"we are the ones in whose name other people are oppressed."
July 13, 2016 7:55 AM Subscribe
Marika Rose writes The White Christian’s Burden - "So: we have sinned, we can’t save ourselves, and the gospel isn’t such good news after all. I hope you’re excited!"
The "we" is White Christians. She is talking specifically about Christians who swoop in to "save" people or get involved in causes due to a need to feel good and innocent and useful, and where the difficulty lies with that. I found it a really interesting article, thanks for the post.
posted by billiebee at 8:51 AM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by billiebee at 8:51 AM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Yes, but "white christians" includes "gay white christians", which is why I find her use of "we" very uncomfortable. There's a ludicrous number of gay white christians in my extended activist and family circles. I could literally telephone a gay white minister who is related to me right now if the spirit moved me.
posted by Frowner at 8:53 AM on July 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 8:53 AM on July 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
Bleargh, this essay left a bad taste in my mouth.
It reminds me of a dismissal I see in various anti-feminist circles: "There are women in other countries who have it much worse than women in the U.S., why don't feminists worry about them?" It is of course not actually a call to become an international activist, it's just an attempt to insinuate that trying to fix one problem and not a different one is somehow hypocritical.
In this essay we have the opposite argument but the same conclusion: "Why are we trying to help people in other countries when we haven't fixed every last problem on our own turf?" Again, it doesn't seem to be a call to intensify local activism so much as it is an excuse to do nothing. In this case the author is explicitly asking the audience to accept that they can't and shouldn't do anything:
posted by lore at 8:57 AM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
It reminds me of a dismissal I see in various anti-feminist circles: "There are women in other countries who have it much worse than women in the U.S., why don't feminists worry about them?" It is of course not actually a call to become an international activist, it's just an attempt to insinuate that trying to fix one problem and not a different one is somehow hypocritical.
In this essay we have the opposite argument but the same conclusion: "Why are we trying to help people in other countries when we haven't fixed every last problem on our own turf?" Again, it doesn't seem to be a call to intensify local activism so much as it is an excuse to do nothing. In this case the author is explicitly asking the audience to accept that they can't and shouldn't do anything:
What should we do, then? One answer that I think we need to hear is this: nothing.I expected this to be an ironic statement that leads to a turnaround, but no. The essay ends not with a call to action but a series of essentially rhetorical questions:
What would it mean to put down the white Christian’s burden which weighs us down and deals death to those around us? I don’t know. But I think that those are the questions we need to be asking.To me, the overall message is this: "I don't know how we can improve the world without running the risk of there being some degree of unintended consequences, but we'd better do nothing until we can figure that out." Which, given the messiness of life and the ubiquity of unintended consequences, comes down to "We'd better do nothing, forever."
posted by lore at 8:57 AM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
Apologies, I didn't mean to suggest that Christian and gay are mutually exclusive. For me she seemed to clearly say that the problem was with assuming the "we" was white/cis/straight/able-bodied/wealthy (and British in this article) and the great need is to step out of that and to listen. She talks about the need for sex workers to be able to speak for themselves, rather than having white middle class women "rescuing" them under the mantle of feminism.
posted by billiebee at 8:58 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by billiebee at 8:58 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I agree with you Frowner about her specific points but her larger point, as a Christian, resonates with me strongly:
"To be a Christian just is, inescapably, to inherit the complicated legacy of the bad things that Christianity represents as well as the good things. And the closer we are to the model of the God-like individual that Western culture has come to see as the most perfect of all human beings, the more likely it is that we are formed by the dangerous and damaging aspects of Christian culture....
And however good our intentions, we can’t escape that. Christianity is, for many of us, the name of our entanglement in sin."
This is very challenging to white liberal Christians but very worthy of consideration I think.
"Too often, I think, we want to skip what’s difficult in the words of Jesus and go straight to the bit where we get to be innocent, where we get new life and freedom. And sometimes that’s for good reasons. Too often the church has preached blessings to those who are already rich and has delivered woe to those who are poor; too often we have encouraged the well-fed to feast on food that has been stolen from the poor. Too often judgement has been passed on those who are already marginalised and excluded. For some people the gospel really should be about liberation. For those who are imprisoned, the gospel means liberation. For those who are oppressed, the gospel means freedom. But what we need to realise is that some of us aren’t imprisoned. Some of us are exactly the people whose private property prisons exist to protect. We’re the jailers."
Not that you shouldn't fight for causes that you believe are just, but that you should be careful not to confuse intention with results, White Saviour-dom for struggling WITH the oppressed... a confusion that results because of Liberation Theology.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:59 AM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
"To be a Christian just is, inescapably, to inherit the complicated legacy of the bad things that Christianity represents as well as the good things. And the closer we are to the model of the God-like individual that Western culture has come to see as the most perfect of all human beings, the more likely it is that we are formed by the dangerous and damaging aspects of Christian culture....
And however good our intentions, we can’t escape that. Christianity is, for many of us, the name of our entanglement in sin."
This is very challenging to white liberal Christians but very worthy of consideration I think.
"Too often, I think, we want to skip what’s difficult in the words of Jesus and go straight to the bit where we get to be innocent, where we get new life and freedom. And sometimes that’s for good reasons. Too often the church has preached blessings to those who are already rich and has delivered woe to those who are poor; too often we have encouraged the well-fed to feast on food that has been stolen from the poor. Too often judgement has been passed on those who are already marginalised and excluded. For some people the gospel really should be about liberation. For those who are imprisoned, the gospel means liberation. For those who are oppressed, the gospel means freedom. But what we need to realise is that some of us aren’t imprisoned. Some of us are exactly the people whose private property prisons exist to protect. We’re the jailers."
Not that you shouldn't fight for causes that you believe are just, but that you should be careful not to confuse intention with results, White Saviour-dom for struggling WITH the oppressed... a confusion that results because of Liberation Theology.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:59 AM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I interpreted that "nothing" to be the same as Malcolm X's "nothing". And this from the quote from James Cone.
"What the liberal really means is, ‘What can I do and still receive the same privileges as other whites and – this is the key – be liked by the Negroes?’ Indeed the only answer is ‘Nothing’.
However, there are places in the Black Power picture for ‘radicals’, who are prepared to risk life for freedom. There are places for the John Browns, men who hate evil and refuse to tolerate it anywhere."
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:03 AM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
"What the liberal really means is, ‘What can I do and still receive the same privileges as other whites and – this is the key – be liked by the Negroes?’ Indeed the only answer is ‘Nothing’.
However, there are places in the Black Power picture for ‘radicals’, who are prepared to risk life for freedom. There are places for the John Browns, men who hate evil and refuse to tolerate it anywhere."
posted by Potomac Avenue at 9:03 AM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
it doesn't seem to be a call to intensify local activism so much as it is an excuse to do nothing
On the contrary, she asks "What would it look like to be a radical who is prepared to risk life for freedom?"
posted by billiebee at 9:04 AM on July 13, 2016
On the contrary, she asks "What would it look like to be a radical who is prepared to risk life for freedom?"
posted by billiebee at 9:04 AM on July 13, 2016
The essay ends not with a call to action but a series of essentially rhetorical questions
I feel like this is sort of in line with Kotsko's (and posters on the blog) sort of atheist theology/negative theology thing. What I do really like about Kotsko/et al is the way they really do believe their beliefs. They aren't afraid to think difficult and uncomfortable things and they often come to stuff from angles very unusual on the left.
I feel like the blog often goes to a "sit with despair/unresolveable contradiction" place, and yeah, I think it's often addressing sort of Christian enthusiasm that gets people into aggressive, inappropriate engagement with other communities.
At the same time, I feel like there's a lot of....well, Kotsko is a a white straight dude and his posters are generally straight people, and I feel like sometimes he says some things about queer politics and/or feminism that very, very clearly are not based in familiarity with any lived experience.
I mean, I like this blog a lot. I think the people who post there really work hard to avoid that whole "I have unexamined and dubious emotional reasons for supporting this thing, so I will make up a Very Serious Intellectual Rationale For It" business that it's so easy to slip into.
An und fur sich is definitely one of my favorite blogs on the whole internet.
posted by Frowner at 9:07 AM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
I feel like this is sort of in line with Kotsko's (and posters on the blog) sort of atheist theology/negative theology thing. What I do really like about Kotsko/et al is the way they really do believe their beliefs. They aren't afraid to think difficult and uncomfortable things and they often come to stuff from angles very unusual on the left.
I feel like the blog often goes to a "sit with despair/unresolveable contradiction" place, and yeah, I think it's often addressing sort of Christian enthusiasm that gets people into aggressive, inappropriate engagement with other communities.
At the same time, I feel like there's a lot of....well, Kotsko is a a white straight dude and his posters are generally straight people, and I feel like sometimes he says some things about queer politics and/or feminism that very, very clearly are not based in familiarity with any lived experience.
I mean, I like this blog a lot. I think the people who post there really work hard to avoid that whole "I have unexamined and dubious emotional reasons for supporting this thing, so I will make up a Very Serious Intellectual Rationale For It" business that it's so easy to slip into.
An und fur sich is definitely one of my favorite blogs on the whole internet.
posted by Frowner at 9:07 AM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
Wow. I am not a Christian and my own religion does not have the same emphasis on self-sacrifice, so maybe I shouldn't even comment on this. It certainly seems to be the point of the piece, that maybe the best thing to do, even if you care passionately, is to shut up and step aside. And I can see how that can be a profoundly Christian attitude, not to mention a radical one (in the sense of how radical Jesus himself was considered in his time). And I can see how if you are an oppressed people and some White Guy comes in and tells you what to do, that is unwelcome and generally unhelpful, and needs to stop.
But - and again this is coming from my religious non-Christian perspective, I can't help but respond with Elie Wiesel's words:
Apologies if this is offensive to Christians - it's a powerful and well-reasoned piece. But I can't bring myself to agree with it.
posted by Mchelly at 9:12 AM on July 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
But - and again this is coming from my religious non-Christian perspective, I can't help but respond with Elie Wiesel's words:
And then I explained to him how naive we were, that the world did know and remain silent. And that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must -- at that moment -- become the center of the universe.Some of my family are alive because people - often white people, often Christians - stood up and got involved. If the problem is people of privilege are rushing in and trying to affect change without fully understanding the circumstances, my conclusion is that the solution is to become better informed before you act, not stand back and hope the situation isn't actually so dire or that the guilty parties resolve things on their own.
Apologies if this is offensive to Christians - it's a powerful and well-reasoned piece. But I can't bring myself to agree with it.
posted by Mchelly at 9:12 AM on July 13, 2016 [10 favorites]
The workaround to all three of her problem examples was instituted by the guys who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Churches have no business doing American foreign policy. It is complicated and when it's messed up can involve violence or big money. In Russia and Cambodia and Uganda all you people who don't work for the government (or maybe the Gates Foundation) need to do is MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.
The state department has fact sheet brochures available if you have any problem knowing how to do this. Missionaries are an anachronism. There is a universe of opportunity within your own borders to satisfy your impulses for charity and whatnot.
posted by bukvich at 9:14 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
The state department has fact sheet brochures available if you have any problem knowing how to do this. Missionaries are an anachronism. There is a universe of opportunity within your own borders to satisfy your impulses for charity and whatnot.
posted by bukvich at 9:14 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I don't think anyone on this blog is talking about being a missionary - they're talking about participating as Christians in social justice movements generally. So, like, your church might have some kind of "let's all go picket the embassy" thing, or "let's raise money for this project". Or maybe just saying "because I am a Christian, I am moved to participate in this movement as an individual". In this way, they're not talking about anything very different from any left group.
There's a difference between "foreign policy" and "let's do a fund-raiser breakfast for Oaxacan activists". The constitution, bill of rights and body of law that draw on them work this out pretty clearly - so it would be legal for me personally to donate money to an indigenous Oaxacan community and to assert that they are autonomous of the state but it would not be legal for the State of Minnesota to draw up a treaty agreement recognizing that community as independent of Mexico.
It's well worth checking out the blog generally - I'm pretty darn atheist but find a lot of it very interesting.
posted by Frowner at 9:27 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
There's a difference between "foreign policy" and "let's do a fund-raiser breakfast for Oaxacan activists". The constitution, bill of rights and body of law that draw on them work this out pretty clearly - so it would be legal for me personally to donate money to an indigenous Oaxacan community and to assert that they are autonomous of the state but it would not be legal for the State of Minnesota to draw up a treaty agreement recognizing that community as independent of Mexico.
It's well worth checking out the blog generally - I'm pretty darn atheist but find a lot of it very interesting.
posted by Frowner at 9:27 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I found this essay intriguing. Thank you the man of twists and turns for posting it. There is so much to wrestle with and I think that might be one of the most important aspects of the article. We must wrestle with our relationship to Christianity, to our fellow humans, to the world. Figuring out what is the "right thing to do" is not easy. it is definitely not simple. So much is done in the name of "charity" that I think is really just many people's way of avoiding having to wrestle with what the New Testament actually demands of Christians. It is so much easier to write a check than to check our behavior and attitudes. It is easier to hear "God loves you and the proof of that is your wealth and good fortune" than it is to hear “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven." I long ago walked out of a Catholic Church and down a road that led me to atheism. And I am fine with that. But I still wrestle with what it means to be a good, decent, caring human being in a world that is for most people down right retched. To do "nothing" doesn't seem right, but perhaps the best we can do is "participate joyfully in the sorrows of the world"(Joseph Campbell) and know that we can't fix everything, but we can try to ease each others pain.
posted by pjsky at 9:39 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by pjsky at 9:39 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
When the olympics was on, and some of my well meaning liberal friends were freaking out about Russia, I cautiously reminded my friends that our US leadership class has not really proven itself trustworthy. That one had to be very careful jumping on that train. The propaganda efforts are bipartisan. Yep, that makes it very, very hard to tell the 'truth', no matter how much reading you do. (It's one of things that makes me nervous about HRC. Her disdain for the Russians has no motive I can discern.)
Robeson going to Russia is a great example of what I mean. That blacks were persecuted in the states to the extent they were certainly put the lie to concern for democracy around the world. A part of the red scare was the usual white supremacy.
It's very dangerous to assume things are better now regarding all this. Past generations did their best despite all the horror, just like now. What's really needed, and in the scope of the article, is a big dose of humility. That's a critical aspect of the Christian doctrine that's constantly ignored.
Finally, I appreciate the articles other examples of well meaning liberalism gone wrong.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 9:50 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
Robeson going to Russia is a great example of what I mean. That blacks were persecuted in the states to the extent they were certainly put the lie to concern for democracy around the world. A part of the red scare was the usual white supremacy.
It's very dangerous to assume things are better now regarding all this. Past generations did their best despite all the horror, just like now. What's really needed, and in the scope of the article, is a big dose of humility. That's a critical aspect of the Christian doctrine that's constantly ignored.
Finally, I appreciate the articles other examples of well meaning liberalism gone wrong.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 9:50 AM on July 13, 2016 [1 favorite]
I find this to be the cynical reaction to the White Saviour effect. When you come up against the complexity of actual people and history and cultures, and realise oh hey you fucked up, you can decide either A) It's their fault because they are ignorant, savages, inferior, etc, B) To laugh bitterly, fumble towards a halfway solution with a broken heart while blaming institutions, governments, cultural forces and history (Advanced Stage as shown in this essay: Give up entirely and do nothing) or C) Go historically accurate and do something like selling your possessions and giving to the poor and following Christ.
The Cambodian story is just the flip-side cocktail anecdote to the "I taught english to these adorable orphans in the rice fields..." because what she's summarising there is a very skewed slice of a complex situation, diluting a lot of the responsibility from the local authorities and buyers. It's a bad example.
I think Malcom X remembered that girl because he wanted her not to give up and leave. He wanted her to say something like "Well, I can type and I can fundraise and I can cook. What can I do that's going to be useful now to help you?" Because she was asking him how he could make her feel better and he told her - do something about being part of this awful terrible crime against people that you now understand you directly participate in and benefit from. He gave her an answer - deeds, not words. She didn't listen, and he gave her the second answer - then, nothing.
She gets right up to the question of what to do when your life is comfortable and you benefit from an exploitive system, then walks away without asking it because she knows the answer but she doesn't want to make her audience too uncomfortable. Instead, she spends 2/3 of her speech on three stories that are just generalised gludge to make you feel vindicated about Not Being That Kind of White Saviour. Very Omelas-annoying.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 11:43 AM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
The Cambodian story is just the flip-side cocktail anecdote to the "I taught english to these adorable orphans in the rice fields..." because what she's summarising there is a very skewed slice of a complex situation, diluting a lot of the responsibility from the local authorities and buyers. It's a bad example.
I think Malcom X remembered that girl because he wanted her not to give up and leave. He wanted her to say something like "Well, I can type and I can fundraise and I can cook. What can I do that's going to be useful now to help you?" Because she was asking him how he could make her feel better and he told her - do something about being part of this awful terrible crime against people that you now understand you directly participate in and benefit from. He gave her an answer - deeds, not words. She didn't listen, and he gave her the second answer - then, nothing.
She gets right up to the question of what to do when your life is comfortable and you benefit from an exploitive system, then walks away without asking it because she knows the answer but she doesn't want to make her audience too uncomfortable. Instead, she spends 2/3 of her speech on three stories that are just generalised gludge to make you feel vindicated about Not Being That Kind of White Saviour. Very Omelas-annoying.
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 11:43 AM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
There's a lot of pushback here, which is odd since she is making the exact same point that I've seen made here on Metafilter when it comes to domestic activism: don't try to take leadership of other people's causes. Men shouldn't be in charge of feminism; white people are not the movers behind BLM; trans people need to lead on trans issues.
That doesn't mean that allies literally do nothing, but not taking leadership means not taking leadership. And for sure it means we start by listening.
This is all the more important outside our own borders. It's a complicated world out there, and the best of intentions and a real desire to 'serve' don't erase the power differential of coming in with a fistful of dollars and no god-given wisdom on where to spend them.
There's a weird video game I played once, called Culpa Innata, which depicts a future dystopia that has libertarian business and social ethics plus a slew of liberal NGOs. That seemed like a weird combination to me till I learned that it was based on a novel by a Turkish woman. Then it made perfect sense: this is what the West looks like to everyone else— dog-eat-dog capitalism combined with moralistic NGOs, which find common ground in telling non-Westerners what to do.
Not that your favorite NGO is bad! I'm sure you've chosen wisely. But there's a reason even well-meaning paternalism has a bad name.
posted by zompist at 3:19 PM on July 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
That doesn't mean that allies literally do nothing, but not taking leadership means not taking leadership. And for sure it means we start by listening.
This is all the more important outside our own borders. It's a complicated world out there, and the best of intentions and a real desire to 'serve' don't erase the power differential of coming in with a fistful of dollars and no god-given wisdom on where to spend them.
There's a weird video game I played once, called Culpa Innata, which depicts a future dystopia that has libertarian business and social ethics plus a slew of liberal NGOs. That seemed like a weird combination to me till I learned that it was based on a novel by a Turkish woman. Then it made perfect sense: this is what the West looks like to everyone else— dog-eat-dog capitalism combined with moralistic NGOs, which find common ground in telling non-Westerners what to do.
Not that your favorite NGO is bad! I'm sure you've chosen wisely. But there's a reason even well-meaning paternalism has a bad name.
posted by zompist at 3:19 PM on July 13, 2016 [5 favorites]
I was reflecting on exactly this sort of paralytic posture with another radical queer christian person today at lunch.
My faith family is in a position to acquire some real estate. There is some excitement about what to do with this property and a vision is crystallizing around building a very special park specifically for the kids in our neighborhood.
And into the discernment process tumbles a very compassionate, well-meaning liberal colleague. Wringing his hands, he worries aloud about unintended consequences. "We need a larger scope of vision. We lack expertise on this sort of thing. What are some alternate uses for the space? What if, what if there is some other idea out there? What if something bad happens because of this decision? We definitely need more time."
Only there isn't more time. The current buy-sell agreement expires perilously soon. An aggressive, capitalist entity will acquire the space. Our failure to act out of our fear of unintended consequences is dooming the chance at liberation.
And I told my friend this story, and they looked at me and said, "There's no incarnation without action."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:36 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
My faith family is in a position to acquire some real estate. There is some excitement about what to do with this property and a vision is crystallizing around building a very special park specifically for the kids in our neighborhood.
And into the discernment process tumbles a very compassionate, well-meaning liberal colleague. Wringing his hands, he worries aloud about unintended consequences. "We need a larger scope of vision. We lack expertise on this sort of thing. What are some alternate uses for the space? What if, what if there is some other idea out there? What if something bad happens because of this decision? We definitely need more time."
Only there isn't more time. The current buy-sell agreement expires perilously soon. An aggressive, capitalist entity will acquire the space. Our failure to act out of our fear of unintended consequences is dooming the chance at liberation.
And I told my friend this story, and they looked at me and said, "There's no incarnation without action."
posted by Baby_Balrog at 6:36 PM on July 13, 2016 [3 favorites]
I think the objections to this piece are interesting, because as a white straight (former) Christian it hit home with me. It's possible if you don't come from a missionary-supporting, let's-go-build-schools-in-Mexico type of white American christian church, it seems nonsensical to you and I'm not sure how to address that.
But yes basically she's throwing down a gauntlet at well-meaning but clueless white Christians and forcing them to question every one of their assumptions about what help is and how qualified they are to give it, in cultures and places far from them, with complications and needs they cannot begin to understand.
For example, in the story about Cambodia she is not saying "do nothing" so much as "if we are doing something we should listen to what those most affected say they need. We did not, and people suffered needlessly."
The story about Sochi was not saying "don't protest the treatment of gays" it was saying "There's a complex history here on the treatment of gays and how Western protests have negatively affected them, historically, so be careful, and also stop patting yourself on the back for being more enlightened when in many ways it's the West's fault that gays are being persecuted there now."
But before you can get to that point of listening and considering those kinds of things, you need to stop, and do nothing, first. Stop playing your internal movie of yourself as a White Saviour (Christian) Barbie in a poor village and listen, and look at the situation clearly. Stop flailing around and assuming you can assauge your guilt or sorrow with simplistic programs. Stop.
I do not think she was calling for isolationism, but for taking responsibility for the fact that thoughtless actions can be more harmful than doing nothing. Not always, but the less you understand about the situation/culture the more likely that is. And many Christian attempts at foreign aid are astonishingly ignorant about the people they claim they want to help.
Neither do I think she was recommending inaction, but humility.
She did not walk away from it at the end. She outlined the questions we need to be asking before we proceed, probably because she did not feel like a set of Steps to Perfect Christian Interventionism was the right approach. She was giving a speech at a festival, not writing a self-help book. And also because those steps are going to vary by person and by situation.
Anyway, I obviously liked it. Thank you, man of twists and turns.
posted by emjaybee at 8:44 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
But yes basically she's throwing down a gauntlet at well-meaning but clueless white Christians and forcing them to question every one of their assumptions about what help is and how qualified they are to give it, in cultures and places far from them, with complications and needs they cannot begin to understand.
For example, in the story about Cambodia she is not saying "do nothing" so much as "if we are doing something we should listen to what those most affected say they need. We did not, and people suffered needlessly."
The story about Sochi was not saying "don't protest the treatment of gays" it was saying "There's a complex history here on the treatment of gays and how Western protests have negatively affected them, historically, so be careful, and also stop patting yourself on the back for being more enlightened when in many ways it's the West's fault that gays are being persecuted there now."
But before you can get to that point of listening and considering those kinds of things, you need to stop, and do nothing, first. Stop playing your internal movie of yourself as a White Saviour (Christian) Barbie in a poor village and listen, and look at the situation clearly. Stop flailing around and assuming you can assauge your guilt or sorrow with simplistic programs. Stop.
I do not think she was calling for isolationism, but for taking responsibility for the fact that thoughtless actions can be more harmful than doing nothing. Not always, but the less you understand about the situation/culture the more likely that is. And many Christian attempts at foreign aid are astonishingly ignorant about the people they claim they want to help.
Neither do I think she was recommending inaction, but humility.
She did not walk away from it at the end. She outlined the questions we need to be asking before we proceed, probably because she did not feel like a set of Steps to Perfect Christian Interventionism was the right approach. She was giving a speech at a festival, not writing a self-help book. And also because those steps are going to vary by person and by situation.
Anyway, I obviously liked it. Thank you, man of twists and turns.
posted by emjaybee at 8:44 PM on July 13, 2016 [4 favorites]
My question, then, is how long it will be before she has some answers to these questions? Two, five, ten years from now is she going to be giving another speech saying "Here is what we need to do as Christians and human beings to end some of the injustice in the world..." or is she going to be ploughing the same furrow, still saying "I don't know what we should be doing, but here are some things we shouldn't be doing, and here are some questions we should be asking instead of doing things."
On the contrary, she asks "What would it look like to be a radical who is prepared to risk life for freedom?"
Right, she asks, and then says that she doesn't know. Which, to me, is odd. Do we really have no answers to this question? Are there no current or historical examples of radicals who are or were prepared to risk life for freedom?
It's as if someone pointed out -- quite reasonably -- that in a disaster, the Red Cross doesn't want you to send your old clothes and canned goods, but followed it up by saying "Is there some way we can help people in need without sending clothes and canned goods? We must think on this question and perhaps someday we will find an answer" instead of saying "...so send cash instead."
Maybe there's a context here that I don't understand. As an outsider, I'm not hearing anything other than a call to inaction. Those of you who are or have been part of a charitable Christian community, what concrete actions does this speech make you want to take?
posted by lore at 9:19 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
On the contrary, she asks "What would it look like to be a radical who is prepared to risk life for freedom?"
Right, she asks, and then says that she doesn't know. Which, to me, is odd. Do we really have no answers to this question? Are there no current or historical examples of radicals who are or were prepared to risk life for freedom?
It's as if someone pointed out -- quite reasonably -- that in a disaster, the Red Cross doesn't want you to send your old clothes and canned goods, but followed it up by saying "Is there some way we can help people in need without sending clothes and canned goods? We must think on this question and perhaps someday we will find an answer" instead of saying "...so send cash instead."
Maybe there's a context here that I don't understand. As an outsider, I'm not hearing anything other than a call to inaction. Those of you who are or have been part of a charitable Christian community, what concrete actions does this speech make you want to take?
posted by lore at 9:19 PM on July 13, 2016 [2 favorites]
The thing with the Cambodian one - there are plenty of Christian and secular activists in Cambodia, both local on the ground people and foreigners working with them who have these discussions and have a plethora of solutions. These isn't a startling new question at all. There have been people doing work in gender, trafficking, sex work and economic justice for a decade with a range of success INCLUDING LOCAL CHRISTIANS and she's going for the cocktail anecdote that plays into the "Feeling Bad & Doing Nothing Means You're Morally Superior To Other Rich White People" game.
Seriously. There's an really good network of christian activists on trafficking for local Cambodian groups that's been running for years in Cambodia to encourage local solutions that struggles to get funding because people go for easy answers. But why mention actual answers and deeds when you can go for excuses?
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 10:25 PM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
Seriously. There's an really good network of christian activists on trafficking for local Cambodian groups that's been running for years in Cambodia to encourage local solutions that struggles to get funding because people go for easy answers. But why mention actual answers and deeds when you can go for excuses?
posted by dorothyisunderwood at 10:25 PM on July 13, 2016 [6 favorites]
How about this angle? These rich white Christians, out in the world with their Kiplingesque sorrows, would do well to ask themselves if their charitable actions are about themselves. If their charity is self-aggrandizement. The consequences from 'puffed-up' action are always worse than doing nothing.
I do have to admit rich Christian sounds like a contradiction to me.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 6:31 AM on July 14, 2016
I do have to admit rich Christian sounds like a contradiction to me.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 6:31 AM on July 14, 2016
I used to work in a place where everyone else was born-again Christian. They didn't consider me Christian because I was Catholic, and not "saved". Most of them were lovely people, even if we disagreed about a lot of things, but one woman in particular was not. She was the most "Christian" of them all. She kept a Bible at her work station. She didn't drink or smoke or work on a Sunday. And once a year she went with the missions to Kenya to help the little Black people. She bought clothes for her trip and makeup and sunscreen, and spent two weeks out there doing I don't know what. She couldn't have told you a thing about the politics of the country. She called Black people "coloured" (in 2006). I doubt she listened to a single POC in her life, but every year she got to feel good and special, that she was doing God's work and spreading the word, because she travelled a long way to a hot place and brought some clothes for the kids. This article is not for people who already understand the politics of aid and intervention or for those who genuinely want to help from a place of understanding and humility. This article is for her.
posted by billiebee at 11:15 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by billiebee at 11:15 AM on July 14, 2016 [1 favorite]
I do have to admit rich Christian sounds like a contradiction to me.
Well it's intimately tied up in my experience with the use of "we", which is standard in these kinds of sermons. "We" really means "you", it's an accusation, but the sin is generalized to a whole society such that no-one, including the speaker, can properly claim to be without sin.
"Rich Christian" is a contradiction, but you must understand that it is literally impossible to live in a first-world country without being considered "rich" on a global scale. What this meant in practical terms was that, as a working-class single person struggling to figure out a way to support myself into the future, and running the numbers over and over again and finding the cost of living far higher than anyone seemed to be willing to admit, my efforts were met with open disapproval from my congregation. Many of whom lived very leanly on mission funding, some of whom were wealthier members with a guilt complex about their own wealth, who were in turn guilt tripping me for trying to get what they'd got.
I'm not even saying my problems were important or even valid in any way, only that pretty much every Christian agrees with you that "rich Christian" is a contradiction in terms, yet I'm not sure what to do about it other than stop living in the First World or else join an order of nuns that enforces a vow of poverty. That's not hyperbole on my part, BTW, since I have relatives who have done exactly that, and nave been notably effective in their ministry and whom I don't recognize as part of the obnoxious "we" of the FPP. If I'm not doing as they have done, it's possible that that's because I'm not willing to do the hard stuff, do whatever it takes.
I agree that we do need better answers than "cease to exist" or "tromp over other people's lives with the hobnailed boots of Knowing Better". But ISTM that would be a difficult but relatively simple matter of making sure "we" have old ladies' informed consent to help them across the road rather than just shoving them into traffic on a skateboard.
posted by tel3path at 1:21 PM on July 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Well it's intimately tied up in my experience with the use of "we", which is standard in these kinds of sermons. "We" really means "you", it's an accusation, but the sin is generalized to a whole society such that no-one, including the speaker, can properly claim to be without sin.
"Rich Christian" is a contradiction, but you must understand that it is literally impossible to live in a first-world country without being considered "rich" on a global scale. What this meant in practical terms was that, as a working-class single person struggling to figure out a way to support myself into the future, and running the numbers over and over again and finding the cost of living far higher than anyone seemed to be willing to admit, my efforts were met with open disapproval from my congregation. Many of whom lived very leanly on mission funding, some of whom were wealthier members with a guilt complex about their own wealth, who were in turn guilt tripping me for trying to get what they'd got.
I'm not even saying my problems were important or even valid in any way, only that pretty much every Christian agrees with you that "rich Christian" is a contradiction in terms, yet I'm not sure what to do about it other than stop living in the First World or else join an order of nuns that enforces a vow of poverty. That's not hyperbole on my part, BTW, since I have relatives who have done exactly that, and nave been notably effective in their ministry and whom I don't recognize as part of the obnoxious "we" of the FPP. If I'm not doing as they have done, it's possible that that's because I'm not willing to do the hard stuff, do whatever it takes.
I agree that we do need better answers than "cease to exist" or "tromp over other people's lives with the hobnailed boots of Knowing Better". But ISTM that would be a difficult but relatively simple matter of making sure "we" have old ladies' informed consent to help them across the road rather than just shoving them into traffic on a skateboard.
posted by tel3path at 1:21 PM on July 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
tel3path,
Despite all the talk in US politics about globalization, there is no freedom of movement for people around the world. Only capital gets that privilege, so it's no use comparing your wealth to that of other third world citizens.
I'm not sure where I'd draw the line on the rich. I favor the 1%, though that may be too generous. Maybe the sometimes vicious middle class should be included, but since it's disappearing, I'm not sure it matters.
As far as your congregation looking sideways at you, that sounds awful. I don't know how someone could begrudge another food and shelter. They could probably do with reading this article and contemplating on the meaning of humility.
(Side comment: I despise the prosperity doctrine. If that keeps up, and spreads globally, Christianity is done for. It's a big part of why I'm making myself engage more online, despite all the dangers.)
posted by Strange_Robinson at 1:55 PM on July 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Despite all the talk in US politics about globalization, there is no freedom of movement for people around the world. Only capital gets that privilege, so it's no use comparing your wealth to that of other third world citizens.
I'm not sure where I'd draw the line on the rich. I favor the 1%, though that may be too generous. Maybe the sometimes vicious middle class should be included, but since it's disappearing, I'm not sure it matters.
As far as your congregation looking sideways at you, that sounds awful. I don't know how someone could begrudge another food and shelter. They could probably do with reading this article and contemplating on the meaning of humility.
(Side comment: I despise the prosperity doctrine. If that keeps up, and spreads globally, Christianity is done for. It's a big part of why I'm making myself engage more online, despite all the dangers.)
posted by Strange_Robinson at 1:55 PM on July 14, 2016 [2 favorites]
Strange_Robinson, I assure you that what is usually meant by "the rich" in articles like this is me and you. Those of us who have food and shelter while Lazarus starves on our doorstep.
Regardless that that's not fair, it's how many Christians see themselves. They are skittish with guilt at having food and shelter and the idea of a person in a commercial job (rather than public services or the ministry) calculating that they don't have enough money to support themselves into the future. I did feel weird when I realized that most of them were stipend- or grant-funded by ministries or public bodies, so they were earning their money by first demonstrating they were worthy of it and then having it doled out to them in exchange for their public service. All I did was in the service of capital, and everyone knows computer programmers are highly paid (turned out their internship volunteer was getting a higher stipend than my gross annual pay, though).
This attitude had precedent in my upper middle class university friends being concerned that they must not earn too much once they started work because they would deprive someone else, elsewhere in the world. To put it in perspective, most students would talk about "so I'll get a summer job, and even if it's only £100 a week..." Where I lived, I could earn a maximum of £90 a week. In the university town, a deli advertised a cashier job which required two foreign languages and a 60-hour week which paid £90. An overtly decadent friend rolled his eyes at the idea and said, "It's just NOT worth it, is it?" while my anti-prosperity friend looked on, her chin quivering in that distinctive way she had when she disapproved but also didn't dare be judgemental enough to say so.
The anti-prosperity friend one day admitted that "sex and money" were taboo topics in her house and that she experienced intense shame when her mother asked her "and how much money are you taking to India with you?" My friend didn't have any money at all and was going to go away for six months to India nearly penniless and with no visible means of support, because she believed she didn't deserve it and should be ashamed of needing it. "You can say if you need money, you know," chided her mother. And so the student was enlightened.
Prosperity gospel may be bad but anti-prosperity gospel isn't much better.
posted by tel3path at 4:46 PM on July 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
Regardless that that's not fair, it's how many Christians see themselves. They are skittish with guilt at having food and shelter and the idea of a person in a commercial job (rather than public services or the ministry) calculating that they don't have enough money to support themselves into the future. I did feel weird when I realized that most of them were stipend- or grant-funded by ministries or public bodies, so they were earning their money by first demonstrating they were worthy of it and then having it doled out to them in exchange for their public service. All I did was in the service of capital, and everyone knows computer programmers are highly paid (turned out their internship volunteer was getting a higher stipend than my gross annual pay, though).
This attitude had precedent in my upper middle class university friends being concerned that they must not earn too much once they started work because they would deprive someone else, elsewhere in the world. To put it in perspective, most students would talk about "so I'll get a summer job, and even if it's only £100 a week..." Where I lived, I could earn a maximum of £90 a week. In the university town, a deli advertised a cashier job which required two foreign languages and a 60-hour week which paid £90. An overtly decadent friend rolled his eyes at the idea and said, "It's just NOT worth it, is it?" while my anti-prosperity friend looked on, her chin quivering in that distinctive way she had when she disapproved but also didn't dare be judgemental enough to say so.
The anti-prosperity friend one day admitted that "sex and money" were taboo topics in her house and that she experienced intense shame when her mother asked her "and how much money are you taking to India with you?" My friend didn't have any money at all and was going to go away for six months to India nearly penniless and with no visible means of support, because she believed she didn't deserve it and should be ashamed of needing it. "You can say if you need money, you know," chided her mother. And so the student was enlightened.
Prosperity gospel may be bad but anti-prosperity gospel isn't much better.
posted by tel3path at 4:46 PM on July 14, 2016 [3 favorites]
tel3path,
Thank you for expounding on earlier comments. It was illuminating in terms of differences between US and UK (?) views. There is no comparable class benefit to public service in the US outside the militarized forms, the police, army, etc., and firefighters. I'm sure holding office as a Federal Senator or President is also considered a gold star, but I do not travel in those circles, and so have no idea. I used to be able to include educators, but that isn't really true anymore. The aristocracy here isn't labeled as such either.
Maybe that's why US elites dislike Trump? Because he has no class? Because he's not the right kind of racist?
Regarding the prosperity gospel, it's not really an either-or thing. At least I don't think so. The only folks obligated to live in poverty would be the monastic types. But there does come a point where someone is making more than they need, where they are the asshole in the tragedy of the commons. The problem in the US is that the rich here have no sense of shame, nor do most of them believe in giving away their excess.
I'm so jealous of British class consciousness.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 6:00 PM on July 14, 2016
Thank you for expounding on earlier comments. It was illuminating in terms of differences between US and UK (?) views. There is no comparable class benefit to public service in the US outside the militarized forms, the police, army, etc., and firefighters. I'm sure holding office as a Federal Senator or President is also considered a gold star, but I do not travel in those circles, and so have no idea. I used to be able to include educators, but that isn't really true anymore. The aristocracy here isn't labeled as such either.
Maybe that's why US elites dislike Trump? Because he has no class? Because he's not the right kind of racist?
Regarding the prosperity gospel, it's not really an either-or thing. At least I don't think so. The only folks obligated to live in poverty would be the monastic types. But there does come a point where someone is making more than they need, where they are the asshole in the tragedy of the commons. The problem in the US is that the rich here have no sense of shame, nor do most of them believe in giving away their excess.
I'm so jealous of British class consciousness.
posted by Strange_Robinson at 6:00 PM on July 14, 2016
Strange_, it would be a mistake to generalize my church experience to UK culture as a whole. Not only did the church have North American roots with a large percentage of North American funding and volunteers, it was countercultural in both settings.
There's no class benefit in the UK to public service or ministry work, other than it meant they weren't working class or underclass. British culture isn't going to admire anyone for conforming to the stereotype of "social worker with shoes like Cornish pasties".
As for British class consciousness, that was the most toxic influence on the congregation as I saw it. The British middle classes are absolutely terrified of the working classes, and by trying to be countercultural about it, the British members only ended up desperately trying to force themselves to "identify" their ministry with people they were afraid of. The North Americans did much better in that respect, in particular breaking my denomination's stereotype for being undereducated.
posted by tel3path at 11:22 PM on July 14, 2016
There's no class benefit in the UK to public service or ministry work, other than it meant they weren't working class or underclass. British culture isn't going to admire anyone for conforming to the stereotype of "social worker with shoes like Cornish pasties".
As for British class consciousness, that was the most toxic influence on the congregation as I saw it. The British middle classes are absolutely terrified of the working classes, and by trying to be countercultural about it, the British members only ended up desperately trying to force themselves to "identify" their ministry with people they were afraid of. The North Americans did much better in that respect, in particular breaking my denomination's stereotype for being undereducated.
posted by tel3path at 11:22 PM on July 14, 2016
« Older BREAKING NEWS | Yeah, stay away from me, bear ... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
I was also particularly troubled about this:
When we kick up a fuss about gay rights in Russia, there is a very good chance that we make things worse, because the more that Putin is attacked by rich white Westerners, the more he gets to look like the defender of Russia against Western imperialism.
As a queer transmasculine person, I find this really creepy. I mean, I get what's she's trying to say, but there are GLBTQ people around here from Eastern Europe who've had a rather thin time of it, and I find it weird to be told by an apparently straight person that I should keep my mouth shut about Putin.
Does this mean that Amnesty International should also keep its mouth shut? Does this work in reverse, so that people outside the US should not criticize our government because that will spark nationalism? Does it apply to other countries, so that for instance I should not have picketed the Mexican embassy over their crackdown on Oaxaca indigenous movements? What happens if a Russian person asks me to go to a picket?
I feel like her argument here appeals to this imaginary Russian subject who is straight - naturally "we" must not upset this straight Russian subject lest he (and I think he's a he) get so upset by our criticism of him that he become a more ardent supporter of Putin. So if a gay Russian asks you to picket the embassy, you should defer to the imaginary straight Russian subject, who is the authentic Russian, and refuse out out of opposition to nationalism.
I feel like it would be possible to separate out several things that are lumped together in this piece:
1. Fetishization of violence committed by Russians-as-Other, which is indeed pretty gross. Framing Russian violence as "savage" violence which justifies any action or reprisal (or any fantasy of action or reprisal) is pretty standard colonialism
2. Relationships between Russian gay people and orgs and Anglophone ones - like, what is literally going on? Who is in contact with who? What has been requested? What is the situation for people who are from the West and have Russian partners? How does immigration work?
3. The situations of GLBTQ people in the UK (and the US; Kotsko has a pretty large US audience and is from the US himself, so I feel like this piece is intended to be relevant for both places).
If memory serves, I was also uneasy with her reading of some of the pieces she links about violence against gay men in Russia - but I know that several of the linked pieces have very graphic, terrifying and explict photos, so I can't really look at them at work, and I don't think I'm ready to look at them right now.
One thing I think she discounts a bit is that IME, for many GLBTQ people, when we see images of gay men beaten to death, or hear people's accounts of abuse in jail, it brings back actual memories of things that have happened to us or our friends. The fact that GLBTQ people in the West were so freaked out about Russia isn't really just "let's be white saviors", it's "I know people who were beaten and sexually assaulted by police; I go to vigils for people who were murdered right here every fucking year".
It's not that there's no homonationalism involved, but I think there's this perception on the left (sometimes the GLBTQ left, sometimes the straight left) that what's happening is just people being all "hooray for us in the West, let's fix those awful people elsewhere!". I think very often it's "maybe I can't change much here (or maybe I'm working to change things here) but surely something can be done about there."
I feel like what's important is to pay attention to what GLBTQ people actually in Russia request, what they think will help them. I know it's not like there's a unified Russian GLBTQ subject, so this is tricky anyway, but I feel like that's a bit different either from homonationalism or from saying "hands off Russia" any time anyone brings up GLBTQ issues.
posted by Frowner at 8:34 AM on July 13, 2016 [17 favorites]