Not Getting It
There are more than a few sports teams with names like "Indians," or "Braves," or "Redskins" -- names from Native American roots. The reason sports teams have those names is because, generally speaking, Native Americans were regarded as brave, fearless, determined, strong, powerful -- those kinds of attributes. Apparently this view is offensive to many. Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is calling (again) for a change of name for the Redskins because, darn it all, showing respect and admiration for Native American people will just never do in today's "everything is racist" world. Either she's not getting it or I'm not getting it. Something here just doesn't make sense.
Who You Gonna Call?
New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio agrees. The best approach to easing racial tensions and decreasing crime is to cut the police budget by $1 billion. Makes sense to me. What could go wrong? I'm sure that when the numbers of officers and the quality of policing (technology, skills, experience, training, etc.) drops radically, the people of the city will relax and become the good citizens that they are underneath. Well, I'm pretty sure they will become what they are underneath, at least. Gives a whole new meaning to Ghostbusters, "Who you gonna call?" doesn't it?
The Wrong Message
You've known those kind of people, I'm sure. Nothing is ever "good enough." Nothing is ever "okay." They don't like their jobs, their friends, their family, their country, whatever. Just a thoroughly negative outlook. They used to be rare, fortunately. Now, it seems, we're becoming a nation of negative outlook. Witness Boston's Emancipation Memorial celebrating the release of slaves in America. You'd think that would be something, especially in today's racially-charged America, that we'd want to celebrate. Wrong! Sure, it depicts Lincoln freeing slaves, but it's intended to depict blacks still under "the Man." Celebrate emancipation? Don't you dare, you bigoted racist! It won't be "good enough", I guess, until we get a statue with a released slave with his foot on the neck of Uncle Sam. (On a personal note, I see the statue in question as Abraham Lincoln encouraging the released slave on his knees to get up and go and be free, but, hey, I'm just one of those "Polyanna" types, right?)
You Keep Using That Word ...
CHAZ -- the "Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone" -- still stands in Seattle, a monument to the failure to understand. They are "autonomous" with "armed citizens" standing guard, citizens and businesses asked to pay fees to operate, fences on their borders, pleas for food, and cries for outside help. Which is not "autonomy." They've released their demands. First on the list is a total abolition of police forces and the justice system. They want to defund all cops ... including all retired police. "Thanks for your service; now die in poverty." They want all armed force banned except, I guess, for the armed force they possess. They demand retrials of all cases involving people of color (which will be pretty hard to do since they abolished the Criminal Justice system). This next one works out fine; the abolition of imprisonment. It works out because they abolished police to enforce laws and a justice system to judge on those laws. They demand the right to take the law into their own hands -- "localized anti-crime systems" they call it. Because if you put the justice system into the hands of individuals, you'll never have a problem with abuse. But, of course, here's what's really important. The city must fund arts and culture because, after all, that's a basic human right, right? "We have liberated Free Capitol Hill in the name of the people of Seattle," they say. I wonder how many of the people of Seattle appreciate it.
Definitive Redefinition
More than 55 years ago we passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. One key component was the basic concept that employers could not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In a landmark ruling this week the Supreme Court redefined terms. When they wrote "sex" in 1964, they meant "one of two possible genders." When SCOTUS ruled, they redefined it to mean "sexual orientation," "gender identity," and "transgender status." According to this ruling, you cannot hire or fire on the basis of any of the above including the all-new definition of "sex" that includes anti-science classifications.
The ruling is disturbing for churches or even people of conscience like Thomas Rost, a Christian running a small business, who believed that his faith required that he not have his business represented by a man who thought he was a woman and wished to appear as one (one of the two issues before SCOTUS). More disturbing, however, is the fact that it was a 6-3 decision. Christians thought that if they could vote in a president who would appoint conservative justices, they could make some headway toward a more godly nation. That 6 included Gorsuch and Roberts, two "sure things" for conservative issues. Trump had no comment on the ruling, but later tweeted, "We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else." Of course, his ire was up because his effort to diminish DACA was blocked, but surely even he can see that "more justices" won't help when his contribution voted against conservatives. The other disturbing issue is the precedent set. There can be absolutely no doubt that in 1964 not one single lawmaker that passed the Act had "sexual orientation," "gender identity," or "transgender status" in mind. If the language of laws made in the past can be reinterpreted with modern language to mean something no one ever intended, where does it stop?
Christians, remember the next time you hold your nose and vote for a bad alternative to a bad alternative with the expectation of a better court that we will not have a better America by legislation or the judicial system in a world that hates God. And don't count on the law to protect your freedoms. We have a higher source to rest on and we ought to be concerning ourselves with sharing Him with the rest of our world.
Unintended Consequences
In our rush to "do what feels good," to "live your best life now," to be happy, it appears we've taken a wrong turn. Although we are freer today to do whatever we want with the force of law behind it, Americans are reporting that we are the saddest we've been in 50 years. Huh. Who would have thought? Apparently caring about others and being grateful are the kinds of things that make us happy and not focusing on self and wanting more. Go figure.
Too Much Fodder
Meriam-Webster defines "fodder" as "inferior or readily available material used to supply a heavy demand" such as "fodder for tabloids." In this case, it's fodder for the Babylon Bee, and they've been given way too much. There's the story about the New Social Justice Study Bible that replaces all mention of "sin" with "systemic oppression." They offer this item about how activists are fighting racism by driving all people of color out of pop culture. Think Aunt Jemima, Uncle Ben's, Land O Lakes and even the Simpson's cartoon characters. On it's heels, they tell about how Cracker Jack is undergoing a name change to the more politically-correct Caucasian Jack. Because no one likes to hear white people referred to the racially insensitive term, "cracker," right? The one that was almost disturbing because it seemed almost reasonable was the headline that Democrats have clarified that Black Lives Matter only until November. Way too close to true.
Must be true; I read it on the Internet.
7 comments:
There is apparently a lot of false news going on about the CHAZ, so who knows what they really want. I doubt even they know what they want. There are several photos running around (one was even in that NY Times article you linked) of a man in a tan tactical vest, green mask, and carrying an AR-15. It's clearly been photoshopped and he's in several different photos in different places in the same pose. I think the whole thing is ridiculous. But maybe we should give the people what they are asking for. Abolish the police, and prisons. See how they like it. Kind of like when a parent will make their child smoke a pack of cigarettes to show them how bad they are (though they might only do that in movies). The annoying thing to me is they are calling for the removal of one system without providing a viable replacement. One I heard was people using a "talking stick" and having people resolve their legal troubles that way, like indigenous or tribal groups did. Or having a citizen "police force". All the suggestions I've heard are based on systems that worked for small, like-minded groups. They simply won't work in such a large, diverse, and technologically advanced world.
I always thought the parent that threw their child into the pool to teach them to swim or made their kid smoke a pack of cigarettes to make them not smoke should be classified as abusers, but I get your point.
Then, of course, there's the teenager killed in the zone (you know, where they wouldn't allow guns) without police presence. When the police tried to intervene, the crowd fought them and demanded "no guns" because the totally peaceful autonomous zone only allows their own weapons and murders in there ... because they're so much more civilized than the rest of the country.
Not Getting It
I have a long time friend who's half Cherokee who's been in law enforcement for about 30 years. He's now out in New Mexico and covers an area which includes reservations (don't remember which tribes he said they were). But between his own position and those of INDIANS he encounters, there's no substantial opposition to team names such as those you listed. In fact, those with whom he speaks refer to themselves (and their people) as "indians"....NOT "Native Americans".
The Wrong Message
That statue is supposed to be a replica of an original work in Washington, if I'm not mistaken. When it was presented to the public, none other than Frederick Douglas was there to honor it and what it represented. At this point, I don't believe there's any anti-racist motivation in any of these violent "protests". It's just the desire to be destructive. They should all be arrested, herded into camps or warehouses if that's what it takes, and SLOWLY...just for effect...processed through the legal system on charges of incitement to riot, rioting, destruction of public and private property, and any other charge they can think of, and then sentenced accordingly with, ironically, EXTREME PREJUDICE!!!
I read today that the family of one of the "Aunt Jemima" ladies is begging them not to drop the name as they feel it would be an insult to their relative. Loud voices aren't the only voices and media coverage doesn't equal consensus or majority by any stretch of the imagination.
"Not Getting it"
I've seen it suggested that the Washington Redskins should change their name to the DC Redskins. That works doesn't it?
The current Super Bowl champion, KC Chiefs are an interesting case. They are named after a democrat, machine politician, who had great respect for Native Americans. That's an interesting problem.
Yes, they keep claiming autonomy while proving that they aren't practicing it. But the crops will soon be in and they'll be swimming in avocado toast.
It's strange that we have people vehemently protesting against US slavery that ended 150 years ago, but who'll be in line for the next 1Phone or Nike shoes.
I think there are family members who want to keep the name also.
Post a Comment