July 12, 2015
Many hoped Pope Francis, the first Jesuit pope, would take a path leading to a new voice from the Church. I don’t know if we are hearing a new voice, yet, but at least the voice we are hearing calls for deeper conversations.
While visiting Bolivia this last Thursday, Pope Francis apologized to Americans whose ancient heritage is the American landscape. The apology was for the Church’s support and involvement in the colonization of the Americas. Though not a direct apology for his predecessor’s support of the genocidal Doctrine of Discovery, the apology is a first step.
The Pope’s apology calls for an interesting conversation during the coming months. For just prior to Pope Francis’ arrival in the US this fall, church structure is in place to canonize Father Junipero Serra on September 23. Pope Francis is concluding a path begun in 1988 when Pope John Paul II beatified Fr Serra.
While many folk may not know Fr Serra, most Californian’s who attended school in California do. Few born and raised Californians did not draw or construct a Mission while in school. For me it was the Mission San Fernando Rey de España located an hour south or so from my elementary school. Mission San Fernando was but one of the twenty-one missions dotting the California coast from San Diego (San Diego de Alcalá, 1769) to Sonoma (San Francisco Solano, 1823). The credit of developing a mission infrastructure where missions were located one days ride from one another goes to Fr Serra. Known for his intellect, the development of the string of missions, and the conversion of California Indians, the church and the state has held Fr Serra in good regard. California Indians, whose ancestors provided the labor to build the missions have, let’s say, a different take. Continue reading
June 26, 2015
I, like many others, never heard of the 2013 Dominican Constitutional Court ruling saying citizenship would no longer naturally be given to a person born in the Dominican Republic. Like others, I tripped over my own foot when I understood the people/government of the Dominican Republic (DR) approved a systemic change that could lead to the deportations of Dominicans of Haitian descent. I fell over my other foot when I understood the policy would be retroactive to 1929.
I might not know the intricacies of all that is going on, but I have two thoughts just the same. If it were my family, and my mother was four years younger, it would mean she is in danger of deportation at the age of 86. Of course, Belinda and I would be right behind her, our children right behind us, and our grandson right behind them. Imagine, four generations deported in one fell swoop. I find it hard to imagine one can argue a position of justice for this action.
Of course, DR did not come up with this throwing away of people. The US has been doing it for much longer. From throwing away of today’s south of the border generations, who came to work US farms, to the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, the DR did not have to look far to find a mentor.
Throwing away of people who have been on US or DR soil and worked for generations to better those countries is one example of what the Doctrine of Discovery (DoD) looks and feels like today. The DoD, from inception, has been about the extraction of resources. DoD countries have used law and power to mine mineral and people of other landscapes to benefit themselves. Then throw those people away when they no longer have monetary value. What is so very hard is the realization that landscapes who were once the victims of the DoD have often adopt DoD practices as they come into power themselves (under the guiding hand of their DoD oppressor).
Clearly much history has occurred between DR and Haiti since Christopher Columbus’ landing in 1492. Continue reading
June 07, 2015
After nearly fifteen years, the Yakama Christian Mission has changed its statement of mission from,
To enhance the wellbeing of children and youth through advocacy and education.
To enhance the wellbeing of indigenous children and elders of North America and Canada.
There are numerous reasons for the change. At the top is admitting an emphasis on children alone is not holistic. In hindsight, the fifteen-year old statement’s singular focus on children was little different from the Mission’s previous eighty-year approach. Both approaches hold today’s children as tomorrow’s future. Nothing wrong with that. However, as commonly lived out in the US (and certainly on reservations), this approach has a tendency to separate children from their elders—except those specific elders who carry and project the correct virtues of the community. From the eighty-year stance, the correct values were most always White values, which from the historical perspective of many in the church, few Yakama elders held.
The approach over the last fifteen years is similar insofar as programing focused on children and youth and, though I wish it were not the case, because of embedded White worldviews of staff, board, and church leaders. Due to this focus, there was a natural separation of young people and elders. Granted, this model is a societal norm. After all, US parents give their children to the “correct” people for their scholastic education, and children stay home while parents go to a school board or a church board meeting—interesting, isn’t it, when folk think it is groundbreaking to have a “youth” representative on a board? Continue reading
May 31, 2015
“If a panhandler comes near you and you are fearful, call the police.” The statement is not exact but it is close to what I’ve heard on the radio once a week for a number of months.
I don’t so much find this statement bad as I do evil. Built into such a message is “you ought to fear those folk you see on the side of the road.” My guess is, if folk did not fear panhandlers in the City of Yakima yesterday, they will tomorrow. Like too many messages we hear in our communities, this message is not one of peace and wellbeing for one’s neighbor, but one of, if you don’t look, smell, and think like me, you are questionable at the least and a danger at the most.
It would seem this announcement lead’s toward one path—the imprisonment of panhandlers and homeless people (Homeless folk are a small percentage of panhandlers, however, I’d guess most folk think the opposite). The hope, it would seem, for those supporting and funding this announcement, is to eliminate those who struggle greatly within our society—under the guise of justice.
The absurdity of such an announcement is not only hurtful to those who have little societal voice, but damaging to the whole of community. To make our sisters and brothers on the street, who struggle to make a dollar, as something other than ourselves—into folk to be feared, we damage our sense of justice, of peace, and our spiritual wellbeing. To lose our brothers and sisters, whose lives are so different from our own, to our fear and possible imprisonment is to jail our own created self.
*KIMATV.com: File photo
May 17, 2015
Knowing food is a spiritual practice. Paying close attention to food is living a practice of knowing creation.
To know food is to move beyond myopic buying of food with little thought of its origin: the people involved in its growing, the weather that supports its growth, the community of production, or the sources of its growth—soil, water. To know food is to step beyond a big-box grocery store existence to life of creation.
This desecration eliminates harmony within the landscape. In part, the dearth of harmony comes from a food system that says there is a “right” way of eating. The system cares little if one is a meateater, vegan, or vegetarian, what matters most is that folk believe their way of eating is correct. Such thinking keeps a food conversation of justice at bay, and folk looking at one another believing they could do better. When a friend posted Beefing Up Justice on their Facebook page they commented, “Thank you…for the sacred work you do. And for providing ‘happy meat’ for those of us who just can’t quite commit 100% to the vegetarian way of life.” Obviously, the response made my day. Here is a meateater giving serious thought to becoming vegetarian, who has not fully embrace that way of eating, but is trying to live well in the transformation. Soon thereafter, someone responded to my friends posting saying, “I believe you will be able to give up killing to eat one day. I have faith in you!”
Both my friend and the responder gave faithful responses. Yet, I’d like to ponder the latter response.
I understand the want to give up killing. I figure few of us want to kill. However, only in our modern non-agriculture society might one convince themselves they can eat without killing. Continue reading
March 29, 2015
(The media is deliberating if this weeks tragedy of Germanwings Flight 9525 is a suicide. Having written prior to the crash, I don’t deal with the tragedy. However, I will say at this early moment after the crash, I believe when one takes the lives of others along with their own, it is not an act of suicide, but something very different. What that difference is, I don’t know.)
A friend of mine, Daniel, sent me a note soon after Robin Williams’ suicide last August. The note has nagged me ever since. He gave a few of his thoughts on Williams and suicide and asked if I might have a few of my own. Schooled in a Catholic high school, Daniel received an earful on the sin of suicide from a particular perspective. Gaining the wisdom that comes with living life, he is now a young adult who has allowed the idea of suicide as a Cardinal sin barring one from heaven to go by the wayside. As he puts it, “how can a truly all loving God turn his back on someone who is filled with so much dread, torment, and affliction that in their greatest time of need his love would not be shared?” Fleshing out his thoughts, he answered his own nagging questions. Good for him, but that did not get me off the hook.
When it comes to suicide, there is little difference between my protestant upbringing and my friend’s Catholic high school. The elders and pastors of the Christian church of my youth were clear suicide is a sin and if you choose such you’re going to hell. No much slack on this one.
Suicide didn’t come up much in my young life. Once, in the preteen years, a friend headed home from a day of hiking Iron Canyon and came across a pickup truck parked at the end of road that was hardly more than a trail. Continue reading
March 22, 2015
Last week’s entry Reestablishing Heritage Languages: Sustainable Thinking brought about a question. “Let me or us perhaps know Dave what you know about whether the DOD operates in some way south of the border with Mexico to the extent it does on the other side.” The question comes from the writer of Erasing Borders, Doug Smith, a worthwhile reading!
Any longer, most every nation economy has the virtues of the Doctrine of Discovery embedded in their business, environmental, and political structures. In the America’s alone, though the political and cultural structures of nations north and south of the US border are different, the economic drive is much the same. Like a cancer, the DOD has tendrils entrenched in every American government, their law, business, religion(s), and environmental policies. The easiest sector to notice the DOD is in economy and business.
The DOD has always been about gaining wealth for governments through the extraction of resources. Those who financed Portugal’s Vasco da Gama, Spain’s Columbus, Balboa, Cortés, Pizarro, and Coronado, England’s Cabot, Drake, and France’s Cartier had one goal, find resources, extract the, (or develop a plan of extraction) those resources, and bring them resource. Finding examples of how the DOD operates south of the US border become easier when one is sympathetic with the idea that the primary component of the DOD is extracting resources.
For comparison sake, consider a recent US example. The land of Oak Flat sits just outside the landscape of the San Carlos Apache Tribe. Continue reading