Tuesday, August 14, 2012
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Tavis Smiley Takes Me To Task, Part II
Yesterday, on Lilli's Life and Music Corner, Kenito asked for specifics that support my position on the "responsible citizen" remaining critical of his own propensity for criticism, and I woke up thinking about when I first got exposed to the value of digging deeper and not just pointing the finger.
I went to a New England boarding school for high school where we had students from all over the world. The school tried to be as socially progressive and responsible as it could, and fairly extensive sensitivity training was built in to our orientation upon arrival. The school's motto was "Non Sibi," not for one's self, and they made an effort to drive that point home through almost every aspect of the curriculum. As a result, we were some fairly socially conscious teenagers.
I was in high school in the years right before the fall of apartheid, and en masse, we naive little progressive intellectuals were simply outraged that a socio-economic system like apartheid could still exist. We wanted to blame someone and we wanted to make a difference, so we started accusing our school administrators of being hypocrites for not having divested in South Africa. We had a list of 30-40 products being imported from South Africa, and we wanted to know exactly where were our granny smith apples coming from! (To this day I get a little sick to my stomach when I see diamonds, even though they're my birthstone.)
So we urged our school to divest and we urged our families to divest. When we went home, we took our lists to the grocery stores with our parents and were quite effective product police. When we got back to school, we were incensed enough to hold a demonstration on the steps of our library. We're talking kids from every socio-economic background. Everybody seemed to care, and we thought the only way to make a difference was to keep pointing fingers until someone felt compelled to own up to their hypocrisy.
Then one day, one of the South African exchange students asked me why we were making such a big deal about divesting. Did we not understand that world-wide divesting was squeezing their economy dry and the poor were bearing the brunt of the burden? Our hearts were in the right place, but perhaps our tactics were misguided.
That was 1990, the year Nelson Mandela was released from prison, and apartheid finally ended as the functioning socio-economic structure in South Africa in 1993. The struggle to end apartheid was by no means simple, nor was the effort to begin the work of rebuilding the nation. And even though the evil nature of apartheid was an obvious no brainer, (I swear I had dreams that Pieter Botha was the devil himself), that obvious reality didn't make ending it or rebuilding in the context of a new paradigm any simpler.
One of the first things done under Mandela's presidency was the assembly of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission - TRUTH *and* RECONCILIATION - both were required and all sides were held accountable for their actions, but not without the option of amnesty if requested. I remember thinking this was the most revolutionary act I'd ever witnessed, an oppressed body expressing the difference between "blame" and "accountability," meeting pain, despair and injustice with humanity - WHAT?!! Moreover, the TRC ended up being the first of nineteen public hearings for Truth and Reconciliation held internationally. I think it quite possible that apartheid would not have ended when it did, nor would this important work have occurred, if Nelson Mandela had come out of prison spitting hate and pointing fingers.
According to Hunter S. Thompson, "at the top of the mountain, we are all snow leopards." Human beings have so much more power than we sometimes realize. No matter what our intentions, we all have the ability to feed the flames of our crazy world or to help something else emerge. Even when we, the responsible citizens who still give a damn think we know what is "right," we can't always know the right thing to do. I'm not saying we shouldn't act, just that we should continue to do our best, but remain curious about the results of our actions, and do what we can to try to grow into more effective forces for productive change.
Related songs:
The Water from "Very Small Things," 2009
I went to a New England boarding school for high school where we had students from all over the world. The school tried to be as socially progressive and responsible as it could, and fairly extensive sensitivity training was built in to our orientation upon arrival. The school's motto was "Non Sibi," not for one's self, and they made an effort to drive that point home through almost every aspect of the curriculum. As a result, we were some fairly socially conscious teenagers.
I was in high school in the years right before the fall of apartheid, and en masse, we naive little progressive intellectuals were simply outraged that a socio-economic system like apartheid could still exist. We wanted to blame someone and we wanted to make a difference, so we started accusing our school administrators of being hypocrites for not having divested in South Africa. We had a list of 30-40 products being imported from South Africa, and we wanted to know exactly where were our granny smith apples coming from! (To this day I get a little sick to my stomach when I see diamonds, even though they're my birthstone.)
So we urged our school to divest and we urged our families to divest. When we went home, we took our lists to the grocery stores with our parents and were quite effective product police. When we got back to school, we were incensed enough to hold a demonstration on the steps of our library. We're talking kids from every socio-economic background. Everybody seemed to care, and we thought the only way to make a difference was to keep pointing fingers until someone felt compelled to own up to their hypocrisy.
Then one day, one of the South African exchange students asked me why we were making such a big deal about divesting. Did we not understand that world-wide divesting was squeezing their economy dry and the poor were bearing the brunt of the burden? Our hearts were in the right place, but perhaps our tactics were misguided.
That was 1990, the year Nelson Mandela was released from prison, and apartheid finally ended as the functioning socio-economic structure in South Africa in 1993. The struggle to end apartheid was by no means simple, nor was the effort to begin the work of rebuilding the nation. And even though the evil nature of apartheid was an obvious no brainer, (I swear I had dreams that Pieter Botha was the devil himself), that obvious reality didn't make ending it or rebuilding in the context of a new paradigm any simpler.
One of the first things done under Mandela's presidency was the assembly of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission - TRUTH *and* RECONCILIATION - both were required and all sides were held accountable for their actions, but not without the option of amnesty if requested. I remember thinking this was the most revolutionary act I'd ever witnessed, an oppressed body expressing the difference between "blame" and "accountability," meeting pain, despair and injustice with humanity - WHAT?!! Moreover, the TRC ended up being the first of nineteen public hearings for Truth and Reconciliation held internationally. I think it quite possible that apartheid would not have ended when it did, nor would this important work have occurred, if Nelson Mandela had come out of prison spitting hate and pointing fingers.
According to Hunter S. Thompson, "at the top of the mountain, we are all snow leopards." Human beings have so much more power than we sometimes realize. No matter what our intentions, we all have the ability to feed the flames of our crazy world or to help something else emerge. Even when we, the responsible citizens who still give a damn think we know what is "right," we can't always know the right thing to do. I'm not saying we shouldn't act, just that we should continue to do our best, but remain curious about the results of our actions, and do what we can to try to grow into more effective forces for productive change.
Related songs:
The Water from "Very Small Things," 2009
Tavis Smiley Takes Me To Task
This week I was honored with a chance to talk to two of my living heroes Mr. Tavis Smiley and the venerable Dr. Cornel West for their weekly Radio Broadcast "Smiley and West" from Public Radio International.
Although I expect my next conversation with these two fine gentlemen to be about my work, this week I was asked to elaborate on a comment left on their "Speak Out Hotline" regarding what I heard as their challenge to mainstream media and public officials to comment more on the long-standing hypocritical relationships our government has sustained with the now crumbling regimes in North Africa. I don't know how our talk will be edited, but I'm posting this for anyone interested in my notes on my position.
The episode should air Friday morning and can be downloaded from their official website www.smileyandwest.com.
A Criticism of Unilateral Criticism
1. There is a difference between criticism and critical analysis, and our current climate of reductionist criticism creates an environment where something that might be subtle and complicated can easily be painted or construed as unilaterally hypocritical.
TWO DANGERS OF CRITICISM OVER CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
1. DISCOURAGES transparency
2. ENCOURAGES imperialist arrogance. Takes away leadership's incentive to learn how not to disrespect and ultimately underestimate other world leaders, whether or not we agree with them.
***We don't want to be complacent, but we have to project the sense that we are open to more multi-dimensional and sometimes very difficult truths.***
SO:
A. Yes! ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY. That's what I think you're aiming for hoping that transparency can yield more responsible decisions. But 'm not convinced that we encourage transparency with criticism. I think we have to be more creative in our approach.
B. I would hope we could DISCOURAGE our current "SELECTIVE" IMPERIALIST ARROGANCE and ENCOURAGE UNILATERAL RESPECT, especially among leaders we don't agree with. (For example, maybe if we had "respected" Hitler and his power among his people we wouldn't have underestimated him...) We must be mindful about how to approach that. Acknowledge that now we're doing it only with countries we need something from. How can we, the people, propel that into broader policy? Again, I think we have to be more creative.
For those of us who believe in the vision and peaceful warriorship of Dr. King the truths we pursue and reveal have nothing to do with being right. Now as far as I'm concerned, it's fine for Mr. Smiley and Dr. West to go on about it because you try to speak from love and, from what I can tell of your listenership, you're preaching to an already glorious choir. But It doesn't make sense for us to get mad when our elected officials prove that they've never seen the promised land. We share this planet with them so it's up to us to get them there. We have to show them the way, cause if we don't, we're all going down together.
A FRUITLESS SCENARIO
Politicians are like crazy teenagers who think they know everything and will say whatever they think we want to hear in order to get us off their backs. Always trying to get one over on us and don't even know it when they're in over their heads until it's too late. The "responsible world citizen" meaning one who still feels some degree of responsibility for creating a better human experience, can seem like the well-meaning, nagging parent that criticizes everything the child does. If we want the child to tell us the truth, we have to let them know we're open to hearing it. Some times our anger and disdain does the opposite. So we don't want to be complacent, but we have to project the sense that we are open to more multi-dimensional and sometimes very difficult truths.
Although I expect my next conversation with these two fine gentlemen to be about my work, this week I was asked to elaborate on a comment left on their "Speak Out Hotline" regarding what I heard as their challenge to mainstream media and public officials to comment more on the long-standing hypocritical relationships our government has sustained with the now crumbling regimes in North Africa. I don't know how our talk will be edited, but I'm posting this for anyone interested in my notes on my position.
The episode should air Friday morning and can be downloaded from their official website www.smileyandwest.com.
A Criticism of Unilateral Criticism
1. There is a difference between criticism and critical analysis, and our current climate of reductionist criticism creates an environment where something that might be subtle and complicated can easily be painted or construed as unilaterally hypocritical.
TWO DANGERS OF CRITICISM OVER CRITICAL ANALYSIS:
1. DISCOURAGES transparency
2. ENCOURAGES imperialist arrogance. Takes away leadership's incentive to learn how not to disrespect and ultimately underestimate other world leaders, whether or not we agree with them.
***We don't want to be complacent, but we have to project the sense that we are open to more multi-dimensional and sometimes very difficult truths.***
SO:
A. Yes! ENCOURAGE TRANSPARENCY. That's what I think you're aiming for hoping that transparency can yield more responsible decisions. But 'm not convinced that we encourage transparency with criticism. I think we have to be more creative in our approach.
B. I would hope we could DISCOURAGE our current "SELECTIVE" IMPERIALIST ARROGANCE and ENCOURAGE UNILATERAL RESPECT, especially among leaders we don't agree with. (For example, maybe if we had "respected" Hitler and his power among his people we wouldn't have underestimated him...) We must be mindful about how to approach that. Acknowledge that now we're doing it only with countries we need something from. How can we, the people, propel that into broader policy? Again, I think we have to be more creative.
For those of us who believe in the vision and peaceful warriorship of Dr. King the truths we pursue and reveal have nothing to do with being right. Now as far as I'm concerned, it's fine for Mr. Smiley and Dr. West to go on about it because you try to speak from love and, from what I can tell of your listenership, you're preaching to an already glorious choir. But It doesn't make sense for us to get mad when our elected officials prove that they've never seen the promised land. We share this planet with them so it's up to us to get them there. We have to show them the way, cause if we don't, we're all going down together.
A FRUITLESS SCENARIO
Politicians are like crazy teenagers who think they know everything and will say whatever they think we want to hear in order to get us off their backs. Always trying to get one over on us and don't even know it when they're in over their heads until it's too late. The "responsible world citizen" meaning one who still feels some degree of responsibility for creating a better human experience, can seem like the well-meaning, nagging parent that criticizes everything the child does. If we want the child to tell us the truth, we have to let them know we're open to hearing it. Some times our anger and disdain does the opposite. So we don't want to be complacent, but we have to project the sense that we are open to more multi-dimensional and sometimes very difficult truths.
Friday, October 1, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Precisely Why We're Filing
Well, we may not have a case but this is precisely why we're filing!
Related Songs:
Winona Laduke from Sleepers Wake
Related Songs:
Winona Laduke from Sleepers Wake
Monday, April 26, 2010
Seismic Shift: Can I Get a Witness?
SOUND THE TRUMPETS!!! LILLI HAS HAD A BREAKTHROUGH!!!!
I was working at the local coffee shop this morning (I reserve half-days on Monday and Wednesday for music work, yeah!) and when Liz came to pick me up for lunch, we noticed an acquaintance from her high school was sitting at the table next to me. As soon as he saw her he lit up.
Anonymous Acquaintance: "Hey Liz! How's it going?!?! Good to see you! How've you been??" You know the drill. Big smiles, inexplicable, hypnotic, involuntary nod.
LIZ: "Great! How've you been? No, that was my sister. Working at my parents' law firm and coaching soccer. Oh yeah! And I'm in a rock band with my partner Lilli." Points in my direction.
AA: "Wow. Cool. So Lilli you play drums?"
ME: Thinking "Guess this guy has selective hearing 'cause drummer doesn't really sound anything like partner" Speaking "No, I play keys and sing." Smile. Nod.
LIZ: Thinking "Did this guy find Jesus or something 'cause I remember him being a bit of a jocky douche in high school." Speaking "So what are you up to these days?"
AA: "Oh. Consulting. You know..." Spots her ring. "So are you married?"
LIZ: "Yes. Lilli's my partner. We've been together for about five years."
Anonymous Acquaintance goes gray. Ends the conversation abruptly. Liz and I leave for a lunch of turkey and avocado sandwiches.
And scene.
Queer readers, have you been there? Can I get a witness?
Non-queer readers, I'll fill you in. This moment is a cliché. At best it can be awkward and weird, at worst it can be life-threatening. It cost Liz a job a little over a year ago, but today something shifted for me. Oh yes. Today I touched something life-altering. It's been there right under my nose all this time and I finally went cross-eyed long enough to see it.
My friends, today I experienced this moment as nothing short of HI-larious.
Believe it or not, I got the joke when I put myself in his hypothetical shoes for once. Let's say he did find Jesus after his high school football glory days ended with a pregnant girlfriend, a shotgun wedding, and a life of enslavement to the man. After all, where does that guy go to find purpose and meaning? He goes to church.
He goes to that community institution that's so good at revealing the basic goodness present in all situations, especially when you "give it to God." His church is where he finds redemption for past sins, prospects for future business, and validation for his present assumptions about day to day living. He takes his questions to church and there he finds his answers, along with a well earned ounce of comfort and a constant companion.
Don't get me wrong. I mean no disrespect towards the transcendental power of the church experience that manifests as life-changing (sometimes life-saving) for so many. After all, for the average over-worked, under paid, tired, distracted, gluttonous, fearful American (and I do include myself in this descriptive), church is the only place where one gets even a glimpse into the great mystery: the super-string, the "tiny strand of everything" that binds us in this cosmic event referred to as life. This is big stuff people, the real deal that lives beyond the illusory display, and it can make the humblest of us all feel quite invincible.
Moreover, church is the only place where many of us experience the gift of all gifts known as grace. I don't know if I have the right words to describe what I mean in particular when I say "grace," but I do feel in my heart of hearts that grace is an invaluable, infinitesimal moment where humility is revealed and any hope at healing begins. It is therefore as powerful a force in my universe as gravity and electro-magnetism.
So yes, go to that place and find Jesus or God or Allah or even dharma - whoever/whatever gives you access to mystery and grace. I don't know a single person who doesn't need or deserve it. But it does beg the question of the various anonymous acquaintances out there, is church not where many of us are learning to fear each other?
You can believe me when I tell you the anonymous acquaintance we met in the coffee shop today looked like he felt like he was going to burn in hell when he realized he had inadvertently greeted a couple of lesbians with a smile and a general sense of good will. I don't know if it was the element of surprise that rendered him speechless, or some bad milk that sullied his coloration and otherwise shiny disposition, but the shift was both clear and pathetically familiar.
Now I'm not usually the biggest fan of Schadenfreude, but today I became genuinely tickled when I thought of the sick feeling this guy had to sit with in his belly during the business meeting that prevented him from going home and showering after this dirty little encounter with a local lesbos. I wondered with impish delight if it would have made him feel better if we had given him an opportunity to offer his approval for our lascivious union.
US: (In the manner of a condescending phone salesperson) "Yes, we're lesbians. Is that going to work for you? No? Ok, well then...we'll just be on our way and leave you to the self-perpetuated, white-male-privileged paradigm already in progress. Ok. Great. Have a nice day..."
Or, maybe he hasn't yet reached even that wrung of evolution; you know, the one of the well-meaning, liberal-minded relative who thinks they've arrived because they can hate the sin but still love the sinner, or the next wrung of the socially-conscious, straight-privileged friend who thinks they're evolved beings because they've heard the word "hetero-centric" and actually registered that the term could in fact apply to them.
To remove the tongue from my cheek for just a moment, I honestly don't think I was actually laughing at him. I think I was more relieved to finally experience "that moment" as passé and, well, funny. Funny? Yes!
I can report from this day in the field that it was so much more fun to laugh at this little scenario than the humiliation I felt last month when the attendant at the Food Bank demanded through a nervous stutter that I list my partner as my "friend" on the eligibility application, or the sense of frustration I felt when I filled out my 2010 census and couldn't answer the first question without having to be reminded that I am still invisible even when I am being officially counted by government order. (Incidentally, my census-worker aunt later informed me that they were granted official approval to allow gay couples to select a marital status of "married" if they felt so inclined. Since I never needed their approval, I'm telling myself that means the US Census Bureau thinks gay marriage will be universally legalized the by the time they come around to count us again.)
For once, I didn't have to make someone else's problem with all things homosexual my problem. Today I took another important step out of the muck of victim-hood, and had a hearty laugh to boot. Perhaps there's hope for me yet! (I can't know about that other guy...)
And scene.
Related Songs:
Not Your Baby Girl from The Shiz - Opus Deux
Tumble from The Shiz - Opus Deux
Pretty Ebony from Castles of Her Crystalline
I was working at the local coffee shop this morning (I reserve half-days on Monday and Wednesday for music work, yeah!) and when Liz came to pick me up for lunch, we noticed an acquaintance from her high school was sitting at the table next to me. As soon as he saw her he lit up.
Anonymous Acquaintance: "Hey Liz! How's it going?!?! Good to see you! How've you been??" You know the drill. Big smiles, inexplicable, hypnotic, involuntary nod.
LIZ: "Great! How've you been? No, that was my sister. Working at my parents' law firm and coaching soccer. Oh yeah! And I'm in a rock band with my partner Lilli." Points in my direction.
AA: "Wow. Cool. So Lilli you play drums?"
ME: Thinking "Guess this guy has selective hearing 'cause drummer doesn't really sound anything like partner" Speaking "No, I play keys and sing." Smile. Nod.
LIZ: Thinking "Did this guy find Jesus or something 'cause I remember him being a bit of a jocky douche in high school." Speaking "So what are you up to these days?"
AA: "Oh. Consulting. You know..." Spots her ring. "So are you married?"
LIZ: "Yes. Lilli's my partner. We've been together for about five years."
Anonymous Acquaintance goes gray. Ends the conversation abruptly. Liz and I leave for a lunch of turkey and avocado sandwiches.
And scene.
Queer readers, have you been there? Can I get a witness?
Non-queer readers, I'll fill you in. This moment is a cliché. At best it can be awkward and weird, at worst it can be life-threatening. It cost Liz a job a little over a year ago, but today something shifted for me. Oh yes. Today I touched something life-altering. It's been there right under my nose all this time and I finally went cross-eyed long enough to see it.
My friends, today I experienced this moment as nothing short of HI-larious.
Believe it or not, I got the joke when I put myself in his hypothetical shoes for once. Let's say he did find Jesus after his high school football glory days ended with a pregnant girlfriend, a shotgun wedding, and a life of enslavement to the man. After all, where does that guy go to find purpose and meaning? He goes to church.
He goes to that community institution that's so good at revealing the basic goodness present in all situations, especially when you "give it to God." His church is where he finds redemption for past sins, prospects for future business, and validation for his present assumptions about day to day living. He takes his questions to church and there he finds his answers, along with a well earned ounce of comfort and a constant companion.
Don't get me wrong. I mean no disrespect towards the transcendental power of the church experience that manifests as life-changing (sometimes life-saving) for so many. After all, for the average over-worked, under paid, tired, distracted, gluttonous, fearful American (and I do include myself in this descriptive), church is the only place where one gets even a glimpse into the great mystery: the super-string, the "tiny strand of everything" that binds us in this cosmic event referred to as life. This is big stuff people, the real deal that lives beyond the illusory display, and it can make the humblest of us all feel quite invincible.
Moreover, church is the only place where many of us experience the gift of all gifts known as grace. I don't know if I have the right words to describe what I mean in particular when I say "grace," but I do feel in my heart of hearts that grace is an invaluable, infinitesimal moment where humility is revealed and any hope at healing begins. It is therefore as powerful a force in my universe as gravity and electro-magnetism.
So yes, go to that place and find Jesus or God or Allah or even dharma - whoever/whatever gives you access to mystery and grace. I don't know a single person who doesn't need or deserve it. But it does beg the question of the various anonymous acquaintances out there, is church not where many of us are learning to fear each other?
You can believe me when I tell you the anonymous acquaintance we met in the coffee shop today looked like he felt like he was going to burn in hell when he realized he had inadvertently greeted a couple of lesbians with a smile and a general sense of good will. I don't know if it was the element of surprise that rendered him speechless, or some bad milk that sullied his coloration and otherwise shiny disposition, but the shift was both clear and pathetically familiar.
Now I'm not usually the biggest fan of Schadenfreude, but today I became genuinely tickled when I thought of the sick feeling this guy had to sit with in his belly during the business meeting that prevented him from going home and showering after this dirty little encounter with a local lesbos. I wondered with impish delight if it would have made him feel better if we had given him an opportunity to offer his approval for our lascivious union.
US: (In the manner of a condescending phone salesperson) "Yes, we're lesbians. Is that going to work for you? No? Ok, well then...we'll just be on our way and leave you to the self-perpetuated, white-male-privileged paradigm already in progress. Ok. Great. Have a nice day..."
Or, maybe he hasn't yet reached even that wrung of evolution; you know, the one of the well-meaning, liberal-minded relative who thinks they've arrived because they can hate the sin but still love the sinner, or the next wrung of the socially-conscious, straight-privileged friend who thinks they're evolved beings because they've heard the word "hetero-centric" and actually registered that the term could in fact apply to them.
To remove the tongue from my cheek for just a moment, I honestly don't think I was actually laughing at him. I think I was more relieved to finally experience "that moment" as passé and, well, funny. Funny? Yes!
I can report from this day in the field that it was so much more fun to laugh at this little scenario than the humiliation I felt last month when the attendant at the Food Bank demanded through a nervous stutter that I list my partner as my "friend" on the eligibility application, or the sense of frustration I felt when I filled out my 2010 census and couldn't answer the first question without having to be reminded that I am still invisible even when I am being officially counted by government order. (Incidentally, my census-worker aunt later informed me that they were granted official approval to allow gay couples to select a marital status of "married" if they felt so inclined. Since I never needed their approval, I'm telling myself that means the US Census Bureau thinks gay marriage will be universally legalized the by the time they come around to count us again.)
For once, I didn't have to make someone else's problem with all things homosexual my problem. Today I took another important step out of the muck of victim-hood, and had a hearty laugh to boot. Perhaps there's hope for me yet! (I can't know about that other guy...)
And scene.
Related Songs:
Not Your Baby Girl from The Shiz - Opus Deux
Tumble from The Shiz - Opus Deux
Pretty Ebony from Castles of Her Crystalline
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Unexplained Phenomena - Race, Class and Health Care in America
Really? Are you kidding me? What is going on America? You people can't possibly believe our health care system works as it is. I think the absence of a genuine discussion about health care reform is about something else entirely, but are we as a nation ready to talk about it?
It has something to do with why, at one point in this country, it was constitutionally sound to consider some of the people living here less than human. I would even go so far as to say it might have something to do why a Harvard professor can get arrested in his own home by an officer who is responsible for his precinct's racial sensitivity training. And dare I say it? I think it has something to do with why people think it's ok to carry automatic assault weapons to presidential assemblies, and why said people are not being arrested, harassed or otherwise antagonized by law enforcement agents.
I know it sounds as if I'm going to over simplify the issue and say it's about racism. I am, after all, a Black American woman and everyone knows we love to play the race card, right?
Well, if I were to place that ace on the table, it would be hard to dispute. I could tell you the story of my father's family who were sharecroppers in rural GA growing cotton and sugarcane on land the family had once worked as slave labor. Under the sharecropping system, they were never able to make enough to live on. Furthermore, only 3 out of 13 kids were able to attend school. My father was one of the 3 but he failed 5th grade because he had to work the land.
Long story short, my grandfather buckled under the fiscal strain and actually tried to kill himself by shooting himself in the head. The problem is he didn't die right away. They took him to the hospital but he was sent to the back door because he was black. They left him at the back door for several hours and by the time they let him in it was too late.
But here's the thing. Racism may have killed my grandfather, but racism lives because of a much larger illness. I believe there is a collective neurosis we as human beings have inherited that says some people have more inherent value, and by extension more rights, than others. Although I'm no expert, I believe this unexplained phenomenon occurs even in homogeneous cultures that don't necessarily carry the weight of centuries of racially driven indecencies that this country bears. So although I won't blame our health care crisis on racism, I sure can use that strange little institution to elucidate a larger dilemma.
There was a time in this country where a "federal ratio" declared certain people "3/5ths" the value of other people to protect financial and political interests. The ratio was originally proposed so that Southern states could be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth "(Jefferson), but was ultimately adopted so as to procure the Southern states more congressional representation, according to their numbers, as it were.
I am sad to admit that when I was taught about the "Three-fifths compromise" in grade school, it made perfect sense to me. "Of course the slaves shouldn't be counted as full people," I thought. I followed the logic of both sides and found it a completely reasonable solution. I even equated myself with the population that was being declared "less than fully human" as described by some accounts, and never registered a single chill in my spine at the notion.
(On a side note, I recall covering this material in social studies and history classes at the ages of 6, 9, 11 and 13. I can't say the "that was then, this is now" consolation was all that effective at such an impressionable time in my life.)
Now, as a thinking adult, I have to say I find it appalling for one class of people to presume they have the authority to come to some consensual agreement, for whatever reason, over another's value, especially when the calculation is to serve an end as coarse and gauche as taxation or political gain.
I would assert that we still live the legacy of such reasoning. In regards to health care, where once it was acceptable to determine your inherent value and therefore access based on race, later it became about class. If you were affluent or gainfully employed, you could have access to care. If you were poor and/or unemployed, sorry. Now it has progressed even further, if you are affluent, gainfully employed full-time and have never been sick, hooray! You're in the club. Otherwise, tant-pis!
From the corporate point of view, they're protecting their bottom line like the North attempting to tax the South, and guess what? the bottom line is more important than the lives of the people who need healing. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for an insured person to pay premiums regularly (money they will never see again if nothing ever goes wrong), pay their co-pay at the doctor's office, and then be denied coverage for the very medicine or treatment their degreed and licensed medical professional prescribes. I read a recent account where an insurance company declared anesthesia for knee surgery an "unnecessary procedure." Well admittedly I was not there, but somehow I doubt that back in the Civil War, they made amputees, civilian or otherwise, pay for the vodka, whiskey or moonshine they poured down their throats before the doctors took their limbs.
From the social point of view, both the "haves" and "have nots" are so afraid of "not having enough" that we navigate the issues from a fear and separatist based "poverty mentality," sub-consciously turning to our inherited neurosis to support our right to be afraid. Even if our children are no longer being raised to believe their different raced neighbor has different colored blood, they are not protected from the other, more socially acceptable ways in which we judge and assess each other's worth.
We (and by we, I mean those of us who want to let the broken system keep getting worse) still think we have the right to declare which lives are worth healing, and from my experience we're a pretty judgmental bunch. Have you listened to how some of these conversations go? A lot of the arguments I've heard against health care reform are about how they, as tax payers, shouldn't be responsible for certain people's care: the smoker, the alcoholic, the fat lady, etc.
I see at least a few gaps here:
1. It ignores all the people who don't fall into one of those categories.
2. It implies that people who did not have leave it to beaver lifestyles and meal plans should be shiz-out-of-luck if they ever get sick.
3. It presupposes that a public option paid for by taxes is the only possible solution.
4. It doesn't address the abuses already in practice by the industry.
5. It ignores the fact that we all end up paying for it one way or another...
We are afraid of each other and we don't care enough about each other's well being to get over it. I think the industry takes advantage of our confusion because it makes real change that much harder to accomplish. We are indirectly protecting the "industry" of health care while deflecting it's primary purpose which is to generate, provide and assist in efforts pertaining to health and care.
Let's face it. We are in an entangled, dynamic system. My question is how do we engage that truth in a way that actually works?
At this point, I don't think anyone could convince me that our current health care system works. We've all had experiences to the contrary, and we get sad, maybe even angry, but we don't get outraged. We don't say "Are you kidding me?" We don't demand the fundamental ideological changes that would turn the whole thing inside out.
Why is this? Why isn't health care a civil rights issue? Why isn't it tied to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Why are so many Americans so desperate not to rock this leaky bucket of a boat?
They tell me the issue is money and politics, corporate structures and power, and that the media is feeding the frenzy because they are a part of those structures. Well, haven't we been here before? Our system has been deciding for decades what race and what class of person was worthy of care, and what degree of care they should be allowed. That entire line of reasoning has always been corrupt, and has now brought us to a place where everyone is at risk of a ridiculous decision being made by a desk clerk bureaucrat to protect a corporate entity's bottom line.
I think WE are the ones who must create this change. WE are the ones responsible. The president WE elected is not going to accomplish it, and why should he even bother since WE THE PEOPLE seem to be on the fence about whether or not WE want health care reform?
WE THE PEOPLE have navigated impenetrable canyons and brought water to barren lands. WE THE PEOPLE upended the major financial and social institution of slavery because it was the right thing to do. We have the resources to make this happen. The steps are very simple. First we must decide that creating a system that grants ample access to health care to everyone is the right thing to do. Then we decide how to do it.
We are good, strong people. So what gives?
Songs related to this article:
Winona Laduke from The Shiz - Where We Stand
Wednesday's Child from Sleeper's Wake
It has something to do with why, at one point in this country, it was constitutionally sound to consider some of the people living here less than human. I would even go so far as to say it might have something to do why a Harvard professor can get arrested in his own home by an officer who is responsible for his precinct's racial sensitivity training. And dare I say it? I think it has something to do with why people think it's ok to carry automatic assault weapons to presidential assemblies, and why said people are not being arrested, harassed or otherwise antagonized by law enforcement agents.
I know it sounds as if I'm going to over simplify the issue and say it's about racism. I am, after all, a Black American woman and everyone knows we love to play the race card, right?
Well, if I were to place that ace on the table, it would be hard to dispute. I could tell you the story of my father's family who were sharecroppers in rural GA growing cotton and sugarcane on land the family had once worked as slave labor. Under the sharecropping system, they were never able to make enough to live on. Furthermore, only 3 out of 13 kids were able to attend school. My father was one of the 3 but he failed 5th grade because he had to work the land.
Long story short, my grandfather buckled under the fiscal strain and actually tried to kill himself by shooting himself in the head. The problem is he didn't die right away. They took him to the hospital but he was sent to the back door because he was black. They left him at the back door for several hours and by the time they let him in it was too late.
But here's the thing. Racism may have killed my grandfather, but racism lives because of a much larger illness. I believe there is a collective neurosis we as human beings have inherited that says some people have more inherent value, and by extension more rights, than others. Although I'm no expert, I believe this unexplained phenomenon occurs even in homogeneous cultures that don't necessarily carry the weight of centuries of racially driven indecencies that this country bears. So although I won't blame our health care crisis on racism, I sure can use that strange little institution to elucidate a larger dilemma.
There was a time in this country where a "federal ratio" declared certain people "3/5ths" the value of other people to protect financial and political interests. The ratio was originally proposed so that Southern states could be taxed "according to their numbers and their wealth "(Jefferson), but was ultimately adopted so as to procure the Southern states more congressional representation, according to their numbers, as it were.
I am sad to admit that when I was taught about the "Three-fifths compromise" in grade school, it made perfect sense to me. "Of course the slaves shouldn't be counted as full people," I thought. I followed the logic of both sides and found it a completely reasonable solution. I even equated myself with the population that was being declared "less than fully human" as described by some accounts, and never registered a single chill in my spine at the notion.
(On a side note, I recall covering this material in social studies and history classes at the ages of 6, 9, 11 and 13. I can't say the "that was then, this is now" consolation was all that effective at such an impressionable time in my life.)
Now, as a thinking adult, I have to say I find it appalling for one class of people to presume they have the authority to come to some consensual agreement, for whatever reason, over another's value, especially when the calculation is to serve an end as coarse and gauche as taxation or political gain.
I would assert that we still live the legacy of such reasoning. In regards to health care, where once it was acceptable to determine your inherent value and therefore access based on race, later it became about class. If you were affluent or gainfully employed, you could have access to care. If you were poor and/or unemployed, sorry. Now it has progressed even further, if you are affluent, gainfully employed full-time and have never been sick, hooray! You're in the club. Otherwise, tant-pis!
From the corporate point of view, they're protecting their bottom line like the North attempting to tax the South, and guess what? the bottom line is more important than the lives of the people who need healing. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for an insured person to pay premiums regularly (money they will never see again if nothing ever goes wrong), pay their co-pay at the doctor's office, and then be denied coverage for the very medicine or treatment their degreed and licensed medical professional prescribes. I read a recent account where an insurance company declared anesthesia for knee surgery an "unnecessary procedure." Well admittedly I was not there, but somehow I doubt that back in the Civil War, they made amputees, civilian or otherwise, pay for the vodka, whiskey or moonshine they poured down their throats before the doctors took their limbs.
From the social point of view, both the "haves" and "have nots" are so afraid of "not having enough" that we navigate the issues from a fear and separatist based "poverty mentality," sub-consciously turning to our inherited neurosis to support our right to be afraid. Even if our children are no longer being raised to believe their different raced neighbor has different colored blood, they are not protected from the other, more socially acceptable ways in which we judge and assess each other's worth.
We (and by we, I mean those of us who want to let the broken system keep getting worse) still think we have the right to declare which lives are worth healing, and from my experience we're a pretty judgmental bunch. Have you listened to how some of these conversations go? A lot of the arguments I've heard against health care reform are about how they, as tax payers, shouldn't be responsible for certain people's care: the smoker, the alcoholic, the fat lady, etc.
I see at least a few gaps here:
1. It ignores all the people who don't fall into one of those categories.
2. It implies that people who did not have leave it to beaver lifestyles and meal plans should be shiz-out-of-luck if they ever get sick.
3. It presupposes that a public option paid for by taxes is the only possible solution.
4. It doesn't address the abuses already in practice by the industry.
5. It ignores the fact that we all end up paying for it one way or another...
We are afraid of each other and we don't care enough about each other's well being to get over it. I think the industry takes advantage of our confusion because it makes real change that much harder to accomplish. We are indirectly protecting the "industry" of health care while deflecting it's primary purpose which is to generate, provide and assist in efforts pertaining to health and care.
Let's face it. We are in an entangled, dynamic system. My question is how do we engage that truth in a way that actually works?
At this point, I don't think anyone could convince me that our current health care system works. We've all had experiences to the contrary, and we get sad, maybe even angry, but we don't get outraged. We don't say "Are you kidding me?" We don't demand the fundamental ideological changes that would turn the whole thing inside out.
Why is this? Why isn't health care a civil rights issue? Why isn't it tied to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" Why are so many Americans so desperate not to rock this leaky bucket of a boat?
They tell me the issue is money and politics, corporate structures and power, and that the media is feeding the frenzy because they are a part of those structures. Well, haven't we been here before? Our system has been deciding for decades what race and what class of person was worthy of care, and what degree of care they should be allowed. That entire line of reasoning has always been corrupt, and has now brought us to a place where everyone is at risk of a ridiculous decision being made by a desk clerk bureaucrat to protect a corporate entity's bottom line.
I think WE are the ones who must create this change. WE are the ones responsible. The president WE elected is not going to accomplish it, and why should he even bother since WE THE PEOPLE seem to be on the fence about whether or not WE want health care reform?
WE THE PEOPLE have navigated impenetrable canyons and brought water to barren lands. WE THE PEOPLE upended the major financial and social institution of slavery because it was the right thing to do. We have the resources to make this happen. The steps are very simple. First we must decide that creating a system that grants ample access to health care to everyone is the right thing to do. Then we decide how to do it.
We are good, strong people. So what gives?
Songs related to this article:
Winona Laduke from The Shiz - Where We Stand
Wednesday's Child from Sleeper's Wake
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
