So, I was thinking about some things yesterday and am just now getting a chance to write some things down. Philippians 3:13 says "Forgetting those things that are behind reaching forward to those things that are ahead." I was speaking to someone yesterday and I was pressed to think about the significance of the date and God's plans for newness in our lives. I thought about the verse in Philippians, because Paul, who I usually take issue with, asks believers to do something that is honestly very difficult. We are asked to forget about the things that made us who we are today. This is not an absent-minded type of forgetting that happens when someone asks you to pick something up from the store and you forget. No; it is the type of forgetting that takes practice. You are to consciously decide that all that has happened before, no matter how great or how horrible is nothing in comparison to what God has for you in God's divine will.
The problem is that in consciously forgetting, we come up with seemingly valid reasons why we should remember. After all, every situation we've had to encounter has worked together to create the quilt of our lives. However, we sometimes build alters to our pasts and worship the experience way more than the God that brought us through them. We act as if we are the authors of our lives instead of participants in the "thoughts and plans" God has for us. We have to be so desperate for the better ending that we are willing to give up all of our allegiances to our past. Right now, I am fighting with this issue myself. I feel so badly that I need to have my feelings about the past justified that I have held on to something and someone who in the end really does not matter. God has already chosen my inheritance for me (Psalm 47:4), but I was comfortable in being angry and hurt that I was unwilling to give it up for the greatness God has in store.
At any rate, I say all that to say that new beginnings are not necessarily tied to a date, but they are tied to seasons- kiros- divinely appointed points in time. I feel strongly that this is a season where God wants to restore the years that we've sown in tears and the years that the worms and locusts took away (Joel 2:25). It's up to you to walk into your season.
Peace
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
His Baby's Mama?
For those who have not read or seen the hullaballoo, click this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/fox-news-calls-michelle-o_n_106655.html
Sometime on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, Fox News- that bastion of the status quo, called Michelle Obama Barack's Baby Mama. Now, let's ignore the fact, that if they wanted to use the term, they could have used the correct variation of the word- babies'. After all, one can only feign intelligence if the obvious mistakes are not made. However, let's think about what is really being said by calling this married mother of two a Baby Mama.
When I was in college, there were two songs that came out- "That's just my baby daddy" and "That's just my baby mama". Both parties were trying to explain to potential dates that there may be some drama with the other parent of their children, but that it didn't matter- after all, that was just their baby daddy/mama. The term conjures up the millions of children that are born in situations where they live with only one parent. Often, these parents have multiple children with multiple parents, multiple court cases, multiple personalities, but little responsibility.
So essentially what Fox News said was that Michelle Obama, educated woman with a terminal degree, married with two daughters, was nothing more than a receptacle for semen. Their attempt was to strip the very sanctity of her marriage that they are fighting to withhold from same-sex partners. How very contradictory.
Not only does this smell of sexism, considering she made a name for herself outside of her husband. It also sounds a lot like racism. Unfortunately, the term wasn't created by the white man that we people of color like to blame. We laughed and shrugged it off when entertainers made references to their conquests in this manner. Many of us have even referred to our childrens' parents as such. Who do we blame now?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/11/fox-news-calls-michelle-o_n_106655.html
Sometime on Wednesday, June 11, 2008, Fox News- that bastion of the status quo, called Michelle Obama Barack's Baby Mama. Now, let's ignore the fact, that if they wanted to use the term, they could have used the correct variation of the word- babies'. After all, one can only feign intelligence if the obvious mistakes are not made. However, let's think about what is really being said by calling this married mother of two a Baby Mama.
When I was in college, there were two songs that came out- "That's just my baby daddy" and "That's just my baby mama". Both parties were trying to explain to potential dates that there may be some drama with the other parent of their children, but that it didn't matter- after all, that was just their baby daddy/mama. The term conjures up the millions of children that are born in situations where they live with only one parent. Often, these parents have multiple children with multiple parents, multiple court cases, multiple personalities, but little responsibility.
So essentially what Fox News said was that Michelle Obama, educated woman with a terminal degree, married with two daughters, was nothing more than a receptacle for semen. Their attempt was to strip the very sanctity of her marriage that they are fighting to withhold from same-sex partners. How very contradictory.
Not only does this smell of sexism, considering she made a name for herself outside of her husband. It also sounds a lot like racism. Unfortunately, the term wasn't created by the white man that we people of color like to blame. We laughed and shrugged it off when entertainers made references to their conquests in this manner. Many of us have even referred to our childrens' parents as such. Who do we blame now?
Friday, May 30, 2008
Letter from a teacher
I work in a school. I work in a charter school. That is a loaded statement. A colleague of mine sent out a letter, just asking questions about our goals. This was my response:
"First I want to say that you are preaching to the choir. I feel like a hypocrite sometimes working here because it is not a place that I would send my children to yet. It’s not simply because there is no gym, or because there are fewer teachers of color here than any school I’ve ever visited this century in New York (to some that means nothing although there are some of us who know people that went all the way up to college seeing only one ethnicity of teacher), or because there seems to be a disconnect between “best practices” and the realities of life in a racist, sexist and economically oppressive world.
I do not think that as a whole all teachers are intentionally preparing students of color for life. In talking to the parents and some students, there are a few conclusions that I have come to. The hidden curriculum and null curriculum are alive and well within the building. Some students’ spirits are continually broken by persons who have either internalized the racism that has been exacted on them, or by persons whose White Privilege prevents them from realizing that their view on things is not always the most important and may actually be invalid. The lack of teaching about the connection to Africa and the regal lineage, instead of continuing to re-teach the 60s is sickening. Students here are given the expectations of being a white middle class pseudo-intellectual, forgetting that the program itself is based on the premise that students of color need so much more in terms of academics than other students. The fact of the matter is that we are not yet successful producing students who will challenge the dominant paradigm. Instead, we are making students who will be successful WITHIN the paradigm.
To me, it begins with who is hired. It isn’t enough for the person to be a teacher passionate about making a change- what is the change you feel needs to be made? What is your background (past teaching, business person, officer)? What preconceived notions do you bring to the table about these students? Are we creating another pipeline to prison in the way that we choose to “discipline”? Why can’t these kids read and comprehend? If it was one child, maybe I could understand; but it is the vast majority. Then, I think we need workshops that change minds about students of color. Students of color do not have a different type of brain from other students, but vicissitudes of life create a filter where realities might be different from our own. That difference is valid and should be appreciated instead of pushed aside because it has not been dealt with before. Finally, we need to take a look at ourselves. Why are we teaching in the first place? How hard are we trying to reach the students who we honestly do not like?
I am taking a statistics class right now that is pushing us to be purposeful in our research design. We analyzed the story of Jack the Beanstalk and discussed why Jack has been viewed as a hero, when he was irresponsible, a thief and a murderer. The conclusion was that we strangely have a different set of morals/objectives depending on who the characters are in the story. How do we do the same thing?
As for me, I’m here because it is my duty to counteract what many of these kids deal with everyday. No, I am not saying that I am the end all and be all, and I am not saying that my ethnic, cultural or religious affiliations automatically qualify me to help. I won’t talk to them like they’re animals because I would not want to be spoken to like that, and I would raise holy hell if I knew my child was spoken to that way. I won’t squelch what I see in them because I have some type of authority. I will act as if I gave birth to each and want to see the best for them. "
"First I want to say that you are preaching to the choir. I feel like a hypocrite sometimes working here because it is not a place that I would send my children to yet. It’s not simply because there is no gym, or because there are fewer teachers of color here than any school I’ve ever visited this century in New York (to some that means nothing although there are some of us who know people that went all the way up to college seeing only one ethnicity of teacher), or because there seems to be a disconnect between “best practices” and the realities of life in a racist, sexist and economically oppressive world.
I do not think that as a whole all teachers are intentionally preparing students of color for life. In talking to the parents and some students, there are a few conclusions that I have come to. The hidden curriculum and null curriculum are alive and well within the building. Some students’ spirits are continually broken by persons who have either internalized the racism that has been exacted on them, or by persons whose White Privilege prevents them from realizing that their view on things is not always the most important and may actually be invalid. The lack of teaching about the connection to Africa and the regal lineage, instead of continuing to re-teach the 60s is sickening. Students here are given the expectations of being a white middle class pseudo-intellectual, forgetting that the program itself is based on the premise that students of color need so much more in terms of academics than other students. The fact of the matter is that we are not yet successful producing students who will challenge the dominant paradigm. Instead, we are making students who will be successful WITHIN the paradigm.
To me, it begins with who is hired. It isn’t enough for the person to be a teacher passionate about making a change- what is the change you feel needs to be made? What is your background (past teaching, business person, officer)? What preconceived notions do you bring to the table about these students? Are we creating another pipeline to prison in the way that we choose to “discipline”? Why can’t these kids read and comprehend? If it was one child, maybe I could understand; but it is the vast majority. Then, I think we need workshops that change minds about students of color. Students of color do not have a different type of brain from other students, but vicissitudes of life create a filter where realities might be different from our own. That difference is valid and should be appreciated instead of pushed aside because it has not been dealt with before. Finally, we need to take a look at ourselves. Why are we teaching in the first place? How hard are we trying to reach the students who we honestly do not like?
I am taking a statistics class right now that is pushing us to be purposeful in our research design. We analyzed the story of Jack the Beanstalk and discussed why Jack has been viewed as a hero, when he was irresponsible, a thief and a murderer. The conclusion was that we strangely have a different set of morals/objectives depending on who the characters are in the story. How do we do the same thing?
As for me, I’m here because it is my duty to counteract what many of these kids deal with everyday. No, I am not saying that I am the end all and be all, and I am not saying that my ethnic, cultural or religious affiliations automatically qualify me to help. I won’t talk to them like they’re animals because I would not want to be spoken to like that, and I would raise holy hell if I knew my child was spoken to that way. I won’t squelch what I see in them because I have some type of authority. I will act as if I gave birth to each and want to see the best for them. "
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Beat your kids.... please!
So the Bible says that if we spare the rod, we spoil the child. After growing up under the rod, I was convinced for a while that my mother was a sadist who cared nothing for me, or my feelings. About 7 years ago, I began teaching. 5 years ago, I had my first son and a year ago, my second. The more I interact with children, the more I start to agree, ever so slightly, with the Bible. Don't get me wrong please. I am not saying that you need to go upside the head of your children for every little thing they do, but there has to be something called structure or discipline.
I teach some children who have convinced me that either their parents collectively hit the pipe or collectively drugged their children. It isn't as if they simple behave in a manner that is normal for children their age. Some of these children are really depraved. They have no clue whatsoever how their present connects with their aspirations (or lack thereof) for the future. I have children who cannot read and are offended when you try to help. I have others who don't know enough to know that they don't know anything. But if you think these kids are bad, take a look at their parents.
When a parent attempts to argue you down because you gave a child a zero for having no homework, there is a serious problem. When a child comes in and tells me what happened on last night's episode of The Wire, there is a problem. Of course these students have a lot of other issues to deal with in school (majority white teachers although the majority of the students are Black), but it all begins in the home.
We did not all come from two-parent households- I understand that. We did not all grow up with a silver spoon in our mouth- I understand that. However, is it too much to ask a parent to actually care for a child? Would you rather deal with the issue when the child is young, or when he or she is in front of a judge?
I teach some children who have convinced me that either their parents collectively hit the pipe or collectively drugged their children. It isn't as if they simple behave in a manner that is normal for children their age. Some of these children are really depraved. They have no clue whatsoever how their present connects with their aspirations (or lack thereof) for the future. I have children who cannot read and are offended when you try to help. I have others who don't know enough to know that they don't know anything. But if you think these kids are bad, take a look at their parents.
When a parent attempts to argue you down because you gave a child a zero for having no homework, there is a serious problem. When a child comes in and tells me what happened on last night's episode of The Wire, there is a problem. Of course these students have a lot of other issues to deal with in school (majority white teachers although the majority of the students are Black), but it all begins in the home.
We did not all come from two-parent households- I understand that. We did not all grow up with a silver spoon in our mouth- I understand that. However, is it too much to ask a parent to actually care for a child? Would you rather deal with the issue when the child is young, or when he or she is in front of a judge?
Monday, April 28, 2008
Mr. Powell: I agree, but I don't
While I was trying to figure out what to prepare my 4 year old for dinner, I came across an editorial piece by Brother Kevin Powell. I call him brother because he is truly an amazing human being. He has used his name and influence to give voice to people and causes that too often go unheard. His books are remarkable, power-punching yet palatable to a wide array of readers. So, it was no surprise that while perusing allhiphop.com, I stopped at his article. He was responding to the Sean Bell verdict and made many valid points. Most of them- I agreed with. However, there was one part that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. He states, “Our current leadership needs us to believe all we can ever be are victims, doomed to one recurring tragedy or another. It keeps these leaders gainfully employed, and it keeps us feeling completely helpless and powerless (Powell, 2008)”. For some reason, I became offended.
Anyone who knows me knows that sometimes I argue for the sake of arguing. In fact, I went to Divinity school in order to better equip myself for arguments with ministers. Of course I came out with a whole different view on life, religion and Christ’s message in particular, but I’m saying that to say that I am not one to readily support leaders, especially those who are quick to name the name of Christ. I can only guess as to whom Brother Powell was referring, but I have a few questions. Is it not easier to attack the tactics of the prevailing “Black” leadership because they actually say something when things like this happen? Why not come at Jay-Z who decided to create a dis record in support of Lebron James this weekend, instead of an ode in honor of a fallen brother? Do we really believe that our leadership would rather that we be subjugated (at least politically) forever?
I think it is easier to attack than to look at the rest of the circumstances, historically speaking. Black men have been misconceived as being criminals since The Atlantic Slave Trade. Post-chattel slavery, Black men could be arrested based on hearsay (not too different from now) and were lynched for things like looking at or whistling at a white woman (Emmet Till). Since then, even when Black men are honest and hard working, they are still demonized based on this ill gotten stereotype. So what happens, some of them have decided that if they are viewed negatively anyway, you might as well just go on and do it anyway. It was because of those type of people that Sean Bell met his end. It was the image of a systematic agreement with an incorrect statement that caused those cops, white, Black and Latino, to murder a man in cold-blood. I say, let’s focus on that instead of tearing each other down. Like I said, I agree with you Brother Powell, but not all the way.
Powell, K. (2008). The Sean Bell Tragedy. Retrieved from http://allhiphop.com/stories/editorial/archive/2008/04/26/19734547.aspx on April 28, 2008.
Anyone who knows me knows that sometimes I argue for the sake of arguing. In fact, I went to Divinity school in order to better equip myself for arguments with ministers. Of course I came out with a whole different view on life, religion and Christ’s message in particular, but I’m saying that to say that I am not one to readily support leaders, especially those who are quick to name the name of Christ. I can only guess as to whom Brother Powell was referring, but I have a few questions. Is it not easier to attack the tactics of the prevailing “Black” leadership because they actually say something when things like this happen? Why not come at Jay-Z who decided to create a dis record in support of Lebron James this weekend, instead of an ode in honor of a fallen brother? Do we really believe that our leadership would rather that we be subjugated (at least politically) forever?
I think it is easier to attack than to look at the rest of the circumstances, historically speaking. Black men have been misconceived as being criminals since The Atlantic Slave Trade. Post-chattel slavery, Black men could be arrested based on hearsay (not too different from now) and were lynched for things like looking at or whistling at a white woman (Emmet Till). Since then, even when Black men are honest and hard working, they are still demonized based on this ill gotten stereotype. So what happens, some of them have decided that if they are viewed negatively anyway, you might as well just go on and do it anyway. It was because of those type of people that Sean Bell met his end. It was the image of a systematic agreement with an incorrect statement that caused those cops, white, Black and Latino, to murder a man in cold-blood. I say, let’s focus on that instead of tearing each other down. Like I said, I agree with you Brother Powell, but not all the way.
Powell, K. (2008). The Sean Bell Tragedy. Retrieved from http://allhiphop.com/stories/editorial/archive/2008/04/26/19734547.aspx on April 28, 2008.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Is There Need To Say Anymore
I am the wife of a Brown-skinned man. I am the mother of two Brown-skinned boys. It is both an honor and a reason to be concerned. In November of 2006, a Brown man was murdered by New York City Police. Today, April 25th, 2008, they were acquitted of all charges. I tried to explain what happened to my 4 year old. He, like many of us today, is confused. Are we supposed to tell our boys that life is just unfair sometimes and we have to roll with the punches? Or do we say, unfortunately, the only people that cops "accidentally" murder are men of color? Do we continue to chastise our boys for simply being boys born Brown who should not enjoy the simple pleasures life offers?
Years ago, Brown men were lynched and it was authorized and sometimes assisted by the state. Let me qualify that- if you can help and do not help, you are complicit. I see that the more things change, the more they stay the same. This case was heard by a judge- not a jury, but a judge. This judge decided that it was legally ok for a cop to shoot, reload, shoot and reload again without reassessment. He decided that reflecting over the wrongs done was punishment enough- legally. He decided that unarmed Brown men are dangerous looking enough to be profiled and attacked by police- legally. He said that he had to weigh the evidence without histrionics and decided what the Constitution writers would have wanted- legally.
Let's go back to the authors of the Constitution: rich, white male, landowners who decided that all men are created equal and then defined "men" as folk just like them. So can we really be angry at the judge? He did EXACTLY what the Constitution writers would have wanted- kept themselves safe.
Before someone says, well two of the cops were African-American and Puerto Rican. I think Rev. Sharpton said it best- just because you're my color doesn't make you my kind.
Hotep.
Years ago, Brown men were lynched and it was authorized and sometimes assisted by the state. Let me qualify that- if you can help and do not help, you are complicit. I see that the more things change, the more they stay the same. This case was heard by a judge- not a jury, but a judge. This judge decided that it was legally ok for a cop to shoot, reload, shoot and reload again without reassessment. He decided that reflecting over the wrongs done was punishment enough- legally. He decided that unarmed Brown men are dangerous looking enough to be profiled and attacked by police- legally. He said that he had to weigh the evidence without histrionics and decided what the Constitution writers would have wanted- legally.
Let's go back to the authors of the Constitution: rich, white male, landowners who decided that all men are created equal and then defined "men" as folk just like them. So can we really be angry at the judge? He did EXACTLY what the Constitution writers would have wanted- kept themselves safe.
Before someone says, well two of the cops were African-American and Puerto Rican. I think Rev. Sharpton said it best- just because you're my color doesn't make you my kind.
Hotep.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
