs, it’s such a damn fashion show, the pajamas thing is really a weekend thing. It’s the weekend, we live on campus–you’re eating where you live! Generally on Saturday mornings, people don’t get dressed just to go downstairs, eat breakfast just to either a) go back to sleep or b) go the living room of your house and watch TV. This is what brings me to the post topic.
Just this past week Morehouse College of Atlanta, Georgia implemented a dress code, that as I said, probably isn’t much different than most other colleges and high schools in America, but following the heels of Morehouse College president Robert Michael Franklin’s much circulated “Renaissance man” speech this past spring that was highly circulated in the black blogosphere and black talk radio. I did a post where I uploaded the vast majority of the speech and you can check it out here with this link. And then I did a follow up where I parsed the speech at the points where I had some contention and you can check it out with this link.
More or less it’s the same argument I have with the recent implementation. I think what college administrations fail to do is actually begin the process of dialoguing with the students. Students receive way too many mixed messages from older generations. On one hand they hear, you’re grown, but then on the other hand they get told what to do because “it’s for their own good.” Children get told to express themselves, but then when they do if it upsets the sensibilities of the adults, then you stifle creativity. And I think this is some of what is at issue with this dress code.
Doo-rags, baggy jeans and shirts and the sagging of jeans are cultural signifiers. They may not carry the political weight of the afros and dashikis of the 1960s and 1970s but both outward styles of dress are clear cultural signifiers that help to identify to one another a certain shared assumption of what is uniquely black. That’s why parodies of Barack Obama and his blackness always show him wearing a doo-rag. This has nothing to do with the largely undefined notion of being “ghetto” (and for those interested make sure to check out Cora Daniel’s Ghettonation) as most of the older generation seem to think. It transcends just the musical aspects of hip-hop to the cultural aspects of what it means to be hip-hop or as M.K. Asante, Jr. says, to be a part of the post-hip hop generation.
Sadly, supporters of this dresscode seem to believe that it must be this way so that these young men can get a job afterwards.
That puzzles me because I wasn’t aware that the point of going to an HBCU, and Morehouse of all places was just so that I could “get a job” working in a white corporate setting. What I heard mostly from supporters of this dress code who were on The Rev. Al Sharpton Show this afternoon were using this idea of getting a job as a paradigm for dressing a certain way on campus. As I said in my earlier post, perhaps if the dress code were to be implemented for some altruistic reason of bettering the community around us or even being an exemplar for those who didn’t have the opportunity to get into Morehouse, then perhaps I’d buy into it, but just for the sake of working for the proverbial “the Man” is bollocks in my opinion.
It reeks of assimilation actually. Especially because while Morehouse is a private owned institution and can do what it wants with regards to policies, when Franklin was quoted as saying “If you cannot follow the guidelines of a moral community, then leave. Change your behavior or separate from this college,” then it is quite clear that he is trying to institute an HBCU collegiate culture with European ideals.
Yes, I said it before and I just said it again.
All this talk about making a good look for recruiters during job fairs and what not is all good talk and important talk, but I’m disappointed and somewhat shocked at the lack of revolutionary rhetoric that we all so readily associate with the premier HBCUs. Perhaps its a misnomer though. Seriously, as of recent, what serious movers and shakers with regards to civil rights have we heard from HBCUs. Yes, we have a plethora of successful individuals who graduate from HBCUs and do well for themselves who contribute to the black middle class (that’s a whole other post in and of itself), but it astonishes me that in some segments of the black community we’ll be all “black and proud” and then in others it’s much more “go along to get along.”
Above all, attacking cultural signifiers such as the doorag, fitted baseball caps and baggy jeans and the sagging of pants primarily attacks the culture of the future generations. It’s part and parcel of the banking method of education where a synthesis of the facts and knowledge isn’t encouraged and ultimately the older generations are wanting to make clones of themselves or even of their parents. What the older generations fail to do is recognize the sign of the times–they are a’ changing. I’m convinced that my generation combined of hip hop and post-hip hop have never wanted to completely throw out tradition and throw out old ideals, but they certainly have wanted the ability to be themselves.
What I hear when older adults say “take off your cap inside” or “pull your pants up” or still the weird looks young men get who have tattoos all over their arms and possibly necks is that not only are we upsetting their sensibilities, but we’re keyed into wondering how do white Americans see it. Are we really worried about how upset we are with it, or how much we’re upsetting the delicate sensibilities of white Americans.
Elitism, to me, is borderline assimilation into European ideals and values. It’s all about how much will you buy into a certain type of culture and anything counter-culture is not tolerated because you’re not “our kind of people.” DuBois famously said the the premier issue of the 20th century would be the color line; I’m quite sure that now he would redress that statement and add that the premier problem we’re facing now is a class issue both inside and outside our own community. Blacks as a whole are already way off the mark with regards to whites in this country and income disparities, but still within our own community, we do a VERY good job of separating the people from Harlem Heights versus those from Bed-Stuy; from those that live in Lithonia to those that live in the West End; from those that live in Baldwin Hills to those that still come from Compton and Crenshaw Blvd.; from those that live in Chatham and Beverly from those that live in Englewood and Roseland; from those that grew up in Prince Georges County, MD to those that grew up in Southeast DC–we do it naturally and we don’t care to give it a second thought.
This us versus them, this house Negro versus field Negro dichotomy is ripping us apart day by day and we still feed into it failing to think critically about deeper issues. Seriously, what difference does a doo-rag on in class make to me learning–or wearing a fitted cap inside a building? If I never thought about it or gave it a second thought and I’m the one wearing it, why should someone else? Why do we let issues such as clothes get in the way of greater communal issues; we’re worried about individual seats on the ship, but the whole ship is slowly sinking into the abyss of ignorance and anti-intellectualism. The issues that plague our community are bigger than doo-rags, bigger than my fitted caps, bigger than my tattoos, bigger than my pants sagging, but that’s what instead we choose to focus on. Perhaps we should have dealt with the other part of the dress code that felt the need to ban purses and other feminine associated attire and deal with the psychology (and possible pathology) behind why the school felt the need address it as such–a male college that has students that want to dress like women in a growingly liberal society where merely sweeping these issues under the rug leads to a big pile of dust under a rug that will cause someone eventually to trip.
Taking the road of assimilation and elitism is not the direction that we need to be moving. To the black community: GET IT TOGETHER!
First, who actually read this whole post? Why is it so hard for us as blacks to deal with deeper and different issues in our community? Why do we take the easy route and deal with stuff on the surface when already know that scratching the surface doensn’t change anything? What is your response to this post–in favor or against? What would you add to the conversation concerning this discussion?
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
Filed under: Church and Society, Down in the Bookstore: Musings from the Classroom, Random Thoughts from an Uppity Negro, Religion
A couple of weeks ago, one of my professors had us read the “Mini-Apocalypse” in the biblical scriptures found in the Gospel of Matthew 24:3-8
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. “Tell us,” they said, “when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” Jesus answered: “Watch out that no one deceives you. 5For many will come in my name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ, and will deceive many. 6You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. 8All these are the beginning of birth pains.
Most Christians are familiar with this type of speech and usually we allude to this scripture when it comes to trying to explain natural disasters that leave wanton devastation such as the tsunamis in the south Pacific and the destruction of Hurricane Katrina or the terror of 9/11/01 in New York City or even the wars in the Middle East. Many Pentecostals and charismatic Baptists run around declaring that we are indeed living in the end times and if you’re John Hagee, you’re quite sure that Jesus is coming back in ___ amount of days, hours, minutes and seconds.
That being said, my professor went immediately into astrology.
Of course I was taken aback of course because I was wondering how he was going to tie it all together. He went back to the Hebrew Bible and just brought up the idea of the twelve tribes of Israel and how interesting it was that the twelve tribes are good correlations to the twelve zodiac signs. He went on to use the Joseph dream motif in Genesis 37 to highlight how the writer did mention moon and stars and the sun, of course astrological symbols to get the point across about Joseph’s greatness.
Okay….and…
…was what I was saying. I had grown up hearing that one time from my youth pastor, and that was enough for me to really not get caught up in astrology like some people. How they try and peg your personalities based on your astrological symbol. I usually just chalked it all up as self fulfilling prophecies if you use to believe it. So, he went on and asked the class if they had heard of the Year of Precession.
Of course we hadn’t. Didn’t even have a clue what he was talking about.
He went on to say that we are clearly approaching the Year of Precession as we live in 2009 C.E. Approximately 2,000-2,100 years ago was another Year of Precession.
See, where I’m going with this.
For those who are still lost check this out:
I recommend the first and third clips to fully understand what I’m talking about. Especially the third clip, because it drives everything home. I just put them all up because I really got caught up in watching them and maybe you will too.
Whew!
I never felt so small in my life after watching that.
But for those who skipped down and didn’t have the 50 minutes to take to watch that, in a nut shell, due to the rotation of the earth on it’s axis, the rotation of the earth around the sun and the apparent rotation of the actual sun, ergo the Solar System, at the point of our vernal equinox (the first day of Spring in March) we seem to be in a different position with reference to the zodiac signs. Approximately every 2,000-2,100 years we move into a different house, backwards in the zodiac calendar. This is commonly known, as the precession of the equinoxes. Below is a picture to further drive that point home.
Okay, Uppity, now I’m really confused, you’re asking. Don’t worry, I know where I’m going with this.
As anyone knows we are seeing a shift in culture, not this major shift that was noted by the actual ages of the Greco-Roman calendar of Silver, Bronze, Iron and this ultimate Golden Age comprising what’s known as The Great Year (a total of approximately 24,000 earth years), but still, a shift in an age of thinking. Most people will admit that we are indeed living in a post-modern society. Where modernity has dominated solidly for at least half a millennium, we clearly are seeing this shift.
Our professor had said that isn’t it interesting that often times in the Hebrew Bible that the ram was considered the premier sacrificial offering but that in the ages prior to Jesus’ here on earth it was the Age of Aries, the ram and before that the Age of Taurus which was the bull?
Ram in a bush anyone?
So of course everyone knows that Jesus went after disciples who were fisherman. And Jesus now asked them to be “fishers of men” drawing them into the concept of Jesus’ christology. And many people know that the symbol for early “followers of the Way” was the symbol of the fish. Do you honestly think that there was some cosmological coincidence that the historical Jesus entered the scene shortly after the beginning of the Age of Pisces–symbolized by the fish?
So where does this leave Jesus? The disciples in Matthew asked Jesus how would they know the end of the age and not the end of the world. The Koine Greek clearly has two separate words aionos being age and cosmos being world. The disciples ask about the end of the age and Jesus simply says in the Great Commission in Matthew 28:20 that “lo, I will be with you, even until the end of the age.”
Whoa! That’s heresy you’re talking Uppity, you say.
No, I’m just stating the obvious facts.
What I’ve said about The Great Year and the precession of the equinoxes is observed fact and observed fact for a few millennia it seems and something that pre-dates the Bible. After watching this documentary and allowing myself to be a bit more free-thinking that traditional church would probably prefer, for me the question is how does Jesus fit into all of that? I know the typical church question would ask how does all of that fit into Jesus–but just for fun let’s flip it and see what we get.
I think all that it shows is that yet again, there was this dominant thought and for the most part, thanks to Constantine and St. Augustine, the father of church doctrine as we know it, something that still not even Martin Luther and Calvin were able to undo totally, were a dominant force for the last two millennium and that indeed the promise was to get us to the end of this age.
We are indeed moving into a new era.
I think the children of today that are blessed to live to the end of this century and maybe even beyond will definitely have stories to tell that will rival the stories of centenarians today who talk about World War I, the Great Depression and World War II with stories of nuclear armaments of the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Standoff. Actually, I’m rather inclined to believe much of what I saw in the above clips–why? because it just simply all of that information told me its bigger than that.
I’ll always have questions for Jesus, particularly the Constantinian and Augustinian Jesus that has presented itself in church dogma (thanks Paul) today. Too often we approach the Bible as though all of it speaks with one voice and has one audience. How do we reconcile the fact that it wasn’t until St. Augustine that we began to “preach” from the Bible? Before that if someone had a word from the Lord, they spoke and if it came true, then so be it, otherwise they were labeled a false prophet or as the writer of I John called them simply “the antichrist”–anything that was against the messiah. But that Jesus, I’ll always have questions about, but as for a God that I fully believe is bigger than all that I saw in that documentary, I have no problem with believing that.
Perhaps because the scientists have shown us that there is some order to the cosmos beyond our own earth. Does it answer the questions about dinosaurs and what not? No, not even remotely, but again, given this age, it’s quite clear as humans we are limited in our comprehensions. Do I wish I were alive in this fabled “Golden Age” and witness the “comprehension of God”? Probably, but clearly that’s not going to happen.
I’m putting my trust in God.
I really don’t know what’s going to happen when I die. If there is a heaven, I definitely wanna go. I think most people here on earth are rolling the dice of religion and hoping that their chips have been placed on the right number when the end comes. I think that documentary showed me that our human capacity has only reached to the point of barely understanding a true faith concept; there is a gnosis–hidden knowledge–that we seek to understand, but simply can’t. That being as it is, we do the best we can, and me believing in God is doing the best that I know how.
Seriously, I’d love to hear your reactions to this post! Does it rock your world? Is it something you can live with? Does it make you uncomfortable or does it give you ease? If you’re Christian, will you have some questions come the next mid-week Bible study or in Sunday School this coming up week? Or do you just outright reject this notion and think that since none of this was mentioned in the Bible then it’s all bollocks?
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
Yes, for interested parties, I turned 25 today.
That means I’m in a new age demographic and that hopefully means car insurance premiums will decrease.
That being said, I was more than shocked as I rolled over this morning for the FIRST time and checked my Twitter updates that President Barack Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize when it was announced in Oslo, Norway [1].
Wait!?!?!? Our current President? The one and only current President of the United States was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I rubbed the sleep out of my eyes thinking I was confusing the words awarded and the word nominated. But no, he actually won it. Not to mention an approximate prize of $1,400,000.00 as well for it. I guess those are like the “genius grants” where you supposed to take the money and go do something with it.
I’m quite interested in knowing what his plans would be with the money.
That aside, I’ll be the first to say that this was a straight up political move. Now according to the rules there is some rather rigorous process through which the nomination undergoes and that the total nominees remain in secret for 50 years I guess until they’re released so we’ll never know who Obama was in contention with. But, that aside, everyone, even the White House is quite clear that this was shocker. I think this was interesting on the fact that the Nobel Prize committee chairman Thorbjorn Jagland and the committee were quoted as saying “Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future.”
So, they gave him a prize based on hope?
I think most will admit that was the case. Even Obama was quite clear that he wasn’t deserving of the prize and to be counted in the number of a Martin Luther King, Jr. who endured direct persecution for his actions nor a self-sacrificing individual such as Mother Teresa or even others such as the Dalai Lama and Desmond Tutu. I just wonder what effect will this have on Obama personally?
This particular country in which we reside is perfectly okay with continuing on with business as usual and letting this Nobel Prize win be nothing more than a minor speedbump down the road of economic imperialism driven by the automation of capitalism. I can only imagine what Glenn Beck has already said during his show earlier today and I’m sure Hannity had a field day with his radio show earlier and is planning to act a fool tonight along with Rush and O’Reilly none plan to disappoint their listeners and viewers. And maybe it’s just the fact that I’ve grown to dislike Republican National Comittee chairman Michael Steele in general, but his remarks just sounded like, yet again, the lil’ brother being jealous of the older brother because he got more juice in his cup.
Along with the Nobel Prize Committee and I’m sure the rest of the world, except our country it seems, it is my hope that somewhere deep down in Obama’s soul and spirit that this is the impetus he needs to begin to deliver on his campaign promises and not be the politician that he campaigned to be. As their statement said, there’s this collective hope for a better future–a future that Obama has the ability to move towards. The eyes of the world are yet again looking toward this country to lead them into a collective future, not one where we’re merely the big kid on the block and everyone is afraid to stand up to, but the future where we’re all on the same playing field and we’re able to make a dent in the plethora of world crises.
But yes, it is ironic to the Afghani’s that he wins the Nobel Peace Prize as talks of ramping up troops is clearly on the table; it’s ironic to the Pakistanis and Iranians as U.S. counterattacks still take place and collateral damage is still occurring. It is most certainly ironic that he wins the Nobel Peace Prize to most Americans as many of us would have rather, as George Stephanopoulos quipped tonight on ABC’s World News Tonight, he won the Nobel Prize in Economics
Honestly, I don’t think he deserved, he doesn’t think he deserved which is great for minimizing fallout from the conservative pundits, nonetheless I still think it’s one of the best “FALL BACK BITCHES” moment in recent history!
Isn’t it wonderful that he can tell George W. Bush and Cheney and the rest of the Republican Party to just “FALL BACK” and eat everything they’ve been pushing since the campaign season last year. I mean I think this acted doubly as a great big “FALL BACK” with a middle finger to the former Bush administration that just–well, you know EFFED up everything royally on the international scene as far as public relations were concerned. Within this regards, I am glad for him truly glad for him.
I wish he would take the money and do something meaningful with it. Donating it to charities is so cliched. And even starting your own charities is rather cliched in the sense that you’re doing it more for PR purposes and we rarely hear about work that a lot of those celebrity funded charities end up doing. Even local papers are slow to report about local charities. If I were Obama I’d save that money until the post-White House days and actually use that money to do something hands on with it a la Jimmy Carter. I mean, Carter in his old age actually does the work with Habitat for Humanity–his old peanut farming self is out there with hammer and nails.
That’s true outreach and ministry, where the rubber meets the road.
As Sen. Barbara Boxer says in that above clip, wouldn’t it be nice if enough of us were on the same page where this was some galvanizing moment in American history, but meh….I guess that’s not reality.
[1] Please wish me a happy birthday dammit!! LOL 
[2] I had a prof in a Church History (Protestant Reformation to 1740) put on the test “Where did Martin Luther King receive the Nobel Peace Prize?” and I answered “Oslo, Norway” and this buck-mouthed fool informed me that that was a common misnomer and that the Nobel Prize was issued in Stockholm, Sweeden. FIRST of all, the Nobel Prize is issued in Oslo, Norway and the rest are issued in Stockholm, Sweeden–with yo Fire Marshal Bill faced ass!
What are your thoughts on Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize? Do you think it will make a difference in White House policies or even with Obama on a personal level? Who would have been your nominees for the Nobel Peace Prize prior to today if you had to choose?
Keep it uppity and keep it truthfully radical, JLL
