Part III: Recovering the Voice of Your Heart by Daniel Fan

Now that we’ve abandoned objectivity and reset the definition for civility, what next?

We return to where we’ve always started from and where we always should have been.

Speak from your heart.  That means it’s ok to show pain, anger, and tears.  We were never meant to step away from or outside of ourselves.  Your emotions, and experiences are part of you, and therefore an undeniable part the Body.  The Church isn’t going to change because it objectively lost a civilized argument. The Church is going change because hears its members’ stories, their pain, their suffering, and truly understands that when one suffers, all suffer.

Part II: Civility: Why the Church Can’t Hear You Scream by Daniel Fan

Objectivity has a first cousin.  It’s called civility.  In fact, you often find them married in the same attempt to put down minorities and women.  Sometimes when the opposition plays the “civility” card, it’s good sign because they’re no longer attempting to deny your truth, only the manner in which you bring it.  More specifically, it occurs because they are trying to rationalize a rejection of that truth, as if your objection to your own oppression and exploitation is somehow disorderly and ill-mannered.

When we talk about civility, we have to go back to the real-world pragmatic base of that word, which for most people is “civilization.”

Civilization in the American setting, as it turns out, has a rather perverted and totemized working definition, one that most people who claim it won’t admit to, but rely on implicitly.  I’ll throw down an example of contrast:

A planet is inhabited by two groups of people:  one is a hunter-gatherer society steeped in ritual and the other is a space-faring society.  The first uses herbal medicine, while the other is able to employ advanced medical, pharmacological, and surgical techniques.

Which one is more civilized?

Illegal Immigrants Should Receive the Same Equal Historic Opportunities By Randy S. Woodley

The current group of Republican frontrunners all agree on strong borders and they are fairly consistent that there should be no Amnesty granted to illegal immigrants who are already in the country, meaning that they should return to their countries of origin and “get in the back of the line.” I happen to disagree.

Being a country that prides itself on equality and opportunity for the hardworking or well deserving underdog, I think the same standards should apply to all people in the United States. Remember the good old days when the country was giving away free land? There were so many Government sponsored programs available to the illegal immigrants back then, one only had to decide which suited their situation best.

Besides state lotteries that existed, (who could forget that “wacky” Georgia Land lottery?), federal programs were all the buzz like land grants, land patents, the Land Act of 1804, the Military Tract of 1812, the Preemption Act of 1841, Donation Land Claim Act of 1850, the Homestead Act and the ever popular Boomer/Sooner Oklahoma Land Run. The array of programs offered in the past has been astounding. It is time they be resurrected!

Part I: “Objectivity: Why the American Church Can’t Hear You Scream” by Daniel Fan

[This is the first of a two part series that I wrote a while considering the connections between women's struggle for equality in the American church and the struggles of racial minorities within the same body.  I won't claim that they are identical, but there are certain similarities, probably because both struggle against the same common oppressive structure].

A little about myself: I am a Chinese American, grew up in Southern California, and went to college in Wheaton, Illinois.  This school was, at the time, the stereotypical 92% white, midwestern, American, insular, Christian school. The school’s prevailing culture allowed for material aspirations, but only if those aspirations were consecrated by adding the adjective “missionary” in front. For example, you couldn’t just be a  businessman.  You had to be “missionary businessman.”  Neither could you aspire to be a successful surgeon; rather you had to be a “medical missionary.” This hypocrisy irritated me to no end, so when asked what I was going to do, I replied to the inquisitor:  “I’m going to be a missionary-mercenary.”  Well, God was listening, because today, I fight for the recognition and equality of colonized/indigenous peoples and women, of which I am neither.

I’m hoping to share some of the lessons I’ve learned from my tangles on the race side to help those who are beginning their trek with gender-justice understand why the deck so often seems stacked against them. Let’s say you’re part of a bowling league. One day, your team is invited to a match at a different alley.  When you get there, you find out that the lane you have to bowl in is actually built on a thirty-five degree incline. Well, that sucks doesn’t it? You’re probably going to lose if you play, but if you leave without playing, you’ll lose for sure. You’re not just playing against the other team, you’re playing against an artificially constructed environment—one that was designed to favor the other side.

The first thing you have to realize when you speak out against the Western Colonial/Patriarchal power structure is that you’re not just going up against your opponent’s arguments; you’re going up against an environment that is designed to defeat change and maintain the status quo. Your opposition is going to try to make you bowl on that lane with a thirty-five degree incline. The main way they are going to implement this is with a little word called “objectivity.” In their eyes, being dispassionate, distant, and un-invested lends credibility, and the lack thereof is cause for immediate dismissal of the opposing argument. Since you care enough to challenge the system by speaking out, you are already at a disadvantage, and heaven forbid if you ever speak out from your own personal experiences.  The fact that you care enough to show to have your say means you have already lost.  They might listen for a bit, but ultimately, the charge of being “not objective” will be leveled against you and at that point you will be dismissed.

Thanksgiving: Letter to my local paper Opinion Page

A Newspaper Should Know Better by Randy Woodley

Recently, The Newberg Graphic ran an ad in it’s classified section for “Thanksgiving Deadlines.” Peering out from behind the ad was a caricature of a turkey with a a Native American headband and feathers like one would display on what we often see as a typical caricature of Native Americans. I, and several other who I asked, saw this representation of a turkey as a Native American (or a Native American as a turkey) to be offensive.

I’m not “down on Thanksgiving” like so many of my friends.While we may argue over the many versions and revisions of the original Thanksgiving, I for one, actually like the fact that we can find something in history concerning indigenous Americans and the colonizing settlers representing positive feelings for one another. There appeared to be at least a short period of time of friendship and peace between the Wampanoags and the Plymouth separatist. I know, other accounts of history dispute the myth-but perhaps myths such as this can support a better future for us all together. Which brings me to my point.

Any form of caricaturization of Indians betrays any positive modicum of mutual respect that may be garnered from the Myth of the Original Thanksgiving. In light of the fact that during much of our mutual history together, White settlers and the colonizing institutions representing their governments have tried to wipe out Native Americans through genocidal practices and assimilationist policies. Your Native American Turkey is not what we should expect from a newspaper.

Some scholars have even gone so far as to say that the annual Thanksgiving ritual has a deeper religious meaning for the dominant culture. Whereby, the brown-skin turkey, representing America’s original inhabitants, is cut up and consumed in a ritualistic remembrance to celebrate perverted notions of American exceptionalism and having God on their side, while the “savage indigene” is dispensed and eaten by the settler. A sort of unconscious working out of the philosophy of Manifest Destiny. At any rate, given the genocidal implications in our history and the current racism still typified through stereo-typing Native Americans, we should be able to expect more from institutions serving the common good and the public square.

Occupy: America’s Desperate Need for Hope

Occupy: America’s Desperate Need for Hope
by Randy Woodley

JFK, MLK, RFK, X, and Paul Wellstone seem to lend power to the adage, “only the good die young. In 2008 I sensed an excitement that I had not seen since 1968 prior to Robert F. Kennedy being killed. Seeing the young people occupying the streets is amazing but it also reminds me of the results of what happened afterwards that year. My concern is that we not just demand change but that we find hope. In an effort to revive my spirit I recently reviewed the movie “Bobby.”

Seeing “Bobby,” the movie, reminded me once again of my tender and hopeful attitude towards the world in 1968. While watching the myriad of great actors trying to recreate the room at the Ambassador Hotel, I detected several interesting things (beside how old I’m getting). Compared to most of the politicians today, I noticed how much content there was in RFK’s speeches. Not at all the political jargon and spin, which seems to typify every national debate, but real heartfelt talk. It was obvious that there was a different tone in the political conversation in 1968—at least from Kennedy

I also took notice of the people Bobby hung out with. Surrounded by minorities and visiting the poor, the disenfranchised and the youth—people who don’t usually pull a great deal of political sway. He spoke of the great nation and of us becoming great citizens through ending the war, reducing poverty, investing in the youth, healing the racial divides (I even saw a picture of Kennedy with a Native American elder and no one seems politically interested in us today-short of absconding Casino monies).

It all re-affirmed to me that Bobby really did believe in our ability to create the America we dreamed of. He really believed “the dream” could become reality. Today, we have become cynical, afraid to dream, at best we call it “tempered realism.” I believe hope is what we need so desperately today. The kind of hope that I think would get someone like Robert F. Kennedy elected today. I think it is the kind of hope that would get a leader—a real leader, re-elected or elected as our 45th President.

No one really knows if Robert F. Kennedy would have become the 37th President or how effective he might have been. But I do believe that if RFK were a young Senator right now, he would become the next President of the United States.

I was only 12 years old when “Bobby” was killed. In those days people’s thinking was amazingly different than today. As a pre-teen, I too was riding high on the crest of that national wave of expectant hope for a new, and better society. National leaders who could speak of a better day with integrity like King and the Kennedys, were to me and my contemporaries, rock stars. I can’t help but notice that there is something about those times that is missing, in these times. And for me, if there is any one-year in history where I can pinpoint the death of the dream—it was 1968.

After the death of King, then the death of Kennedy, came the escalation of the war in Viet Nam, Watergate, the oil crisis and a whole slew of other distractions. With the absence of men like Martin and Bobby, it wasn’t long before America’s dreams were completely clouded by more temporal realities.

In the past few years others have tried to step up to the plate. We lost a great hopeful with the death of Senator Paul Wellstone. I really shouldn’t make a list but I will say, Obama-America may still have its eyes on you, and we know there is a fine balance between reality and dreams, so if you are our dreamer, now is time to throw open the window of opportunity and seize the dream again. Don’t get me wrong—I understand the economic realities, I know we desperately need a realist, but reality without the hope of a better day is simply Hell. To me, Hell on earth is being a citizen without a voice or representation—especially if you are among the poorest of the poor and the most marginalized of the marginalized. That’s why Occupy Wall Street is so great. People have decided their voice matters and they are not giving up. But they are looking for a dreamer tough enough to renew the vision of the men I have mentioned heretofore.

I observed that “Bobby’s” director, Emilio Estevez had the genius to cast the part of Robert Kennedy to none other than, Robert Kennedy. Amazing that RFK could star in his own movie thirty-eight years after his death, and still be a hit! Go Bobby! I just wonder if there is a leader out there now, who might have integrity and the voice of hopeful reality, who would deserve to star in the sequel? If so, you have my vote.

Lookin’ for a Leader to bring our country home
Re-unite the red white and blue before it turns to stone
Lookin’ for somebody young enough to take it on
Clean up the corruption and make the country strong

Walkin’ among our people there’s someone who’s straight and strong
To lead us from desolation and a broken world gone wrong
Someone walks among us and I hope he hears the call
And maybe it’s a woman or a black man after all

-Neil Young, “Looking For A Leader” from (Living With War)

“WWCD, What Would Columbus Do?” Are You Kidding?

“WWCD, What Would Columbus Do?” Are You Kidding?.

“WWCD, What Would Columbus Do?” Are You Kidding?

“WWCD, What Would Columbus Do?” Are You Kidding?
by Randy Woodley

‎”As for the vast mainland…we are sure that our Spaniards, with their cruel and abominable acts, have devastated the land and exterminated the rational people who fully inhabited it. We can estimate very surely and truthfully that in the forty years that have passed, with the infernal actions of the Christians, there have been unjustly slain more than twelve million men, women, and children. In truth, I believe without trying to deceive myself that the number of the slain is more like fifteen million.” Bartolome’ De Las Casas, Devestation of the West Indies

An African American news moderator started his program this morning on MSNBC with the words  “Happy Columbus Day!” Then he said, “Of course we have to work today but that’s what Columbus would have wanted.” The irony is not lost on me-but unfortunately, I don’t think he was kidding. I don’t even think he was congnizant of the issues.

Yes, my brown friends, Columbus would want you to work today. His actions are  responsible for opening up the African slave trade after disease wiped out about 15 million of the American Indian slaves whom he subjected to digging out his, and other’s gold and silver mines. Columbus would also like to have you cook his food after working 12 hours a day in the mines with only the leftover food he discarded as your pay. He would also like you to supply his soldiers with your sisters, mothers, aunties and daughters so they could rape them daily. Yes, my friend, Columbus really would want you to work and celebrate his special day. Of course, if you refuse he might feed you to his dogs. So work, and do what Columbus would want you to do. Happy Columbus Day to you to too!

King, Obama and Freire

by Bo Sanders

Today is the 43 year anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King.  As I was driving to work this morning I was listening to a show asking if President Obama is living up to the high rhetoric of the elections and if he is living up to the legacy of Dr. King that he drew on so often.

That is not what my note is about.  It is simply background.  The main focus of the conversation was what they called Dr. King’s terrible trifecta: Racism, Militarism, and Poverty.

Social Justice (Made in America): For Export Only

by Daniel Fan

I was looking forward to attending “The Justice Conference 2011” in Bend (here’s the trailer: http://vimeo.com/16400014) over the February 11th-12^th weekend.  As far as conferences go, it seemed logistically and technically very well planned and the location was beautiful.

Photo: Native America Thru the Rearview Mirror

I had hopes that conference speakers would address such issues as racism, colonialism, imperialism, indigenous land rights, and gender hierarchy.  In retrospect, there were a lot of signs that they wouldn’t:

• The solo speakers were all white men, except for one man from Africa.  The four female speakers (all but one were white) only appeared as panelists or in Q&A formats.