Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 12, 2025

What Is ‘Woke,’ and What Is So Terrible About It?

At its simplest, ‘woke’ means being awake to the facts of history and biology and life in the United States from colonial days to the present. 

 

‘Woke’ means learning not only that Africans were brought to our shores in chains but that they were considered property here for two centuries, often treated worse than livestock. It means learning that each black human body was counted as 2/3 of a person—not given the vote, you understand, but just counted so as to give Southern states greater representation in Congress. Woke is realizing that the Emancipation Proclamation was just that, a proclamation, and that enslaved people were not freed until long afterward—and then, after an all-too-brief period when their rights were protected by U.S. troops, once more treated as subhuman by white men in power. 

 

‘Woke’ means knowing the history of the indigenous peoples of North America, the litany of broken treaties, slaughter of Native women and children by the United States military, slaughter also of the buffalo so that the people would starve, leaving their land open for railroads and homesteaders. It means learning about boarding schools where Native languages were prohibited, abuse was rampant, and where many children died and were buried in unmarked graves. Native American adults were not allowed to vote in U.S. elections until 1924, but the Snyder Act passed that year left it up to states to decide eligibility, so Native peoples were still frequently barred from participation in American democracy, and even today people on reservations without street addresses have difficulty registering to vote.

 

‘Woke’ means learning that until 1870 in the United States, only white men were allowed to vote. In 1870, black adult males were supposedly eligible to vote, but poll taxes, literacy tests, intimidation, etc. kept the ballot from most men. Women were not “given” the vote until 1920, with passage of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. Native Americans had to wait until 1924 and, as noted above, still have trouble registering today in many places, though in 1964 poll taxes were outlawed by the Twenty-Fourth Amendment, and in 1965 the Voting Rights Act officially secured the vote for all adult Americans.

 

But ‘woke’ also means awareness that there is more to equality than voting rights. It means recognition of ways that discrimination persisted in laws and social customs, such as insurance and real estate practices, etc., that intergenerational trauma has been passed down through families and communities, affecting health and longevity, and ways in which privilege enjoyed by white Americans by virtue of their skin color is unearned and exceptional. 

 

About one percent (1%, or 1 in 100) of human beings are born gender-nonbinary, or intersex (having both male and female sex organs), with a mismatch between visible sex organs and sex hormones that activate at puberty, or with some other variation from a clear male or female identity. ‘Woke’ means recognition of this minority and respecting each individual’s way of dealing with the binary world.

 

‘Woke’ means, basically, being politically and socially aware, having an awareness that rests on thorough knowledge of history, along with recognition of privilege and its absence. The antonym is ignorance. 

 

A number of Republicans use ‘woke’ as a pejorative term and proudly declare themselves ‘anti-woke.’ In this context, the term ‘woke’ is carelessly thrown around to inhibit open inquiry and discussion. 

Ron DeSantis, for instance, calls it the belief that there exist systemic injustices in American society that need to be addressed. Does he think this is a false belief? Does he not see examples of injustice? Does he see them but want them left unaddressed? What he would have, rather than asking God to mend our country’s flaws, is that we insist that our country is flawless. Book bans and exclusion of “sensitive” topics in history are the result of anti-woke campaigns. 

 

As to the matter of gender terms, the current administration in Washington has declared, with unintentional humor, that the government will now recognize only two sexes, those fixed at conception. This is humorous because sex organs of embryos are not yet developed as male or female. And who is there at conception to conduct a sex test? 

 

As a white female American, I have known unearned privilege. I certainly did not earn the parents to whom I was born. And yet, as an adult in certain situations in company with a white male adult, I have been ignored while the man was recognized. In situations with an African woman friend, however, I was the one recognized while she was ignored, and when shopping with an elderly white woman, again I was the one recognized while the older woman was ignored. Women, people of color, people with foreign accents, old people, the disabled, the mentally ill—all experience discrimination. It’s a fact, and pretending it doesn’t exist, being indifferent to it, is downright callous.

 

Years ago members of my undergraduate department had not participated in graduation and wanted to make up for my disappointment (it took me 20 years to earn a B.A.) by taking me to lunch. One of the late arrivals at lunch was the university president, who sat across the narrow table from me and never once made eye contact or acknowledged my existence. Later I compared notes with another employee in the college where I worked. She, a black woman with a Ph.D., had had a similar experience with the president and thought it was because of her race, while I’d thought it was because I was a new and very lowly B.A. We concluded, perhaps too easily, that the president’s problem was with women. It took years for me to consider that his antipathy towards women did not rule out a racist attitude. He could easily have been biased on both counts. Perhaps also fixed on academic status, I think now.

 

Much earlier in life, I was called to babysit for a couple with two young boys and a new baby. Before they left for the evening, I was given instructions about what to do “if ‘it’ [the baby] wakes up.” It? They did not use a name for the baby, which I found very strange. Later, when the baby cried and needed a diaper change, I was shocked and confused about what I was seeing, and it took years for me to sort it out. Whatever happened to that baby? How did the parents raise their nonbinary child? I was not called to babysit at that house again (had only gone once when their regular sitter was unavailable) and never talked about the baby with anyone, my parents or my friends. My parents were never comfortable talking to my sisters and me about anything to do with sex, so we were not comfortable asking them questions. I’m glad to say they did better with questions of race and religion and taught us to respect people of different backgrounds and faiths. 

 

The questions remains, why are people so afraid to wake up? Why do they fear history? Why do they fear nonconforming genders? Realizing where our country falls short is the only way we will ever make it better, so teaching history honestly is our only chance. As for gender issues, the fear no doubt arises from confusion and shock, but that can be overcome. Human beings come in many variations, a very wide range of skin colors and in a wider gender range than is generally acknowledged. 


What’s strange can be frightening. But it doesn’t have to be. We don’t have to stay stuck in fear and let it turn to hate.


Are you brave enough to explore learning? The Revolutionary Love Project is not about hating yourself if you have had privilege: You can't love anyone else if you hate yourself. Check it out. Be brave. 


Sunday, February 9, 2025

Soldiers of the—Cross??? Or Something Else?

My Lutheran confirmation Bible


Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire was bigtime. Churches were destroyed, worship meetings forbidden, clergy arrested, and followers of Jesus commanded to sacrifice to Roman gods. Margaret Nutting Ralph, Ph.D., writes that “Christians were vulnerable to persecution because they would not participate in emperor worship” and were therefore seen as unpatriotic.


Present-day countries with the highest levels of persecution against Christians are North Korea, Somalia, Libya, Eritrea, and Yemen--persecution that can involve physical attacks, legal discrimination, torture, arrest, even death. It should be noted here that North Korea is a single-party state, ruled by a single “Supreme Leader.”

 

If your Christian faith is discovered in North Korea, you could be killed on the spot. If you aren't killed, you will be deported to a labour camp and treated as a political criminal. You will be punished with years of hard labour that few survive. And it's not only you who will be punished: North Korean authorities are likely to round up your extended family and punish them too, even if your family members aren't Christians.


 

That is persecution. That is what it means to risk being a martyr to your faith in the 21st century. 

 

On February 7, 2025, however, the president of the United States signed an order to create a national task force to “eliminate anti-Christian bias.” Official statements claim that this task force will promote “religious liberty” and increase grant opportunities (i.e., government funds) for “faith-based entities.” Presumably, focus will be on Christian “faith-based entities” (we'll look closer at that in a minute), since the formation of the task force implies bias against Christians and a need to correct that bias. 

 

Christians have never been persecuted in the United States of America. On the contrary, without any establishment of a state religion—and the Founders were very clear about wanting to leave Americans free to worship or even not worship as they might choose—Christianity has managed to be the dominant American religion from the beginning of the nation to the present day. Yet being dominant is not enough for many so-called Christians today. Nothing short of imposing their own political agenda on everyone else—and make no mistake, many groups of nominal “Christians” in America have a strong and determined right-wing political agenda—will satisfy the ambitions of those who have abandoned the teachings of Jesus but continue to use his name.

 

Back in October I wrote about a book published in 1833, Three Years in North America, by James Stuart, Esq. You can go back and read what I wrote earlier, but if you don’t want to bother I’ll repeat myself briefly. The Englishman who wrote the book, as his title indicates, spent three years traveling around the United States in the early 1800s, going as far south as Mississippi (maybe New Orleans, but I’d have to check that) and as far west as St. Louis, and during his time in our nation’s capital he attended a meeting of Congress where the business of the day was consideration of a bill that would close post offices on Sunday to respect the Sabbath.

 

One argument against the bill was that it violated freedom and equality (what we since came to call the separation of church and state) by elevating one religion above others. 

 

The constitution regards the conscience of the Jew as sacred as that of the Christian, and gives no more authority to adopt a measure affecting the conscience of a solitary individual, than that of a whole community. 

 

Another argument (that I found absolutely fascinating!) was that the bill insulted Christianity by implying that its followers were so weak in their faith that they needed to be forced by government to practice it! This argument can be generalized to oppose any attempt to establish a state religion.

 

A third argument was that favoring one religion over another had not made life peaceful in European nations. 

 

One member remarked that it was “perhaps fortunate” that the question was coming up so early in the life of the nation, “while the spirit of the revolution yet exists in full vigour,” the spirit of freedom of conscience belonging to every American and not to be abridged by what we would call Congressional overreach. The Founders thought they had settled the matter in Philadelphia, and the early 19th century Congress clearly reaffirmed the answer to the question. But now we have a president who curries favor by granting special status to the already dominant religion, pretending that it has been under attack. 

 

How fragile must be the faith of Christians who see persecution when they hear the greeting “Happy Holidays!” in December!

 

BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE!

 

Attacks against world relief provided by Christian organizations initially seem at odds with the new protect-the-faith task force. How does it compute? For example --

 

Example #1: Relief aid around the world provided by Lutheran agencies (Lutheran Social Services, etc.) has been targeted by people in the current administration of Washington as “illegal payments.” One accuser was Michael Flynn, a Catholic, retired Army general, and former adviser to the current U.S. president. Unelected Elon Musk, a self-described “cultural Christian” (???), moved quickly to shut down payments. It is thought by some that work to resettle refugees was the blackest mark against the Lutheran relief agencies. Bishop Elizabeth Eaton, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, responded (read her full statement here):

 

As a faith-based nonprofit, we have proudly served legally admitted refugees and immigrants for more than 85 years. This includes Afghan Allies who risked their lives to protect U.S. troops, as well as persecuted Christians, all of whom have been extensively vetted and approved by multiple U.S. government agencies before traveling to our country. We also remain committed to caring for legally admitted unaccompanied children forced to flee to the United States.

 

Example #2: J.D. Vance, another avowed Catholic, along with Flynn, has also targeted Catholic relief agencies. With USAID already forced by Musk to cut programs in war-torn Gaza and elsewhere, National Catholic Relief, a group founded by American bishops in 1943 to help survivors of World War II, says,

 

Now, Catholic Relief Services is facing the most serious existential threat in its history in light of proposed federal funding cuts [my emphasis added]. 

 

The director of the Office of International Justice and Peace for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops from 2004 to 2018, Stephen Colecchi, characterizes Musk’s stoppage of USAID funds as “haphazard and irresponsible”:

 

To target this tiny portion of the federal budget in such a haphazard and irresponsible way is going to cost people's lives and livelihoods. It is not a thoughtful or humane way to go about treating programs that help the poorest of the poor all over the world.

 

In Colecchi’s words, “the poorest of the poor.” In the words of a former board chair of Catholic Relief Services, Bishop Gerald Kicanas, “desperate people, living in desperate situations, struggling day by day, hour by hour.” These are the people who have been helped, whose risk of survival is now greater than ever. You have seen photographs of present-day Gaza! 

 

And yet, only the other day (everything done is “only the other day” in an administration not yet a month old, God help us!), the president ordered the creation of a “White House Faith Office” to “root out anti-Christian bias” in government and protect the Christian faith by supporting “faith-based entities.”

 

The woman named to lead the president’s new faith office is Paula White, a televangelist. I will not rehash her background or go over her many public statements (you can look those up yourself if you are unfamiliar with her) but want to highlight one single aspect of her ministry. Her teaching is that of the so-called "prosperity gospel." The message is pretty simple: God wants you to be rich! Follow me, and you’re following God! You can start down the road to riches by sending money to me so I can continue spreading the word (says the television preacher), and I promise it will come back to you tenfold. 

 

Where, I ask, is the Christian gospel in this? Where is Jesus? Where are the Beatitudes? 

 

Where is Matthew 6:19-21?

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 

Where is Matthew 6:24?

No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

 

But put the pieces together, and they fit perfectly. 


The new administration in Washington has no interest in protecting the Christian faith or serving those truly persecuted (whatever faith they may profess, if any). Catholics and Lutherans are not "Christian" enough, in their warped view of a major world religion. The real sin of these long-established, traditional Christian churches is that by sending relief funds abroad, they are not directly enriching the greedy at home. 


What the billionaires now in charge really want to do is to make the world safe for the worship of mammon. Their sign is not that of the cross but of the dollar sign. Put the pieces together, and it all makes sense. 

Thursday, February 6, 2025

Please Stop Using That Word!

 

One summer on Nagonaba Street....

What do the dictionaries say about the meaning of the term ‘conservative’?

 

The American Heritage Dictionary says it means “favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.” 

 

Merriam-Webster defines it as “tending to favor established ideas, conditions, or institutions. 

 

Oxford Languages (a new “brand” under whose umbrella resides the Oxford English Dictionary, it seems) defines the adjective ‘conservative’ as follows: “averse to change or holding traditional values.” (And now I cannot find that page again online.)

 

The Cambridge English Dictionary describes the same word as meaning “not usually liking or trusting change, especially sudden change.”  

 

Britannica calls ‘conservatism’ this way: “a political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices.” 


How many “principles” of political conservatism are recognized in the U.S. Some say five, some seven, others ten. It depends on your source. Congressman Mike Johnson, present Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, who claims to be a conservative, cites seven “core principles,” and let’s take him at his word, since he is the Speaker. Those principles are, he says: 

 

1. Individual freedom

2. Limited government

3. The rule of law

4. Peace through strength

5. Fiscal responsibility

6. Free markets

7. Human dignity

 

In your opinion, how does the current Republican administration in Washington stack up on these core principles, taken one by one?

 

As for the more general term, I do not see the present administration’s scorched earth raids on government as “favoring traditional values,” “favoring established institutions,” or “opposing sudden change.” There is nothing conservative about filling the most important Cabinet positions with loyalists (most of them unqualified, even unfit for office; many guilty of all manner of crimes and ethics violations) who see their mission as eliminating the very departments they are appointed to oversee. There is nothing conservative about handing the keys to government over to an unelected billionaire (an immigrant, therefore ineligible to be president himself) and his hastily assembled “team” of young, inexperienced tech nerds. And there is nothing conservative about the Supreme Court of the land deciding that the man in the Oval Office is above the law. None of this is conservatism. A coup d'état is by its very definition anything but conservative.

 

So if what's going on in our nation these days isn't conservatism, what is it? Perhaps anarcho-capitalism comes closest. What a dream come true that is for billionaires frustrated that none of them yet controls all the world’s wealth!  Someone else suggests technofascism for what is planned and will shortly be executed if not stopped. Question: Are anarchism and fascism contradictory? An answer to that would depend, I guess, on how one regards law.


P.S. Don't lose heart!