#The ideology there are bad languages is so often used in an oppressive or colonial function it cannot be reclaimed in a

[ominous-faechild]

This! @lloyd-the-green-gremlin <3

I completely agree with pretty much everything OP had to say though, tbh. The way people treat other languages that real people speak is insane. Like, that's how they communicate? It's how they live? It's part of who they are? How could you insult someone so intrinsically by insulting the very language they speak?

Personally, I've unfortunately run into issues with this because I have auditory processing disorder myself. I'll have a very hard time understanding people if it doesn't "approximately" sound how I expect them to. A lot of the time people speak in my daily life (yes!!! My daily life!!! So accents I'm USED to hearing!!!), I straight-up can't "understand" some of their words and have to guess what they say based on context clues. It's actually really rough!

I used to ask people to repeat themselves, but they'd just say it the same way, I'd still not be able to understand them, and they'd get frustrated with me and it'd cause all the more issues.

I've since learned to legit ask "say that again, but slowly?" and it's actually helped a lot! I think me phrasing it that way helps them understand (even if only subconsciously, idk tho) that it's a hearing issue, they're a lot more understanding of it, and when people speak more slowly they tend to enunciate much more, or make the different sounds more "distinct" so to speak!

(Though it's obviously not a hearing issue, it's auditory processing. I don't think a lot of people understand that exists, though, so I kinda just let them assume whatever they need to in order to make communicating easier between us.)

To circle back to the original topic, though--a lot of different accents make it much harder for me to understand people! Again, I struggle to understand people when they speak in ways I'm familiar with, so it's even harder when it's in ways I'm not!

Still, I think judging people off of the way they speak (with varies / depends on their family's accents, the places they've lived, and the language(s) they first spoke) is incredibly sucky. I just also think it's important to know that it's not always a classist, racist, or {insert -ist} thing!

Sometimes you just struggle to understand people who speak differently, or you don't like certain sounds, and that's fine! The problem comes when you treat people differently because of it.

Which is an incredible struggle for me, because there's this one kind of Voice that some men have that's so bass-y that the very sounds of their voice triggers my (autistic) sensory overload... but I have ways of coping with it, so!

not only are there no bad languages there are also no bad or annoying dialects

[qqueenofhades]

Could you expand a bit on the "death of expertise"? It's something I think about A LOT as an artist, because there are so many problems with people who think it isn't a real job, and the severe undercutting of prices that happens because people think hobbyists and professionals are the same. At the same time, I also really want people to feel free to be able to make art if they want, with no gatekeeping or elitism, and I usually spin myself in circles mentally thinking about it. So.

I have been secretly hoping someone would ask this question, nonny. Bless you. I have a lot (a LOT) of thoughts on this topic, which I will try to keep somewhat concise and presented in a semi-organized fashion, but yes.

I can mostly speak about this in regard to academia, especially the bad, bad, BAD takes in my field (history) that have dominated the news in recent weeks and which constitute most of the recent posts on my blog. (I know, I know, Old Man Yells At Cloud when attempting to educate the internet on actual history, but I gotta do SOMETHING.) But this isn’t a new phenemenon, and is linked to the avalanche of “fake news” that we’ve all heard about and experienced in the last few years, especially in the run-up and then after the election of You Know Who, who has made fake news his personal brand (if not in the way he thinks). It also has to do with the way Americans persistently misunderstand the concept of free speech as “I should be able to say whatever I want and nobody can correct or criticize me,” which ties into the poisonous extreme-libertarian ethos of “I can do what I want with no regard for others and nobody can correct me,” which has seeped its way into the American mainstream and is basically the center of the modern Republican party. (Basically: all for me, all the time, and caring about others is a weak liberal pussy thing to do.)

This, however, is not just an issue of partisan politics, because the left is just as guilty, even if its efforts take a different shape. One of the reason I got so utterly exasperated with strident online leftists, especially around primary season and the hardcore breed of Bernie Bros, is just that they don’t do anything except shout loud and incorrect information on the internet (and then transmogrify that into a twisted ideology of moral purity which makes a sin out of actually voting for a flawed candidate, even if the alternative is Donald Goddamn Trump). I can’t count how many people from both sides of the right/left divide get their political information from like-minded people on social media, and never bother to experience or verify or venture outside their comforting bubbles that will only provide them with “facts” that they already know. Social media has done a lot of good things, sure, but it’s also made it unprecedently easy to just say whatever insane bullshit you want, have it go viral, and then have you treated as an authority on the topic or someone whose voice “has to be included” out of some absurd principle of both-siderism. This is also a tenet of the mainstream corporate media: “both sides” have to be included, to create the illusion of “objectivity,” and to keep the largest number of paying subscribers happy. (Yes, of course this has deep, deep roots in the collapse of late-stage capitalism.) Even if one side is absolutely batshit crazy, the rules of this distorted social contract stipulate that their proposals and their flaws have to be treated as equal with the others, and if you point out that they are batshit crazy, you have to qualify with some criticism of the other side.

This is where you get white people posting “Neo-Nazis and Black Lives Matter are the same!!!1” on facebook. They are a) often racist, let’s be real, and b) have been force-fed a constant narrative where Both Sides Are Equally Bad. Even if one is a historical system of violent oppression that has made a good go at total racial and ethnic genocide and rests on hatred, and the other is the response to not just that but the centuries of systemic and small-scale racism that has been built up every day, the white people of the world insist on treating them as morally equivalent (related to a superior notion that Violence is Always Bad, which.... uh... have you even seen constant and overwhelming state-sponsored violence the West dishes out? But it’s only bad when the other side does it. Especially if those people can be at all labeled “fanatics.”)

I have complained many, many times, and will probably complain many times more, about how hard it is to deconstruct people’s absolutely ingrained ideas of history and the past. History is a very fragile thing; it’s really only equivalent to the length of a human lifespan, and sometimes not even that. It’s what people want to remember and what is convenient for them to remember, which is why we still have some living Holocaust survivors and yet a growing movement of Holocaust denial, among other extremist conspiracy theories (9/11, Sandy Hook, chemtrails, flat-earthing, etc etc). There is likewise no organized effort to teach honest history in Western public schools, not least since the West likes its self-appointed role as guardians of freedom and liberty and democracy in the world and doesn’t really want anyone digging into all that messy slavery and genocide and imperialism and colonialism business. As a result, you have deliberately under- or un-educated citizens, who have had a couple of courses on American/British/etc history in grade school focusing on the greatest-hit reel, and all from an overwhelmingly triumphalist white perspective. You have to like history, from what you get out of it in public school, to want to go on to study it as a career, while knowing that there are few jobs available, universities are cutting or shuttering humanities departments, and you’ll never make much money. There is... not a whole lot of outside incentive there.

I’ve written before about how the humanities are always the first targeted, and the first defunded, and the first to be labeled as “worthless degrees,” because a) they are less valuable to late-stage capitalism and its emphasis on Material Production, and b) they often focus on teaching students the critical thinking skills that critique and challenge that dominant system. There’s a reason that there is a stereotype of artists as social revolutionaries: they have often taken a look around, gone, “Hey, what the hell is this?” and tried to do something about it, because the creative and free-thinking impulse helps to cultivate the tools necessary to question what has become received and dominant wisdom. Of course, that can then be taken too far into the “I’ll create my own reality and reject absolutely everything that doesn’t fit that narrative,” and we end up at something like the current death of expertise.

This year is particularly fertile for these kinds of misinformation efforts: a plague without a vaccine or a known cure, an election year in a turbulently polarized country, race unrest in a deeply racist country spreading to other racist countries around the world and the challenging of a particularly important system (white supremacy), etc etc. People are scared and defensive and reactive, and in that case, they’re especially less motivated to challenge or want to encounter information that scares them. They need their pre-set beliefs to comfort them or provide steadiness in a rocky and uncertain world, and (thanks once again to social media) it’s easy to launch blistering ad hominem attacks on people who disagree with you, who are categorized as a faceless evil mass and who you will never have to meet or negotiate with in real life. This is the environment in which all the world’s distinguished scientists, who have spent decades studying infectious diseases, have to fight for airtime and authority (and often lose) over random conspiracy theorists who make a YouTube video. The public has been trained to see them as “both the same” and then accept which side they like the best, regardless of actual factual or real-world qualifications. They just assume the maniac on YouTube is just as trustworthy as the scientists with PhDs from real universities.

Obviously, academia is racist, elitist, classist, sexist, on and on. Most human institutions are. But training people to see all academics as the enemy is not the answer. You’ve seen the Online Left (tm) also do this constantly, where they attack “the establishment” for never talking about anything, or academics for supposedly erasing and covering up all of non-white history, while apparently never bothering to open a book or familiarize themselves with a single piece of research that actual historians are working on. You may have noticed that historians have been leading the charge against the “don’t erase history!!!1″ defenders of racist monuments, and explaining in stinging detail exactly why this is neither preserving history or being truthful about it. Tumblr likes to confuse the mechanism that has created the history and the people who are studying and analyzing that history, and lump them together as one mass of Evil And Lying To You. Academics are here because we want to critically examine the world and tell you things about it that our nonsense system has required years and years of effort, thousands of dollars in tuition, and other gatekeeping barriers to learn. You can just ask one of us. We’re here, we usually love to talk, and we’re a lot cheaper. I think that’s pretty cool.

As a historian, I have been trained in a certain skill set: finding, reading, analyzing, using, and criticizing primary sources, ditto for secondary sources, academic form and style, technical skills like languages, paleography, presentation, familiarity with the professional mechanisms for reviewing and sharing work (journals, conferences, peer review, etc), and how to assemble this all into an extended piece of work and to use it in conversation with other historians. That means my expertise in history outweighs some rando who rolls up with an unsourced or misleading Twitter thread. If a professor has been handed a carefully crafted essay and then a piece of paper scribbled with crayon, she is not obliged to treat them as essentially the same or having the same critical weight, even if the essay has flaws. One has made an effort to follow the rules of the game, and the other is... well, I did read a few like that when teaching undergraduates. They did not get the same grade.

This also means that my expertise is not universal. I might know something about adjacent subjects that I’ve also studied, like political science or English or whatever, but someone who is a career academic with a degree directly in that field will know more than me. I should listen to them, even if I should retain my independent ability and critical thinking skillset. And I definitely should not be listened to over people whose field of expertise is in a completely different realm. Take the recent rocket launch, for example. I’m guessing that nobody thought some bum who walked in off the street to Kennedy Space Center should be listened to in preference of the actual scientists with degrees and experience at NASA and knowledge of math and orbital mechanics and whatever else you need to get a rocket into orbit. I definitely can’t speak on that and I wouldn’t do it anyway, so it’s frustrating to see it happen with history. Everybody “knows” things about history that inevitably turn out to be wildly wrong, and seem to assume that they can do the same kind of job or state their conclusions with just as much authority. (Nobody seems to listen to the scientists on global warming or coronavirus either, because their information is actively inconvenient for our entrenched way of life and people don’t want to change.) Once again, my point here is not to be a snobbish elitist looking down at The Little People, but to remark that if there’s someone in a field who has, you know, actually studied that subject and is speaking from that place of authority, maybe we can do better than “well, I saw a YouTube video and liked it better, so there.” (Americans hate authority and don’t trust smart people, which  is a related problem and goes back far beyond Trump, but there you are.)

As for art: it’s funny how people devalue it constantly until they need it to survive. Ask anyone how they spent their time in lockdown. Did they listen to music? Did they watch movies or TV? Did they read a book? Did they look at photography or pictures? Did they try to learn a skill, like drawing or writing or painting, and realize it was hard? Did they have a preference for the art that was better, more professionally produced, had more awareness of the rules of its craft, and therefore was more enjoyable to consume? If anyone wants to tell anyone that art is worthless, I invite you to challenge them on the spot to go without all of the above items during the (inevitable, at this rate) second coronavirus lockdown. No music. No films. No books. Not even a video or a meme or anything else that has been made for fun, for creativity, or anything outside the basic demands of Compensated Economic Production. It’s then that you’ll discover that, just as with the underpaid essential workers who suffered the most, we know these jobs need to get done. We just still don’t want to pay anyone fairly for doing them, due to our twisted late-capitalist idea of “value.”

Anyway, since this has gotten long enough and I should probably wrap up: as you say, the difference between “professional” and “hobbyist” has been almost completely erased, so that people think the opinion of one is as good as the other, or in your case, that the hobbyist should present their work for free or refuse to be seen as a professional entitled to fair compensation for their skill. That has larger and more insidious effects in a global marketplace of ideas that has been almost entirely reduced to who can say their opinion the loudest to the largest group of people. I don’t know how to solve this problem, but at least I can try to point it out and to avoid being part of it, and to recognize where I need to speak and where I need to shut up. My job, and that of every single white person in America right now, is to shut up and let black people (and Native people, and Latinx people, and Muslim people, and etc...) tell me what it’s really like to live here with that identity. I have obviously done a ton of research on the subject and consider myself reasonably educated, but here’s the thing: my expertise still doesn’t outweigh theirs, no matter what degrees they have or don’t have. I then am required to boost their ideas, views, experiences, and needs, rather than writing them over or erasing them, and to try to explain to people how the roots of these ideas interlock and interact where I can. That is -- hopefully -- putting my history expertise to use in a good way to support what they’re saying, rather than silence it. I try, at any rate, and I am constantly conscious of learning to do better.

I hope that was helpful for you. Thanks for letting me talk about it.

[empyreal-insights]

Border Jumping: In It, Not Of It

{Border Jumping, part 1}  .  Esthero, one of my favorite singer/songwriters, posted a song on IG, “Great Version of Me”:  

They say I’ve got “spark”  They say I’ve got “magic” They say I’ve got all the things that I need, and if I want it, I have it

They say I’ve got heart And a light that surrounds it, but I’m lost in the dark Did you happen to notice? 

I need something good to happen to me ‘Cause I can’t stop drowning When will I feel like all the things they see?  When will I be this “great” version of me? 

I’ve tried so hard, tried to live it and own it Kept staring ahead, pretended how great things have been going

But I’ll let you in on my intimate moments:  I feel alone Mostly, I feel forgotten I need something good to happen to me ‘Cause I can’t stop drowning When will I feel like all the things they see? When will I be this “great” version of me?

‘Cause I can’t go back And I’m scared to move When will I feel like all the things they see in me? When will I live so gracefully?  When will I have what’s coming to me? 

I need something great to happen I wanna meet this great version of me. 

Wanna meet her so bad Great version of me

I spent a lot of time fighting against myself because of this feeling. Here’s some of what I learned when I was dancing between breaking down and breaking through.  

Find Your (Higher) Power I’ve tried so hard, tried to live it and own it Kept staring ahead, pretended how great things have been going But I’ll let you in on my intimate moments: I feel alone Mostly, I feel forgotten

I know folks have issues with God. But if you’re resonating with this message, understand that you’ll require a relationship with Source / a Higher Power / Creative Force (1). 

If you can’t wrap your head around having faith in the concept of a God-Force, the next best thing is to master some form of energetic literacy through mindfulness, tai chi, meditation, martial arts, pranic healing, reiki, or a similar methodology. 

Do not intellectualize this. You can start with a book or two, but eventually you need to choose something, then find someone that can teach you how to do it. You must learn to see Energy as barometer, master key, and mother tongue.

Why? Because your lessons, blessings, and karmic resolution are meant to play out between you and Source, with a thin veil between you and some of the "typical” human experiences (2). Energetic literacy gives you the language to stay in communion with Source, and this relationship will sustain you when people will not or cannot. 

Go With Your Flow  When will I feel like all the things they see in me?  When will I live so gracefully?  When will I have what’s coming to me?

You can’t move like everyone else. You’re on a whole other timetable - one that more closely mirrors the spiritual world. I realize that in some western spiritualities this can translate to a commitment to austerity or asceticism, which I clearly reject.  

While in this process, it helps to be able to soothe and comfort yourself on demand, in the healthiest ways you can manage. There’s enough to figure out without adding deprivation to the list. 

Also, don’t feel like you have to be happy all the time. Create space to cry, wail, grieve, and lament. The song that inspired this is a perfect example. I write. You might make art. Just make sure the pain passes through. Don’t dwell in it - that’s how you start to feel stuck.  

Chironically wounded shadow workers - those of us that long to fit in and experience the belonging others take for granted - often never asked to be set apart, but we keep finding ourselves in that position (3). Acceptance eases some of the loneliness and gives us the patience to wait our turn.      

The good news: you are exquisitely protected. Respect that. Don’t chase people who leave; don’t force yourself into incompatible spaces; don’t beg to be understood. 

This is why your relationship with Source is nonnegotiable - you need to know exactly who and what is working in your life, where They're guiding you, what to avoid, and how to call upon and respect that Power when necessary. Acting in accordance with this understanding will help your life move more effortlessly.  

Be Grateful  I need something good to happen to me ‘Cause I can’t stop drowning When will I feel like all the things they see? When will I be this “great” version of me?

You know how the spiritual folks talk about being thankful for every little thing? Do that. 

When you're hollowed out from that weeping and wailing? Take a breath (or a nap), then give thanks.

To live long enough to get all the good things waiting for you - ‘cause some of us blossom well after 35 (4) - you must learn to cling to gratitude as if you’re dangling off a cliff and help is at least 30 seconds away. 

The good things are happening, will continue to happen. You may not have everything you want, but do you have most of what you need? Thank what sustains you: food (say grace), pets, friends, plants...whatever you have. You must learn to see the joy along the way because our despair can be fatal.  

Again, it’s natural to feel anger, frustration, jealousy, and whatever else. Observe it, resolve it, and keep it moving. Be as human as you need to be in any given moment, but always, always, always return to gratitude. 

Welcome Your Awakening They say I’ve got “spark”  They say I’ve got “magic”  They say I’ve got all the things that I need, and if I want it, I have it

They say I’ve got heart And a light that surrounds it, but I’m lost in the dark Did you happen to notice?

Yes, I noticed. You’re not crazy or arrogant for realizing that you’re different. Your energy's legit, that's why people react to it so definitively. 

Accept that reactivity is often the limit of human capacity. They’ll be fascinated, dazzled, but fall short of being able to hold you, love you, or define you. 

But soon - after some dark days and some unbelievably beautiful ones - it won’t hurt so much. You’ll know where to receive comfort, love, and understanding. You’ll discover your work, your people, your place, and that great version of you. 

...

(1) Source is becoming a preferred term when sharing these thoughts because (a) the name Osun, one of my primary deities, derives from a Yoruba word meaning, “the source,” (b) I have a deep relationship with water, which is considered a/the source of life - perhaps the most important after air itself, and ( c ) it feels less loaded and/or culturally specific than “God.” Your parents - most especially your mother - can be considered your Source. Food, clothing, shelter... sources of survival. That, in my opinion, is the kind of emotional connection and relationship that allows us to interact and commune with the Divine in the most intimate, healing, healthy, and hopeful ways. 

(2) Certain aspects of Hindu and Buddhist philosophy have an intricate way of explaining why some are meant to perpetuate the needs and desires of daily / cyclical human life, while others are meant to work and live more closely with Source. I use these as examples because certain texts and concepts within these traditions have been translated and interpreted for a western audience over the last 40-50 years, and may be more immediately accessible than other ideologies. If you go for the ancient texts first, just know you’ll need to filter through what I call the “human shit” (sexism, politics of the era) to get to the underlying truths that can help you deepen your spiritual practices. (sidebar: I think this is what those “caste” systems were SUPPOSED to be about - interpreting the flow of human life and integrating our unique, personal destinies into an overarching social construct, not oppression and domination. But, humans love a hierarchy.)

(3) In contrast to the “fuck the world” cynics, loners, or folks with outsized egos willful enough to claim places they didn’t earn. And, hell, that energy has its place. They seem to have it easier, right? But we’re all prone to thinking the grass is greener where we don’t have to water it. 

(4) Why do you think elder-ship is revered in so many pre-colonial / indigenous cultures? Youth has its advantages, but most of us have to grow into ourselves, and that takes time. Even when you’re blessed with precocious emotional intelligence, there are some things you only learn through living. Allow yourself the grace to move through life at your divine pace.

[saskhal]

Understanding how racism works

Dear Sara Chavez,

​I do agree with you that we have yet to see this dream come true. I also believe that we can one day make it happen and live in a world where the idea of race no longer exists. Notice how I said the idea of race. This is because long ago during the colonial times of the Americas race had not been a real thing for people to use and describe people as. People identified with their nationality. For example, English, Spanish, or Shawnee instead of white or native American. I don’t believe racism is inherent because there was no race. and if it was inherent from a primitive time then wouldn’t people look similar while they could not travel to a faraway place like we can now? I would suggest that race started around the time of Thomas Jefferson because he was one of the first people to address it in a way that suggested a racial hierarchy when he wrote how blacks were distinct either originally or over time and became inferior to whites (Golash-Boza, 2018). Although in history the terms white and black had been used to describe people of another ethnicity, it was never used in such a way that was degrading to a person even an enemy. Color of skin had not been used as a category of people in this way.

​But the next step is to understand how this idea gets passed on socially if it really isn’t inherent. If I am not born racist, then how come when I look at someone and assume part of their character based on how they look? This process is called socialization. It is a method to create culture and values as well as public order. Things to look for in socialization is our peers, family, media, and schooling. Since we both like psychology, there was a study in Texas to see if children were born with trait that naturally separated themselves by race when interacting with each other. “Bigler contends that children extend their shared appearances much further—believing that those who look similar to them enjoy the same things they do” (Bronson, 2009). The bias was fund at age six. This means before that children do not think this way. But it is not about who is good, it is about essentialism and what you look like means you have these set of traits or in this case of the study things you enjoy. This is definitely shown in pop culture when you see people of the same looks doing the same activities which further reinforces this idea of race to the next generation.

​Now that we can begin to say that racism is not inherent, I want to also point out that even people who are not racist can be engaged in racist ideas. As Americans, we understand that overt racism is bad, and we like to say hey that was racist, or this person is bad. But when we point out individuals it hides attention to where racism still lies today. There are many policies set by our institutions that have racist consequences and over time and by many different institutions we see a pattern of structural racism that keep marginalized people under oppression even after most of our county sees racism as a bad thing. But we ignore our system by only pointing out individuals, punishing them, and never questioning the system that made it possible for a racist idea. For a brief example, we justified slavery with race. Then slavery was abolished so instead there was sharecropping which was like slavery because white people still owned their property and it was almost impossible for blacks to pay off the plantation owners. In modern day we have continued this chain of discrimination and kept black people at a disproportional rate of poverty and harsher prison sentences. And if one person were truly not racist it would not make sense to suggest that black people are just lazy, so they are poor or that black people are just really bad and do more crime. I am only use one racial example, but it is easier to understand how the discrimination works that way.

​I would say that children might be able to learn certain things better than adults such as language, but they learn the same as adults such as how we are socialized through the media. Adults learn from media the same way children do by looking at interactions. We can think about a long process of ideology and control of people. I am talking about hegemony, the process where there is a dominant control of a whole group of people through knowledge and beliefs by consent and not by force, and it serves for a group hierarchy. With this process we can notice how people are portrayed similarly so that everyone in this control will begin to create bias from the information they are given. We can see on the news many instances of terrorist and movies about people in the middle east, but for white Americans who commit mass shootings they are not terrorist but instead mentally ill. Or on the other hand it can be what is called enlightened racism that makes people think a poor person of color can do better if they tried hard like on the shows we watch (Golash-Boza, 2018). If a black person became the president that means anyone can, unless you look at his history and all the privileges he had, it is unrealistic to think someone from a poor family and little city resources could achieve this although it may be possible it is not likely in our current system.

​Structural racism can work through the dominant ideology of the United States, color-blindness. Color-blind racism has four main frames. They are abstract liberalism, naturalization, cultural, and minimization of race (Bonilla-Silva). If someone is color-blind it means they do not see race and just see everyone as equal, which seems like a good idea, however it lets them ignore that racism exists and they can justify discrimination and marginalization based off the four frames instead of calling it racism. With abstract liberalism we can argue for a policy to not have racial words and disagree for any policies to give “extra” to marginalized people. Naturalization racism is saying more of inherent rationalization of why people of one race are mistreated, such as they just feel more comfortable in this group and people naturally separate themselves. Under cultural racism we can say a group of people often make decisions that lead them into poverty without thinking of how the system and current political policies make it hard for that group of people to pursue a better economic path. The last frame means that when we see an example of racism (such as a news report), which is often individualized, a privileged person can agree that is bad but follow with a “but that doesn’t happen all the time” or “it could be anyone. Why do they point out race?”. With this information I would like for you to open your mind like you said. People can open their minds and change, but the change is not necessarily for the good. Instead of basing arguments on individuals being closed minded I would say that many people are open minded, but the culture they are surrounded by teaches them that being a good person means there is no racism. But we both realize that racism still exists.

​Humans do seem to fear change, don’t they? We have changed a lot, but racism has also changed and that is why we still face it today. This can be explained through racial formation. Once institutions and groups challenge what we collectively know, we face change. But once we fix our problem a new stereotype is made and is socialized. It looks to me like a never-ending cycle, but if we acknowledge it and stop hiding racial ideas in our policies, we may be able to end the cycle of racial formation. I hope that by giving you a sociological perspective that I have helped you better understand how racism exists. I know you are willing to learn, and I hope you can find a way to teach others to be more aware of racism and how it affects each of us. I have hope that once we can understand and accept what is currently wrong that we can work to fix it instead of changing it to match a political or economic agenda.

[schraubd]

Tamika Mallory’s Israel Rehabilitation Tour

[For whatever reason this didn't cross-post properly. Apologies if it comes up twice. As a bonus, though, here's a link to a related thread I wrote on Twitter in conversation with Mallory] 

 When the controversy over antisemitism and Tamika Mallory first flared up, I noted that it had one very interesting characteristic: it wasn't about Israel. This is somewhat uncommon in left-of-center antisemitism disputes, and one could almost hear the gears grinding in Mallory's would-be defenders. So used to having "criticism of Israel isn't antisemitic" as their "get-out-of-talking-about-antisemitism-free" card, they were left almost dumbstruck. 

Mallory has been notoriously resistant to any serious reckoning with antisemitic sentiment on her part. She views herself as the victim here, and so she's seemingly cast about for new avenues to antagonize her Jewish tormentors. First it was going after the ADL. Now, as part of a "fact-finding" trip to Israel, it's blaming Netanyahu for Trump's border wall and Muslim ban.

Be clear: Donald Trump’s wall + #muslimban + #deportation plan are all lines out of the #Netanyahu book of oppression. Trump has referenced this himself. We ought pay attention & not allow folks to label us + try to black list us in to silence. #JusticeDelegation (more 2 come) — Tamika D. Mallory (@TamikaDMallory) May 7, 2018

In response to this tweet, Abe Silberstein articulated a common sense of Jewish dismay.

I dislike Bibi and Trump in equal measure, but our xenophobic politics precedes Israel's. I appreciate the fact that you visited the region, but I wish you had a better sense of your own reputation in the Jewish community before commenting like this https://t.co/V6bCi9CuPf — Abe Silberstein (@abesilbe) May 7, 2018

But in some ways I think Silberstein is missing the point. Mallory isn't tweeting unaware of what Jews think about her. Rather, her goal in this Israel trip is precisely to rehabilitate her reputation -- albeit not amongst Jews. 

Antisemitism, like racism, tends to take the path of least resistance down to the ground. As Paul Berman noted, while we

like to think of hatred of the Jews as a low, base sentiment that is entertained by nasty, ignorant people, wallowing in their own hatefulness. . . . normally it’s not like that. Hatred for the Jews has generally taken the form of a lofty sentiment, instead of a lowly one – a noble feeling embraced by people who believe they stand for the highest and most admirable of moral views.

If one dislikes Jews, there are many ways for that disdain to manifest. But among these diverse options, people with antisemitic views want to express those views in ways that will gain social approval -- at least in the communities they care about. Hence, we should expect that antisemitic sentiments will be systematically channeled in directions where their expression can expect to find validation and laudation. The content of those sentiments will vary from community to community. In some railing against "globalist financiers" will do the trick. In others speaking of those who "crucified Christ" will work. And of course, in still others, lambasting Zionist perfidy is the winning ticket.* 

Note the argument is not that "criticism of Israel is inherently antisemitic", any more than I'm saying orthodox Christian beliefs are inherently antisemitic or opposing the political preferences of wealthy billionaires is. My argument is exactly what was stated above: that in certain communities positions of this ilk provide a convenient point of discharge for antisemitic sentiments that offer up the path of least resistance. Precisely because there are perfectly valid critiques of Israel that are, on face, wholly laudable from within a progressive paradigm, a speaker harboring antipathy towards Jews and looking for a socially-acceptable vector to express them will gravitate toward that issue. A conservative speaker with the same internal sense of grievance towards Jews might pick a different path to the ground. Put another way, we should expect that if someone with progressive-inclinations harbors antisemitic sentiments (consciously or not), they'd be most likely to express them in the idiom of anti-Israel speech. Why wouldn't they? Antisemitism will always be expressed in the dominant language of the place and the time, and it is entirely predictable that people will seek to express antisemitism in ways that enhance rather than detract from their social standing. 

In Mallory's case, then, the shift from Farrakhan to the ADL to Israel is a move from forms of antisemitism that encountered great resistance to that which will (again, in the relevant communities) gain plaudits. It is a rehabilitation tour because it moves her sense of grievance towards Jews out of a context where even her allies would have trouble defending her, to an arena where people in her community are quite accustomed to dismissing Jewish complaints. Even though the sequence of events for Mallory offers compelling evidence that she's at least in part motivated by a sense of antipathy against Jews, because she's now expressing her disdain in terms of anti-Israel sentiment people will ironically view further complaints about her antisemitism as weaker rather than stronger.

Finally, I want to remark on the specific content of her tweet -- claiming that Trump's anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim policies are cases of him following the Israeli lead -- because I think it's also "rehabilitative" in its way, and it's worth articulating why that's so. As many people have noted, there is something more than a bit absurd about the contention that American conservatives need an Israeli example to enact racist and White supremacist policies. Moreover, it ends up acting as an indirect apologia for American racism -- asserting that it is not truly homegrown but rather is a foreign disease imported from Israel. Why would Tamika Mallory find that sort of claim attractive?

I discussed a similar move when Winona LaDuke made a putative critique of America's implication in colonialist and genocidal practices by saying "we are Israel". One would think that "Israel is us" would be the more accurate label, since "even if we thought that Israel was a valid case of colonialism ... surely it isn't the paradigm case."

But note the subtle shift of responsibility here -- our misdeeds are characterized as following another's evil example. Israel stands in for our own misdeeds -- it is the platonic ideal of our own wrongs. We are not intrinsically bad, we're only bad insofar as we're "Israel". Our absolution comes when we're no longer Israel. It offers a way to maintain a sense of moral growth and possibility by externalizing the source of the sins onto another body deemed irredeemably corrupt.

There is, I suggest, a perverse form of patriotism at work here. By suggesting that American misdeeds are actually instances of a foreign (Jewish) infection, the implication is that the American body itself is not the problem. The issue is outwards, not inwards. The fundamental appeal of "the Jews are our misfortune" is that it actually allows for a sort of redemptive American narrative to emerge, and for even those most critical of contemporary American policies to lay claim to it. 

One thing that is often-forgotten when talking about antisemitism, or racism, or other systemic hatreds, is that they are productive ideologies. They build things, they engender alliances, they motivate actions. Reflexive claims that antisemitism "hurts our movement" always thus struck me as far too pat -- of course it depends on how one defines the goals of the movement, but more fundamentally it overlooks the way that antisemitism can represent a genuine and attractive tool of mobilization. Given the choice between arguing against American support for the Muslim ban by articulating how it reflects fundamental malformations that are deeply-rooted in our national character, versus arguing against it by saying we've been led astray by the Jews -- it's quite plausible that the second route might be more effective than the first. 

And so again, we see a form of rehabilitation here. Any organization seeking to make the sort of wide-ranging and deep-cutting critique of discriminatory American practices that the Woman's March does is going to face the inevitable charge that it is "anti-American" in some way. It is hard to counter these accusations, even though they are deeply unfair, because it's always hard to demonstrate love for a place or institution while simultaneously leveling a radical critique (something Jews with sharp objections to many Israeli policies are quite painfully aware of). So the temptation will be to cheat: the problem isn't with America, you see; the problem is with those Jews over there ruining America. One need not reject America; one need only "de-Zionise" it. 

People think that when Tamika Mallory blames Israel as the source of American anti-immigrant and Islamophobic policies, she's revealing herself to be more radical than ever before. In reality, though, it is a significant step back towards the mainstream. The radical critique -- the one that it is so hard for many Americans to latch onto -- is the claim that we, America, are our own problem. We are responsible for our own decisions; our hatreds, our injustices, our wrongdoings stem from nobody but ourselves. In Richard Rorty's trenchant words: "There is nothing deep down inside us except what we have put there ourselves." But to the extent that problem is not in ourselves, but rather came to us from Israel -- well much of that discomfort can go away and a radical critique instantly becomes far more digestible. 

Plenty of people who'd resist mightily the notion that there is something fundamentally wrong with America are entirely happy to agree that there's something fundamentally wrong with outsiders, with aliens, with others, who've insidiously managed to infect our great nation. And so I suspect that Mallory will find many willing and eager recipients of this new message. After all, it is saying nothing more than what so many have long wished to hear. 

* Racism almost certainly works in the same way. People don't just want to be racist, they want to be racist in ways that earn them validation and enhanced social standing. Hence, they will flock to argumentative pathways which allow them to express hostility or disdain for racial outgroups in ways that are socially legitimate. There's a reason why so much anti-Latino sentiment now gets channeled through language about "securing the border". The issue isn't that there are no valid arguments to be had about how permissive or restrictive our immigration policy should be. The issue is that, in context, these debates are simply the most convenient forum where persons already harboring anti-Latino sentiments can discharge their antipathy with minimum social resistance. One of the primary impacts of Trumpism has been to greatly increase the number of viable social pathways for expressing racist, antisemitic, Islamophobic, and other bigoted sentiments -- greatly multiplying their "paths to the ground" and hence dramatically magnifying their social reach.

[sarahjoneswww]

Final Reflection

Understanding Diverse Experiences to be a Transnational Feminist

I decided to dedicate my commonplace book project to transnational feminism. For a little background on myself and why I chose this topic, transnational feminism seemed to continuously connect through each week’s material. We listened and read of women’s experiences from around the world, such as Elif Shafak and violence upon women in Turkey or Dalia Mogahed and how it feels to be Muslim in America . These stories made the topic linger in my head and really cause me to read more into it and what it really means to help women around the world. Regarding feminism in general, before taking global women’s studies I didn’t necessarily label myself as one, of course I have and will always advocate for a women’s fight no matter their background, but this was partially due to a somewhat bad representation that some think being a feminist means. However, learning more about feminism through this classes material just made me realize how foolish it is for me not to call myself one and no one’s idea that may represent feminism as bad should matter to the name. Through everything this class has opened me up to, it has left me with a burning flame to continue to educate myself and others more.

For anyone living in the United states, there tends to be a westernized idea of feminism. This idea overemphasizes gender roles as the main and only factor to women’s oppression. What most people do not realize is that this idea greatly suppresses the differences in the global community of feminism. Understanding the differences are crucial for standing in solidarity with feminist from other countries and backgrounds. How can women be empowering others if we do not even know what they are fighting for? This also means understanding how globalization, colonialism and capitalism has a lasting impact on other countries and need to reconsider advocating and promoting power structures that let that happen. One way of educating oneself on these lasting impacts is by postcolonial study. It’s important to understand historical events that led to how the world is shaped today. Postcolonial study helps us to understand political, economic, socio-cultural and psychological oppression that can still affect women in other countries and their fights in modern times, such as colonization leading to loss of culture, language and heritage. There’s another issue also needs to be conquered if women really do want to help women of other countries. That is that women of third-world countries tend to be grouped as helpless and cannot fight for themselves. These women are nothing less than strong and it’s only doing damage to their fight if they are represented as this. This is because they have to not only fight for the issues they face, but also fight the stereotypical narrative others have about them. So, what does all of this sum up to? A transnational feminist needs to look at issues from a global perspective while also considering how they intersect with our own lived experiences.

I wanted to build my commonplace book project on transnational feminism through not only what it means, but also by including content that show the real-life issues women in other countries face. This not only informs others but helps myself by being educated on what feminism is in other countries, what walls they are trying to tear down and in what ways can one contribute. An issue of Muslim women we took a dive into was what the hijab really means to them. One of the posts I reblogged was a depiction of orientalism which influenced misconceptions of viewing it as a sign of oppression and that Muslim women cannot fight for themselves. This is exactly how western ideology contributes to misrepresenting these women, and if we want to be transnational feminists, we need to step away from the knowledge were told from media and listen to the women who are veiled themselves. Not only can a hijab represent a woman’s devotion to her faith, but also her social status and even more empowering as it contrasts the way commercial industry portrays women. It is important to mention, that yes, some women are forced to cover up and by possible means of violence, but by assuming that all veiled women are oppressed, we depreciate the women who choose to wear veils. Another post that is on my commonplace book page is an animation of a nun and a Muslim women. Both wear coverings and the nun is viewed as just being devoted to god, “but then if a Muslim girl does the same why is she oppressed?”. Why is there a stigma against their veil but not a nun’s? Once again, the only real answer is that westernized feminism ideology is not educated enough to acknowledge the real reasons a Muslim woman wears coverings.

This then leads into another point we learned in class, the issues that surround a single story or narrative that is told. I won’t lie and say I’ve never fallen for a single story as the media contributes to it more than we think. A single story can greatly shape how we view other people’s culture other than our own. For one of our assignments we listen to a TED talk by Chimamanda Adiche, a writer and storyteller from Nigeria. She explains how vulnerable we are to take one story and apply is to everything we know about a culture, especially as children. She herself had written in ways that mirrored what she read, mostly of Americans, as she was not exposed to African writers like herself. She wrote of stereotypical characters from these countries and things she could not personally identify with. As she loved these books, an unintended consequence of only reading and writing these single stories, was that she did not know people like herself could exist in stories. These single stories are not only found in literature, but what we hear from others. Single-stories are all around us and limit our knowledge about other cultures as we are to quick to assume we know everything about it. These single stories often lead us to have negative views about a culture, as most literature starts out with the damage a country has rather than their achievements. She ends her talk with a thought “That when we reject the single story, we realize that there is never a single story about any place”. This is exactly what is necessary to do, not only in the world of feminism but in general. If feminist fail to recognize the many stories that make up a culture or women’s fight, we fail to support them in the first place. Tracking back to Muslim women wearing coverings, I was one that failed to support them because of the single story I had known. In global studies in high school a question came up about hijabs; Should women who are veiled be forced to take if off for security purposes such as at the airport? Well, the story I had known was that in Iran, women are forced to be veiled by law and women were fighting back. So I took that one story of the hijab and applied it to every veiled women, which is wrong. I failed to recognize and be educated on the women veiled to feel empowered or to devote her faith. Taking a step to recognize the fault of accepting a single-story is taking a step towards transnational feminism. If women are wanting to support every other woman, shouldn’t we listen and learn about all of their stories before assuming what they want?

When I look back on what this class has taught me, the biggest take away for me was how to become a better ally, for not only women I have commonalities with but those who come from different cultures than me. It has taught me to be skeptical of that “single-story” construct and if I really want to help I need to listen to the many stories that come from each country. I have also grasped the importance of the art of storytelling is by itself. Not only can storytelling help us understand others, but ourselves too, like how Ijeoma from “Under the Udala Trees” shares her struggles and how she came to be herself, or like femLENS, a group that wants to publicize the everyday events of women near and far through photography. Stories convey the deep history, cultures and values that make us different but unite us at the same time. I learned how one nations choice can lead to the deconstruction of another’s, how historical happenings impact modern day and how that influences what people fight for around the world. These things lead back to the main elements one needs to be a transnational feminism, something more than only worrying about your own struggles and not feeling full until every other woman is full.

[fivepercentgodsandearths]

Origin of Black

Written by Adrian Bogopane Category:

 Friday, 18 September 2015 

The Ancient Egyptian Origins of the Word Black

There has been many a debate regarding the word “black” as it applies to the original people of the planet. Those who oppose the use of the word as an identifier of our people do so by advancing the argument that black is a color, and that it refers to the mental and legal status of individuals who are deemed incompetent to handle their affairs. The latter view is held by Moors who are followers of the teachings of Prophet Noble Drew Ali including their offshoots.

On the other hand, there are those who take pride in calling themselves black. They come from various groups ranging from Pan Africanists, Kemetic to Spiritualists and some none-affiliated. For them it represents beauty and originality. The worldwide web is saturated with slogans and poetry that embraces this ideology as much as that which is against it.

Then there are groups that have taken literally the negative definitions associated with blackness as given in western dictionaries, and would therefore have nothing to with black identity. All these divisions have escalated to varying levels, to the degree of some celebrity figures making statements that can be considered divisive, inflammatory or ignoramus depending on which side you take.

It is a known fact that the races which identify themselves as being white are but infantile on the planet earth. By all historical accounts, they have no history that can be traced beyond 6 000 B.C., and therefore do not have a language whose roots cannot be traced to the original languages that precede their presence. In 1787, Count Constantine de Volney -- a French nobleman, philosopher, historian, orientalist, and politician stated the following:    "Just think,” de Volney declared incredulously, "that this race of Black men, today our slave and the object of our scorn, is the very race to which we owe our arts, sciences, and even the use of speech! Just imagine, finally, that it is in the midst of people who call themselves the greatest friends of liberty and humanity that one has approved the most barbarous slavery, and questioned whether Black men have the same kind of intelligence as whites!

Despite their historians having documented the facts of history albeit some questionable, there are to this day those from this race of people, who are anxiously engaged in reconstructing the accounts of history in order to fit an agenda of grafting themselves into events that are not effectively connected with them. The word black has become synonymous with all that is negative, evil and despised in the colonial systems. What then of the word black when it pertains to people? Should it be eschewed like a rotting carcass that is maggot infested or be embraced?

I’m not aware of any attempts to linguistically explain the origin of the word black and its connection to the autochthons of the planet. I’m not here referring to the already established etymologies that are skewed towards elevating the culture of oppression at the expense of those whose cultural values have been stolen, repackaged and reintroduced as new, but I’m talking about tracing the origin of the word black to the most ancient languages.

To effectively establish a connection to ancient languages, I will here begin with the already accepted etymological roots that seem to go no further.

The etymological roots of “black” according to the west, it comes from:

Old English blæc, meaning "dark," from

Proto-Germanic *blakaz "burned" (cognates: Old Norse blakkr "dark," Old High German blah "black," Swedish bläck "ink," Dutch blaken "to burn"), from

PIE *bhleg- "to burn, gleam, shine, flash" (cognates: Greek phlegein "to burn, scorch," Latin flagrare "to blaze, glow, burn"), from root *bhel- (1) "to shine, flash, burn;"

The etymology dictionaries seem to make the word “black” synonymous with “dark”. However the root of blæc is from Proto-Germanic blakaz meaning “burned” which has its roots in PIE bhleg meaning to burn, gleam, shine, flash.

A close examination immediately reveals the deception of the Germanic languages in that they seem to have altered the meaning of words for nefarious purposes. The word has completely changed from its original meaning. The word dark dark (adj.) derives from:

Old English deorc "dark, obscure, gloomy; sad, cheerless; sinister, wicked," from

Proto-Germanic *derkaz (cognates: Old High German tarchanjan "to hide, conceal"). "Absence of light" especially at night is the original meaning.

It’s clear from the above explanation that “black” and “dark” are not synonymous with each other. The application of the word and its association with color did not come into use until the 16th century. By reason of this I will disregard “dark” as a synonym and proceed to establish the original roots of the word “black”.

Linguists claim that Indo-European languages descended from a single tongue. Called Proto-Indo-European, or PIE, it was spoken by a people who lived from roughly 4500 to 2500 B.C., and left no written texts. In essence PIE is a construction of a linguist by the name of August Schleicher, and it has no historical foundation but is a scientific hogwash which by all appearances, seeks to palliate the facts regarding the origin of Germanic languages. As previously stated in this article, according to Count de Volney, Europeans were taught language by black ancient Egyptians. I therefore posit that it is to the language of ancient Egyptians one must search in order to find the roots and true meaning of the word black.

The word in Medu Neter that is the root for “black” is the word transliterated as /burqa/ by E.A. Wallis Budge with the meaning; to shine, to lighten, to glimmer, to sparkle, bright, shining. In the Sestswana/Sesotho we have the plural word /malakabe/ which comprises of a prefix /ma/, the double adjective /lakabe/ which is made up of /laka/ meaning flame, light, shine, sparkle, bright, blaze and /be/ meaning evil. This word /malakabe/ means bad light, flames, blaze etc. and it’s normally used in reference to fire flames. The singular for /malakabe/ is /lelakabe/. The word /laka/ is synonymous with the Chikaranga/isiZulu word for the sun i.e. /langa/.

The transliteration of into /burqa/ is close but should instead read /buraka/. The /bu/ and /bo/ are similar words etymologically as can be found in indigenous African languages. The prefix /bu/or /bo/speaks the condition/state of what follows and may be used to denote a designation/place. It is accepted that /r/ and /l/ are interchangeable and thus in this case, /buraka/ would become /bulaka/ or /bolaka/.  This means the state of being or condition of light, brightness, sparkle, shine etc. It can now be seen that the Proto-Germanic *blakaz has its root in bolaka/bulaka. By elision the /u,o/ was eliminated and it became /blaka/. By paragoge it became /blakaz/. The word /blakaz/ by elision became /blak/ or /blæc/.

I have here clearly shown that the PIE origin of the word black is but a fabrication as there is no such language. The ancestors of Europeans first learned the art of speech and writing from the Black Egyptian as already attested by their historians.

Contrary to the notions held by Moorish groups and opponents of the usage of “black” as a word that relates to the identity of the so called “Africans”, on the basis that it has associated negative connotations and accompanying legal consequences, I have with this expose removed the veneer of falsehoods that have been espoused by our people for far too long. Perhaps the only negative resulting consequences stem from ignorance and failure to assert the truth without equivocation.

All too often we as a people become trapped in the emotional intellectualization of beliefs that give the semblance of intelligence. There is a sure way and method of establishing the veracity of anything that has historical footprints. In a society wherein anyone can claim to be anything, it is advisable to thoroughly investigate such claims and weigh them against verifiable history.

Now the question remains:  Are we as a people to rely on the negative applications and connotations of words which are in their original use have no connection to the deceptive manipulations wrought on them by Europeans, or will we chose to embrace “black” and blackness as descriptive of our glory, splendor and magnificence? I hope we will finally accept that blackness has nothing to do with color or anything negative associated with it, but rather that it is a state of being and a condition to which we can aspire to ultimately reach; a luminous light of true blackness is our destiny.

Source: http://www.simamele.co.za/index.php/blogs/735-origin-of-black

[seekhimfindhim]

“Loving Your Enemies”

Sermon by Martin Luther King, Jr.

November 17th, 1957

So I want to turn your attention to this subject: "Loving Your Enemies." It’s so basic to me because it is a part of my basic philosophical and theological orientation—the whole idea of love, the whole philosophy of love. In the fifth chapter of the gospel as recorded by Saint Matthew, we read these very arresting words flowing from the lips of our Lord and Master: "Ye have heard that it has been said, ‘Thou shall love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy.’ But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you; that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven."

Certainly these are great words, words lifted to cosmic proportions. And over the centuries, many persons have argued that this is an extremely difficult command. Many would go so far as to say that it just isn’t possible to move out into the actual practice of this glorious command. They would go on to say that this is just additional proof that Jesus was an impractical idealist who never quite came down to earth. So the arguments abound. But far from being an impractical idealist, Jesus has become the practical realist. The words of this text glitter in our eyes with a new urgency. Far from being the pious injunction of a Utopian dreamer, this command is an absolute necessity for the survival of our civilization. Yes, it is love that will save our world and our civilization, love even for enemies.

Now let me hasten to say that Jesus was very serious when he gave this command; he wasn’t playing. He realized that it’s hard to love your enemies. He realized that it’s difficult to love those persons who seek to defeat you, those persons who say evil things about you. He realized that it was painfully hard, pressingly hard. But he wasn’t playing. And we cannot dismiss this passage as just another example of Oriental hyperbole, just a sort of exaggeration to get over the point. This is a basic philosophy of all that we hear coming from the lips of our Master. Because Jesus wasn’t playing; because he was serious. We have the Christian and moral responsibility to seek to discover the meaning of these words, and to discover how we can live out this command, and why we should live by this command.

Now first let us deal with this question, which is the practical question: How do you go about loving your enemies? I think the first thing is this: In order to love your enemies, you must begin by analyzing self. And I’m sure that seems strange to you, that I start out telling you this morning that you love your enemies by beginning with a look at self. It seems to me that that is the first and foremost way to come to an adequate discovery to the how of this situation.

Now, I’m aware of the fact that some people will not like you, not because of something you have done to them, but they just won’t like you. I’m quite aware of that. Some people aren’t going to like the way you walk; some people aren’t going to like the way you talk. Some people aren’t going to like you because you can do your job better than they can do theirs. Some people aren’t going to like you because other people like you, and because you’re popular, and because you’re well-liked, they aren’t going to like you. Some people aren’t going to like you because your hair is a little shorter than theirs or your hair is a little longer than theirs. Some people aren’t going to like you because your skin is a little brighter than theirs; and others aren’t going to like you because your skin is a little darker than theirs. So that some people aren’t going to like you. They’re going to dislike you, not because of something that you’ve done to them, but because of various jealous reactions and other reactions that are so prevalent in human nature.

But after looking at these things and admitting these things, we must face the fact that an individual might dislike us because of something that we’ve done deep down in the past, some personality attribute that we possess, something that we’ve done deep down in the past and we’ve forgotten about it; but it was that something that aroused the hate response within the individual. That is why I say, begin with yourself. There might be something within you that arouses the tragic hate response in the other individual.

This is true in our international struggle. We look at the struggle, the ideological struggle between communism on the one hand and democracy on the other, and we see the struggle between America and Russia. Now certainly, we can never give our allegiance to the Russian way of life, to the communistic way of life, because communism is based on an ethical relativism and a metaphysical materialism that no Christian can accept. When we look at the methods of communism, a philosophy where somehow the end justifies the means, we cannot accept that because we believe as Christians that the end is pre-existent in the means. But in spite of all of the weaknesses and evils inherent in communism, we must at the same time see the weaknesses and evils within democracy.

Democracy is the greatest form of government to my mind that man has ever conceived, but the weakness is that we have never touched it. Isn’t it true that we have often taken necessities from the masses to give luxuries to the classes? Isn’t it true that we have often in our democracy trampled over individuals and races with the iron feet of oppression? Isn’t it true that through our Western powers we have perpetuated colonialism and imperialism? And all of these things must be taken under consideration as we look at Russia. We must face the fact that the rhythmic beat of the deep rumblings of discontent from Asia and Africa is at bottom a revolt against the imperialism and colonialism perpetuated by Western civilization all these many years. The success of communism in the world today is due to the failure of democracy to live up to the noble ideals and principles inherent in its system.

And this is what Jesus means when he said: "How is it that you can see the mote in your brother’s eye and not see the beam in your own eye?" Or to put it in Moffatt’s translation: "How is it that you see the splinter in your brother’s eye and fail to see the plank in your own eye?" And this is one of the tragedies of human nature. So we begin to love our enemies and love those persons that hate us whether in collective life or individual life by looking at ourselves.

A second thing that an individual must do in seeking to love his enemy is to discover the element of good in his enemy, and everytime you begin to hate that person and think of hating that person, realize that there is some good there and look at those good points which will over-balance the bad points.

I’ve said to you on many occasions that each of us is something of a schizophrenic personality. We’re split up and divided against ourselves. And there is something of a civil war going on within all of our lives. There is a recalcitrant South of our soul revolting against the North of our soul. And there is this continual struggle within the very structure of every individual life. There is something within all of us that causes us to cry out with Ovid, the Latin poet, "I see and approve the better things of life, but the evil things I do." There is something within all of us that causes us to cry out with Plato that the human personality is like a charioteer with two headstrong horses, each wanting to go in different directions. There is something within each of us that causes us to cry out with Goethe, "There is enough stuff in me to make both a gentleman and a rogue." There is something within each of us that causes us to cry out with Apostle Paul, "I see and approve the better things of life, but the evil things I do."

So somehow the "isness" of our present nature is out of harmony with the eternal "oughtness" that forever confronts us. And this simply means this: That within the best of us, there is some evil, and within the worst of us, there is some good. When we come to see this, we take a different attitude toward individuals. The person who hates you most has some good in him; even the nation that hates you most has some good in it; even the race that hates you most has some good in it. And when you come to the point that you look in the face of every man and see deep down within him what religion calls "the image of God," you begin to love him in spite of. No matter what he does, you see God’s image there. There is an element of goodness that he can never sluff off. Discover the element of good in your enemy. And as you seek to hate him, find the center of goodness and place your attention there and you will take a new attitude.

Another way that you love your enemy is this: When the opportunity presents itself for you to defeat your enemy, that is the time which you must not do it. There will come a time, in many instances, when the person who hates you most, the person who has misused you most, the person who has gossiped about you most, the person who has spread false rumors about you most, there will come a time when you will have an opportunity to defeat that person. It might be in terms of a recommendation for a job; it might be in terms of helping that person to make some move in life. That’s the time you must do it. That is the meaning of love. In the final analysis, love is not this sentimental something that we talk about. It’s not merely an emotional something. Love is creative, understanding goodwill for all men. It is the refusal to defeat any individual. When you rise to the level of love, of its great beauty and power, you seek only to defeat evil systems. Individuals who happen to be caught up in that system, you love, but you seek to defeat the system.

The Greek language, as I’ve said so often before, is very powerful at this point. It comes to our aid beautifully in giving us the real meaning and depth of the whole philosophy of love. And I think it is quite apropos at this point, for you see the Greek language has three words for love, interestingly enough. It talks about love as eros. That’s one word for love. Eros is a sort of, aesthetic love. Plato talks about it a great deal in his dialogues, a sort of yearning of the soul for the realm of the gods. And it’s come to us to be a sort of romantic love, though it’s a beautiful love. Everybody has experienced eros in all of its beauty when you find some individual that is attractive to you and that you pour out all of your like and your love on that individual. That is eros, you see, and it’s a powerful, beautiful love that is given to us through all of the beauty of literature; we read about it.

Then the Greek language talks about philia, and that’s another type of love that’s also beautiful. It is a sort of intimate affection between personal friends. And this is the type of love that you have for those persons that you’re friendly with, your intimate friends, or people that you call on the telephone and you go by to have dinner with, and your roommate in college and that type of thing. It’s a sort of reciprocal love. On this level, you like a person because that person likes you. You love on this level, because you are loved. You love on this level, because there’s something about the person you love that is likeable to you. This too is a beautiful love. You can communicate with a person; you have certain things in common; you like to do things together. This is philia.

The Greek language comes out with another word for love. It is the word agape. And agape is more than eros; agape is more than philia; agape is something of the understanding, creative, redemptive goodwill for all men. It is a love that seeks nothing in return. It is an overflowing love; it’s what theologians would call the love of God working in the lives of men. And when you rise to love on this level, you begin to love men, not because they are likeable, but because God loves them. You look at every man, and you love him because you know God loves him. And he might be the worst person you’ve ever seen.

And this is what Jesus means, I think, in this very passage when he says, "Love your enemy." And it’s significant that he does not say, "Like your enemy." Like is a sentimental something, an affectionate something. There are a lot of people that I find it difficult to like. I don’t like what they do to me. I don’t like what they say about me and other people. I don’t like their attitudes. I don’t like some of the things they’re doing. I don’t like them. But Jesus says love them. And love is greater than like. Love is understanding, redemptive goodwill for all men, so that you love everybody, because God loves them. You refuse to do anything that will defeat an individual, because you have agape in your soul. And here you come to the point that you love the individual who does the evil deed, while hating the deed that the person does. This is what Jesus means when he says, "Love your enemy." This is the way to do it. When the opportunity presents itself when you can defeat your enemy, you must not do it.

Now for the few moments left, let us move from the practical how to the theoretical why. It’s not only necessary to know how to go about loving your enemies, but also to go down into the question of why we should love our enemies. I think the first reason that we should love our enemies, and I think this was at the very center of Jesus’ thinking, is this: that hate for hate only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. If I hit you and you hit me and I hit you back and you hit me back and go on, you see, that goes on ad infinitum. [tapping on pulpit] It just never ends. Somewhere somebody must have a little sense, and that’s the strong person. The strong person is the person who can cut off the chain of hate, the chain of evil. And that is the tragedy of hate, that it doesn’t cut it off. It only intensifies the existence of hate and evil in the universe. Somebody must have religion enough and morality enough to cut it off and inject within the very structure of the universe that strong and powerful element of love.

I think I mentioned before that sometime ago my brother and I were driving one evening to Chattanooga, Tennessee, from Atlanta. He was driving the car. And for some reason the drivers were very discourteous that night. They didn’t dim their lights; hardly any driver that passed by dimmed his lights. And I remember very vividly, my brother A. D. looked over and in a tone of anger said: "I know what I’m going to do. The next car that comes along here and refuses to dim the lights, I’m going to fail to dim mine and pour them on in all of their power." And I looked at him right quick and said: "Oh no, don’t do that. There’d be too much light on this highway, and it will end up in mutual destruction for all. Somebody got to have some sense on this highway."

Somebody must have sense enough to dim the lights, and that is the trouble, isn’t it? That as all of the civilizations of the world move up the highway of history, so many civilizations, having looked at other civilizations that refused to dim the lights, and they decided to refuse to dim theirs. And Toynbee tells that out of the twenty-two civilizations that have risen up, all but about seven have found themselves in the junkheap of destruction. It is because civilizations fail to have sense enough to dim the lights. And if somebody doesn’t have sense enough to turn on the dim and beautiful and powerful lights of love in this world, the whole of our civilization will be plunged into the abyss of destruction. And we will all end up destroyed because nobody had any sense on the highway of history. Somewhere somebody must have some sense. Men must see that force begets force, hate begets hate, toughness begets toughness. And it is all a descending spiral, ultimately ending in destruction for all and everybody. Somebody must have sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate and the chain of evil in the universe. And you do that by love.

There’s another reason why you should love your enemies, and that is because hate distorts the personality of the hater. We usually think of what hate does for the individual hated or the individuals hated or the groups hated. But it is even more tragic, it is even more ruinous and injurious to the individual who hates. You just begin hating somebody, and you will begin to do irrational things. You can’t see straight when you hate. You can’t walk straight when you hate. You can’t stand upright. Your vision is distorted. There is nothing more tragic than to see an individual whose heart is filled with hate. He comes to the point that he becomes a pathological case. For the person who hates, you can stand up and see a person and that person can be beautiful, and you will call them ugly. For the person who hates, the beautiful becomes ugly and the ugly becomes beautiful. For the person who hates, the good becomes bad and the bad becomes good. For the person who hates, the true becomes false and the false becomes true. That’s what hate does. You can’t see right. The symbol of objectivity is lost. Hate destroys the very structure of the personality of the hater. And this is why Jesus says hate [recording interrupted]

. . . that you want to be integrated with yourself, and the way to be integrated with yourself is be sure that you meet every situation of life with an abounding love. Never hate, because it ends up in tragic, neurotic responses. Psychologists and psychiatrists are telling us today that the more we hate, the more we develop guilt feelings and we begin to subconsciously repress or consciously suppress certain emotions, and they all stack up in our subconscious selves and make for tragic, neurotic responses. And may this not be the neuroses of many individuals as they confront life that that is an element of hate there. And modern psychology is calling on us now to love. But long before modern psychology came into being, the world’s greatest psychologist who walked around the hills of Galilee told us to love. He looked at men and said: "Love your enemies; don’t hate anybody." It’s not enough for us to hate your friends because—to to love your friends—because when you start hating anybody, it destroys the very center of your creative response to life and the universe; so love everybody. Hate at any point is a cancer that gnaws away at the very vital center of your life and your existence. It is like eroding acid that eats away the best and the objective center of your life. So Jesus says love, because hate destroys the hater as well as the hated.

Now there is a final reason I think that Jesus says, "Love your enemies." It is this: that love has within it a redemptive power. And there is a power there that eventually transforms individuals. That’s why Jesus says, "Love your enemies." Because if you hate your enemies, you have no way to redeem and to transform your enemies. But if you love your enemies, you will discover that at the very root of love is the power of redemption. You just keep loving people and keep loving them, even though they’re mistreating you. Here’s the person who is a neighbor, and this person is doing something wrong to you and all of that. Just keep being friendly to that person. Keep loving them. Don’t do anything to embarrass them. Just keep loving them, and they can’t stand it too long. Oh, they react in many ways in the beginning. They react with bitterness because they’re mad because you love them like that. They react with guilt feelings, and sometimes they’ll hate you a little more at that transition period, but just keep loving them. And by the power of your love they will break down under the load. That’s love, you see. It is redemptive, and this is why Jesus says love. There’s something about love that builds up and is creative. There is something about hate that tears down and is destructive. So love your enemies.

I think of one of the best examples of this. We all remember the great president of this United States, Abraham Lincoln—these United States rather. You remember when Abraham Lincoln was running for president of the United States, there was a man who ran all around the country talking about Lincoln. He said a lot of bad things about Lincoln, a lot of unkind things. And sometimes he would get to the point that he would even talk about his looks, saying, "You don’t want a tall, lanky, ignorant man like this as the president of the United States." He went on and on and on and went around with that type of attitude and wrote about it. Finally, one day Abraham Lincoln was elected president of the United States. And if you read the great biography of Lincoln, if you read the great works about him, you will discover that as every president comes to the point, he came to the point of having to choose a Cabinet. And then came the time for him to choose a Secretary of War. He looked across the nation, and decided to choose a man by the name of Mr. Stanton. And when Abraham Lincoln stood around his advisors and mentioned this fact, they said to him: "Mr. Lincoln, are you a fool? Do you know what Mr. Stanton has been saying about you? Do you know what he has done, tried to do to you? Do you know that he has tried to defeat you on every hand? Do you know that, Mr. Lincoln? Did you read all of those derogatory statements that he made about you?" Abraham Lincoln stood before the advisors around him and said: "Oh yes, I know about it; I read about it; I’ve heard him myself. But after looking over the country, I find that he is the best man for the job."

Mr. Stanton did become Secretary of War, and a few months later, Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. And if you go to Washington, you will discover that one of the greatest words or statements ever made by, about Abraham Lincoln was made about this man Stanton. And as Abraham Lincoln came to the end of his life, Stanton stood up and said: "Now he belongs to the ages." And he made a beautiful statement concerning the character and the stature of this man. If Abraham Lincoln had hated Stanton, if Abraham Lincoln had answered everything Stanton said, Abraham Lincoln would have not transformed and redeemed Stanton. Stanton would have gone to his grave hating Lincoln, and Lincoln would have gone to his grave hating Stanton. But through the power of love Abraham Lincoln was able to redeem Stanton.

That’s it. There is a power in love that our world has not discovered yet. Jesus discovered it centuries ago. Mahatma Gandhi of India discovered it a few years ago, but most men and most women never discover it. For they believe in hitting for hitting; they believe in an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth; they believe in hating for hating; but Jesus comes to us and says, "This isn’t the way."

And oh this morning, as I think of the fact that our world is in transition now. Our whole world is facing a revolution. Our nation is facing a revolution, our nation. One of the things that concerns me most is that in the midst of the revolution of the world and the midst of the revolution of this nation, that we will discover the meaning of Jesus’ words.

History unfortunately leaves some people oppressed and some people oppressors. And there are three ways that individuals who are oppressed can deal with their oppression. One of them is to rise up against their oppressors with physical violence and corroding hatred. But oh this isn’t the way. For the danger and the weakness of this method is its futility. Violence creates many more social problems than it solves. And I’ve said, in so many instances, that as the Negro, in particular, and colored peoples all over the world struggle for freedom, if they succumb to the temptation of using violence in their struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and our chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos. Violence isn’t the way.

Another way is to acquiesce and to give in, to resign yourself to the oppression. Some people do that. They discover the difficulties of the wilderness moving into the promised land, and they would rather go back to the despots of Egypt because it’s difficult to get in the promised land. And so they resign themselves to the fate of oppression; they somehow acquiesce to this thing. But that too isn’t the way because non-cooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good.

But there is another way. And that is to organize mass non-violent resistance based on the principle of love. It seems to me that this is the only way as our eyes look to the future. As we look out across the years and across the generations, let us develop and move right here. We must discover the power of love, the power, the redemptive power of love. And when we discover that we will be able to make of this old world a new world. We will be able to make men better. Love is the only way. Jesus discovered that.

Not only did Jesus discover it, even great military leaders discover that. One day as Napoleon came toward the end of his career and looked back across the years—the great Napoleon that at a very early age had all but conquered the world. He was not stopped until he became, till he moved out to the battle of Leipzig and then to Waterloo. But that same Napoleon one day stood back and looked across the years, and said: "Alexander, Caesar, Charlemagne, and I have built great empires. But upon what did they depend? They depended upon force. But long ago Jesus started an empire that depended on love, and even to this day millions will die for him."

Yes, I can see Jesus walking around the hills and the valleys of Palestine. And I can see him looking out at the Roman Empire with all of her fascinating and intricate military machinery. But in the midst of that, I can hear him saying: "I will not use this method. Neither will I hate the Roman Empire." [Radio Announcer:] (WRMA, Montgomery, Alabama. Due to the fact of the delay this morning, we are going over with the sermon.) [several words inaudible] . . . and just start marching.

And I’m proud to stand here in Dexter this morning and say that that army is still marching. It grew up from a group of eleven or twelve men to more than seven hundred million today. Because of the power and influence of the personality of this Christ, he was able to split history into a.d. and b.c. Because of his power, he was able to shake the hinges from the gates of the Roman Empire. And all around the world this morning, we can hear the glad echo of heaven ring:

Jesus shall reign wherever sun,

Does his successive journeys run;

His kingdom spreads from shore to shore,

Till moon shall wane and wax no more.

We can hear another chorus singing: "All hail the power of Jesus name!"

We can hear another chorus singing: "Hallelujah, hallelujah! He’s King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Hallelujah, hallelujah!"

We can hear another choir singing:

In Christ there is no East or West.

In Him no North or South,

But one great Fellowship of Love

Throughout the whole wide world.

This is the only way.

And our civilization must discover that. Individuals must discover that as they deal with other individuals. There is a little tree planted on a little hill and on that tree hangs the most influential character that ever came in this world. But never feel that that tree is a meaningless drama that took place on the stages of history. Oh no, it is a telescope through which we look out into the long vista of eternity, and see the love of God breaking forth into time. It is an eternal reminder to a power-drunk generation that love is the only way. It is an eternal reminder to a generation depending on nuclear and atomic energy, a generation depending on physical violence, that love is the only creative, redemptive, transforming power in the universe.

So this morning, as I look into your eyes, and into the eyes of all of my brothers in Alabama and all over America and over the world, I say to you, "I love you. I would rather die than hate you." And I’m foolish enough to believe that through the power of this love somewhere, men of the most recalcitrant bent will be transformed. And then we will be in God’s kingdom. We will be able to matriculate into the university of eternal life because we had the power to love our enemies, to bless those persons that cursed us, to even decide to be good to those persons who hated us, and we even prayed for those persons who despitefully used us.

Oh God, help us in our lives and in all of our attitudes, to work out this controlling force of love, this controlling power that can solve every problem that we confront in all areas. Oh, we talk about politics; we talk about the problems facing our atomic civilization. Grant that all men will come together and discover that as we solve the crisis and solve these problems—the international problems, the problems of atomic energy, the problems of nuclear energy, and yes, even the race problem—let us join together in a great fellowship of love and bow down at the feet of Jesus. Give us this strong determination. In the name and spirit of this Christ, we pray. Amen.

[rotzaprachim]

everyone who wants to suggest a language that’s actually a bad language. No ❤️

not only are there no bad languages there are also no bad or annoying dialects