Who Am I?

Who am I? What constitutes “self?” Can “I” be determined without “not-I?” What groups am I a part of? Can the groups I consider myself a part of (us) be delineated without defining “not-us?” These are some of the questions that both plague and expand the human condition today as they have throughout our short existence on this planet. The questions themselves are important and central in how humanity has historically made sense of and acted towards our individual and social consciousness. How one answers helps both self’ and not-self come to a greater understanding of our world. This is a vital tool in cognizing the knowledge of living experience we gather as we pass through from birth to death.

As an educator, I find it equally fascinating as to why each of us answers these questions in the manner that we do. Our information-rich society here in the United States of America deals constantly in answering ‘Who?’, ‘What?’, ‘Where?’, ‘When?’, and sometimes even bothers to answer ‘How?’ Rarely though are we asked to examine “Why?” and bring what our experiences to a level of critical awareness. I believe this question, more so than any other, to be the fundamental difference in how non-humans and Homo sapiens cognize and interact with our world.

When an animal as intelligent as a human being does not cognize ‘Why?’ the results can be both disastrous and incredible. As objects of our creation go, the Hoover Dam comes to mind. It is an architectural marvel, no doubt, though it continues to wreak ecological havoc throughout the Colorado River System and its tributaries. In this forum I do not speak of such objects but the very nature of our society. Those of us who seek a better, more humane world for ourselves and our brethren should examine the dynamics of sectarian objectifications of “not-us” and how those objectifications can all-too-quickly lead to an addiction to indiscriminate war and the destruction of our own magnificence.

The Price of Liberty

Class warfare is historically been denied as part of the fabric of our country. This is due partially to the proliferation of a multitude of mythologies surrounding the general American Character. The Wild West has been portrayed in cinema and television (think High Noon-type serials in the 1950s and 60s) as a place where rugged individualism could triumph over the bad guys and city-dweller elites. Good triumphed over evil and danger lurked at every corner; and you could beat it… if ‘ya’d just work haaaad enuf. Indians were portrayed as rapacious savages who murdered poor white folk at the drop of a hat. In reality it was usually the other way around. We rarely saw any Blacks in these movies, despite the fact that one in four cowboys were African American. This faux, almost dogmatized ideology-as-imagery is what today’s politicians grew up watching. Is it any wonder they ascribe to a vision of reality that discounts cultural diversity and socio-economic equality?

I am currently working on a thesis for graduate school. It revolves around the ways human beings oppress one another, a ‘web of oppression’ if you will. There are eight main parts, each cross-pollinating the next: culture, history, time, truth, the market, science (the acquisition of knowledge), and politics. In this entry, I am examining the market.

While overt discrimination is less likely to exist in the forms that it once did, new systems of oppression are conspicuously at work. These systems do not use the language we traditionally associate with racism, sexism, and the like. Instead, domesticators of women and men rely on the grafting of social Darwinism to an unchecked and bastardized version of “free-market” capitalism. Those who employ these new systems constantly reframe their inhumane rhetoric to make it sound “compassionately conservative.” A prime example of this language is seen in the proliferation of ‘quality’ over ‘equality’ in our schools. Another can be seen in how ‘excellence’ and ‘high standards’ are promoted over humane, critically aware, and liberating educational pedagogy. And while it remains unfortunate that people still use blatantly derogatory words and engage in violence against those they perceive as different, a great deal of legislation has been enacted that punishes this type of behavior. As the racist names of old become socially unacceptable, new words and concepts are used. New types of action are used to hold people down and kick them while they’re there.

Indeed, we have a new system of “Racism Without Racists,” as Eduardo Bonilla-Silva puts it in a book by the same name. In it, he reminds us that systems of overt racism have evolved into a more subtle state and continue to persist in new, more covert ways. For more on this (and a good laugh) check out Bonilla-Silva’s book.

A great deal of this neo-racism comes from the re-framing and re-cognizing of language. The expansion or contraction of language, whether written or spoken, dictates the development and evolution of society. There are those who desire to domesticate words through the contraction or redefinition of their meanings and in the process domesticate women and men. Karl Rove and his minions are a classic example of this behavior. They make their own weaknesses strengths by reframing issues and redefining reality in terms beneficial to eliminating said weakness, no matter how ridiculous and intolerant those terms might be. This method of living contains hate and malice as vehicles on the road to power held absolutely. This hatred of old reverberates through time and is capable of transcending the teachings of our greatest preachers of peace. Therefore, we must always remember that systems of oppression will always attempt to subvert our humanity, no matter what form they take. This is why we must be eternally vigilant. It is a price worth paying for liberty.

Truth- An Examination

What we today call truth is guided by an interpretation of external events that may or may not include us as actors. We are witnesses to, or participants in these events. We take them in, internalize and pass judgment on them, and finally communicate a personal interpretation of them externally. We present these ideas to others and to ourselves, pretending they are objective. We present these ideas as truth.
Often, we make the mistake of believing such truths to be self-evident. That is to say we see our truth as obvious without the need for critical reasoning. After all, what we see is what we see and we simply judge accordingly.
If this is true (ha!), I must ask: Are our self-centered perceptions of absolute truth part of natural human existence? Are are we capable of transcending that behavior? Is it possible to at least expand the concept and make it more inclusive?... less sectarian?”
I think we (collectively speaking) mistakenly see truth as absolute all too often. In the United States of America’s Declaration of Independence, we read:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident:
“that all men are created equal,
“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
“that among these are
“Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Interestingly enough, the rough draft of the Declaration’s rough draft stated differently:

“We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable.”[1]

The original version sounds immensely more inclusive and non-sectarian to me. While truth is spoken of in both versions and it is accurate that both imply a certain amount of subjectivity, in my heart and mind I feel a more intimate connection to my fellow human when the words “sacred and undeniable” are used rather than “self-evident.” “Sacred and undeniable” feels considerably less arrogant. It seems to be an idea that transcends the artificial divisions we humans use to complicate our lives and divide our oneness. Is it possible the proliferation of this original idea, being as powerful and life-affirming as it is, could help to change the current course of the river of despair we are currently running?

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/people/CMathison/truths/truths.html good resource for teaching this democratic principle.
[1] http://www.duke.edu/eng169s2/group1/lex3/self-ev.htm

Where do we begin?

Where do we begin when we come to realize the severity of the atrocities being put upon the people of our world by the leaders of the United States of America, who themselves are subject to the whims and desires of the even more powerful transnational corporations? There are so many points of light! Look to the proverbial night sky; it appears as if daylight graced this midnight hour. These wars of empire must end. The current trend to cutting of aid to social programs at home and abroad must reverse itself. The slow removal of our country from the democratizing institution we know as the United Nations must stop. These acts, among others perpetuated in our name, do noting to spread democracy or show the positive potentialities of free-market capitalism to the world. It has been said these two ideas are our two greatest exports. Yet the way we advertise these products shows them to be precisely what they are: flawed ideas at best.
The way the US government has behaved, during the last five years in particular, has been contrary to the very ideas- the very foundation this country was built on. We removed ourselves from the British Empire because there were those in this land who realized that systems of men failed to provide for the masses. They understood systems of laws based on the loftiest goals of our collective humanity just might provide for those masses. There were those who faithfully believed human beings were capable of transcending the barbaric behavior that defined our past. I still believe in such a utopia. But why?
So much information available to us today tells us to be hesitant ascribing to such ideas. We are told that the age of utopias is dead. We are told that the last great battle to be waged over ideas was that between Communism and Capitalism. Capitalism won. We are often led to believe “we” won because we were right, because the ideas we build our economy upon were sound. Few times have I heard posed the question: right for whom? Rarely do I hear a critical voice ask if we were really right; few propose the idea we were simply more vicious in our beliefs and willing to sacrifice everything to win.
There are those who dare to posit such tomfoolery. They are called “radical,” “communists,” or “terrorists.” But what do these words mean? It has come time in our society to look at the very words that are used do divide and conquer us. We must seek to understand the meanings behind them. A great philosopher and educator from Brazil once said, (believe it or not, few great and original thinkers and intellectuals came from Greece) that we can define our world through words and that our world defines the meaning of our words.
I understand such ideas are not new. Jesus, Gandhi, Buddha, Confucius… they were not great writers- they were eloquent speakers and unrivaled listeners. They were also people who dared to speak of the atrocities committed in our collective name. They dared speak truth to power. They dared to stand up for their right to say “This is wrong.” And they fought for our right to do the same. These great spirits, and others like them believe in humanity’s ability to love, believe, and desire to better ourselves through non-violence and mutually beneficial cooperation. Great spirits understand that our vocation- our job as human beings, is to become more fully human. We are asked by them and one another to resist the animalistic urge to take advantage of other beings so that we may inhumanely acquire more than we need. Great spirits seek to help us become more human. This is where Godliness resides: in seeking to liberate our humanity from its violent past and become ourselves liberated in the process.

Beginnings of a something not yet known.

This is a beginning. Not "the" beginning- but "a" beginning...of what I do not know.

I suppose these blogs are meant to be soap boxes, scrapbooks, self-updates on our own lives. The speed at which these lives pass before us is becoming increasingly overwhelming. Our limited perception of time is quickly accelerating beyond our current capacity to comprehend existence. These blogs can be ways to tether our thoughts...perhaps even hold down the very things that define us as human.

I know I am not alone in understanding that it has become necessary to reflect upon "self" more often. We must do this so as not to lose sight of what makes us unique. We also must begin to re-cognize how and where we fit in our world. I hope that this marks a new beginning for me, as well as for anyone bothering to share in this experience.