Bush, Christ Relationship Leaves Unanswered Questions

Upon reading the numerous news stories and opinion pieces about Barack Obama's relationship with the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I began to think what this national dialogue would have looked like a few years ago when then-Governor George Bush stated his affinity for a certain Jesus Christ. Below are my musings in the form of satire. Also, I originally wrote this piece for the Columbia Daily Spectator, but I was censored and it was never printed. Enjoy!

On Monday, December 13, 1999, Republican front-runner George W. Bush in a debate was asked to name the political philosopher or thinker he identifies with the most. “Christ, because He changed my life,” Governor Bush answered. Since then, pundits and have scrambled to identify this “Christ” figure to better understand the impact He has had on Governor Bush.

Jesus of Nazareth, or Jesus Christ, was born circa 7–2 BC in Bethlehem of Judea. His childhood was marked by poverty. According to Christ biographer “John,” Christ would occasionally re-tell the story of how His parents could not find a suitable place for His birth.

“They [Christ’s parents] were poor and amongst the lowly. Inn-owners claimed there was no room, but I know their hearts. I ended up being born in a manger, for My-sakes!” Christ recounted at a sermon in the early years of the first millennium, AD/CE.

Christ’s early life as a hard-working carpenter and devoutly religious individual prepared Him for His later roles as political and religious leader. It is His political philosophy that has most recently come under fire and brimstone.

In a sermon dated approximately 30 AD/CE, Christ is quoted advocating a pacifist foreign policy.

“But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also,” Christ told an undetermined number of followers on a mountainside.

“This is inexplicable. The United States government must ensure the safety and well-being of its citizens. We must attack with swift force those who threaten our way of life. This turning the other cheek business is fundamentally anti-American,” says Ruth McAllister, CC ’2001, a political science major who has been closely following the race for the Republican nomination.

Christ has also come under recent attack for his comments nearly two centuries ago wherein he reminded his followers that they will reap what they sow.

“Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again,” Christ is quoted as saying.

“The implications of his speech are far-reaching. One could use this understanding to justify terrorist attacks against our country. This “chickens coming home to roost” rhetoric is both unwanted and unpopular. That which is unpopular must be [hesitates] morally corrupt,” Nation of Islam Information Minister, Khalid Mohammad, asserted in a CNN interview yesterday.

Pundits also point to Christ’s close association with John the Baptist, the wild-eyed convicted felon of King Herod’s court.

“How can a presidential candidate associate himself with someone who associated Himself with a barbarian? The American people expect a president who has the judgment to choose the associates of his associates wisely,” McAllister commented.

Political pundits are not the only ones upset with Bush’s association with Christ. Those outside of the Christian community were also uncomfortable with Christ’s political philosophy.

“It was just awkward. It made me think more deeply about spirituality in my life, and I live a life wherein these issues are not at the forefront. I would much rather just imagine people like Him do not exist,” an anonymous source stated. Under this view, the complacency and “comfort” engendered by privilege is of greater value than the critical interrogation of provocative ideas.

Others find Christ’s assertions reasonable. They point to his humble beginnings as the root of his radical politics. Is it unreasonable, some inquire, for an individual who grew up below the poverty line to advocate the meek inheriting the earth and the poor obtaining the kingdom of God?

Governor Bush has been baffled by the recent inquiries into his relationship with Christ. Bush’s speech on Wednesday has been heralded as the most clear headed and meaningful speech on spirituality since John F. Kennedy’s address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in 1960.

“I just want to make it clear that I do not advocate the politics of Jesus Christ; rather, I am drawn to his spiritual guidance. That is the nature of our relationship. I unequivocally denounce his offensive, anti-American views. However, I cannot disown him any more than I could disown my own grandmother who used to remind me to treat others as I would like to be treated,” Bush said in his charming Southern drawl.

“I just want to make it clear to the American people that Christ’s political philosophy is representative of a fingy fraction [apologizes] a fringe faction. Those who advocate a politics of compassion and loving one’s enemies are certainly not representative of the American spirit,” Bush continued.

Close advisors to Governor Bush remind him to focus on the real issues of the election such as health care and racial equality. It remains unclear as to what Bush’s association with Christ will ultimately mean for his campaign for the presidency.

Building Community Requires Recovering Love

I wrote this piece for my column in Columbia University's student newspaper, The Columbia Daily Spectator. The column is entitled Strength to Love and it runs alternate Tuesdays. It originally appeared in the January 22, 2008 issue. Enjoy.

In American society—one that is predicated on white­-supremacy, male dominance, and class exploitation—it is hard to love. We are taught to hate ourselves and others. For example, many black folk have yet to unlearn the self-hate internalized from white supremacy. Men are often afraid to love because so much of masculinity within patriarchy depends on the ability to dominate, to be loveless. And some rich people fill the place in their hearts that would know love with the wealth and economic privilege afforded to them by capitalism.

Love escapes us, not because we lack the desire to love, but because systems of domination strip us of our ability to love ourselves and each other. To recover the ability to love—to attain the strength to love—is an act of resistance that restores our humanity and heals the wounds of oppression. It is the strength to love that empowers individuals and groups to persevere in the face of the hopelessness and despair that oppression facilitates. Indeed, it is the spirit of love that uplifts the collective spirit of the oppressed; to lug around hate and cynicism for one’s oppressors is self-defeating and only intensifies the destruction of self and community that injustice began.

In his 1963 book, Strength to Love, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. used love to explain his non-violent approach to the civil rights movement. In it, he writes about the importance of loving, even in the presence of injustice. Drawing heavily from religious doctrine that teaches the importance of loving one’s neighbor as oneself, Dr. King encouraged black people to love their enemies, which was a particularly difficult task in the Jim Crow south.

While Dr. King rarely discussed the issue of self-love within the black community, the militant black power movement emphasized the importance of loving blackness through war cries like “Black is beautiful.” Although this movement dismissed Dr. King’s message of loving one’s enemies, it placed a necessary emphasis on alternative images of blackness that challenged the mainstream representations of black folks as immoral, incompetent, and inhuman.

Dr. King’s version of love as redemptive care and compassion runs in contrast with the dominant image of love in our society. Much of our culture teaches us that love is a feeling between two (normally heterosexual) people that makes them crazy for each other and incapable of rational thought. For example, in the movie The Notebook, Allie makes the decision to be with Noah, a poor working-class man, instead of her affluent fiance. She does this not because she consciously makes a choice to transgress against a caste system that would have predetermined her partner but because she is “madly” in love with him and can have it no other way.

Revolutionary love, the kind of love Dr. King promoted, requires choice and action. In no way does this message devalue romantic love, which requires choice and action too. However, those romantic relationships which are built upon a feeling solely are much more difficult to maintain than those built upon mutual trust, understanding, and a shared commitment in addition to those feelings. In the book All About Love: New Visions, revolutionary activist and dissident intellectual Bell Hooks offers a helpful definition of love as “a combination of care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect, and trust.” These elements are necessary for any loving relationship to flourish. Loving relationships can exist between partners, among political brothers and sisters, and even in the midst of a politically charged college campus.

Despite the lovelessness that plagues the larger society, we can work to build a loving community right here at Columbia in hopes of inspiring change elsewhere.
Let us be clear: nooses don’t hang in a loving community. People don’t rally with food and drink 50 feet from a hunger strike in a loving community. A loving community respects neighboring communities and doesn’t bulldoze, and by extension colonize, them. In a loving community, debate is replaced with dialogue and radical openness where ideas flow freely and no one is silenced.

When I think of the loveless atmosphere on campus, however, I am not crushed by despair—rather I am renewed in my struggle to extend love and care and compassion to all members of our community. I know there is hope as long as there are people like Marta Esquilin, associate director of the Office of Multicultural Affairs, who works tirelessly to build community on this campus through initiatives like the multicultural, service-learning trip to New Orleans; or campus activists like Bryan Mercer, CC ’07 and Jenni Oki, CC ’07, who spend their entire college careers doing the work of love.

If we are to become a loving community, we must become one together. Our work must transcend the individual efforts noted above and be concentrated into a mass-based movement to end domination in all its forms. Only then will we be able to regain the strength to love, and recover our true selves to live and learn in the blessed, loving community of our dreams.

It's been a while...

But late is better than never, right? I just realized that I haven't written a post in almost two months.

I guess my main excuse is school and work. I still have a paper that was due TWO WEEKS ago that I still haven't turned in. I have 8 (yes EIGHT) french papers to turn in; they were due Friday and I still haven't even started. Looks like the workload at Howard kinda sneaked up on me a little there. But, when expectations are set low, I tend to under-perform.

Anywayz, the load of schoolwork I have to do may not excuse my absence, but it certainly explains it a little.

I'd like to begin writing here more frequently. School is almost over for the semester, so I anticipate having much more time to write and think about some of the issues that we all know and love :) So stay tuned and check back here regularly to check out some of my newer writings.

Until then folks!

Women Not to Blame for Dress

Note: This is a perspective that I submitted to The Hilltop, Howard University's student newspaper. I just submitted it today, so it has yet to be published.

In his column "Unphiltered," Phil Lucas wrote his response to comments that were made on Allhiphop.com. There, Brothers were anticipating with glee the number of “freaks and hoes” that would be at our school’s homecoming celebrations. Initially offended by these comments, Brother Lucas still felt the need to caution Sisters to dress appropriately. Also, he warned the entire Howard community to be selective with their sexual endeavors in order to preserve individuals’ reputations. Offenders should be expelled (Yeah, I couldn’t believe it either.) because this would deter folks from tarnishing Howard’s reputation as a premiere HBCU.

I do not submit this perspective in order to demonize Brother Lucas. In fact, his view is the mainstream, dominant one that many folks may agree with. I wish to only offer an alternative perspective and to demonstrate the extent to which his comments were damaging to our community.

With that said, indulge me if you will.

The ideological framework Brother Lucas is operating within is the same of rapists who believe that if a girl was being provocative or wearing certain types of clothes, then she “was asking for it.” A female’s choice of dress is no indicator of her sexual happenings, expectations, or allowances.

If a woman walks outside her house butt naked, no man has the right to touch her or to yell obscenities. However, we all know that if a woman walks outside in sweat pants and a winter coat she runs the risk of sexual assault.

In fact, just being a woman is enough to get you sexually assaulted in this sexist society.

Nonetheless, we understand that wearing less clothes or dressing provocatively increases the risk of sexual assault. Not that long ago, drinking out of a white water fountain in the South could have gotten you lynched. Also, let us not forget that sitting under a “white” tree in Jena, Louisiana can have major repercussions in America’s injustice system.

And one need not drink from a white water fountain or sit under a “white” tree because just being black is enough to get you discriminated against in this white-supremacist society.

The truth is that we all learn to police our actions living within a white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy. Much in the same way that a woman knows not to walk outside wearing nothing because she could possibly be raped, blacks knew we could get lynched if we chose to drink from the white water fountain. With this understanding, it is clear that women who dress provocatively are not the problem; the problem is the system of oppression that allows injustice to occur based upon something as frivolous as their choice of dress.

It is absurd to criticize women for dressing provocatively (Who would criticize Rosa Parks for remaining seated on the bus?). Now, this is not to say that all Howard females who choose to dress provocatively have some type of radical feminist mission. But the point still stands that no one who transgresses against oppression – whether consciously or subconsciously - should be reprimanded.

At best, we can say that women who dress provocatively are not taking the necessary precautions to avoid harm. But it does not follow, by any stretch of the imagination, that brothers on Allhiphop.com are justified by calling them “freaks and hoes” and that females’ dress should be checked in order to maintain the reputation of Howard University.

If our reputation depends on whether or not female students choose to dress provocatively, it is a reputation not worth having. Our worth as an institution must transcend the whims of a sexist, patriarchal order if we are to be worth anything at all.

Brother Lucas’s column was so disappointing to me because it fits so well within the paradigm of patriarchy and sexist oppression that feminist movement has been fighting against since its inception. As black men, we have a responsibility to stand in solidarity with our sisters. Instead of asking black women to alter their dress, we should be focusing our efforts on educating men on the negative impact of their sexist language, behaviors, and attitudes.

Answer to "How's Howard going so far?"

My dear, dear folks. If one more person asks me how Howard is going...

Naw, but forreal, I figured I would publish this here so I can answer the question that seems to be on everyone's lips "How's Howard going so far?"

If you're reading this, then you probably know that I'm doing the domestic exchange program and spending the fall semester at Howard University in Washington, D.C. I will return to Columbia in the Spring. So, exactly how is Howard going, you ask?

Generally, the answer is "not well." Now, that is not to say that it is going badly; it just means that it could be better. There are a couple of reasons for this. The main ones are the fact that I miss friends and family back home (Yes, I'm calling NYC home, now.) and I would like to be doing more of my major work at Columbia. Classes here are mediocre; there is significantly less coursework and teachers seem to water-down material and shy away from critical dialogue with their students.

To better illustrate my point about the professors, I will relay one particularly horrifying experience that occurred the other day.

A few weeks ago I was given an assignment in English class to write a 1 -2 page paper. Well, I got it back last week, bleeding, and with a "D" on it. The professor claimed that I didn't understand the assignment and used pronouns incorrectly. What she meant, I am convinced, is that she didn't understand my argument; therefore, in her mind, I didn't understand her assignment.

But anyway, I went to her office hours last week to discuss the grade, and we got into it. I did not walk in there expecting a confrontation, but nevertheless I got one. Essentially, she wanted me to have the attitude of "I got a bad grade, so can I rewrite the paper with the corrections you marked?", but I walked in there with the attitude of "Would you reconsider the grade you gave me? I believe if you read it more carefully my point will be clear to you."

This really pissed her off. She felt as though her authority was threatened by a student who walked into her office questioning her judgement. Whereas, I was simply asking her to engage in a dialogue with me about the grade she had given me on my paper. She was looking for me to passively accept everything she was saying, and she got the opposite. She was visibly frustrated, and by the end of our short meeting, she had kicked me out of her office.

I promptly returned to my dorm room for a "Change of Program" form and went back to her office for her signature. I just had to get out of that class.

Now, I know what you're thinking: "This confrontation could have happened at Columbia. It is unfair to label the institution of Howard negatively because of one crazy individual." I accept this as true, but if I take this experience and add it to all of the other less dramatic ones I am provided with a rather fucked-up view of my "Howard/HBCU experience."

But I'm good. I will make the best of my experience here even though I severely miss those I care about back home. Peace and blessings, folks.

Thoughts on Black Solidarity

So, I’m in this class called “African-American Philosophy.” We are reading a book by Tommie Shelby called We Who Are Dark: The Philosophical Foundations of Black Solidarity. Brother Shelby is a professor at Harvard University . In his book, Shelby takes head on the critics who would say that today – considering all of the advances America has had in regards to racial equality – “Black solidarity” is an unnecessary form of “identity politics” and that it superficially calls for group loyalty in an ever-evolving multi-racial, and multi-cultural society.

Shelby , however, comes out on the right end. His entire book is devoted to defending the stance that “Black solidarity” is an important political stance to be adopted by Blacks. But he is careful in his analysis. He clearly defines this Black solidarity in terms of a political solidarity, a point that I accept. But I do take issue with some aspects of his argument.

He says that the philosophical foundation for Black solidarity is anti-racist political struggle, but I think he’s missing something. I submit that the philosophical foundation of Black solidarity is “anti-oppression” political struggle as opposed to just “anti-racist” political struggle. Thinking about Black solidarity in terms of anti-oppression political struggle addresses the pluralism amongst “we who are dark” and works to weed out every form of oppression in our lives.

For instance, a social justice organization that wants a robust Black solidarity must not only focus on “Blackness” or anti-racist political struggle. They can certainly organize within an anti-racist framework, but they must at least have a more far-reaching analysis of the world. A social justice organization such as this must also look at gender and issues of class in order to form a stronger and more robust Black solidarity.

A real world example is the Mike Tyson case (the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill situation is another) where he was accused, and convicted, of raping Desiree Washington. Black feminist critiques of this case raised important questions about Black solidarity during this period. Many Black folks who called for Black solidarity in the Tyson case (i.e. defending the Black man) did so at the expense of the Black woman involved (i.e. the possibility of a Black woman being sexually assaulted is to be marginalized to make room for “Black solidarity”). Within this conception of Black solidarity, Black men reap the benefits of blind loyalty while Black women shut up and support their men.

In this case, prominent Black male leaders (I’m thinking particularly of Louis Farrakhan.) called for “Black solidarity” to defend these Black men from what they saw as a castrating white-supremacist power structure. What they didn’t realize - or maybe they did - is that they were fueling the patriarchal machine that has historically devalued the lives, experiences, and credibility of Black women. We must remember a time not that long ago when the rape of a Black woman was impossible because society viewed her as being so promiscuous that her consent was to be assumed.

So it seems to me that at once we are calling for “Black solidarity,” but at the same time we are disenfranchising half of our group by using the language of patriarchy and sexist thinking. A Black solidarity that has an anti-racist political struggle as its foundation could possibly ignore – as we see in the case above – the fact that Black women are both Black and women. A Black solidarity that has an anti-oppression political struggle as its foundation recognizes this potential dilemma and would incorporate, for instance, a feminist critique and bring us closer to finding truth.

To create and maintain a robust Black solidarity, its foundation must extend beyond a narrow anti-racist political struggle and bring into question issues of gender, class, and ability, just to name a few; essentially, the foundation must be anti-oppression and anti-domination.

Response to Jena 6 Requires Revolutionary Vision

Note: I originally wrote this piece for the "Hilltop," Howard University's student newspaper. It appeared in the "Perspectives" section on August 29, 2007; it assumes a general knowledge of the "Jena 6" situaiton in Louisiana.

The case of the Jena 6 in Louisiana proves that white-supremacy is alive and well in this country; it has further highlighted the fact that we live in a fundamentally racist society. It seems as if it takes an event such as this about every two to three years to keep us vigilant and renewed in Black liberation struggle. Much like the assassination of Sean Bell and the genocide in New Orleans, the modern-day lynching of the Jena 6 has brought a much needed conversation about white-privilege and the horrors of being Black in this country back into the mainstream. But the socio-political implications of these events transcend the individuals who compose them.
For instance, as we mourn the brutal death of Sean Bell, we must recognize the hundreds of Black and Brown folks before him who have fallen victim at the hands of state violence. Grassroots organizations - like the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement in Brooklyn, for example - sought justice for the Bell family while incorporating a virulent critique of police brutality.

Similarly, the genocide in New Orleans is not specific to the Gulf Coast . Folks realize that what happened in New Orleans is indicative of a larger historical problem in this country: the continued devaluation of the lives and communities of poor people of color. This is evidenced in what has been termed “Hurricane Columbia” by those who oppose Columbia University ’s expansion into the West Manhattanville neighborhood of New York City , an imperialist expansion that would displace hundreds and destroy a community.

We must enter the struggle for justice for the Jena 6 with the same revolutionary vision. The situation in Jena is not just about the young Black men being unjustifiably thrown into the prison industrial complex for the better part of their lives. This is about a country and an (in)justice system in which the lives of Black and Brown folks are of little importance.

We must take into account the individual Brothers who are being affected by these racist policies; we will organize and we will fight for our Brothers in solidarity. But with this, we must keep our sights fixed on revolutionary goals.

We must strategically incorporate a critique of the prison industrial complex. Our folks disproportionately occupy America ’s prisons. The government invests in our confinement: more money is spent on building prisons than funding inner-city school systems.

We must not shy away from a critique of capitalism. Poor people, who lack the financial power to wield influence and provide themselves adequate defense, tend to fall within the cracks of the prison industrial complex more quickly than their affluent counterparts. Even though the Jena 6 show no particular signs of opulence, we must remember and struggle in the memory of our Brothers and Sisters who do not have the privilege of a national campaign for their freedom and who remain nameless behind the bars of a cell. And what about the violent masculinity that gave rise to this incident in the first place. If the young men on both sides of the conflict had been divested of a pestilential masculinity that views violence as a problem solving method, the fangs of white-supremacy – as far as this situation is concerned - would have left the young Black men unscathed. It is unfortunate that we as young Black men grow up in a culture that socializes us to pursue violent confrontation to affirm our masculinity.

I have faith that we, the students of Howard University, will continue to fight for justice for the Jena 6. But as we rally, raise funds, and travel to Louisiana to organize, let us retain a revolutionary vision of justice and liberation that dismantles a white-supremacist capitalist patriarchal order that allowed these events to unfold in the first place.