So, I'm substituting at a local public elementary on the west side of Ann Arbor, helping one of the teachers with a second grade class. The students are writing to their pen pals, University of Michigan students. They're practicing their cursive; some are printing. There are maybe two children of color out of the twenty or so kids. It's snowing outside and the children are focused on their work.
I try familiarizing myself with their names taped to the front of their desks. Some are decorated with random artwork...dinosaurs, etc., others as though they are American or German flags. I notice in the corner by the window three or four desks that have variations of the colors of the flag of Germany with the boys' names superimposed on each.
One boy, Theo, is stuck. He says he doesn't know what to write. Earlier, he'd greeted me with "If someone said, 'come out dead or alive!' I'd say 'dead!'" Theo has already answered one letter from his pen-pal and doesn't have her most recent note. I suggest writing about what he likes to do for fun or while on the upcoming spring break. He says that he might visit his grandparents "up North" or visit Chicago.
He bends his head over the sheet and jots down a sentence. I go and assist other students and then return to Theo. He has drawn a flag and next to it another vaguely familiar design at the bottom of the page. He's stuck again. "I need a red and yellow crayon," he says. I encourage him to look in his desk or to ask a friend. Finally, he produces the right colors and starts to finish coloring in the stripes of the flag. I then realize what it is that I'm looking at. Next to the flag is a very accurate attempt at a swastika.
I ask Theo what it is. He says it's a flag. I say that it's not a flag (he didn't draw it on a flag shape like the accompanying modern German flag), it's a symbol. He starts to cover up the swastika with his hands. I say, with a calm voice, that it's actually the symbol of the bad guys during WWII. Theo calls it a WWII flag and plays with his pencil.
As the teacher approaches I say that I'm not sure if his pen-pal will appreciate receiving a swastika in the mail. Theo's neighbor Jack leans in, offering advice on which way the arms should bend and says, trying to sound convincing, that it is a cool design. Next to Jack, another boy says that he doesn't like discussing WWII, that his grandfather fought in the war.
The teacher immediately asks Theo to show her his drawing. She agrees that it's not appropriate and says, "what if she's Jewish?" referring to Theo's pen-pal. She then asks him if he can turn it into something else. Theo says he can turn it into a "crazy" picture and adds bends and turns and scribbles over it.
Awkward silence. Trying to keep it positive, I mention that Theo did say it was from WWII and that he seemed interested in history. He then said that he knows the German flag from WWI, as well. I go and help another student....
Friday, January 29, 2010
Friday, January 8, 2010
SO much more!
[spoiler alert!]
David Brooks took a cheap shot today at the brilliant movie, "Avatar." In his "Messiah Complex" column in the New York Times, he pins the protagonist as a "white messiah." One could argue that it's the female characters throughout, and their male allies, who are the real saviors in this story. Matriarchy lives!
Brooks reduces the heroine (and arguably a savior as well) to the Na'vi's "hottest babe." Neytiri, a woman warrior, is a fully-realized person who happens to be ten feet tall and a compelling shade of blue. She fiercely teaches Jake Sully the ways of her world, embuing respect for the sacred path along the way.
Of course, I can see why a self-identified "white" man like Brooks might prefer to see this film as a new rehash of an old trope; however, this movie asks much more of each of us as individuals, regardless of tribe, color or gender.
Race is not an issue, except among the racists. The mercenaries' leader Col. Miles Quaritch, played as a purebred Nazi-like-wannabe by the talented Stephen Lang, calls the people of this planet "monkeys." The corporate leader, played with calculated, banal indifference by Giovanni Ribisi, cares only for profit not the safe-guarding of others.
A moral option is always an individual choice. The protagonist, Jake Sully, realizes this after having given his legs in military service to his country. Quaritch promises Jake "new legs"--paid for by the corporation--in exchange for Jake betraying the Na'vi. Quaritch is just doing his job. He enjoys destruction and tells Sigourney Weaver's character, Dr. Grace Augustine, that he wouldn't hesitate to shoot her. If he's an archetype, then so is she.
A brilliant scientist who reaches out to new worlds and makes connections with humility and respect, the aptly named Dr. Grace is a fierce advocate of living in balance with other cultures, like the Na'vi do with nature. She asserts herself as a student and teacher of these people whose world has been invaded. Harmonious alliance among species (Dr. Grace, Neytiri, and the mother/shaman Moat) and amongst females is powerful.
I'm not sure if Brooks can identify with her character--some people find it tricky to bond with a female hero--but this movie presents her and her (multi-gendered, multi-ethnic) team as the real avatars of our future, if only metaphorically in a movie.
These people, who enjoy interacting with other species and have no problem meeting them on an equal footing, are a real hope for the continuation of much that is good in humanity. On the other hand the film's corporate military-complex is a selfish, brutal denier of humanity, as well as other species' rights to anything. It's not just a company; it's an EVIL monopoly of greed. Or rather, a baby that needs to be taught.
As a "mostly white" person, happily embracing her newly-discovered diverse genealogy (and not much surprised by it), I prefer to see this movie as the individual's embrace of what is right and the repudiation of selfishness, greed and racism.
While there is certainly nothing wrong in being a white person or any other hue, I'd bet Mr. Brooks that Jake Sully doesn't identify himself by race. Instead, I'd wager he sees himself, discovers himself in relation...spiritual connection to consciousness; he and we all are so much more than a mere physical manifestations.
People's heritage is much more than what they think it is. Besides, in identifying yourself as only anything, you may fail to see a more diverse possibility of family. In the end there is only one human race, but our existence may lie in expanding our ken and recognizing the familial bond with all persons--human and non-human alike.
Continuing with his blind eye view, Brooks cynically reduces Neytiri and Jakesully's choosing each other as life-long mates as merely "having sex." He refuses to acknowledge their spiritual union. They choose each other.
Brooks asks us to see Jake as the lone savior, saying "he’s even got more guts and athletic prowess than they do. He flies the big red bird that no one in generations has been able to master." He's hardly a master; Jake joins in a symbiotic relationship with another being, thus becoming something greater than himself. He rides with the red banshee with a humble purpose, not false divinity.
While the Na'vi are in various states of awe at his accomplishment, he doesn't fall into the trap of abusing power. He asks the leader and former-competitor-for-Neytiri's affections, Tsu'tey, for permission to speak to the people. Neytiri does not worship him but sees his brave act for what it is, a redemption. A new future awaits.
Much of value is in its perception. Brooks' shows his own bias against oral culture. He presumes the Na'vi are illiterate, when in fact, they are living a dynamic narrative in the present with an awareness of the value of their past. Their music and stories imbue their traditions with dramatic literacy. The Na'vi "see" one another and "speak" when they have something important to share. This is relational communication, and denigrating it as inferior is arrogant. Brooks is ready to snub a culture, that may be as rich as his own, because it doesn't rely on parchment to leave its mark.
Brooks identifies the mercenaries as Marines or Americans (although some U.S. service people are immigrants who may not even have citizenship) and claims that this fact allows audiences around the world to enjoy the death of Americans. That's not the only scenario.
It's an example of how any country or cause could lose its moral bearing, if people are in blind servitude to corporate or military-industrial entities. Jake Sully sees this, too. He knows he won't receive new legs from service to "the company," If that were true, he would have had the operation when he was initially injured and not have to sell his soul to pay for it out of his civilian pocket.
The Na'vi, on the other hand, try to heal any of their people and friends. The whole group unites to give positive energy toward preserving the world--which they don't try to control but, instead, live with in balance. Is that primitive? Sign me up.
This is not the story of a "messiah" but of a soul returning to the sacred path. "Wake up!" Neyteri tells Jake. Still a baby with much to learn, Jake strives to understand this new/old world and to do right by it. In return he receives not only his legs back but a new consciousness. No longer just a wounded man linking with an avatar, in the end Jake emerges as a new being with a new chance at wholeness. This new man, and a beautiful one at that, does not identify with hierarchically imposed expectations but uses his brain to make smart decisions.
Brooks starts to lose it toward the end. "The natives have hot bodies and perfect ecological sensibilities, but they are natural creatures, not history-making ones." Are those mutually exclusive?
The Na'vi are as history-making as anyone else in the film. It is they who save Jake's life. They shape their story by embracing universal truths, not by enslaving the other. Their and the non-crazy humans' futures lie together in a more peaceful world.
In the end it's up to brave individuals to take a stand, like the helicopter pilot played by Michelle Rodriguez. "It's not what I signed up for," she says, removing her finger from the trigger before the destruction of the Na'vi holy tree.
Helping other people whose worlds are imperiled by our own requires acknowledging the truth. The Creator loves all her children. We must live in balance, practicing harmony, to bring on this shift in consciousness. In "Avatar" Jake and his team make this human proud.
"Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration," says Brooks. What does that even mean?
Perhaps, instead of cynically fighting over patrimony in this world--some forever ready to destroy one shrine to build another--why not build a future that acknowledges our common link with the One? or even the vast Nothingness.
Stop the delusion of dominance and live in balance.
David Brooks took a cheap shot today at the brilliant movie, "Avatar." In his "Messiah Complex" column in the New York Times, he pins the protagonist as a "white messiah." One could argue that it's the female characters throughout, and their male allies, who are the real saviors in this story. Matriarchy lives!
Brooks reduces the heroine (and arguably a savior as well) to the Na'vi's "hottest babe." Neytiri, a woman warrior, is a fully-realized person who happens to be ten feet tall and a compelling shade of blue. She fiercely teaches Jake Sully the ways of her world, embuing respect for the sacred path along the way.
Of course, I can see why a self-identified "white" man like Brooks might prefer to see this film as a new rehash of an old trope; however, this movie asks much more of each of us as individuals, regardless of tribe, color or gender.
Race is not an issue, except among the racists. The mercenaries' leader Col. Miles Quaritch, played as a purebred Nazi-like-wannabe by the talented Stephen Lang, calls the people of this planet "monkeys." The corporate leader, played with calculated, banal indifference by Giovanni Ribisi, cares only for profit not the safe-guarding of others.
A moral option is always an individual choice. The protagonist, Jake Sully, realizes this after having given his legs in military service to his country. Quaritch promises Jake "new legs"--paid for by the corporation--in exchange for Jake betraying the Na'vi. Quaritch is just doing his job. He enjoys destruction and tells Sigourney Weaver's character, Dr. Grace Augustine, that he wouldn't hesitate to shoot her. If he's an archetype, then so is she.
A brilliant scientist who reaches out to new worlds and makes connections with humility and respect, the aptly named Dr. Grace is a fierce advocate of living in balance with other cultures, like the Na'vi do with nature. She asserts herself as a student and teacher of these people whose world has been invaded. Harmonious alliance among species (Dr. Grace, Neytiri, and the mother/shaman Moat) and amongst females is powerful.
I'm not sure if Brooks can identify with her character--some people find it tricky to bond with a female hero--but this movie presents her and her (multi-gendered, multi-ethnic) team as the real avatars of our future, if only metaphorically in a movie.
These people, who enjoy interacting with other species and have no problem meeting them on an equal footing, are a real hope for the continuation of much that is good in humanity. On the other hand the film's corporate military-complex is a selfish, brutal denier of humanity, as well as other species' rights to anything. It's not just a company; it's an EVIL monopoly of greed. Or rather, a baby that needs to be taught.
As a "mostly white" person, happily embracing her newly-discovered diverse genealogy (and not much surprised by it), I prefer to see this movie as the individual's embrace of what is right and the repudiation of selfishness, greed and racism.
While there is certainly nothing wrong in being a white person or any other hue, I'd bet Mr. Brooks that Jake Sully doesn't identify himself by race. Instead, I'd wager he sees himself, discovers himself in relation...spiritual connection to consciousness; he and we all are so much more than a mere physical manifestations.
People's heritage is much more than what they think it is. Besides, in identifying yourself as only anything, you may fail to see a more diverse possibility of family. In the end there is only one human race, but our existence may lie in expanding our ken and recognizing the familial bond with all persons--human and non-human alike.
Continuing with his blind eye view, Brooks cynically reduces Neytiri and Jakesully's choosing each other as life-long mates as merely "having sex." He refuses to acknowledge their spiritual union. They choose each other.
Brooks asks us to see Jake as the lone savior, saying "he’s even got more guts and athletic prowess than they do. He flies the big red bird that no one in generations has been able to master." He's hardly a master; Jake joins in a symbiotic relationship with another being, thus becoming something greater than himself. He rides with the red banshee with a humble purpose, not false divinity.
While the Na'vi are in various states of awe at his accomplishment, he doesn't fall into the trap of abusing power. He asks the leader and former-competitor-for-Neytiri's affections, Tsu'tey, for permission to speak to the people. Neytiri does not worship him but sees his brave act for what it is, a redemption. A new future awaits.
Much of value is in its perception. Brooks' shows his own bias against oral culture. He presumes the Na'vi are illiterate, when in fact, they are living a dynamic narrative in the present with an awareness of the value of their past. Their music and stories imbue their traditions with dramatic literacy. The Na'vi "see" one another and "speak" when they have something important to share. This is relational communication, and denigrating it as inferior is arrogant. Brooks is ready to snub a culture, that may be as rich as his own, because it doesn't rely on parchment to leave its mark.
Brooks identifies the mercenaries as Marines or Americans (although some U.S. service people are immigrants who may not even have citizenship) and claims that this fact allows audiences around the world to enjoy the death of Americans. That's not the only scenario.
It's an example of how any country or cause could lose its moral bearing, if people are in blind servitude to corporate or military-industrial entities. Jake Sully sees this, too. He knows he won't receive new legs from service to "the company," If that were true, he would have had the operation when he was initially injured and not have to sell his soul to pay for it out of his civilian pocket.
The Na'vi, on the other hand, try to heal any of their people and friends. The whole group unites to give positive energy toward preserving the world--which they don't try to control but, instead, live with in balance. Is that primitive? Sign me up.
This is not the story of a "messiah" but of a soul returning to the sacred path. "Wake up!" Neyteri tells Jake. Still a baby with much to learn, Jake strives to understand this new/old world and to do right by it. In return he receives not only his legs back but a new consciousness. No longer just a wounded man linking with an avatar, in the end Jake emerges as a new being with a new chance at wholeness. This new man, and a beautiful one at that, does not identify with hierarchically imposed expectations but uses his brain to make smart decisions.
Brooks starts to lose it toward the end. "The natives have hot bodies and perfect ecological sensibilities, but they are natural creatures, not history-making ones." Are those mutually exclusive?
The Na'vi are as history-making as anyone else in the film. It is they who save Jake's life. They shape their story by embracing universal truths, not by enslaving the other. Their and the non-crazy humans' futures lie together in a more peaceful world.
In the end it's up to brave individuals to take a stand, like the helicopter pilot played by Michelle Rodriguez. "It's not what I signed up for," she says, removing her finger from the trigger before the destruction of the Na'vi holy tree.
Helping other people whose worlds are imperiled by our own requires acknowledging the truth. The Creator loves all her children. We must live in balance, practicing harmony, to bring on this shift in consciousness. In "Avatar" Jake and his team make this human proud.
"Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration," says Brooks. What does that even mean?
Perhaps, instead of cynically fighting over patrimony in this world--some forever ready to destroy one shrine to build another--why not build a future that acknowledges our common link with the One? or even the vast Nothingness.
Stop the delusion of dominance and live in balance.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
What's up with HAARP?
Okay...so Jesse Ventura is who he is but there are some good points here and people are speaking out. Very interesting.
It would be nice to have more access to what is actually happening with tax payer dollars at this site. And who would actually know or be able to know when this device is used and for what?
It would be nice to have more access to what is actually happening with tax payer dollars at this site. And who would actually know or be able to know when this device is used and for what?
Friday, December 4, 2009
Justice or Just Us?
We should not use others to bad ends.
We must make room for love__at the least__respect.
Instead of teaching out of fear or hatred…why not say, some people love whomever they choose; I hope that you, my child and future parent of children, will choose to marry one of our own people.
Having a hopeful attitude and teaching from a standpoint of love
may prevent a sorry future for us all.
But do not condemn your own children from loving another;
Do not condemn those who choose to marry an other.
Remember that Moses married another/an other and her people...became family. And Ruth was a noble companion to Naomi. There have been countless others, no doubt.
Do not condemn those whose hearts include the greater circle of humankind. Whom you choose to love consciously or unconsciously is your own path, but to ridicule others who choose another way is wrong and potentially tragic.
Be careful what you teach your children—not to consider or name others as “mixed up,” as though they are bizarre and spiraling away from the whole; to do so breeds contempt or injustice. And justice, justice, you shall pursue is a tenet not only for your own concept of self but for all; we can heal this world but only with the right attitudes.
Do not allow true believers among you to spew hatred unchallenged. Fear and hatred are dragging people away from their better selves.
I cannot be silent when some people are behaving inhumanely__in the name of religion. Extremists on ALL sides are our problem, not those who wish to live in harmony. We must heal this world.
Even if you don’t feel that way, you might acknowledge that sitting idly by perpetuates a cycle of violence.
You might ponder when Abraham pimped Sarah to Pharaoh, did he try to make it up to her by purchasing Hagar? And if so, how did that work?
Hagar was a subordinate, a slave. When she became the child bearer and challenged Sarah's status, how was that to end? Imagine if these women had been equals, if both had vowed not to supercede the other, could there have been peace? Maybe a different path could have emerged for progeny.
What if Ishmael, or Isaac for that matter, had been a girl? What if people today randomly chose to name their daughters Hagar or Sarah, Sarah Hagar, Hagar Sarah, etc., and love them equally; perhaps that would be a start toward stopping the insanity.
It's not just a story. Expecting peace to reign where imbalance rules is delusional. What’s wrong with allowing room for the other to live in peace and equality? If I treat another well there is a room for peace to grow. If I treat someone badly, how can I expect good to come of it?
Whereas, if I treat someone fairly__and there still is discord__there can be room to air the grievance and work out a livable, humane solution. With forgiveness.
But to condemn another to desolation by our choice, even as she is condemning us, is choosing a bleak future for us all. The wheel is ever turning, and when we look in the mirror what do we see?
Know before whom you are standing is written above sanctuary doors. This truth, I believe, is for both our outer and our inner selves...our worlds. If one is not for nurturing peace, what is their reality?
Fear may be ever present no matter how one chooses to act toward others, but one way of acting allows for that fear to shrink and make room for something else to grow…
Justice does not mean just us; it is__necessarily__a relationship.
We must make room for love__at the least__respect.
Instead of teaching out of fear or hatred…why not say, some people love whomever they choose; I hope that you, my child and future parent of children, will choose to marry one of our own people.
Having a hopeful attitude and teaching from a standpoint of love
may prevent a sorry future for us all.
But do not condemn your own children from loving another;
Do not condemn those who choose to marry an other.
Remember that Moses married another/an other and her people...became family. And Ruth was a noble companion to Naomi. There have been countless others, no doubt.
Do not condemn those whose hearts include the greater circle of humankind. Whom you choose to love consciously or unconsciously is your own path, but to ridicule others who choose another way is wrong and potentially tragic.
Be careful what you teach your children—not to consider or name others as “mixed up,” as though they are bizarre and spiraling away from the whole; to do so breeds contempt or injustice. And justice, justice, you shall pursue is a tenet not only for your own concept of self but for all; we can heal this world but only with the right attitudes.
Do not allow true believers among you to spew hatred unchallenged. Fear and hatred are dragging people away from their better selves.
I cannot be silent when some people are behaving inhumanely__in the name of religion. Extremists on ALL sides are our problem, not those who wish to live in harmony. We must heal this world.
Even if you don’t feel that way, you might acknowledge that sitting idly by perpetuates a cycle of violence.
You might ponder when Abraham pimped Sarah to Pharaoh, did he try to make it up to her by purchasing Hagar? And if so, how did that work?
Hagar was a subordinate, a slave. When she became the child bearer and challenged Sarah's status, how was that to end? Imagine if these women had been equals, if both had vowed not to supercede the other, could there have been peace? Maybe a different path could have emerged for progeny.
What if Ishmael, or Isaac for that matter, had been a girl? What if people today randomly chose to name their daughters Hagar or Sarah, Sarah Hagar, Hagar Sarah, etc., and love them equally; perhaps that would be a start toward stopping the insanity.
It's not just a story. Expecting peace to reign where imbalance rules is delusional. What’s wrong with allowing room for the other to live in peace and equality? If I treat another well there is a room for peace to grow. If I treat someone badly, how can I expect good to come of it?
Whereas, if I treat someone fairly__and there still is discord__there can be room to air the grievance and work out a livable, humane solution. With forgiveness.
But to condemn another to desolation by our choice, even as she is condemning us, is choosing a bleak future for us all. The wheel is ever turning, and when we look in the mirror what do we see?
Know before whom you are standing is written above sanctuary doors. This truth, I believe, is for both our outer and our inner selves...our worlds. If one is not for nurturing peace, what is their reality?
Fear may be ever present no matter how one chooses to act toward others, but one way of acting allows for that fear to shrink and make room for something else to grow…
Justice does not mean just us; it is__necessarily__a relationship.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Keeping the Fire Alive in Ann Arbor
It's a rainy end to October. The leaves are almost completely down...a carpet of yellow sits on the ground. There's pumpkin carving and school work to attend, but I'm predictably procrastinating. It's a balancing act obscuring the focus on aches and should haves; I'm determined not to waste time shoulding on myself.
Words can take you only so far...my universe may be different from yours--although like a Ven diagram--they intersect. Inner and outer worlds form the similar shapes. The micro and the macro. What's up with that? Are we all just floating in some linty pocket in the Creator's rumpled old corduroys? or in an ever-expanding inter-dimensional womb? The alternative is to do or dream.
Each time I move to Ann Arbor, it's a changed somehow. The Union is still there with its maize and blue flag but it looks a little different. The Student Publications Building has the same pencil-carved work desks but now is called something else and filled with computer terminals. There is a new business building on Hill and State Streets named for a banker out East, and where giant elms once cascaded over vast green space by the Diag, masses of new buildings push ever upward. The students seem younger now.
The Art Museum still has the portrait of Lincoln as a young boy reading by the fireside; it also prominently displays a painting of "pioneers" and the noble "savages" shooting it out in a wagon train. Newer medical offices near North Campus at Domino's Farms have a mythic quality to them. The wall art I saw there is of 19th century caucasian women--only--gazing wistfully over the prairie as if the land had erupted with white linen Gibson-girls from time immemorial.
I'm no expert, but I have a feeling that not many people know the history of the University of Michigan. It's first site in Detroit was on land given to the school by the Native people of this region, including the Potawatomi--the Fire Keepers of the confederacy of three tribes which also include the Ojibwa and Oddawa. In their generosity they asked only that Native Americans be allowed to study there.
In the mid-1800s many Potawatomi and others were pushed West on another trail of tears during President Jackson's tenure.* Many died along the way to Council Bluffs in Iowa and the adjoining area. Others who had already intermarried with the new settlers remained. Some even passed for "white." Still others made families with African Americans. The First People of this land were not given the right to vote until the 1920s.
And that brings me back to this state run public university. I feel something is lacking. In some ways it resembles an exclusive citadel. Donors' names adorn new buildings; exclusive luxury boxes lurk over Michigan Stadium, yet where is acknowledgment to the people who gave so much? The determination that they and theirs will not be forgotten?
The decades-old diorama exhibit at the UM's Museum of Natural History (a personal favorite) has garnered controversy. It carefully depicts Native American life as it may have been long ago, but without any modern context, in a building with the remains of mastodons and meteorites. It will be moved soon to a warehouse where it will still be accessible to study; however, it begs the question...why not have a separate museum or cultural center that tells the story of the people who donated the land upon which the school sits?
"Up North" in Mount Pleasant the Ziibiwing Center of the Ojibwa/Chippewa tribe is a vibrant place to visit and learn. It is welcoming to the public. It also sits on reservation land.
Here in Southern Michigan there are no reservations; how apt, then, to build our own place of gratitude and learning...one that fully acknowledges the contributions of the original people of this land and their continued connection to the university. The dioramas could remain in public view, but as a smaller part of a much larger story. A gathering place for those who want to study and appreciate the significance of these foremothers and fathers would be a welcome addition to the Ann Arbor campus.
An institution of such purported acclaim should have a place to celebrate its roots as a whole.
---------------
*McCabe, Michael A. The Removal of the Potawtomi Indians: 1820 to the Trail of Death, A.M. thesis, Indiana State University, 1960.
Links to come.
Words can take you only so far...my universe may be different from yours--although like a Ven diagram--they intersect. Inner and outer worlds form the similar shapes. The micro and the macro. What's up with that? Are we all just floating in some linty pocket in the Creator's rumpled old corduroys? or in an ever-expanding inter-dimensional womb? The alternative is to do or dream.
Each time I move to Ann Arbor, it's a changed somehow. The Union is still there with its maize and blue flag but it looks a little different. The Student Publications Building has the same pencil-carved work desks but now is called something else and filled with computer terminals. There is a new business building on Hill and State Streets named for a banker out East, and where giant elms once cascaded over vast green space by the Diag, masses of new buildings push ever upward. The students seem younger now.
The Art Museum still has the portrait of Lincoln as a young boy reading by the fireside; it also prominently displays a painting of "pioneers" and the noble "savages" shooting it out in a wagon train. Newer medical offices near North Campus at Domino's Farms have a mythic quality to them. The wall art I saw there is of 19th century caucasian women--only--gazing wistfully over the prairie as if the land had erupted with white linen Gibson-girls from time immemorial.
I'm no expert, but I have a feeling that not many people know the history of the University of Michigan. It's first site in Detroit was on land given to the school by the Native people of this region, including the Potawatomi--the Fire Keepers of the confederacy of three tribes which also include the Ojibwa and Oddawa. In their generosity they asked only that Native Americans be allowed to study there.
In the mid-1800s many Potawatomi and others were pushed West on another trail of tears during President Jackson's tenure.* Many died along the way to Council Bluffs in Iowa and the adjoining area. Others who had already intermarried with the new settlers remained. Some even passed for "white." Still others made families with African Americans. The First People of this land were not given the right to vote until the 1920s.
And that brings me back to this state run public university. I feel something is lacking. In some ways it resembles an exclusive citadel. Donors' names adorn new buildings; exclusive luxury boxes lurk over Michigan Stadium, yet where is acknowledgment to the people who gave so much? The determination that they and theirs will not be forgotten?
The decades-old diorama exhibit at the UM's Museum of Natural History (a personal favorite) has garnered controversy. It carefully depicts Native American life as it may have been long ago, but without any modern context, in a building with the remains of mastodons and meteorites. It will be moved soon to a warehouse where it will still be accessible to study; however, it begs the question...why not have a separate museum or cultural center that tells the story of the people who donated the land upon which the school sits?
"Up North" in Mount Pleasant the Ziibiwing Center of the Ojibwa/Chippewa tribe is a vibrant place to visit and learn. It is welcoming to the public. It also sits on reservation land.
Here in Southern Michigan there are no reservations; how apt, then, to build our own place of gratitude and learning...one that fully acknowledges the contributions of the original people of this land and their continued connection to the university. The dioramas could remain in public view, but as a smaller part of a much larger story. A gathering place for those who want to study and appreciate the significance of these foremothers and fathers would be a welcome addition to the Ann Arbor campus.
An institution of such purported acclaim should have a place to celebrate its roots as a whole.
---------------
*McCabe, Michael A. The Removal of the Potawtomi Indians: 1820 to the Trail of Death, A.M. thesis, Indiana State University, 1960.
Links to come.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
To Catch a Thief
It's a beautiful day and I don't want to go negative, but I have to say something about Roman Polanski and his defenders.
Having grown up with this story, and never hearing of Mr. Polanski claiming innocence, I have always assumed that Polanski escaped justice in the rape case involving a thirteen-year-old girl.
I find it loathesome that many are defending him as an artist, as if that should stop him from having to plead, strike a deal or apologize to the person he wronged.
There's really no point in focusing on Mr. Polanski's sad personal story. If he were a character in a play, maybe. But in real life the focus should be equally shared by the other person in this drama. If the then thirteen-year-old has now forgiven her exploiter, that's her business. And why is it okay to publicly identify her? Leave her alone.
However, the ramifications of publicity and lack of justice have also affected our culture. I'm talking about those who would side with a grown man in his forties giving drugs to and having sex with a 13-year-old person.
Who would defend children against these predatory jerks? She may have forgiven him, but it was still wrong of him to have done it. I think Polanski should be a real man and stand in a court.
The exploitation of youngsters has to stop. The damage done to a person at such a critical time changes them forever. What of her dreams and aspirations? Are these not of equal merit?
Why is it to okay to abuse some people while others are protected by wealth and connections? Is it all right to lie and lure people to their own enslavement, a la the sex trade, for example? No way. Yet there are those who have no sympathy for naive people being taken advantage of. It's as if they think "well, that'd never happen to me, so what do I care?" That's selfish and wrong. By not identifying with the wronged, a person identifies with the exploiter. It's like the jerk in "The Accused" who didn't rape the Jodie Foster character but stood there cheering the others on.
Women who don't condemn this Polanski's actions and others like him see themselves as better than their sisters--or blindly turn an eye--as the Mackenzie Phillips story allegedly seems to have unfolded. Lucky and hard-hearted is more like it. Men who support him identify themselves as clear as day.
And I can see that now. But as a thirteen year old I would not have; heck, as a seventeen or eighteen year old I still couldn't. Just because some people act more mature or seem physically mature at that age, does not make them so. Emotional development can take years into adulthood. And kids with disabilities or "invisible" differences in respect to the neurotypical world, like Aspergers, are even more at risk.
It's hard enough getting to adulthood with self-esteem intact without having to accept the abuse or advances of those who should know better.
And so, as an adult, I say the law must protect young people and allow them their awkward innocence, their precociousness, but never cross the line and treat them as one might an adult. There was no consent.
Having grown up with this story, and never hearing of Mr. Polanski claiming innocence, I have always assumed that Polanski escaped justice in the rape case involving a thirteen-year-old girl.
I find it loathesome that many are defending him as an artist, as if that should stop him from having to plead, strike a deal or apologize to the person he wronged.
There's really no point in focusing on Mr. Polanski's sad personal story. If he were a character in a play, maybe. But in real life the focus should be equally shared by the other person in this drama. If the then thirteen-year-old has now forgiven her exploiter, that's her business. And why is it okay to publicly identify her? Leave her alone.
However, the ramifications of publicity and lack of justice have also affected our culture. I'm talking about those who would side with a grown man in his forties giving drugs to and having sex with a 13-year-old person.
Who would defend children against these predatory jerks? She may have forgiven him, but it was still wrong of him to have done it. I think Polanski should be a real man and stand in a court.
The exploitation of youngsters has to stop. The damage done to a person at such a critical time changes them forever. What of her dreams and aspirations? Are these not of equal merit?
Why is it to okay to abuse some people while others are protected by wealth and connections? Is it all right to lie and lure people to their own enslavement, a la the sex trade, for example? No way. Yet there are those who have no sympathy for naive people being taken advantage of. It's as if they think "well, that'd never happen to me, so what do I care?" That's selfish and wrong. By not identifying with the wronged, a person identifies with the exploiter. It's like the jerk in "The Accused" who didn't rape the Jodie Foster character but stood there cheering the others on.
Women who don't condemn this Polanski's actions and others like him see themselves as better than their sisters--or blindly turn an eye--as the Mackenzie Phillips story allegedly seems to have unfolded. Lucky and hard-hearted is more like it. Men who support him identify themselves as clear as day.
And I can see that now. But as a thirteen year old I would not have; heck, as a seventeen or eighteen year old I still couldn't. Just because some people act more mature or seem physically mature at that age, does not make them so. Emotional development can take years into adulthood. And kids with disabilities or "invisible" differences in respect to the neurotypical world, like Aspergers, are even more at risk.
It's hard enough getting to adulthood with self-esteem intact without having to accept the abuse or advances of those who should know better.
And so, as an adult, I say the law must protect young people and allow them their awkward innocence, their precociousness, but never cross the line and treat them as one might an adult. There was no consent.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Taking Stock
For me taking stock is an ongoing process. There are some things I've noticed...
Sharing is what it is about. People shouldn't throw stones. And leaders ought to strive to make peace, not war.
Striving for peace enables us to help repair the world. But looking to dominate or live out of balance leads to war.
It may sound naive to push for peace when war clouds are looming...but I believe, intention has something to do with creating a future.
Do we really want war? Really? Who wins?
On the other hand we must prepare ourselves to fight and defend ourselves; however, striving to make peace at every opportunity could do wonders. Although, knowing human nature...even the peaceful warrior sometimes has the urge to fight back. So, to gather one's focus and use it for the good of all/including my own I strive for peace. The other direction is chaos.
Ahmadinejad is a repressive would-be messiah/mahdi who can't even acknowledge the truth of recent history. He seems impossible to deal with as he funds hatred and disinformation. He and his party oppress their own countrymen while paying Hamas and Hizbullah to foment war. And the whole underground nuke facility is potentially catastrophic.
Netanyahu is too proud. He thinks he is Abba Eban. He may be facile with words but does he have what it takes to make peace?
The whole struggle for Jerusalem saddens me. I liked Teddy Kollek's view of sharing respectfully--a democratic way for the complexities of social life.
Since then the build up of settlements for some and denial of building rights for others is out of balance--undemocratic. Using religion as a wedge to increase imbalance is the wrong way.
I grew up with a limited view; we all do. I was proud of Jewish soldiers standing in awe once more at the Western Wall. I thought most Israelis lived communally on kibbutzim. Boy, was I wrong. Upon arrival I was surprised to notice wealthy enclaves in a few neighborhoods of Tel Aviv. This was antithetical to the egalitarian myth I'd grown up with. I, the daughter of a self-employed mechanic and homemaker/bookkeeper. Though I proudly told my friends that dad was a car doctor, we didn't have the funds to give me extras like summer camp.
So, I was annoyed with the wealth disparities evident in Israel, the blooming desert to whom we gave coins of tzedakah each week at Sunday School.
There were remote "development" towns whose residents seemed to live in East bloc shambles...cinder block hulks in a barren wasteland. These were people with fewer connections. And the Palestinians, whether Israeli citizens or not, did not seem to have equal access to what the richer areas had. But, the saying went, they had it better than in most Arab countries. To me, it was a disillusioning sight and made me want to see civil rights for all in that special land.
I am grateful for the work of B'Tselem, the New Israel Fund and Meretz, but there's a long way to go, as one could argue about almost any other country.
And then there's the irony of President Obama in Cairo acknowledging Mecca and Medina as the birthplace of Islam...places where other religions are forbidden or repressed in public. It left me wondering if he is biding his time when he speaks the parallel of Jerusalem, and Judaism. What's the problem with Jewish state of Israel having sovereinty there, especially if the religious shrines are governed by their own?
Perhaps, it's the complexity of having many faiths that are connected to that place, because of their connection to an even older faith or culture that came before?
It's tricky as is the situation in Hebron where the tombs of the patriarchs/matriarchs stand. Where is the sense of sharing? Of common ancestry? Some see it; others don't. And they are on both sides. So, the conflict can continue unless we stop the cycle of taking power without sharing and being fair to all, regardless of their parentage.
Sometimes, being a person in this world all seems too much.
So, at this time of reflection I ask for forgiveness for not being perfect. I acknowledge that I cannot be so, and yet I must strive always for what is right. That way I'll contribute to the solution and not the problem. I am grateful to the One/None for the opportunity.
Sharing is what it is about. People shouldn't throw stones. And leaders ought to strive to make peace, not war.
Striving for peace enables us to help repair the world. But looking to dominate or live out of balance leads to war.
It may sound naive to push for peace when war clouds are looming...but I believe, intention has something to do with creating a future.
Do we really want war? Really? Who wins?
On the other hand we must prepare ourselves to fight and defend ourselves; however, striving to make peace at every opportunity could do wonders. Although, knowing human nature...even the peaceful warrior sometimes has the urge to fight back. So, to gather one's focus and use it for the good of all/including my own I strive for peace. The other direction is chaos.
Ahmadinejad is a repressive would-be messiah/mahdi who can't even acknowledge the truth of recent history. He seems impossible to deal with as he funds hatred and disinformation. He and his party oppress their own countrymen while paying Hamas and Hizbullah to foment war. And the whole underground nuke facility is potentially catastrophic.
Netanyahu is too proud. He thinks he is Abba Eban. He may be facile with words but does he have what it takes to make peace?
The whole struggle for Jerusalem saddens me. I liked Teddy Kollek's view of sharing respectfully--a democratic way for the complexities of social life.
Since then the build up of settlements for some and denial of building rights for others is out of balance--undemocratic. Using religion as a wedge to increase imbalance is the wrong way.
I grew up with a limited view; we all do. I was proud of Jewish soldiers standing in awe once more at the Western Wall. I thought most Israelis lived communally on kibbutzim. Boy, was I wrong. Upon arrival I was surprised to notice wealthy enclaves in a few neighborhoods of Tel Aviv. This was antithetical to the egalitarian myth I'd grown up with. I, the daughter of a self-employed mechanic and homemaker/bookkeeper. Though I proudly told my friends that dad was a car doctor, we didn't have the funds to give me extras like summer camp.
So, I was annoyed with the wealth disparities evident in Israel, the blooming desert to whom we gave coins of tzedakah each week at Sunday School.
There were remote "development" towns whose residents seemed to live in East bloc shambles...cinder block hulks in a barren wasteland. These were people with fewer connections. And the Palestinians, whether Israeli citizens or not, did not seem to have equal access to what the richer areas had. But, the saying went, they had it better than in most Arab countries. To me, it was a disillusioning sight and made me want to see civil rights for all in that special land.
I am grateful for the work of B'Tselem, the New Israel Fund and Meretz, but there's a long way to go, as one could argue about almost any other country.
And then there's the irony of President Obama in Cairo acknowledging Mecca and Medina as the birthplace of Islam...places where other religions are forbidden or repressed in public. It left me wondering if he is biding his time when he speaks the parallel of Jerusalem, and Judaism. What's the problem with Jewish state of Israel having sovereinty there, especially if the religious shrines are governed by their own?
Perhaps, it's the complexity of having many faiths that are connected to that place, because of their connection to an even older faith or culture that came before?
It's tricky as is the situation in Hebron where the tombs of the patriarchs/matriarchs stand. Where is the sense of sharing? Of common ancestry? Some see it; others don't. And they are on both sides. So, the conflict can continue unless we stop the cycle of taking power without sharing and being fair to all, regardless of their parentage.
Sometimes, being a person in this world all seems too much.
So, at this time of reflection I ask for forgiveness for not being perfect. I acknowledge that I cannot be so, and yet I must strive always for what is right. That way I'll contribute to the solution and not the problem. I am grateful to the One/None for the opportunity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
