Category: Culture

Good Southern Girls

Posted on

I’m a Texas girl – born and raised here. And although I spent 12 years living on the OTHER side of both the Mississippi and the Mason-Dixon line, it’s hard to escape that upbringing.

The unfortunate part of being a Southerner living in the Midwest is that most Midwesterners liked to pretend they have no regional dialect or accent and so can therefore make fun of those of us that did. I endured 12 years of being made fun of for saying “y’all” and for merging my vowels in “pin/pen.” The worst was my supervising teacher for my ESL teaching practicum. She would stop my lessons to make fun of me in front of my students and failed me for my incompetency in speaking the English language. Thankfully my professor didn’t think having a Southern as opposed to a Chicago accent was sufficient reason to fail me actually, she thought it was really dumb and said no students would ever be assigned to that particular teacher again…). But in all truth there are aspects of Southern speech patterns that I struggle with. Not that I’m some grammarnazi who thinks regional dialects are somehow substandard forms of English, but that these language constructions are rooted in a cultural ethos, or way of being, that I don’t know if I want to affirm.

Some might call it cultural politeness or tentativeness. Others an ingrained attitude of submission, subservience, and deference. In short, it is constructions of language that seek to lessen any offense or imperative and that keeps the needs and feelings of the other in mind. For example – using y’all to refer to one person. Saying to the friend entering your house “y’all might want to wipe your feet,” isn’t a grammatical mistake, but a way to soften the request. Making the request plural makes it less of a direct order and puts less pressure on the person.

Same thing with the double modal, which is probably the most ridiculed part of Southern English. Saying something like “you might should bring your apple pie to the potluck” ensures that anyone could politely refuse since it isn’t a direct imperative. Or to say “I might could go out with you this weekend,” is a polite response without having to offer a commitment or direct (hurtful) refusal. The double modal lessens the severity of the request or refusal, always keeping in mind the feelings, preferences, and social position of the other.

Now on one hand, choosing to care about other’s needs is a good thing. Basic humility, loving others, all that. Knowing how one’s words affect others is a beneficial thing to be aware of that can do great kindness to others. The issue arises in that the people who make use of these aspects of Southern English are African Americans and women. It is cultural habit to even within patterns of speech place themselves below others. That’s what I have a problem with. Even if we are unaware of doing it, the habits reinforce the degrading and demeaning aspects of racism and sexism.

So its a strange dilemma. I want to respect others, and consider others better than myself in light of biblical humility. But, I don’t want to do so because I am a woman and therefore must place the needs of others, especially men, before mine. It’s hard and something I struggle with. I’ve been indoctrinated that good Christian Southern girls DO NOT assert their preferences on anything – they always wait to hear what others want first. I know it’s stupid, but it’s hard to get past cultural conditioning. And its hard to fight something as pervasive as language.

So I wonder what others do. Are any readers here from Southern, or Germanic, or Asian cultures where this deference, or “one-down” sort of language is common? Does it fall along similar race or gender lines? How do you navigate the issues?

Read more

Me Culture

Posted on

So last weekend I went to go see Food Inc. (I’ll get a review posted about it one of these days…). It was an amazing, and disturbing film, but part of the experience was seeing it at the Alamo Drafthouse here in Austin (which imho, is the ONLY place to see movies in town). Before the films they show, the Drafthouse people show clips from other related movies. So, for instance, before Twilight we saw clips from really cheezy old vampire movies or before Star Trek there were clips of trekkies and SNL sketches about Star Trek. For the most part, those clips are always the epitome of the strange manifestations of that genre or theme. So at a movie about the industrial food system, we were treated to some pretty scary propaganda pieces and commercials put out by that very food system.

But watching these commercials from 20-50 years ago was disturbing. They were so far fetched, it is hard to believe that anyone ever thought that they might be persuasive in any way. There was one about fortified white bread that was presented as a documentary – explaining for fortified bread has improved nutrition so that children who eat white bread are smarter and better athletes. Or the McDonald’s commercials presenting a parade of uniformed, pretty, white women singing about how much they love serving a stereotypical small town. It was all about these companies providing helpful services that will improve our lives. Well, I don’t think anyone is stupid enough to believe that processed junk food has improved anyone’s life. And as the film shows, that sort of food is actually destroying our health, our environment, and our country.

So it was amusing to then pay attention to the junk food commercials for the next few days (which, btw, are all food commercials. natural, healthy foods don’t have advertising budgets). Every single commercial was about treating ourselves – giving ourselves the break we deserve. No veiled lies to get us to believe that processed junk helps people, but simply the appeal to self-centered “it’s all about me” mentality. And I know how stupid it is to complain about commercials, but they have big money going into determining what people want to hear. Forget building community, or improving lives – that’s so 1978. Now its all about self-centeredness.

It’s hard not to get cynical when confronted with that attitude. There are people I start discussing my upcoming book on justice with, and I get a blank look in reply. I’ve even had people ask, “why should caring about the needs of others be my concern.” Or I stumbled across this book recently, which decries the evils of environmentalist who are “demanding that you turn down your thermostat, stop driving your car, or engage in some other senseless act of self-denial.” Apparently trying to save the earth must be fought because it threatens “the entire American way of life” and envisions for us “a grim future marked by endless privation.” Well, duh, of course it does. But apparently for some it is far better to be selfish jerks than to have to give up anything to help others. I know this isn’t widespread, but some days it sure feels that way.

But maybe 20-30 years from now people will watch our commercials and ask “how could people be so selfish and stupid.”

Read more

Stories That Mean Something

Posted on

So for the last month or so, Mike and I have been watching the Firefly DVDs. Now that we’ve seen them and the movie, we can now join in on the “what a fantastic show, what idiot cancelled something that good???” outcry. I like good stories – stories that go deeper than mere entertainment, that take the time to explore the human condition. Stories that ask questions and in doing so run up against the mysteries of the universe.

Of course, most of these good stories fall into the SciFi/Fantasy realm. There is something about that genre that allows for the unknown to be explored and tested. And there is something about those of us who are drawn to those stories that allow for them to be lengthy tales. Part of the magic in something like Lost for example is the convoluted drawn-out path the story has taken. Having cut our teeth on epic tales like Lord of the Rings or three part stories like Star Wars, we want worlds we can enter and stay for awhile. That’s why I think Deep Space Nine is my favorite Star Trek series – we got to see a continuing story of a community unfold. So it was sad to get caught up in the Firefly story and have it cut short before it even really began.

But it made me wonder why so many of us within the emerging church are caught-up in these sorts of stories. During the spring it seemed like every person on my twitter page was watching Lost as the mystery unfolded and deepened. I wonder if in part it is our affinity for these ever-developing stories that brought us to the emerging conversation in the first place. Too many faith communities act as if the story is over – as if the story of our faith was merely a static event of the past that holds no mystery or wonder for us now. That sort of story isn’t engaging or alive and can only be entered into in the most perfunctory of ways. But those of us who had an inking that there is some sort of epic tale unfolding around us and who believe that God in all his mystery is still at work in the world wanted to join our friends at a campfire and tell better stories. And we find ourselves watching together the good stories like Lost, or Firefly, or Lord of the Rings, or The Matrix because in them we see glimmers of the stories we want to affirm we are a part of. Or as Sam says in Lord of the Rings, “Those were the stories that stayed with you. That meant something, even if you were too small to understand why.”

So what stories hold the mystery for you? What are the good stories you watch or read that go deeper than just entertainment?

Read more

Memorial Day Thoughts

Posted on

As we prepare to take a day off work and grill obscene amounts of meat in our backyards, it is interesting to reflect on the original intent of Memorial Day. It began as a day to honor fallen Union soldiers after the Civil War and was later expanded to honor all American casualties of war. From the inaugural description of the day –

The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village, and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form or ceremony is prescribed, but Posts and comrades will, in their own way, arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are organized, Comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, “of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers sailors and Marines, who united to suppress the late rebellion.” What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead? We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security, is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

As I read that description, I couldn’t help but reflect on the slight dissonance it recalled in me. For better or worse, I grew up in the South. While I was taught that slavery was wrong, there was an underlying sympathy for the South in the way that era of history was taught in schools. It wasn’t uncommon for the Civil War to be referred to as The War of Northern Aggression. History taught from the “other” perspective – in this case from the still slightly bitter losers – doesn’t always feel the same as that presented by the winners. So even now as I read the words telling me to honor those “who united to suppress the late rebellion” and died to preserve a “free and undivided republic,” I feel a twinge of dissonance. My cultural heritage, even if I don’t agree with it, was on the side of the rebellion. I am, in a small way, part of the “them” in this “us verses them” scenario. It just makes it a bit weird to remember and celebrate the sacrifices of the “other side.”

That dissonance was made even more real when I began to encounter other cultures that the United States has fought against. I remember being in some small country town in Germany and seeing a WW2 memorial. It took me a minute to realize that this was a memorial to the Nazis, the guys my country (my grandfather) killed. But they were sons and husbands sacrificed by this small town as well. Similar thing happened in grad school. I was out to lunch with a classmate from the Ukraine and we were sharing stories from our childhood about the Cold War. We each were fed propaganda about each other’s country and we had to do duck and cover drills in school. It was quite strange sitting in a Panara Bread in suburban Wheaton discussing how we would hide under our desks out of fear of each other. I saw the other side of the story and that those I had cast (or had been taught to cast) as “THEM” weren’t really that different than me. And while I admit to the evils of both WW2 and the Cold War, knowing the people on the other side makes it hard to celebrate those who died to protect me from them.

So as we are meant to keep the memory of the heroic dead on this day, I have to wonder if the “wealth and taste of the nation” might have some better use than preserving the memory of a fight to destroy those who are now our friends? Perhaps we could be building bridges, visiting country villages, and sharing meals with those we currently cast in the role of enemy. Perhaps instead of simple remembering those we lost in grievances of the past we can work to prevent the grievances of the present and future.

Or we could just relax, eat a hamburger, drink a beer and let the day pass unreflected upon (which in all truth are my plans for the day).  But maybe it’s a good thing that community building has replaced the honoring of the dead as the main purpose of the day.

Read more

The Real Me?

Posted on

’ve been having a bit of an identity crisis recently. It’s kinda silly really. Since I spend so much time of Facebook and the like while I am nursing Aidan, I’ve ended up doing a ton of those quiz things. Now, while knowing what color or 1980’s movie I am is deeply important in the grand scheme of things, there are a few of the quizzes there that are actually somewhat insightful. They ask good questions and get people to think about themselves. But my problem that I have noticed as I’ve taken them recently is that I don’t know which “me” to answer them as. I find myself debating if I should answer as the person I act like in “real life” or as who I am online.

Now before I get jumped on for confusing the virtual world with reality or something, I have to admit that I feel like the person I am online is more “me” than what I act like around actual physical people. Yes, I’m weird and probably have serious issues or something, but that’s the way it is.  I can think of a number of reasons for why it is the case. In my day to day interactions with people, I don’t often (ever?) have the chance to be myself. I generally am trying to hide who I really am, or at least what I think about things, from family and acquaintances because I hate conflict. I’d rather have a semblance of a relationship than not pretend to be who they want me to be. Mike knows the difference, and gets to listen to my rants about what I wish I would have said at say, MOPS, but I let the facade continue.

Or I am not me because, I am simply trying to divide my attention between having a conversation with people and paying attention to my two very demanding kids. Since I am with the kids some 95% of the time, I feel like the “me” I most often portray to the world is the brainless, tired, too-stressed-to-form-complete-sentences mom. I think the other students at Mike’s seminary must think I am either completely stupid or utterly anti-social since I generally have to ignore them all to chase after the kids when I’m down there. It’s kinda hard to be a self-assured empowered women when you are covered in spit-up and have the “mommy, mommy, mommy” broken record playing at all times. I haven’t had time to make any friends here in Austin who I can just be myself with, so all of my public interactions are me being these strange parodies of myself and hating it.

So it is in the online world that I feel like I can be myself. On one hand, it’s nice to have that outlet.  I think I’d go insane otherwise.  But I have to ask myself if I don’t have the opportunity to be myself in “real life” is that really me? Hence my strange Facebook quiz dilemma. It’s who I think I am, it’s who I want to be, but it’s not what I act on a daily basis.

So what do you think (besides that I’m a messed up freak…)? Can your online persona be the “real you”? Or is that not real if it doesn’t surface in actual human interactions? Is this just me, or do others of you experience the same issue?

Read more

The Church vs. The Marathon

Posted on

This past week the Austin City Council heard complaints from a number of local churches. No, these weren’t the typical complaints about libraries having copies of “Heather Has Two Mommies” or about the schools teaching evolution or sex-ed. It was about races – as in people running, biking, skating or whatever through the town.

You see the races are destroying the churches. Austin is a huge race city. It is one of the fittest cities in the U.S. and a mecca for runners and bikers. It seems like nearly every week some other major race is being held on our iconic and decidedly hilly streets. There is something classic about running past major Austin landmarks like 6th street or the State Capital. So when races come to town, streets get shut down downtown as the athletes converge. And of course, so as not to disrupt local businesses, this all occurs on Sunday mornings.

Think about the effect on the downtown churches. The roads to the churches are blocked off. All street parking is banned. No one shows up to church. My friends who work at these churches say that church members don’t even bother trying to come if a race is going on – it is just too much of a hassle to get there. Spiritual issues aside – think about what this does to a church if once or twice a month, every month, no one shows up and therefore no one gives an offering. As churches across the country suffer as giving plummets during the economic crisis, you can see how this is a problem for churches.  So they went up against race organizers and running clubs to plead their case to the city. Of course, nothing has yet been decided.

It struck me as a strange dilemma. Most of these churches are older mainline churches that are very culturally involved and provide all sorts of services to the downtown communities already. It took a lot for them to even reach the point where they stood up and made a complaint. I had to wonder what would happen if the city regularly blocked off access to some of the evangelical mega-churches around town. I figure some sort of immediate response about how the city persecutes Christians.

What bothers me is how this raises the question of what the purpose of church is. I don’t think the church is all about the building, or about standing up for its rights, or about fighting those it is called to serve. But these churches can’t gather or collect the resources to allow them to serve unless they do assert themselves. I find the whole situation odd and wonder how it can be resolved for the good of all.

Read more

Good Travelers

Posted on

Travel should open up our horizons.  You know – expose us to different cultures, new foods, alternative rhythms of life, and diverse worldviews.  The good traveler not only seeks out these aspects of other cultures, but takes those cultural elements into herself and lets them speak to her.  She might appropriate new habits or ideas, or simply be forced to shift her own understanding of the world as the multiple truths she encounters are wrestled with.

 

Good travelers like these are the ones who change the world, or more accurately, the ones who formulate the ideas that change the world.  So, for instance, during the Renaissance as war, trade, exploration, and diplomacy took men further away from their homes than their ancestors had ever thought possible to encounter lands none of them had ever dreamed existed, the world, by necessity, had to shift.  New philosophies, sciences, and religious ideas challenged traditional assumptions.  New experiences and knowledge necessarily deconstructs what was previously known.  The experience for these men led to the Enlightenment – a necessary shift to accommodate a larger world.  As the world grows smaller and we travel to other cultures more regularly (whether physically or virtually via the internet), similar shifts occur.  It’s all part of being an observant, thoughtful, traveler.  Or at least it should be.

 

To me, ideally, pluralism expands us and blesses us.  It forces us to constantly examine ourselves and our world, changing our assumptions and developing our worldviews as we grow.  I want to be like that, I want to be the good traveler.  My problem is that I grew up in and exist in a world of Texas tourists.  If you’ve never encountered an actual “Texas tourist” consider yourself lucky.  You can easily spot them when you’re abroad as the fellow travelers who pay almost no attention to the culture they visit.  They ride in tour buses with others just like them, wear tennis shoes, cowboy hats, fanny packs and rhinestone embroidered shirts, stay in American hotels, eat American food, and assert their opinions loudly to whoever they can get to listen.  I cringe when I run into them while traveling (and double cringe when it’s obvious they are from my home state of Texas).  I’ve heard them telling shopkeepers in Mexico how to run their business, yelling at French security guards for not speaking English, complaining that there is no normal food to eat in Spain, and mocking offered hospitality in Russia.  They don’t want to be touched by the other culture. If anything, they simply want to impose their own culture onto others as the only right way to exist.

 

This is the church world I know.  The world where missionaries return from the field and compare the people they are working with to mindless monkeys (I am so not kidding).  Where participating in martial arts is forbidden because of the “Asian” influence.  Or where to participate in certain ministries I had to swear I didn’t dabble in occult practices like yoga.  Where friends don’t celebrate Christmas, Easter, or Halloween because they are too pagan.  Where it is too cosmopolitan and liberal (and therefore suspect) to eat Sushi or Indian food (or Ethiopian, or Persian, but Tex-Mex is of course okay).  Where we were told not to move into certain neighborhoods because they were too Asian, or too Hispanic, or too Black.  (And that’s just cultural issues, nevermind theological or philosophical diversity.) This is the world of Texas tourists – never engaging the world, rejecting and mocking it on occasion, but never letting it speak to them and help them to grow.

Read more

Mocking Our Neighbor

Posted on

Last week Eugene Cho posted his thoughts on how it hurt him and his children when people, especially celebrities, do the slanty-eye thing mocking Asians. His post was simple – basically “hey people, that’s offensive, stop doing it.” One would kinda hope that we are way past the making fun of other people because of their race thing, but no such luck as the subsequent conversation displayed.

Reading the comments there was a bit disturbing. I somewhat expected the comments that told Eugene he was overreacting, but was unprepared for the number of people defending mocking others. Some of them weren’t even saying that the gesture isn’t offensive, but that they know it’s offensive and mocking and that’s okay. Or as one guy commented, “I’m not racist, but I do enjoy my ethnic jokes.”

What sort of messed up world do we live in where our entertainment serves as justification for hurting others? Okay, I’m not naive, and I realize that there is nothing new about it, but I just can’t wrap my mind around Christians defending the practice of making fun of people, much less how God created people to be. I don’t care if it happens all the time, just think about that concept. Instead of loving our neighbor (and enemy), we are destroying them for a moment’s entertainment. We think it’s funny to tear down the image of God in others, and then claim it is our right to continue to do so. Does anyone else see the utter absurdity there?

Growing up missing a limb had me at the butt of many jokes. Kids in elementary school found it amusing to tell “stump” jokes to my face. They were almost as popular as the Helen Keller jokes mocking deaf people. And I’m sure we are all familiar with current phrases and jokes that mock women and gays. It is a strange thing to have someone make fun of you, and then insist that their right to be entertained by hurting you is more important than your feelings and identity. And that their right is more important than the command to love our neighbor. I just don’t get it.  As a child I was too unsure of myself to stand up to those kids and tell them that their jokes weren’t funny.  Sad thing is – none of the other kids, or teachers, or parents sent that message either.  So the jokes continued.

I think it’s sad that when guys like Eugene say “please stop making fun of my family,” people (Christians!) get mad at him.  There seems to be a huge failure of love happening here.  So what do you think needs to be done to change things? Are churches working to change this or are they part of the problem? How can the body of Christ learn to love so much that we can’t fathom mocking the other, much less defending out right to do so?

Read more

Shared Experience

Posted on

For Valentine’s this year Mike and I went to the Moulin Rouge sing along at the Alamo Drafthouse. For those of you not privileged to live in Austin, the Drafthouse is what all movie theaters should be – good food, good drinks, good movies (and often even better prefilm entertainment), and creative special events (like the Vampire Prom last fall, Lord of the Rings viewing marathons complete with meals at all seven hobbit dining times…). So we made it a date and headed to the theater for a night of freedom, beauty, truth, and love (complete with theater supplied props like strobe-light diamond rings and green fairy glow sticks). And I can honestly say I haven’t had that much fun in a long time.

First I have to say that Moulin Rouge is one of my all time favorite movies. A deconstruction of how reality and art inform and subsume each other complete with soundtrack – what’s not to love? I shamelessly say that I not only know the words to all the songs by heart, but I’ve worn out three (yes three) CDs of the soundtrack. But my point here is not how much I love the movie, but to reflect on the viewing experience.

When I first saw it eight years ago, I had no clue what to expect. I knew it was an artsy film and when people would talk about it they inevitably asked (in whispers) if I knew what “voulez vous couchez avec moi ce soir” meant. The theater I saw it in was filled with almost exclusively teenage girls – all there because of the popularity of the Christina Aguilera version of “Lady Marmalade.” So I watched the movie utterly mesmerized and sat in stunned silence as the credits rolled and the teens around me started chatting and saying what a stupid movie it was. I heard the same response repeatedly in the weeks to come – “stupid movie, “I didn’t get it,” “it’s not even a good musical.” They didn’t get what they expected to see – a film/musical/love story that fit the normal constraints of those genre – and so their response was rejection and ridicule.

I didn’t have a chance to see Moulin Rouge on the large screen again until this past week at the sing along. This time the theater was full of devoted fans – those of us who have watched the movie and listened to the music so many times we know it by heart. We sang our hearts out at the top of our lungs in communal admiration of the film. This shared experience couldn’t have been more different from my first viewing of the film. This crowd knew what to expect – we were a community drawn together based on our admiration of the film.  Granted community bound by admiration of a particular movie isn’t necessarily substantial, but it was still nice to be a part of.

And I could go off about the pros and cons of likeminded community. Is it good to surround ourselves with those exactly like us? How does such encouragement help us grow? Or do we retreat into ourselves if we aren’t pushed to engage the Other? But honestly, it was just nice to experience that moment in time. To enjoy it and notice how different it was from a previous experience of the same event. Silly perhaps – but it was nice to find pockets of communal oneness.

Read more

Facebook, Dick Cheney, and the Imago Dei

Posted on

So I started this post a few days ago, and then I had to laugh when Rick spoke on this topic at church today. Life works like that a lot – repeated reminders to drive ideas home. So anyway…

If you’re networked online at all I am sure at some point in recent weeks you have been tagged with the Facebook “25 Things” list. And I’m sure you’ve also heard your fair share of people complaining about it. Now I understand the “I just don’t have time to participate” complaints, but then there are those that are slightly more disturbing. Some asked why anyone would bother reading such spam from their imaginary playgroup. Others asked why they should care about boring random facts about their “friends.” Finding out the details of others’ lives and sharing the details of their own just seemed like too much of a waste of time. I found it interesting that people were willing to network with others, but not interested in actually getting to know them. But sometimes it is hard to get beyond our self. We want people to know us (love us, respect us…), but we aren’t willing to deal with the spam of their thoughts, struggles, and mundane life details.

It reminded me of what former Vice-President Dick Cheney said in an interview this past week –

“When we get people who are more concerned about reading the rights to an al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States against people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans, then I worry,” Cheney said.

Protecting the country’s security is “a tough, mean, dirty, nasty business,” he said. “These are evil people. And we’re not going to win this fight by turning the other cheek.”

Ignoring Facebook friends and promoting terrorism might seem like a strange connection, but hear me out. Both attitudes are based on the same self-centered attitude. It is our status and our sphere that we are trying to protect. With Facebook we can simple decide to keep the Other as Other – view their input as spam to be ignored, their lives inconsequential to our existence. On the national scale that “me and mine” focus moves beyond simple brushing others aside to a stance that encourages the destruction of that which is different. Either way the idea of loving our neighbor (or enemy) is ignored in favor of protecting our own interests.

As Cheney pointed out, following the Christian principles of turning the other cheek and respecting the image of God in others cannot be adhered to if we place our own interests first. He of course sees that as a good thing and continues to call for the preemptive destruction of those different than himself. I agree with Cheney that national self-centeredness and Christian principles by nature contradict each other, but I prefer to go with the Christian principle side. Instead of our self-centeredness insisting that others love and respect us while we either ignore or destroy them, we can perhaps start to respond with that very love and respect. Not in a passive way that destroys our own self, but with strong active engagement that preserves the image of God in both ourself and the Other.

And even if we aren’t quite ready to obey Christ and love the terrorist, we can maybe reach out and actually connect with Facebook friends.

Read more