Week 6 – Monday’s Class

October 30, 2007

Dr. Bolger’s assertion that “If serving our enemy isn’t causing people to ask us what’s different about us, there’s something wrong” was impactful.  That’s what living the Christian life is all about:  doing the things Jesus would do and saying the things Jesus would say if he were walking  on earth now.   I was challenged by today’s class.

I agree with David in his disagreement with Runions on President Bush and what she sees as his intention to create “a new imperialist history” (p124).  It is sad to think that while we as Christians believe that God raises up individuals for special ministries and that he places national leaders in place, we second guess their every word and action, offering no grace for mistakes.

 Proverbs 8:16 says, “By me princes rule, and nobles, all who judge rightly.” 

Chuck Norris asserts:  “The text leads us to speak of civil government, as ordained of God, in the hands of the mediator; of civil rulers, as holding their commission and authority under Christ; of their duty and dignity as his Ministers, and of the duty and privilege of the people under their administration. . .”

Well, this certainly is a new interpretation of Esther.  Mosala’s objections that a biblical hermeneutics of liberation raises against Esther’s situation are interesting ones that make good sense when you look at the setting from contemporary society.  I, too, rail against the lowly status of women in ancient history and the Old Testament, but I am not sure that I can agree with this critique.  The gender oppression and exploitation she experienced was a natural part of the ancient patriarchal civilization she lived in.  God used Esther to save the people of Israel (and ultimately herself) specifically, because of who and where she was in history.  He did not remove her from the situation, but used her mightily in it.  This is a new day.  I support African and marginalized women around the globe in their gender, class and national struggles for equality.  God is there with them in their struggles.  His strength is perfect.

I’m not buying this, and here are the reasons why: 

Proverbs 10:18 – “whoever spreads slander is a fool.”

Titus 3:1-2 – Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities to be obedient, to be ready to do what ever is good, to slander no one, to be peacable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men.

 

In regard to President Bush’s speeches, Runions asserts the following:  1)  “By virtue of juxtaposing external security threats with internal economic desires (and worries about meeting those desires), the speech implies that the two realms are interdependent.”  2) “Monetary aid that will bring freedom from poverty is only given in exchange for conformity to American demands, including the demand to buy American products, and the demand to follow an American standard of law and behavior.”  3)…”it appears that the use of apocalyptic metaphors to motivate economic ends is not benign; the stakes are deadly, both at home and abroad.  Moreover, it appears that war, for this administration, is not simply a means to an end; rather, it is the beginning of a new imperialist history.”

 

I Corinthians 4:13 tells us as Christians. . .”when we are slandered, we answer kindly.”  It is irritating to see the bizarre connections that can be made through postcolonial criticism such as this. While I see the importance of this genre, I believe Runions has crossed the line. As the reader, I am not agreeing to accord the act of this writer’s imagination the status of an absolute truth (Lamming).

 

 

I can see how the political and intellectual elite of today’s world, including the United States, use the written word to push their own agendas and hang on to power. This practice, of course, is critically important to their self-perpetuating interests. It was interesting to see that the writers of Mark, Luke and Revelation appropriated the same medium for a different purpose.

It is so very difficult for me to read about the terrible violence committed against women anywhere, but particularly in Africa, since much of the abuse was pre-existing, widespread and pervasive in cultural practices such as clitoridectomy, infibulation, child marriages and wife beating. 

 

Whether nationalism, the military, religious or other male-dominated authorities who now are committing violent crimes against African women, there is no excuse for the abuse of their own people.  They must stop blaming others for their actions, and take responsibility for their personal and national behavior.

I find Lazarus’ view on this subject slightly  skewed.  He acknowledges that African pop music is a hybrid form which contains strong Western musical influences combined with  lyrics that are devoted to local postcolonial issues.  Yet, he criticizes Paul Simon for borrowing African musical influences as a background for lyrics that reflect Paul’s Western worldview. Further, he labels Graceland “imperialist” because of its popularity in Europe and the United States that now causes a hungry public to call for the production of similar music of a dated style, instead of supporting the latestest trends in African popular music.  Western music lovers purchase music that appeals to their ears.  They like what they like.   Their choices should not be  viewed as being politically motivated.

Different topic in regard to an issue of immigration:

On the basis of his quote of JanMohamed and David Lloyd (247), does he really believe that all countries should offer the language of every new arrival as a medium of instruction in their public schools?  When a person takes up residence in a foreign country, a realistic expectation is that they will learn the language of their new homeland and not expect that everyone will adjust to them.

I am disappointed in the lack of objectivity in the editor of this text.  Gregory Castle’s introduction to Lazarus’s article definitely shows his unreasonable bias against the Western world. For example, his suggestion that “Paul Simon’s graceland  album was put together with a political agenda in mind is ludicrous unless he can prove that the political powers in the U.S. are connected in some way to Paul Simon.  He is making a wild accusation without backing it  up with information that proves it is true.

Creating Pan-Africanism, a political alliance across states in Africa, makes sense in building a continental identity.   Such an alliance also has the ability to provide the necessary force to eliminate colonialism and white supremacy from the continent.  What remains confusing is Appiah’s suggestion that the Pan-African identity be extended internationally to include African-Americans, Afro-Caribbeans and Afro-Latins, citizens of counties outside of Africa who have no legitimate means to form political alliances. What is the undercurrent of this suggestion? That the African Diaspora join together in eliminating colonialism and white supremacy?

I learned something in class today.  I was unaware that 16th century slavery was based on the concept of race, and that slavery was acceptable as long as it did not involve white people.  It blows my mind that educated people of the period (i.e.  scientists) allowed ignorance and prejudice to blind them to all of humankind’s equal value and worth.