For some time, there's been a Valentine's Day tradition of performing Eve Ensler's "The Vagina Monologues." This Valentine's Day, however, I'd like to refer you to THIS VIDEO of Eve talking on TED. Watch it, and take a moment to celebrate your "girl cell."
I know I'm celebrating mine!
This post is speculative, so I'm interested in hearing other people's points of view. But first, let me tie together several seemingly unrelated elements:
As a member of the Diversity Committee at work, I get links to an online "Managing Diversity" newsletter. A recent article pointed out the importance of diversity, because (assuming the trends continue), by 2030 or so, whites will be a minority.
Then, over at Black Diaspora, I saw this quote: "The Election of Barack Obama is just the most startling manifestation of a larger trend: the gradual erosion of "whiteness" as the touchstone of what it means to be American. If the end of white America is a cultural and demographic inevitability, what will the new mainstream look like—and how will white Americans fit into it? What will it mean to be white when whiteness is no longer the norm? And will a post-white America be less racially divided—or more so?" I told B.D. that, to me, losing my membership in the majority race would be "no big deal."
Daniel Quinn, in his book Ishmael, introduces the idea of "keeper" culture vs. "leaver" culture as two distinct paradigms of social relations and, primarily, human relations to our planet. "The premise of the Takers' story is 'The world belongs to man.' ...The premise of the Leavers' story is 'Man belongs to the world.'"
Riane Eisler introduces the concept of "dominator" vs. "partnership" as two models or paradigms for social relations, extending from personal/family to international in scope, in The Chalice and the Blade.
Bringing all this together, I started to wonder: Is racism integral to a dominator to keeper social paradigm?
In other words, does racism come automatically when one adopts a domination culture, as we have done – and not only racism, but sexism, etc.? Are these isms doomed to remain so long as we cling to our traditional domination culture, only to disappear at the paradigm shift to a partnership culture? And I have no doubt that we are in the process of this paradigm shift – though the default, baseline is still domination over partnership, and that trend could end at any time.
Exploring the early books of the Bible, we see the development of a domination culture, and it starts right at the beginning with the suppression and oppression of women. From there it develops into the Israelites' conquests and utter annihilation of some Canaanite tribes, along with the Israelites' clear claim to racial superiority seen in them being the chosen people of God.
But then, you also see a lot of warfare among leaver cultures, such as most Native American cultures prior to the invasion of Europeans into their territories. Tribalism, in these cases (as in Europeans and even to modern days and municipal rivalries), is widespread, perhaps universal.
There is, however, a difference. So far as I've been able to determine, warfare among pre-European Native Americans was never (or were rarely) a war of annihilation. There were territorial disputes and raiding for goods or prestige or captives. Children from enemy tribes were adopted into their captor tribes, as Barcheeampe, sometimes going on to positions of prominence in those tribes. So I don't think tribalism accounts for racism and so forth, at least by itself. I see plenty of tribalism between Duck fans and Beaver fans, but it's not infrequent that they end up married to each other.
Everything is connected, and it seems reasonable to me to think that the dominator model our society has adopted over the course of the last 3000 years or so is integral with racism, and that racism is born in that dominator model, including the fear of people of color (POC's) obtaining equality (or power). And that the same applies to women, or gays and lesbians, or trans people, etc.
What do you think?
This should be a no-brainer: corporations are fictional entities created for the economic benefit of individuals. Yet as the recent Supreme Court decision made clear, our nation has made an incredible mistake in granting legal personhood to these amoral institutions. And the legal personhood of corporations is both a cornerstone of the erosion of American liberty that conservatives (and liberals) decry, and a cornerstone of conservative and Republican policy. It is not a coincidence that Bush II's nominees, Alito and Roberts, both voted for corporations at the expense of people and freedom.
While it's obvious that corporate personhood is an emperor-with-no-clothes, the establishment of it has been a long time coming. The 1886 case, Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific Railroad, opened the floodgates. Note in the preamble to the text from the link that corporate personhood was never argued or discussed by the Supreme Court; it was simply an assertion by one single justice, which completely changed the law and the course of history. The author goes on to say:
"The doctrine of corporate personhood creates an interesting legal contradiction. The corporation is owned by its shareholders and is therefore their property. If it is also a legal person, then it is a person owned by others and thus exists in a condition of slavery -- a status explicitly forbidden by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution. So is a corporation a person illegally held in servitude by its shareholders? Or is it a person who enjoys the rights of personhood that take precedence over the presumed ownership rights of its shareholders? So far as I have been able to determine, this contradiction has not been directly addressed by the courts."
In his book, "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," (buy it here) Thom Hartmann does an excellent job of analyzing the costs and consequences of this great conservative fallacy, so I won't go into detail here. (I highly recommend reading this book – especially if you vote Republican!) Suffice it to say that the nominations of corporate lawyers Roberts and Alito to SCOTUS were not accidents. Their opinions on abortion were nothing but a sop to social conservatives; their unlimited support for the uber-rich and corporate personhood were the keys to their nominations. This is what makes Justice Sotomayer such a great choice, and is the strongest evidence to date that Obama may not be the corporate flunky his policies usually indicate.
The obvious consequence of corporate personhood is the establishment of an entity that is arguably a slave to a position of prominence over free men and women. It is a tool whereby, by amassing resources, a small cabal of individuals can exert overwhelming influence on political and economic policy. Note the resource base of the huge, multi-national corporations shown in the graph on the link to "corporations" above: what individual has any chance of matching that? Or even group of individuals? Yet these entities – some of them not even American corporations (Shell Oil, BP, DaimlerChrysler) – are granted the protections of personhood – but not the responsibilities. Individuals – persons – are fully liable for their actions; corporations, almost by definition, have limited liability.
The outcomes of this travesty are legion, but just to name a few:
To quote Benito Mussolini: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
In other words, yes, Virginia, corporate personhood is the key to fascism. By adopting the cause of corporate personhood, the Republican leadership – though not Republican membership – has unreservedly committed to fascism. You won't find any of the Republican leadership accepting this claim, however. That would be political suicide. Instead, they hide their corporate agenda under popular moral platitudes, and extend support for a cynical, perverted Christianity as a means to deceive and manipulate their own political base. In his book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," Chris Hedges explains how this works.
Corporations are not persons, and they should be carefully controlled, granted limited charters, and restricted from political influence. I stand unreservedly opposed to fascism and the continued erosion of American liberty and secular government. I am a liberal.
*Standard note: I value dissenting opinions as crucial to the maintenance of freedom and democracy. While I would like to write convincingly, to influence opinion and sway the balance of power my way, I also consider the conservative viewpoint to be important and meaningful. I do, however, believe that political discourse does not have to be nasty and vicious. I prefer to listen to and respect my political opponents. I ask the same from them.
In his book "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America," Chris Hedges makes a strong case, backed with evidence, that it is not gays, as Sally Kern would say, or a few Muslim terrorists, as our political leaders would argue, who are the greatest threat to America and American freedom. It is the well-meaning, deluded folks who pack the megachurches of the Christian Right, and give of their wealth and being to the great Pharisees of our time, such as Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. In other words, it is Sally Kern, and a lot of the folks who run around abusing tea instead of putting it to good use in a cup of hot water, not Barney Frank, you need to watch out for. People who believe that the first three chapters of the Bible are the true, literal account of the origin of our species.
I'll clarify that in a bit, but first I want to address the "controversy" between creationism and evolution. After all, Hedges refers to a 2004 Gallup poll reporting that "45 percent [of Americans] said the Genesis account of creation was a true story" (p. 117). Creation museums are sprouting up around the nation, at the cost of millions and millions of dollars. There must be something there, right?
Well, first, let's compare the sources of the two diverse theories, creationism v. evolution. Genesis 1:1 – Gen. 3:24 v. "The Origin of Species," by Charles Darwin.
The first, creationism, relies on two ancient metaphorical or allegorical tales, handed down verbally for eons before getting locked onto paper. The authors of these two stories are lost in the mists of time, as are their intents in creating them. And yes, there are two distinctly different stories here, with different authors and different deities (Elohim & Yahweh), which are also antagonistic to and contradict each other.
"The Origin of Species" was written by a scientist, based on his observation of physical reality, and developed over time by use of the scientific method.
One is myth-based, the other is science- and reality-based.
In other words, there is no controversy. Evolution is not in doubt; it's scientific fact. The supposed controversy between creationism and evolution amounts to no more than the comparison of myth with truth. Apples with oranges. Metaphor with fact. Creationism is bullshit. The effort to require the teaching of creationism in schools amounts to no more than an attempt to degenerate the education system still further, and indoctrinate our children to believe a lie.
But if you look more carefully, you'll see that Genesis and Darwin aren't contradictory or antagonistic at all. They are irrelevant to each other – they address different issues, they talk about different things. "Origin of Species" talks about the physical development over time of biological diversity. Genesis talks about the spiritual condition of humankind, and two contradictory paradigms of human relations. It teaches not to believe a lie.
The first account, Genesis 1:1 – Gen. 2:3, is a beautiful metaphor of God (Elohim) as Love and Spirit (as Jesus taught), and of what Riane Eisler, in "The Chalice & the Blade," would call the "partnership" paradigm of human relations. It begins with light (perhaps metaphorical of the Big Bang), develops from the most basic forms of life to man and woman as both co-equal and co-created, and ends with God blessing all, which is "good."
The second account, Genesis 2:4 – Gen. 3:24, describes metaphorically what Eisler would call the "dominator" paradigm of human relations. It begins with mist. Adam (man) is created first, and God (Yahweh) needs his help to finish the creation. Eve (woman) is an afterthought, created solely for man's service and enjoyment. And at the end, it is cursed.
It teaches not to believe a lie.
It is this second model that fundamentalist Christians have chosen to adopt, and that permeates our culture – a model of male domination over women, adults over children, white people over people of color, rich over poor, powerful men over less powerful men, powerful nations over those nations they can conquer and exploit, greedy men over the earth that sustains us and gives us life. A model that enthrones oppression, cruelty, tyranny, violence, pain, greed, and environmental destruction.
The first Genesis metaphor celebrates the creation of life as the power to be worshipped. The second celebrates death – the destruction of life – as the power to be worshipped. The first celebrates in foresight Jesus's life, work, and resurrection; the second celebrates in foresight his betrayal, trial, and execution.
What would Jesus do?
On p. 113 of "American Fascists," Hedges quotes Hannah Arendt, in "The Origins of Totalitarianism: "The force possessed by totalitarian propaganda – before the movements have the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone's disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world – lies in its ability to shut the masses off from the real world." Expounding on that, he (Hedges) says, "The power of these non-reality-based movements is that they appeal to our deepest-held, most primitive prejudices, or classism, sexism, racism – perversions based on fear of complexity or change. So the propaganda contains much of what we already yearn to believe. Its subversive message is that it's OK to believe what we want, to believe lies." Creationists, by buying into the belief in magic and denying scientific fact, have abdicated their grasp on reality, and thus their responsibility and ability to make choices based on reality, to cynical, power-hungry men who wish to establish in the United States a Christo-fascist state, unlike Iran's Islamo-facist state only in the name of the tyrannical deity they profess to serve.
Read the books. Wake up. And resist.
Awhile back I commented on a post by a guy (conservative anti-gay type) who, in order to defend "traditional" marriage as between a man and a woman only, created the idea that women's equality came about because of their marriages – that "marriage brings equality," or, the interactions women had with their husbands were what led to women's suffrage, not the marching and the protesting and the blood of courageous women spilled on the ground in protest, along with the cultural change these brave pioneers instigated. (Well, what the heck, as the article in yesterday's post reveals, sometimes "marriage defenders" get desperate.) I wish I had found this website while I was taking issue with his fantasy.
OnLawn works hard to make his case, but the No Longer Quivering bloggers, along with their counterparts such as Our Quiverfull, offer real-time examples of how fully patriarchal marriage – traditional marriage, if you will, from the days before women's suffrage and the feminist movement – works. It's true that women often influence their husbands, even under the most oppressive legal circumstance. John Stuart Mill is an example – way back in the mid-1800's, his relations with his wife led to his essay On the Subjection of Women, where he proposed that women should be wholly equal with men. So I have no doubt that OnLawn's argument about marital interactions and relations is correct – for some men. But reading the accounts of the NLQ bloggers shows the flip side; for many – I would argue most – men, the subjection and submission of women in their households leads to varying levels of abuse, from outright physical and emotional abuse to subtle abuse that amounts to no more than fond contempt, such as one might have for a child or pet – the assumption that women are less competent, less able, less intelligent than men.
Where have you encountered that attitude before?
Even when intended with love and nurturance, that attitude damages women and society by preventing the development of the full potential of both men and women.
I have no doubt that many women were in happy, near-equalitarian relationships with their husbands, back when they were legal chattel. But that is a testament to the quality of their husbands, not to the legal disparity between them, or their powers of persuasion. As Lord Acton said, "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely." The moral character of men put in a position of absolute power over their wives must have degraded, damaging them as well as their wives. The NLQ bloggers' experience shows that it still degrades. The indoctrination of women from birth in their inferiority and natural submissiveness, along with the promise of reward in the afterlife for that submissiveness and fear of punishment for being uppity (emphasized in the past by executions of women purported to be "witches"), serves only to gain their acquiescence. It, and their marital relations, do nothing to bring equality. I know of no one who, having power, has given it up without a strong demand – often a violent demand – being made to do so.
The husbands of 100 years ago are no different. Equality – or at least, women's suffrage – was brought by the persistent demand of women, led by courageous women such as Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Baker Eddy, and others.
A few days ago someone posted the following comment on a liberal blog I visit frequently: "This is just more evidence that cons hate everyone except the Great and Holy White Fetus, and even then only if it can be used to oppress its mother."
I responded with, "… conservatives are no more monolithical than liberals … are. There are a lot of libertarian cons who would quite agree with Fannie on this post." Later the same day, I was vindicated by Newsweek. They featured an article written by Theodore Olson, the conservative lawyer who argued Bush v. Gore in front of the Supreme Court. Olson is "attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8." I love this quote from his article: "I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation." I wish him much luck, good fortune, and success.
A couple days later, and I see this at the HRC website. Turns out Colin Powell, Adm. Mike Mullen, and Secretary of War Gates have all come out in favor of repealing DADT. (I love using that phrase with these guys.) 'Bout time, guys!
I don't wish to put down the commenter, nor to say I'm better than anyone else. I'm just using her quote to showcase a common fault I see on both sides. For instance, a conservative blogger puts this in her profile: "I loathe liberals & all deluded nuts who voted for [President Obama]." The problem with painting with only one color is that you inevitably end up painting with the wrong color. And that's counter-productive.
I think what we're seeing may be a tectonic shift in politics – a tipping point, perhaps. It seems likely that the Perry v. Scharzenegger case will make it to the Supreme Court, and Olson sounds excited and optimistic about the outcome. Even with the Court heavily packed with radical conservatives, I tend to agree with him. I think every gay marriage case that has come up recently before state supreme courts – California, Maine, Iowa, Connecticut – has found for the gay couple, and it will only take one or two of these guys to choose the libertarian side of the cons to flip the Court in favor of gay marriage. The implication, emphasized in Olson's effortless evisceration of the conservative case against gay marriage, is that perhaps the judges, with the opportunity to hear the best of both sides of the argument, are more clear on the law, the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment than are the public, swayed instead by 30-second sound bites, fear, and tradition.
And think of this: If Perry makes it to SCOTUS, and the Court finds for the gay couples, the fight for marriage equality is over. Everywhere in the country. State anti-gay marriage laws from Alabama to Wyoming would be struck down, along with DOMA. Pretty cool, huh? Go, Ted!
So we see the complexities of color. The same man may be largely responsible for Bush's illegal usurpation of office and the establishment of marriage equality across the nation. His advocacy for Kristin Perry, Sandy Stier, Paul Katami and Jeffrey Zarrillo already do much to erase the damage he's done before, regardless of his success.
It's going to be interesting.
