Conversations on Race

Recently, I was a part of a group project for the culmination of this semester's Conversations on Race class. This video was that project. It was powerful and, I think, VERY important to hear these perspectives. There is A LOT more video, but this project could only be ten minutes, and therefore, its 10:31. :)

Thank you to all of you who participated. I appreciated your kind spirits and willingness to be interviewed, and I would love to continue this conversation. Unfortunately, I lost 1.5 interviews throughout this process (Rhona Murungi and half of Rukshan Fernando's interview), but luckily, they are things that can be said again.

I hope to make another video using these interviews, but to include more talk time, and pull out a few more key themes.

P.S. {I love} T.S.

Yeah, its true. Don't you just wish he was around right now? I do.

As I sit here, unable to go to sleep (though my body has desired sleep ALL day), a stanza from T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" keeps going through my mind:


And indeed there will be time
To wonder, "Do I dare?" and "Do I dare?"
Time to turn back and descend the stair,
With a bald spot in the middle of my hair--
(They will say: "How his hair is growing thin!")
My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin,
My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin--
(They will say: "But how his arms and legs are thin!")
Do I dare
Disturb the universe?
In a minute there is time
For decisions and revisions which in a minute will reverse

The character that Eliot paints here is almost one who has OCD. You just want to laugh. You just want to scream. You just want to say, "MAKE A DECISION." Stop being so careful. Stop being so worrisome. Stop "measuring out your life with coffee spoons."

And it is here, essentially, I have such a hard time in the Christian community, either because I am guilty myself, or because I am often painfully aware of this indecision. This inability to act.

We spend so much time deciding if it is "God's Will" that instead of really desiring to please Him, we desire not to offend Him. Well, we already offend Him, most days, in fact, so it should come as no surprise that we will likely do it again. And, I think, it is equally as offensive to Him (i suppose I cannot be sure of this equality) for us to sit around waiting for Him to drop anvils on our heads to tell us what to do, where to go, who to marry, what to eat, what church to go to, and so on.

Its as if we believe that serving would be WRONG, if we were not "called" to that church, or that person, or at that time. There is no doubt in my mind that God moves, that God speaks, that God directs. I think though, that Christians often waste time waiting for miraculous signs. As if His Word isn't miraculous enough. He told us what is good, what is true, what is beautiful.

Can we not have faith enough to know that those are still applicable, and if the Lord wants our time, energy, and lives to go elsewhere, He will surely show us that.

This reminds me of something I REALLY appreciated coming from the mouth of Shane Claiborne during social justice week. This will surely not be a direct quote, but, when referencing people who are waiting for God to "do something," he responded as God who was pleading in His reply, saying, "I did do something, I made you."

how true.

I am also reminded of something Dorothy Sayers said in Mind of the Maker, i think. I forget where, and this is possibly a mistaken citation. But I remember that when referencing Miracles, she was of the moving opinion that God doesn't need to use miracles. He doesn't need to "supernaturally intervene." Everything around us is supernatural. We are supernatural beings (as well as natural beings, i suppose), and His Word is supernatural. Even if He never spoke into people's lives audibly today, we could still know how to live as followers of His Son. What a blessing that He does.

But, I believe the Christian church errs in demanding this of God. And, often, I find it comical when He speaks something to reiterate something He has said over and over before. Perhaps miracles are a sign that we seldom believe by faith in what he has already said. Again, not to say we don't need that many times. We must not assume that we will always understand correctly. But we MUST assume that when we don't, the Spirit of the Lord in us will convict us of this.

We can't be perfect. So, a fear of imperfection is a ridiculous one. Thus instead of striving NOT to be imperfect, let us strive to be perfect. Doing good, and knowing that when we fail, God will lovingly, and granted often painfully, redirect us.


I grow old...I grow old...
I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.

Shall I part my hair behind? Do I dare to eat a peach?
I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.

She's Freaking Legal.

you are too old.
i love you still.

the annes

i promise this is not becoming a vlog.

Ode to Steph Snyder

(as written in winter of '08)
I want bangs. bad.


like, the kind that people look at and reconsider the front of their hair and forehead, and turn to their best friend and say, "hey do you think I should get bangs like so-and-so?


that kind.


or, the kind that make you look like you have some strange sort of confidence. the kind of confidence that says "yeah, I read poetry and comic books, and I'm not afraid to show it...with my bangs."


that kind.


or, the kind that after people see your bangs, they go back to the table they had previously been occupying, only to write down their feelings about the sweet bangs they just witnessed.


that kind.

Mother.

CRAVE.

a backrub.
a blended naked juice from starbucks.
a day alone.
a long walk.
my gold flip flops to be fixed.
more time with the anne warners, carly rowlands, sam hobbses, rachel beehs, diana duncans, and kristin goekes of the world.
summer.
CRAM.
new musica.
my ex-ability to edit video.
drive to stop biting my nails.
a leisurely book read.
fall semester.
my forthcoming apartment off campus.
ball jars as drinking cups.
rollerblades.
a topic to blog about.

When you can't really get close to your family...

[and when you can't sleep]
Find close ups of your family.

I can't wait to see these people really close up, though.


















Family narcissism.
it undoubtedly exists.

My mind. Unveiled.

(at the end of the day)
The world needs some good aestheticians...
this is not my calling...

or perhaps it is a calling for all of us...
or should be, at least.
to know what it means to create, as creations of the creator, whose creativity we reflect.

imago dei?
that was mentioned in my contemporary issues class today.


ooh ooh. This just make me think of something that God cannot be that we can--

a creator and a creation, simulataneously...or can He? If He is eternally begotten of Himself?

Interesting.
I mean, I guess Jesus was a carpenter. Thats creating.
He was also created, er, begotten...eternally.

created. begotten. not the same. Comparable? probably.

I like thinking of things God cannot be. (the list is shorter than things that He actually is)
:)
It makes people unconfortable to know that God cannot contradict himself.
i wonder why?

A product of the western mind? God is entirely outside logic?
eh i don't think so. i mean, He created it.

Hah. Senior year in Graham's worldview class..hot topic--
Can God make a squircle?

A what?
You know, a square circle.

No.

"YES! He can, He's God, He can do anything"
No.
Not that which is logically impossible, since He gave the world Its order, and IS its order,
He can't not be Himself.

What a silly thing to conceive of.

But He does take unexpected, albeit not illogical, forms, i.e. a man, who creates.

Oh. back to square one. Creating.

My mind likes these circles. Not squircles.
Or maybe my mind does like squircles--things that are impossible to think about.

Eternity, for instance.
But thats not logically impossible, just Annie's mind impossible.

Thats why we create sometimes, i think, to suspend reality and enter into things that are logically possible, yet not quite possible to concieve of linearly.

Conceiving of eternity linearly. Thats a funny, impossible, thought.
Concieving of eternity at all? minimally possible, by analogy, abstraction. I think.

What if all of creation is eternally being created in the mind of God and then experienced by us? heresy?
Possibly. Maybe not. Maybe we can't know, logically.
Fun to think about.


Its not fun to think about getting up tomorrow though, in five hours.



What an odd trip into my mind. Sometimes i think I'm crazy.

maybe i am.
that's fun.

Feinberg vs. MacKinnon

As Feinberg and MacKinnon duke it out over whether or not the government can regulate pornography, Feinberg takes cheap shots and ends up looking like a schoolboy. And the feminist(MacKinnon) wins again. Here's the paper I wrote on Olson front porch this weekend. Mmm. Life is just better on porches.


"Pornography" (Feinberg) vs. "The Real Harm of Pornography" (MacKinnon)
Feinberg begins by pointing to a casual link that many make between rape and pornographic materials. He agrees that rape prevention is a legitimate use of criminal law and restriction of freedom. However, he is unconvinced that there is a strong enough causal connection between said act and said cause to warrant use of governmental restriction of liberty. He points to Kent Greenwalt who claims that “criminal law cannot concern itself with every communication that my fortuitously lead to the commission of a crime.” He elaborates on this by making distinctions between communication for its own sake and communication that advocates or encourages acts that violate previously established criminal law. By using this standard to deem only a very few things worthy of restriction, he concludes that “the relation between pornographers and rapists is nowhere near that direct and manipulative” and therefore not one that necessitate the abridgment of violent pornography which he calls “valuable free expression analogous to scholarly feminist articles.”
The editors of this book decided that they wouldn't put any violent porn directly after Feinberg's essay, but they did, ironically, place a “scholarly feminist article,” which, to me, seems like a much wiser decision. Whereas Feinberg works from within his system to prove the legitimacy of pornography, the subsequent essay, “The Real Harm of Pornography,” by Catherine A MacKinnon, attempts to point out the limitations of dealing with an issue that has pervaded the system so much that it cannot be separated from it. She compares pornography to segregation and lynching in that all three institutionalize the inferiority of one group to another; it is the “essence of a sexist social order, its quintessential social act.” These social acts create a social order in which the harm, inherent in the acts, becomes invisible.
MacKinnon begins to critique first amendment theory by pointing its tendency to be interpreted with a black and white distinction between public and private spheres. The problem with this, she says, is that “not only the public but also the private is a 'sphere of social power' of sexism. On paper and in life, pornography is thrust upon unwilling women in their homes.” The harm in this lies in the fact that liberal political philosophy is hesitant to make pornography illegal because of the desire to make speech as free as possible, this idea fails to recognize that this free speech for some, silences the voices, and thus, the speech of those who pornography targets—women. She bemoans the fact that this is not a harm that is easily demonstrated because it is not the kind that first amendment logic comprehends. “The idea is that words or pictures can only be harmful only if they produce harm in a form that is considered an action. Words work in the province of attitudes, actions in the realm of behavior.” Our country has decided that when words are equivalent to acts, they should be treated as acts, if the consequences matter enough. However, she quotes Heisenberg, saying that “the law of causality...can only be defined for isolated systems.” Unfortunately, social systems cannot be so easily isolated from the system in which they exist, but this does not mean that harm does not exist. It does mean that the harm cannot be perceived as distinct from society's organization itself, and therefore, is invisible—“its effects are not cognizable as harm.” It is not a one-on-one sort of harm, linear in its causality, but rather it is a system of harm that affects a group—women—and members of that group specifically. Therefore, if we attempt to deal with pornography in this system of linear causality then we are refusing to deal with “the true nature of this specific kind of harm.”
Though I have no desire to align myself with most feminist positions, this one is much different. I appreciate MacKinnon's analysis of the democratic system. Whereas Feinberg works entirely within his system and comes to logical conclusions within it, MacKinnon attacks the logic and assumptions of the entire system. Good move. A meta analysis is often needed. I guess we usually just work from within our own systems, failing to see their faults, and thus come to valid but unsound conclusions.
I also thought that MacKinnon's approach was an even handed one. Not only did she not take cheap shots at people like Feinberg, but she also attempted to utilize aspects of his system. It has been my previous experience that many feminist articles wish to elevate “interconnectedness” and “relationships” above rights, however, she speaks to people like Feinberg in their own “language,” using the idea of “rights”—but redefining it, broadening it to include rights that are ignored because of the way our system has been inundated with isms—sexism, racism, classism—whose harm is invisible because they cannot be wholly isolated from the system itself. Her approach seems, to me, to be the very antithesis of Feinberg's. Whereas she is working to make his system better, he is working to defame her approach altogether. He grants that there is not “sufficient grounds for criminalizing materials” such as pornography and feminist articles. How kind of him—how asinine of him—to make any kind of comparison between animalistic materials that grossly suppress free speech of women and scholarly materials that are the direct expressions of women. It almost seems that he not only wants women to be subjected to the harmful effects of pornography on life, relationships, and the psyche, but also to be subjected to not being allowed to talk unless instructing children, teaching cooking classes, or calling to get the vacuum repaired. But, really, I'm not a feminist. MacKinnon just opened my eyes a little bit to see serious issues in this way of thinking (the feingbergesque) that exists in men and women alike.