Peter King and the Roost

White Americanized Christianity has led to the death of close to a million people in Iraq and Afghanistan alone. Which leads us to this interesting and depressing paradox. In order to continue doing what we're doing, in order to continue to get oil fuel and the objects of our consumptive love so cheaply, the United States continues to be involved in international issues in a way that's detrimental to those outside of the US (and quite a few within the US). Then, we try to do everything within our power to keep those chickens from coming home to roost, so to say.

So we bring violence to the homes of millions around the world, and then get upset because some of it manifests itself in the US. Not only that, but we tend to blame the wrong crowds - not just for the global violence, but for the homegrown violence as well. Reprehensible Reptile Peter King's HUAC hearings are, for all their wanton ugliness, not getting quite the press they deserve.

photo © 2011 longislandwins | more info(via: Wylio)

If we *really* wanted to tackle the radicalization of Islam, we'd stop giving radical leaders ammo with which to point at us (western, Christian, white culture):

• We'd stop trying to occupy and/or bomb Muslim countries.
• We'd stop supporting the Israeli state's oppression of Palestinians.
• We'd stop this charade of dragging American Muslims in front of national televisions to question their patriotism and whether or not they've done enough to stop terrorism (while justifying terrorists that support causes that we are comfortable with).
• We'd stop targeting entire Muslim communities in the US, while largely ignoring the increasing threat of white supremacist groups.
• We'd stop equating the entire Muslim community with terrorists.
• We'd stop sending in CIA agents to infiltrate mosques and Arab centers to bait young American Muslims to develop, support, and enable self-made terrorist plots.
• We'd stop this policy of guilty-before-proven innocent when it comes to Muslims and turning them into second-class citizens who are not able to pray or worship where they can (under the pretense that their worship is an offense to America's freedom, of course).
• We'd stop passing laws that attack a community's resolve to handle interpersonal conflicts via traditional/religious means (even when they don't contradict with state or federal laws).
• We'd stop bringing in so-called moderates who are nothing but shills for the xenophobes, the Clarence Thomases of Muslims in America.
• We'd stop pretending that we're not being a racist and/or xenophobic nation while actively promoting racism and xenophobia under the guise of "security."

But that would probably mean we'd need to change some habits...

Thankless History of Thanksgiving

Update: Clarification on any perceived anti-Thanksgiving bias and a chance for action here.

In looking to the United States' history as a nation of genocidal power over the original Nations (Native Americans, the Tribes, Indians, First Settlers), Robert Jensen asks how we can just so easily rub aside our murderous past? Especially as this murderous past is not *just* our past, but - I add - a part of our very current DNA.

How does a country deal with the fact that some of its most revered historical figures [Washington, Jefferson, T Roosevelt] had certain moral values and political views virtually identical to Nazis [in desiring all 'Redskins' to die]? Here's how "respectable" politicians, pundits and professors play the game: When invoking a grand and glorious aspect of our past, then history is all-important. We are told how crucial it is for people to know history, and there is much hand-wringing about the younger generations' lack of knowledge about, and respect for, that history.

In the United States, we hear constantly about the deep wisdom of the founding fathers, the adventurous spirit of the early explorers, the gritty determination of those who "settled" the country -- and about how crucial it is for children to learn these things.

But when one brings into historical discussions any facts and interpretations that contest the celebratory story and make people uncomfortable -- such as the genocide of indigenous people as the foundational act in the creation of the United States -- suddenly the value of history drops precipitously, and one is asked, "Why do you insist on dwelling on the past?"

This is the mark of a well-disciplined intellectual class -- one that can extol the importance of knowing history for contemporary citizenship and, at the same time, argue that we shouldn't spend too much time thinking about history.

Our past does not just lie in our past, but it is a part of our national character, and as long as we can spin it so that we are a benevolent and graceful people, then we can continue atrocious acts of imperialism and genocide throughout the world (what is The War on Terror if not a small-scale act of genocide being perpetuated against Muslims and Arabs?).

Jensen further:

This off-and-on engagement with history isn't of mere academic interest; as the dominant imperial power of the moment, U.S. elites have a clear stake in the contemporary propaganda value of that history. Obscuring bitter truths about historical crimes helps perpetuate the fantasy of American benevolence, which makes it easier to sell contemporary imperial adventures -- such as the invasion and occupation of Iraq -- as another benevolent action.

Very simply and close to home, how can we continue to live as if nothing horrible actually happened between the White structure of the US and the various indigenous tribes and nations? If we can come to grips with this, maybe then "illegal" immigration won't be such a bother*. To further this: how can we now go about and trivialize their histories by naming professional and collegiate sports teams after them? We profit from their misery and then offer that somehow we are "honoring them"? Imagine Henry Ford had killed my great-grandparents and all of their brothers, sisters, and cousins some eighty years ago because they were standing in the way of progress. And now his company wants to introduce the Dye brand of luxury cars?

If the Native tribes say that we are dishonoring them, than we should probably listen to them. If not, we are triply dishonoring them, first by the initial act of dishonor, then by not listening to them, and third by being racist enough to not consider their opinions about themselves as being even equal to our opinions of them.

But then again, isn't that what White Supremacy is? We know what's best? Our views of history are better than what actually happened? Is Rush Limbaugh now the Official Spokesperson for White History, then?

*As it is, many White opponents to immigration contend somehow that the European settlers had broken no laws in emigrating to what is now the US. I guess the universe doesn't have laws? Let alone, the Bible that they were supposed to follow? But this absurdity and logic FAIL demonstrates the reality that laws benefit those who write them. If only those Injuns had lernt to read and write some laws, then...

Independents Day

A few thoughtful blog posts have been written recently concerning the American Independence celebrated on July 4th here, and often uncritically embraced by some of the more conservative American churches. All of the following blogs (most written by facebook friends) are written by American Christians who are somewhat critical of Nativism and uber-patriotism (none of them, as far as I can tell, would be described as a radical or America-hater, except by those on the far-right I suppose):

Kurt Willems: Why Christianity and July 4th are Incompatible

As Christians, we need to recalculate our past and allow the gospel to be critical of certain things we now celebrate. Is it honorable to kill because people don’t like being taxed? I think the Jesus who says, “Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” would probably say “No.”

Church historian Mark Noll said the following in an article he wrote for Christianity Today about just war and the Revolutionary War:

During this confused misunderstanding, the Bible was used as a reservoir of images, moral principles, and types. Many sermons in America (and some in Britain) supported revolt, while a few in America and England argued against it. Serious exegesis, however, of what would seem to us like the relevant passages (such as Romans 13) was very rare. Rather, it was much more common for patriots to liken George III to Pharaoh and George Washington to Moses, or to depict the conflict as a struggle between the Woman and the Beast of Revelation 12. Patriots and Loyalists were both much more likely to add scriptural authority to political reasoning rooted in some other ideology than they were to attempt reasoning from the ground up on the basis of Scripture.

This war was not rooted in scripture but in a false political agenda. Noll reminds us of how history played itself out: “Americans fought a war to gain the kind of freedom that Canada, New Zealand, and Australia were simply given after not too many decades.” Our nation, in other words, killed other Christians in order to gain independence that would have eventually been granted to them in a “just” fashion, had the founding fathers not been so trigger-happy over issues of taxation.

Carson Clark: The Annual Debunking the Fourth Post: Top 10 Unsightly Facts about the American Revolution

1) American colonists had the world's highest standard of living in 1776. Not much economic suppression there.

2) The rallying call of "no taxation without representation" ignores the fact that the vast majority of the English at the time did not meet the property requirements for voting. Even John Wesley opposed the war on these grounds, pointing out that not even he could vote.

3) The media's reporting of most of the events leading up to the war was sensational at best. Take the "Boston Massacre" as an interesting case study. One of our key Founding Fathers and future presidents, John Adams, agreed that the "massacre" was provoked by drunk Americans and was no massacre but was self-defense, as evidenced in the legal defense and acquittal he provided for those soldiers despite the personal fear he had over the negative impact it'd have upon his political ambitions.

And a (sort-of) reply by Scot McKnight: For July 4th, a (set of) thought(s)

1. The most critical of celebrating July 4th on Sunday are progressive evangelicals and liberals.
2. The defining characteristic of progressive evangelicals and liberals is justice.
3. Celebrating freedom and release from oppression and reveling in the achievement of peace and justice are God-directed in the Bible.

I think the critics are missing a great opportunity.

So, let's turn the day into a universal celebration of justice. Let's not hear about muskets and the British Crown and Boston; let's hear about the importance of peace and justice and that God wants us to live justly.