Archives For Anti-Racism

“Antiracist” Academic Claims That Grades are Racist

March 17, 2021 — Leave a comment

“The English Language is Racist” would have been a better title for academic, Asao B. Inoue’s obscure 2019 book, ‘Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate.’

Inoue is a self-styled “antiracist” whose literary history, and Twitter feed, reflects an obsession with race as a subject.

Not unusual, considering the wave of profits flowing in for the likes of ‘White Fragility’ author Robin DiAngelo, and Critical Race Theory advocate, Ibram X. Kendi.

Milking white guilt from the gullible is a cash cow.

Most agree that racism is sinful. Few deny historical wrongs happened by way of the rejection of the Imago Dei Biblical Christian Doctrine, and the subsequent embrace of the social Darwinian mythos of race, but there’s still hard cash to be won from it.

Labelling people racist simply because of the colour of their melanin translates into big dollars. Making racism, big business.

Granted, there’s room for the honest critique of any ethnic majority. There isn’t when the context of that critique is built on poisoned presuppositions that measure a white person as sinful or evil, just for having white skin.

It’s clear that Critical Race Theory replaces a culture of silence with a culture of suspicion. Thus, throwing society from one form of racism into another.

Through his conclusions Asao Inoue appears to be guilty of both.

According to The Daily Wire’s Chrissy Clark, Inoue (an associate Dean at Arizona State University) believes ‘English is derived from white people, which means it’s inherently white and racist.’ 

Inoue (who believes ‘he lives in an explicitly racist world’) claims that grading English isn’t done so by an objective rubric, but through the lens of white supremacism.

For example, ‘ranking is rooted in racism; grading is a form of ranking, grading must also be a racist idea.’

(Note the circular reasoning.)

Clark writes that Inoue’s ‘main argument is that grading calls for student uniformity and high-quality completed assignments, both of which are allegedly racist ideas.’

Inoue’s solution is to ‘get rid of grading systems’, which would remove what he calls a ‘slave making mechanism.’

By removing the system that ‘requires children to speak and write proper English during English and literacy classes’, society can fight ‘white language supremacy.’

In other words, cancelling grading a student’s understanding of correct syntax, grammar, vocabulary, and conventional linguistic standards within the English language is quintessential “antiracism” that will end the ‘white racial habitus’, and it’s ‘racist status quo.’

His reasoning rests on the assumption that white people have an “unearned privilege”, because they’re taught to speak English at home, which for Inoue translates as systemic racism, and the reason why he never received an “A” in English class, only a “B.”

Clark explains that Inoue, born in Hawaii, to a father who is ethnically Japanese, and mother who is Eastern European, holds a Doctorate from Washington State University.

Following the necessary facepalm, two reactions to Inoue are justifiable. First, serious prayer. His conclusions appear to be drenched in victimhood, and rooted in resentment. Second is exasperation for those who buy into the victim mentality.

In particular, Bureaucrats, who, keen for some virtue signalling P.R, would sacrifice academic standards on the twofold racist idea that all “white people are racist”, and the presumption that non-white people need English language standards dumbed down for them, because “antiracists” consider those with a darker shade of melanin, incapable of understanding, or mastering the English language.

The consequences of Inoue’s conclusions are a downgrade of professionalism.

Would you trust your family or your own healthcare to institutions that give potential professionals degrees based on their skin tone, gender or sexual preference, not the quality of their performance/acumen/merit?

The kind of degree-by-where you land on the intersectionality scale, will create higher risk, further division, and racism, because those who’ve been elevated by virtue of their skin colour, or sexual identity, aren’t actually capable of doing the job entrusted to them, and therefore can’t be trusted in the role their degree/doctorate is supposed to prepare them for.

Sadly, it won’t be “WOKE” unis who get the blame. It’ll be you. Just like all bureaucrats, the buck will be passed. So will the blame. As the WOKE mob pins racism on anyone who decides to steer clear of those sold out to this Cancel Culture trend, and those whose academic credentials are questionable, because “WOKE” unis were more interested in virtue signalling quotas, than the quality of academic achievements.

English isn’t racist.  Today’s “antiracism” is, and today’s “antiracists” are.

Inoue isn’t a product of racism. He’s a product of a racist victimhood industry.

For those fed-up with this endless rule-by-idiocracy, it’s a reminder of the dumbing down of Western Societies.

It’s also indicative of the fact that while a civil war is still avoidable, a schism in the West, is, now, all but inevitable.

On one side stands those who side with Truth over falsehood. On the other, stands those like Inoue, who embrace the Radical Leftist totalitarian phantasmagoria.

The best outcome the leftist ideological hegemony could hope for is that the majority turns towards self-preservation; switches off, and tunes out, while holding their breath, and hoping, that the gathering storm doesn’t hit them in the same way it is hitting others.

To quote Churchill,

“World War 2 was preventable, but no one would listen and one by one we were all sucked into the awful whirlpool. We surely must not let that happen again…We must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence.” – (1946. ‘The Sinews of Peace’)

Related reading: Taking the White Supremacist Narrative Too Far

First published on Caldron Pool, 9th March, 2021.

©Rod Lampard, 2021.

In Political Theology , , , , , ,
permalink

Zulus Are Backing White Farmers in the Fight against Land Expropriation, Here’s Why

June 25, 2019 — Leave a comment

In what the U.K Telegraph called an ‘unlikely alliance’  Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini has backed an Afrikaner lobby group ‘to fight the South African government’s plans to take land from white owners without compensation.’[1]

The U.K Times reported that King Zwelithini’s ‘motivation in working with “the Boers” was their shared concern for the country’s food security, which he feared would be threatened if President Ramaphosa (of the longer ruling ANC) pressed ahead with his controversial expropriation plans.’[2]

Zulus are a Nguni people. They make up 22% of the 45 million people who live in South Africa. They are part of the southern Bantu ethnic group[3]. The majority of Zulu’s are Christians. Others hold to a syncretistic version of Christianity; where old world tribal customs and beliefs are fused with Biblical Christianity.

Zulus (people of the sky) have played a key role in South African history. Under Shaka Zulu they nationalized and became ‘one of the mightiest empires the African continent has ever known’[4]. The Zulu kingdom lasted for ‘about 60 years’[5].

The majority of Zulus are not wealthy, but they are fiercely independent[6]. According to Political Science professor, Jungug Choi, part of Zulu identity is its warrior tradition. Fused with Zulu nationalism this ‘not only allows political activists to employ violence as a means of overcoming their political obstacles, but also legitimizes violent political actions in the name of the Zulu nation’[7].

The Zulus fought against the British and the Boers and later made up a large part of the South African workforce, creating some of the first worker unions[8].

In 1908, they initiated an uprising known as the Bambatha Rebellion against unfair taxation by the then colonial government.

Political violence carried out by the Zulus during the 1994 transition, which saw South Africa free itself from fifty years of apartheid, was a reminder of the political power of the Zulus. Their opposition was based on concerns about social instability and a worsening of economic conditions that the transition might bring with it.[9]

The ‘unlikely alliance’ between Zulus and Afrikaans puzzles onlookers because to them such an alliance is incomprehensible. It was Anglo Europeans who divided the Zulus and ‘waged the biggest war against them’[10]. Common sense dictates that it should be Zulus supporting other Black groups, not Zulus supporting White Afrikaners.

In addition, Zulus don’t appear to be the kind of people who would ignore injustice without a fight, or forgive injustice without having a good reason to do so.

There are explanations for the unlikely alliance. Despite the clashes, Zulus and Afrikaans seemed to enjoy a fractured, yet somewhat mutually beneficial relationship.  Zulus enjoyed ‘limited autonomy under apartheid.[11]’ This, according to Choi, gives reasons for why the Zulu leadership and the “White” government worked together. They were ‘driven by some common interests, particularly in confronting the ANC[12] as an enemy[13] over concerns about regional autonomy’. [14]

As Choi explains, any move towards a majority rule Democracy meant a possible change to heredity rule within the Zulu nation. Post-apartheid ANC policies were a potential challenge to Zulu land and identity.

As nationalists, Zulus are proud of their land and history and they are not afraid to defend it. This is primarily why Zulu leaders defiantly protested against centralization, in 1995. They clashed with Nelson Mandela and ‘threatened to abandon the GNU’.[15]

The news that King Goodwill Zwelithini is backing Afrikaner farmers is an encouraging sign and he isn’t alone. In April this year, Zimbabwean Paramount Chief Felix Nhlanhla Ndiweni spoke out against the planned eviction of Brian and Carol Davies, from land where they operate a photographic safari and farm, which employs and houses 2,000 people.  Chief Ndiweni criticized the plan as inhumane saying,

‘I’m not talking about the high level of morality for the land reform programme, we are talking about base corruption […][16] a good administration would never in a million years proceed with such an eviction, which is a disaster for the family concerned and the local people. It is an eviction that will never be accepted and will continuously be challenged on the ground, locally, regionally and internationally.’[17]

The Davies had been granted permission to build on Ntabazinduna Hill, as well as being made custodians of the historical site, by Chief Ndiweni’s father. In response the family promised to preserve it.[18]

Zimbabwe is now notorious for its economic collapse after kicking 4,000 white farmers off the land. It’s safe to assume that the Zulu leadership does not want to see the same thing happen in South Africa.

Social problems already exist and drastically destabilizing the country’s food production for the sake of politics, would only add to them. According to an ABC report from Jonathan Holmes in late 2018, the rise in violence against white farmers is attributed to both ‘undocumented migrants’ (illegal immigration) and racial politics. However, violence attributed to ‘undocumented migrants’ (illegal immigration) from the North is also affecting Black South Africans, not just White farmers. Holmes states that this is because of an inability to police shanty towns on the edge of Johannesburg or process the influx of ‘undocumented migrants’ (illegal immigrants)[19].

Violence against White farmers is on the rise, but it’s obvious that not everyone in the South African nation backs the policy of eviction which sees Afrikaan farmers kicked off the lands they were raised on. What’s more to the point, some highly respected traditional land holders see land grabs by the state as disastrous to their own communities.

All of the above tells us that food and social instability isn’t the only concern the Zulus have about the A.N.C kicking White farmers off their lands. For the Zulu leaders, if land expropriation becomes law, it’s not a matter of if the Zulus will be next; it’s a matter of when.

References:

[1] Flanagan, J. 2018. Zulu King Backs Afrikaners in fight against Cyril Ramaphosa’s land grab, The Times, U.K. sourced 19th June 2019

[2] Ibid, 2018.

[3]South African History, 2011 Zulu sourced 19th June 2019 from https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/zulu

[4] Ibid, 2011

[5] Choi, J. 2008. The Political Origins of Zulu Violence during the 1994 Democratic Transition of South Africa,  Journal of International and Area Studies Vol. 15, No. 2 (December 2008), pp. 41-54 (14 pages)

[6] Choi, J. 2008 (p.44)

[7] Choi, J. 2008 (p.47)

[8] Britannica, Zululand

[9] Choi, 2008. (p.47)

[10] Ibid, 2008. (p.48)

[11] Ibid, 2008 (p.49)

[12] African National Congress, Nelson Mandela. Also South Africa’s ruling party since the end of Apartheid.

[13] Choi, 2008. (p.48)

[14] Ibid, 2008. (p.48)

[15] Inkartha Freedom Party (IFP) Sourced from South African History Online 20th June 2019

[16] Zimlive. 12th May 2019. Sourced 20th June 2019

[17] Ben Freeth, 2019. Eviction of white photographic safari operator and farmer angers local chief, The Zimbabwean 23rd April, 2019. Sourced, 20th June 2019. See also Moses Mudzwiti’s  IOL article dated 23rd April 2019

[18] ibid, 2019

[19] Holmes, J. South African Farm Murders The ABC, 19th September 2018. Sourced 20th June 2019.

Photo credit:  Ban Yido on Unsplash

Originally published on Caldron Pool, 21st June 2019

© Rod Lampard, 2019

In Political Theology, Politics , , , , , ,
permalink

The Toxic Paradox of Ilhan Omar’s Black Nationalism, Woke Blindness & The End of Days

May 6, 2019 — 3 Comments

In her[1] last round of public appearances, Democrat Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) blamed America for the suffering of Venezuelans, and managed to alienate the majority of Americans with the provocative statement, “this is not going to be the country of the xenophobics. This is not going to be the country of white people.”

As Omar failed to clarify who she meant by the term “white people”, one can only presume that Omar was either loosely referring to those of Caucasian ethnicity, or more broadly, anyone who supports President Donald Trump. Since those on the far-Left consider anyone not living within the Leftist head-space of modern liberalism, or anyone not in orbit around planet Marx, as being far-right, it’s plausible to think that Omar meant the latter.

Omar’s comments were made during a rally hosted by the Movement for Black Lives[2]. The event was hosted in support of Omar, who they allege was “misrepresented”, after she reduced the Islamist attacks on the United States in September 11, 2001 to simply being, “some people did something”. For context, The Movement for Black Lives by all appearances, are a Black Nationalist organization. Part of their platform includes the demand for reparations for slavery and self-determination for Black people. Omar is also one of America’s first Muslim senators and has been consistently antagonistic towards the Trump administration, and anyone seen to be not in agreement with her political ideology.

Omar’s xenophobic[3] remarks about fighting xenophobia in America are paradoxical. There’s a sharp irony exposed by the fact that her comments against “white” Americans were made from a “Black” Nationalist platform, and she is supported by a “Black” Ethno-Nationalist political movement.

The rookie Democrat also managed to show her lack of experience when on a panel discussing the crisis and suffering of the Venezuelan people, Omar blamed the United States for contributing heavily to the suffering, because of sanctions imposed on the socialist totalitarian regime in Venezuela[4], stating:

“A lot of the policies that we have put in place has kind of helped lead the devastation in Venezuela, and we’ve sort of set the stage for where we’re arriving today, this particular bullying and the use of sanctions to eventually intervene and make regime change really does not help the people of countries like Venezuela, and it certainly does not help and is not in the interest of the United States.”[5]

Omar doesn’t understand how, just sanctions, work from a diplomatic level. Just sanctions are equal to boundaries designed to redefine relationships in order to encourage positive change by correcting abuse, with the hope creating a healthier relationship between two people.  Just like exercise and medical intervention. Boundaries may hurt for a bit, but the ultimate goal is to encourage health and healing.

Socialism and Venezuela’s Marxist politicians have failed the Venezuelan people, not America or Capitalism.

The same gradual decline happened in Guinea after its independence from France in 1958. According to Guinean Cardinal Robert Sarah, ‘I was able to observe how much Guinea was suffering under a dictatorial regime that offered it no hope. Lies and violence were the favorite weapons of a system that was based on a destructive Marxist ideology. The economy of the country had collapsed, and the inhabitants of the villages experienced extreme poverty.’ (God or Nothing, 2015)

Omar’s racially charged statements made from a “black” ethno-nationalist platform follow a series of divisive remarks, and movements, designed to mythologize oppression and take control over what it means to be oppressed.

This Leftist dogma has even penetrated the Church. Writing for Stream.org, Mike Adams made an astute analysis of “Wokeness” and the division it promotes. Adams critiqued Ps. Eric Mason, an urban preacher and author for his incoherent advocacy of what Mason calls the “Woke” Church.

“Is it fair to blame white Christians for the sins of earlier generations? Today, it’s hard to find conservative Christian anywhere expressing support for segregation. But the same leftist policies that decimated the black family are still in place. Mason boasts about his “woke-ness.” But he writes as if he has been asleep for fifty years.
Mason’s resentment toward white conservative Christians today over the omissions of other Christians yesterday is made worse by his own apparent racial prejudice. Consider this statement: “I fear that if we partner with whites that they will find a way to subjugate blacks and make us dependent on them in a way that kills our freedom of a truly black institution […] He expresses resentment over white conservative Christian apathy toward segregation in the past, then rationalizes and defends black self-segregation today. It is hard to grasp why Mason is angry and what his goals are — aside from eliciting white guilt. ”[6]

Outside Ps. Eric Mason’s “Woke Church”, his other books are down to earth, straight-up biblical. I like Mason and have followed him closely on Social Media. I lament that he’s followed Leftism down the Woke road, and strayed from the balanced, solid theological teaching, for what seems to me to be a quest to appear relevant for of fear of missing out. Whether my own brief assessment is accurate or not, Mason’s advocacy of “wokeness” seems to me to be too close to the dissonance of the irrational and volatile anti-Trump movement, as exemplified this week by Rep. Ilhan Omar.

Speaking as a Pentecostal, who has experienced, and witnessed the disastrous consequences of how bad theology can permeate through a congregation, and divide a denomination, the “Woke Church” movement should be treated with as much caution and Biblical theological critique, as the Charismatic “Toronto Blessing” movement was. Theology should be a critique of ideology, not a slave to it – God’s Word confronting and correcting mans’. (2 Corinthians 10:4-5).

Adams is right to ask Mason to properly define what his real concerns are, and how we can all work towards addressing them. The same principle applies to Rep. Ilhan Omar. Provide more evidence; give a reasoned argument, not just divisive rhetoric that ignores 50 years of progress built on the faith and fairness of Civil Rights advocates such as the mighty Dr. John Perkins, and the unforgettable, Rev. Martin Luther King Jnr.

The irony of Omar’s words, along with her own xenophobia about Caucasian people, and Mason’s incoherent activism prompts the question:

Why are some American Democrats so fixated on the colour of your skin, sex & gender? Who benefits from this?

This doesn’t feed the poor. This doesn’t raise people beyond their inherited circumstances. This doesn’t provide the homeless with the ability to find shelter for themselves. This doesn’t comfort the wounded or heal the broken. This doesn’t encourage families by empowering them through employment and education.

Those Democrats and their fixation on skin colour, sex & gender achieve none of these things. What it does do is divide, provoke and antagonize. What it does do is incite fear, violence and suspicion; doing exactly what they’re constantly accusing the American President of doing.

Whether Omar and Mason are woke to it or not, they are making themselves complicit with the Leftist narrative. “Nazi” no longer works, so they’ve gone full “only those on the right are racists; white supremacists/anti-Semites.”

This is a politics of evasion. It’s very subtle, very dangerous, but also very clever. All of it done so as to paint the far-left as holy warriors, pure, sinless, freedom fighters; Jihadists fighting a spiritual enemy in the physical realm. If this trend is not stopped by discerning citizens of the West, the political tactic described above may win the Left approval for militant action under all who are not ideologically aligned with them, under the guise of “just war theory.”

In responding to his recent Facebook and Instagram ban, Paul Joseph Watson correctly noted: “This looks like the end […] They’re now removing people’s ability to have bank accounts and credit card because they have the wrong opinions they’re literally trying to remove your right to buy and sell this is biblical no right to commerce unless you have the mark; and what is the mark? Total intellectual castration and obedience.”[7]

Herein lies the problem with Social Justice Warriors, they’re not fighting for equality of outcomes, or the betterment of their neighbors, they’re fighting for equality with God. This puts them on the same level as Judas Iscariot, not Jesus Christ.

Both Omar and Mason are essentially tilting at windmills, ignoring 50 years of change, dialogue and reform. Instead, they’ve taken the road of blame, prejudice and perpetual victim hood.

In fighting what they think is the dragon; they’ve failed to get woke to Nietzsche’s warning, “Be careful, lest in fighting the dragon you become the dragon.”(Paraphrased)[8]

References:

[1] Disclaimer: I’m assuming Omar identifies as a woman based on the fact that Omar refers to herself as a woman on Twitter and being part of the “sisterhood”.

[2] Democracy Now! Hands Off Ilhan Omar, sourced 3rd May, 2019

[3] In this case Omar’s comments fit within what is a fear of white-people.

[4] Democracy Now! Omar Speak out Against Sanctions & Bipartisan Support sourced 3rd May, 2019

[5] Caroline Kelly, ‘Omar partially blame US…’ CNN.com sourced, 3rd May 2019

[6] Mike Adams, The Woke Church is More Informed by Leftist Cliches than Gospel Truth, Stream.org. Sourced, 4th May 2019

[7] Paul Joseph Watson, PJW: Banned by Facebook & Instagram Summit.news. Sourced, 4th May 2019

[8] Beyond Good & Evil. #146 Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (p.69)

(Originally published at the Caldron Pool under the same title, 6th May 2019)

©Rod Lampard, 2019

In Political Theology, Politics , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

Review: ‘Dream With Me: Race, Love & The Struggle We Must Win’, John M. Perkins

May 17, 2018 — Leave a comment

John M. Perkins is an American civil rights campaigner. His 2017 book, ‘Dream with Me’, is a brave step forward in seeking to create better dialogue between both black and white communities. Overall, ‘Dream With Me’ is a call for both black and white Americans to unite, in their diversity, under God. This review will focus on two primary strengths of Perkins’ work.

The first strength is the presence of a Theology of Christian Liberation. Perkins refuses to take the easy path of perpetual anger, condescension and resentment – both traits found in Black liberation theology (which is largely tainted by Marxism). Instead, Perkins leans towards the rules of solidarity[i] and subsidiarity[ii]. In doing so, he proclaims a social doctrine, not the social gospel[iii].

The significance of this distinction is, in the former, Jesus Christ remains at the core of the gospel and isn’t replaced by attempts (found in the latter) to synchronise Karl Marx with Jesus Christ[iv]. In addition, a social doctrine allows the freedom to affirm and critique the issues impartially. The social doctrine, in this context, is greater than the social gospel, because the Gospel remains free of any ideological lens (particularly atheist and theistic Marxism).  The Gospel (read Jesus Christ) is allowed to speak for Himself without being muffled by Marx.

Unlike the social gospel, which tends to ‘stray from Scripture’ (D. Bonhoeffer[v]), Perkins’ social doctrine doesn’t respond to injustice through a lens of victimisation, double-standards, excessive-unbridled egalitarianism (dismissive tolerance and irrational equality), dependency on the state, or entitlement. He, instead, advocates for a ‘new alternative’[vi], building on what he calls the ‘three R’s’: ‘relocation, reconciliation and redistribution.’(p.88)  Here, Perkins upholds the uniqueness of Christian liberation, which holds to God’s liberation of humanity from slavery to sin[vii].

‘White people need to take responsibility for centuries of imperialism and failing to repent, but black people  also need to take some responsibility for the breakdown of our families (p.70) […] Things only get fixed – truly fixed – when they are mended by God through faith. Often we have it backwards trying to fix things for God rather than letting God fix things through us (p.81).

The secondary strength of ‘Dream With Me’ is that Perkins doesn’t sugar coat reality. He’s up front about racism, the impoverishment of some Americans (in general[viii]), and is outspoken in his call for the renewal of efforts that move America towards justice[ix]; towards lived reconciliation. Such a lived reconciliation will require jettisoning the shackles of identity politics.

For Perkins, progress towards this goal involves reclaiming the word reconciliation. Perkins believes that

‘‘Issues related to ethnicity and tribalism may divide us, but we are one race – the human race (p.54) […] we have taken God’s definition of reconciliation and made room for bigotry by inserting race into the concept. Racial reconciliation is not a biblical term. People use race as a slave master.’ (p.84)

What he calls for instead is a reconciliation firmly grounded in God’s reconciliation of the sinner to Himself.

‘I will call for – what I believe the gospel calls for – unity across ethnic and cultural barriers’ (ibid)

Perkins’ quest is to attain genuine equality (as opposed to any false utopian idea of supremacy[x] or the fool’s quest of seeking perpetual payback, in order to make things equal). He is adamant that Americans should build on the faith, approach and doctrine of the early civil rights campaigners. This road is difficult, but it should, and must be travelled.

Perkins offers no instant-fix formulas. What he does offer is a roadmap for how this can be achieved.  At the heart of ‘Dream With Me’ are ‘the three R’s: these are relocation where the old informs the new; reconciliation, free of victimization and identity politics; redistribution, not of wealth, but of opportunity’ (pp.74-89). What Perkins means by relocation is a readiness to be available; a readiness to be where, and to do, what God has called the individual to. Redistribution is about ‘stewardship[xi]’ (p.85) and reconciliation ‘is a way of life that displays God’s redemptive power’ (p.84).

‘Dream With Me’ is a careful discussion about the issues that face African-Americans. Perkins acknowledges (with great care) the historical wrongs suffered by African-Americans at hands of racial hatred. He acknowledges historical abuses by returning to his own experiences. Referring to his own suffering, Perkins sets the example:

‘On February 7, 1970, while I lay on the floor of the Simpson County Jail in Brandon, I made the decision to preach a gospel stronger than my racial identity and bigger than the segregation around me.’ (p.56)

‘Dream With Me’ brings the civil rights movement out of the museum, and it takes reconciliation out of the hands of race baiters, who seek to keep African-Americans down purely for political advantage.  ‘Dream With Me’ challenges the status quo of racial divisions by inviting change through humility and understanding.

Perkins doesn’t play the blame game. He seeks to end the cycle of abuse by encouraging others to not engage in reciprocating stale responses veiled by resentment and forced tolerance, all of which are underpinned by unrepentant hearts, pride and a fraudulent reconciliation, grounded in toxic identity politics.

In sum, ‘Dream With Me’ brings the practice of reconciliation to life. Perkins provides a viable way forward. This is a brave book written by an elder in the Civil Rights movement. Whether Americans can move beyond stale cultural slogans and tribal segregation; beyond blame and shame[xii], is an open question. It’s one that can only be answered when and where people are freed from the prison of ‘isms’ – racism, sexism, ageism, classism, and so many other divisive systems’ (p.50)

This book is for anyone who has been dealt blows by the hands of injustice, ostracism, abuse and uncalled for hostility. It’s for those who want to move beyond the logical fallacies which manipulatively assume that because someone has a certain type of skin colour, their melanin predetermines their heart, character and how they view the world around them; for those who want to keep Jesus Christ at the centre of justice, reconciliation and stewardship toward our neighbour.

‘Dream With Me’ is a call to prayer-filled action, which falls in line with Paul the apostle’s command and prayer for the Church in Corinth: ‘aim for restoration.’ (2 Cor. 13:9 & 11, ESV)

References:

[i] Defined as proactive empathy, as opposed to the spectator-sympathy.

[ii] Community and government groups play an auxiliary role in supporting initiatives; helping, not controlling or taking away individual responsibility; ergo offering a hand-up, not a hand out.

[iii] Teachers about Jesus’ teaching, not about Jesus Christ; turning Christianity into a list of ethical principles. In effect, Christless Christianity e.g.: “Who needs Christ? If I follow his example by being a good person, then I’ll be able to save myself, make God happy and get into heaven.”

[iv] See Jacques Ellul’s brilliant criticism in Jesus & Marx, 1988.

[v] ‘The contempt for theology is outrageous. Rauschenbusch’s own “theology for the social gospel” clearly shows, like its successors, that a lack of obedience to Scripture is characteristic for the teaching of the social gospel.’
(Bonhoeffer, DBW 12, Memorandum: The Social Gospel, p.242)

[vi] Perkins, J.M 2017 Dream With Me: Race, Love, and the Struggle We Must Win, Baker Publishing Group, (p.85)

[vii] Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, 1984, Instruction  on Certain aspects of the Theology of Liberation, (Source)

[viii] ‘To be honest, I had never given a second thought to poor whites. I still regarded them negatively – as redneck, trailer park white trash. The wealthy white people could help me, but what good were the poor whites to me? But then this poor white couple showed up at my doorstep. My automatic response was to treat them the way whites had treated poor blacks – to patronize them. But these people were teaching me, John Perkins, the guy who was supposed to be leading the church in reconciliation; a lesson in what it really means to be reconciled to one another.’ (pp.56-57)

[ix] ‘Justice is an act of reconciliation that restores any part of God’s creation its original intent, purpose, or image’ (p.207)

[x] ‘Wealthy whites also used the poor whites as tools of oppression — having blacks beneath [poor white folks] made those [folks] feel superior.’ (p.60)

[xi] ‘We’ve gotten away from the understanding that all of resources belong to God, and that we are stewards of whatever portion of those resources He has entrusted us with.’ (p.85)

[xii] ‘…we need to start getting beyond this stuff. Issues related to ethnicity and tribalism may divide us, but we have to start recognizing that we are one race – the human race’ (p.54)

Disclaimer: I did not receive any remuneration for this review, in any form.

In Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Reviews, Social Justice, The Word of God , , , , , , , , , , ,
permalink

Review II: ‘Accidental Courtesy’, A 9th Grader’s Response To Daryl Davis’ Relational Activism

March 23, 2017 — Leave a comment

‘Accidental Courtesy’ is a recent release documentary featuring African-American musician, speaker and activist, Daryl Davis.

Davis explores the possibility of change through dialogue and relationship. In the documentary we see and hear about how he actively sought out members of the Klu-Klux-Klan in order to ask them one on one, why, because of the colour of his skin, he was hated so much. Especially since they didn’t know him nor had they ever met him. Throughout the process, documented over a series of years, Davis presents the outcome.

Here is the promised part two of our reviews of, and responses to, this phenomenal story. Part one can be located here.

Accidental Courtesy

In his documentary called ‘Accidental Courtesy’ Daryl Davis, who is an African American, talks about racism. He knows what it’s like to be oppressed and set apart by others. He has befriended members of the Ku Klux Klan and even though they have different opinions, they respect each other. The KKK is an American post-Civil War secret society who wants white people to have “supreme authority”; its members claim to be Christians, and are known for burning crosses on the front of black people’s houses

Merriam-Webster defines Racism as the ideological belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and the racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. This is something that should not be encouraged. Racism bullies others because of their skin colour. This is similar to the bullying of kids at school. Racism, like a bully, picks on people who are different. It makes them feel powerful and strong.

When members of the KKK met and talked with Daryl Davis, their views of African Americans changed significantly. For example, some of the members have resigned from the KKK and have given him the cloaks and hoods they wore. Daryl has a few dozen of these. He also has badges and accessories. Daryl didn’t intend to help change their hearts and minds, but he’s criticized for interacting with them.

Some African Americans don’t like Daryl Davis for doing this. He met with representatives of the Black Lives Matter movement and they refused to shake his hand or to listen to what he had to say. They stated their opinion to him but chose not to listen to what he had to say.

Daryl Davis also is a musician and lecturer. He plays the keyboard and piano very well. He also goes to colleges and talks about how two people with different views have a conversation. According to him, two people might be yelling, screaming and banging their fists on the table, but “as long as they’re talking, they’re not fighting.”(-Daryl Davis) If both people can discuss their views and opinions with each other then there is a kind of respect between them; Daryl and the people he met from the KKK did this well.

In conclusion, I think that Daryl Davis’ documentary is good. It shows how racism works and how it can be countered. His being open to talk with members of the Ku Klux Klan was a decision he made. I believe that God used Daryl Davis like a messenger to help those members from the KKK to realise that harassing African Americans wasn’t God’s way. I learnt what racism looks like and it isn’t something to be proud of. People should respect each other even if they look different. Everyone should be treated equally and be shown respect. From different ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, God made all humans, no matter what race or colour, unique. We shouldn’t resent that, we should accept and embrace it.

Whether a person’s skin is black or white, it doesn’t matter because we’re all created in God’s image. To say otherwise is to create God in our image.

(A.Lampard, Yr 9 23rd March 2017)

Sources:

‘Racism’ Encyclopaedia Britannica

Davis, D. 2016 Accidental Courtesy

Disclaimer: We received no payment of any kind for our response to, or our review of this material.  

In Homeschool, Homeschool Notes, Inspirational , , ,
permalink

Review: ‘Accidental Courtesy’, A 7th Grader’s Response To Daryl Davis’ Relational Activism

March 20, 2017 — 2 Comments

‘Accidental Courtesy’ is a recent release documentary featuring African-American musician, speaker and activist, Daryl Davis.

Davis explores the possibility of change through dialogue and relationship. In the documentary we see and hear about how he actively sought out members of the Klu-Klux-Klan in order to ask them one on one, why, because of the colour of his skin, he was hated so much. Especially since they didn’t know him nor had they ever met him. Throughout the process, documented over a series of years, Davis presents the outcome.

He found himself becoming friends with some members of the Klu-Klux-Klan. Developing an understanding about the reasons for why a person might hold a racist view in light of the civil rights gains for African-Americans that have been made since the 1950’s.

This relationship, first formed by mutual respect resulted in a turnaround for those he’d made an effort to get to know. Whilst there is obvious evidence of this radical change, Davis is not afraid to highlight the fact that many remain ardently affected by the ideology they serve.

On the other side of the issues, Davis includes an exchange between himself and Black Lives Matter representatives, who despite the evidence and without allowing him to respond, passionately oppose his approach, claiming that no one can change, especially not a white racist.

After watching Davis’ documentary, I looked at my wife and immediately said to her that we need to add this to our watch list. I’ve since packed it into our resources for the key learning area we Aussies call, HSIE: Human Society and Its Environment, and last week I walked our homeschoolers through the issues presented by Davis.

I should also add, that our homeschoolers were already very aware of the importance of Martin Luther King Jnr. and the civil rights movement. The documentary helped to educate them on areas, such as the existence of the Klu-Klux-Klan, and the claims, reasons and issues surrounding the Black Lives Matter movement.

As part of bolstering the learning outcomes associated with ‘Accidental Courtesy‘, I have had two of my three high schoolers write a review and response. Daryl is also receiving flak for his outreach, by posting these reviews I hope to suggest to his critics that this documentary goes further in inspiring and educating than might be thought otherwise. The following review is the first of these two reviews:

 .

Accidental courtesy

Daryl Davis is a musician and a lecturer. In “Accidental Courtesy” he talks about racism and how Martin Luther King Jr. wanted the blacks and whites to live together instead of separating the people by the colour of their skin, which helps different groups to put each other down and beat each other up.

Daryl Davis talked about racism in America. Some police officers there have been abusing their power and are beating up black people because of their colour. For example: an African-American teenage boy was arrested and the police ignored his requests for an ambulance. The teenager died, in jail, the day after he was arrested.

In America there are groups of people called the Klu Klux Klan (KKK), that hate black people. They are known for burning crosses on black people’s lawns and throwing rocks at their windows which sometimes have hateful messages tied on them. Some Klans make out that God wants white people to rule and own America for themselves.

Daryl Davis is amazing; he has talked to many members of the KKK. Some of them, after they have talked to him, left the Klan. He has around 25-26 Klan member uniforms from the people who left. He also went to talk with a couple of African-American members from the Black Lives Matter group. One of them didn’t like where the conversation was going so he got up to leave and wouldn’t shake Daryl’s hand, then soon the other one left. He tried to talk to another man, but the man just swore at Davis and left. I think after that he felt very discouraged because they didn’t even give him a chance to talk at all about what he’s learned.

In conclusion, I think Daryl Davis is doing a good thing for America. It’s sad to know that people can’t get along, because someone’s skin is different to theirs. Martin Luther King Jr. would most likely have agreed to what Daryl Davis was doing to help America because Martin Luther King believed in removing the distinction between black and white. Those Klans are wrong!!! God wants us to love one another and get along with each other no matter what our skin colour, or disabilities. God made all of us and we are all the same on the inside no matter what the colour of our skin is. We need to learn to love people who look different to us, because everyone has a life that needs to be loved.To me there is no difference between black or white people.

(C.Lampard, Yr 7 20th March 2017)

.

Davis, D. 2016 ‘Accidental Courtesy’ 

Disclaimer: We received no payment of any kind for this review.  

In Homeschool, Homeschool Notes, Inspirational , , , ,
permalink

Don’t Reject Australia Day, Redeem It

January 26, 2017 — Leave a comment

wedge-taled-eagle-aus-flagThe birth date for Australia as a nation is officially Federation Day, where on January 1st, 1901, the states and territories came together as one.

The 26th, “Australia Day”, marks the landing in Botany Bay of the first fleet, which arrived in 1788, filled with British convicts, their wardens and a few settlers. Worth noting, this was one year before the French Revolution. 14 years after the American war of independence.

They arrived not to fight an organised army or take siege of cities. When they arrived, they saw bushland that went on as far as the horizon. To this enlightenment age people, this land, although sparsely occupied by clans of indigenous Australians, was mostly empty.  Hostility fuelled by misunderstandings and racism, between Europeans and indigenous people came much later on and with it a history that is not as black and white as white vs. black.

There has been an official “sorry” given for wrongs committed towards indigenous Australians, plus a TON of aid and support in both education and other social programs to empower awareness and positive change within indigenous communities.

Today, Australia Day represents the ownership of those wrongs and the long effort to factually acknowledge and correct them. Australia Day also represents the celebration of freedom, God’s blessings, our rich heritage, the land, new citizenship for immigrants and the importance of  indigenous Australians to our nation’s future.img_0948

It’s also a day that reminds us, we are a people still in need of redemption.

For reconciliation to mature beyond words and gestures, forgiveness must follow that official apology. This won’t happen, though, for as long as Leftist elites and their sycophantic allies are allowed to control a skewed narrative and direct the hearts of people through their often biased politics.

Yes, Australia Day does remind us of the negative side to our nation’s history. However, that’s not something to run from. It’s something to be acknowledged; something that leads to Australia Day bringing not just patriotism, but humility; something that should rightly move us towards a solidarity of suffering, of respect, and reconciliation.

We as a nation are not beyond being mature enough, to hold the right and the wrong in both hands, being able to learn from both, being humbled by its mistakes and using them to empower our future.

To move the Australia Day to, May, or make it ”Wattle Day” is to jettison all the benefits that can come from redeeming the past for the present and the future. Effectively taking the negative aspects of this nation’s history and burying it does nothing for progress, unity or reconciliation.

Moving the date or renaming the day will only unnecessarily divide us, ripping from our hands and hearts, the potential to fuse together, and be fused together by a solidarity that Australia Day, as an event, brings and can bring.

We aren’t beyond redeeming the day or the date, because we still stand under the God who redeems, has redeemed, and will redeem. The land down under, is a land of liberty under God.

If you think the day is offensive, don’t reject it. Give it a fair go. Seek instead to redeem it.

 ‘…Transgression. Redemption. One island’ – Midnight Oil, One Country.

Happy Australia Day.

References:

Artwork credit: Artist TBC, otherwise unknown.

Image: Australian Governor-General, Sir Peter Cosgrove, Australia Day, 2017: “A great privilege to be welcomed as part of a traditional smoking ceremony at the National Flag Raising and Citizenship Ceremony” (source: Official FB page)

In Australia, Theology, Truth , , , , , ,
permalink