All posts by In The Fray Contributor

 

The end of the song

I was sly to tie him; I was strong to hide him ...

The men from Dono’s clan, broad-shouldered and surly, squashed the words between their teeth, and the mere hissing sound left others guessing what had to be obeyed. But they all obeyed Dono. His wish was law. Everyone was shattered under it. At the age of 25, he became the chieftain of the carters of the whole district, and made it clear that he would not endure dissension or disturbance. Dono gathered all his men and, watched by hundreds of eyes, broke the former chieftain’s right hand. The thieves who terrorized the caravans of carts in the Slavic gorge near Sofia were scared out of their wits; a day later, Dono set fire to their homes.
   
One of the thieves, thin and tall like a lamp post and nicknamed Hunchback, became Dono’s groom. The man’s back was crooked; his shoulders were bony and drooping. Hunchback was Dono’s servant and had sufficient nerve to stare at his patron’s face, flooding it with hatred of his black, glowing eyes. Dono found perverse pleasure in egging on Hunchback’s venom; it bespoke weakness, so apparent and tangible, that it had driven Hunchback’s eyes deep into his skull; a thick and lasting impotence that the chieftain could play with.

Woe to Hunchback if Lisso, Dono’s horse, did not jump when the patron caught sunbeams in a mirror and sent them to the shining back of the stallion. Woe to the servant if a single hair of the horse’s tail was entangled with another. Dono knew that his servant’s name was Boris, but never called him by it. “Hunchback!” he shouted, and while the long scraggly man shuffled his bones to answer the call, the chieftain beat the heel of his shoe with a thin willow branch. Black would turn the day for Hunchback if the branch hit the heel of the shoe more than three times.
   
For the past two months, Boris had taken care of Vecka, the chieftain’s wife. She couldn’t stand on her feet. All women from Dono’s clan became ugly a year or two after their weddings. They turned into speechless brooms; canvas sacks from which the young carters elbowed their way into the world. Dono had chosen motherless Vecka on purpose, so that no one would ask after her. For who, Dono thought, would care anything about one snotty brat among 11 others? Her father? Not likely. The old pouch would kiss his feet if the chieftain threw him a coin.
   
Dono did not need a wife’s love; he had squandered passion and jealousy on numerous beauties in Sofia, and got tired of it. He did not need a wife for his bed; the carters’ chieftain could have the best girl in the district. Yet Dono wanted a wife for his house — to make the windows shine and to remove every speck of dust from the floor. He wanted a son from her. He wanted her hands to sweep his stables and her eyes to smile at his guests. He had no relish for talking with her. His wife had to resemble the thieves from the Slavic gorge at whom he took shots with his gun; eight feet away from them he stood, aiming at the forehead. Then Dono could feel his power, which was enormous and straight, like a road without an end.
     
He could never feel that way when Vecka was near him. Coming back home every day, her voice rolled over him: “I was sly to tie him; I was strong to hide him …” It didn’t sound like a song; it did not utter words like a human voice. Not a song, but a tremendous roaring whirlwind threshed through his yard, dashed down the hill, tearing away the roofs of his cousins’ houses, jarring upon his ears, setting his thoughts on fire. He wriggled like a worm with shame. Shame! She made him ashamed! He, Dono, the boss, before whom all carters knelt dumb and tractable! The chieftain, whose word was stronger than the law, the man who possessed more power than the mayor, was made into a fool and a laughingstock. His father had bequeathed all the land of the family to Dono, though he was the youngest of the five brothers. Vecka, his wife … At the very sound of her name he seethed with anger. Year in, year out, she gave birth to girls and filled his house with female rubbish. Whenever he approached his home he could hear her shouting that goddamn song.
   
Rarely, Dono got so enraged that he beat her with his belt. At such moments he tried to imagine her shrieks flooding the quiet houses of his native hamlet and all his cousins would be convinced that he wore the trousers, not Vecka. She thrust her apron in her mouth to stifle the sounds of pain, so he tore up the apron. She then bit the hems of her skirt; he tore up the skirt as well. She learned to bite her fists. Dono could not make her scream. It was the swishing of the belt and Hunchback’s bent figure by the door that gave the sign to the villagers that Dono was teaching his wife to respect silence. And always when the swishing ceased, broken and smashed, as slowly as an ant, a song clambered through the window: “I was sly to tie him; I was strong to hide him …” Then Hunchback’s shallow eyes burned.

Dono didn’t strike his wife beyond a certain point, for he did not wish to waste his youth in jail. When he went out, the noise of his steps still echoing in the lane, his four daughters quietly crooned “I was sly to tie him …,” their voices twisted into a rope that knotted the whole house. At such times, Dono did not feel like lingering at home. He caught sunbeams in a mirror and sent them to the back of the horse, then master and stallion vanished down the road to the pub. Hunchback stood motionless at the door.
   
Once, as Vecka’s stifled sobs made the house split with pain, the servant approached her and offered her some wet rags. He was ashamed to watch how the woman put them on her bruised shoulders. He had seen only her naked arm. It did not look like an arm of a woman; its skin resembled a dry stick with a peeled bark. Yet his shallow eyes saw it otherwise; they swept away the scars, and Vecka’s hand appeared tender and white: the fingers that gave him lunch every day swam before Hunchback, enveloping him with fragrance and peace. Every single patch of land where the woman had stepped seemed to whisper her name.
   
Dono’s mother was never young. When his father got on for 50, he imagined he was no good as a carter anymore and sold his horses. But instead of buying a chandler’s shop as he had hinted earlier, the old goat took a young girl and disappeared. It was rumored that the couple escaped to Greece, and when Dono’s father came back dragging the girl after him and looking boldly at people who lowered their eyes, Dono thought he would kill him. His mother died shortly after that, and Dono could not learn the end of the tale she had begun telling him in his childhood, the only tale he had ever heard.
   
The chieftain detested his memories because every time he let them flood back, he compared Vecka to his mother. Well, his mother was never beaten; she was a drooping heap of decay by the fireplace, and the only sound that compelled her to stir and move about uneasily was the delicate tap-tap of his father’s fingers on the table. “I was sly to tie him; I was strong to hide him …” Was it so? Against his own will, Dono sometimes crooned that song. Vecka’s voice was stronger than his hatred. He never listened further, for that would mean he was an inferior man.
   
The straw that broke the camel’s back was when Vecka cut Lisso’s tail. The horse’s tail that no money could buy! That horse was the only living thing Dono had ever prayed for in his life; Lisso was his friend, the only being that could understand him. The stallion knew everything: Dono’s disgrace in having no son; his panic that some day his chieftain’s hand would not hold firm, and a pert youngster would come and break it, as Dono himself had done to the former chieftain. And his vixen wife had stunted his best friend; the horse with a velvety hide and deep brown eyes that spoke to Dono’s soul, “You are not only a master to me. You are my road, my water, my life. No foul money stands between us. No lies.”
        
Vecka had cut Lisso’s tail! She had destroyed that wild silver whirlwind. No, Dono would never forgive her.
   
How could his father order around his mother, the old grey woman, forcing her to work and toil until every single saucer and piece of furniture shone? When the house was clean, she would squat in the corner, mute and unnecessary like a pair of old shoes. Dono was richer than his father, 10 times richer. So why didn’t the carter break the brown porcelain cup from which his wife drank milk in the morning? Why, Lisso?
   
He’d show her!

The moment before the iron clasp of the belt hit Vecka’s grey dress, someone clutched at Dono’s throat. “I cut the tail!” Hunchback, the servant, was looking at him with his shallow wild eyes.

“You?” the carter hissed back, “You?”

“I cut it.” said the hunchback.

“No!” Vecka shouted. “I did it.”

“Who cut Lisso’s tail!” Dono demanded.

“I!”

“I!”

The voices of his wife and Hunchback roared out together. Dono could hear nothing more. His four daughters were looking through the window like four drab mice. Dono didn’t care. He could hear Hunchback’s husky voice singing: “I was sly to tie him, I was strong to …”

“Stop, please, Boris, stop!” his wife shouted.    What? What did she call him? Boris? That hunchback! That wretch! Boris!

Vecka began singing again. The bitch. The bitch! Her grey dress. Her loathsome dress. Hit it! Trample on it!

Don’t sing any more, eh? What about you, little Boris? You rag!
   
When Dono approached the pub, he imagined he could hear their voices twisted into a knot: “I was sly to tie him …” The song pressed down on him, his breath rasped on his lips. The carter let his horse go and lay down on the yellow grass in the sunburnt field. The hot noon sky reeled and touched the earth that was scorching in the late yellow summer.

 

Afghanistan

Best of In The Fray 2008. "The idealistic, feminist, American part of me wanted to think that something revolutionary had happened. That little by little, each woman student the teacher coaxed to the front of the room was changing Afghanistan. But later, I learned that many of them doubted they would pursue careers after their educations."

 

Is it black art, or just plain art?

Obama’s presidential run reignites race and identity debates in the art world.

 

Though Nnamdi Okonkwo was displaying his sculpture at America’s top black fine arts show, he criticized the event and its audience — even the very idea that “black art” exists.

“I have some problems with shows like this,” said the Nigerian-born sculptor, who was showing his work at the annual Black Fine Arts Show in New York in February. “The majority of people who come here are looking for art that reflects African American history. History becomes part of judging whether a picture is good.”

Okonkwo’s work probably doesn’t fit easily into that story. His bronzed figures of plump females represent the veneration of womanhood, he explains on his website, and were inspired by his wife and mother, not by black identity issues. “Ninety-nine percent of what I do as far as exhibiting my work does not concern [being black],” he said.

The success of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has rekindled all kinds of debates over race, and not just in politics. Headlines and TV broadcasters ask:

“Is Obama black enough?”

“Is America ready for a black president?”

“Does race matter anymore?”

A parallel debate in the arts sometimes leaves black artists feeling pressured to produce work that reflects African American history and identity.

“There is no such thing as ‘black art,’” argued Josh Wainwright, the producer of this year’s Black Fine Arts Show, the major annual U.S. event showcasing art by Africans and African Americans. The show was begun in 1997 to address complaints by black artists that the art world marginalized and ignored them.

 

Asked why there were so few black artists represented in major art galleries, Wainwright, who is black, said he had “a pretty good idea why, and it’s called racism.”

Yet others argue that categorizing the work of African and African American artists as black art is a matter of practicality and salability.

“This is an audience genuinely interested in what African American artists are producing,” said Tony Decaneas, owner of Panopticon Gallery of Photography in Boston. “But as a dealer, I’m torn between putting up work that people will buy, and displaying works that have integrity and are fresh.” Human interest pieces and photos of recognizable figures sell best, but he tries to balance those with lesser-known work.

“There is a disconnect, even in the art world … for black artists who are not necessarily putting out what black people might want to see,” said writer and cultural critic Frank León Roberts. Yet, he said, white audiences are “eating up” avant-garde black art often ignored by black audiences.

The expense of buying original art could be a factor. “I think that, as a community, black audiences would gravitate towards works with black actors and themes related to the black community, so long as it’s actually affordable,” Roberts said.

Sometimes art, music, and theater produced by black Americans “is reduced to the question of how can markets best facilitate getting black butts into seats to watch black people perform black things and black comedy,” said Tavia Nyong’o, a professor of performance studies at New York University. “That then turns blackness into a commodity.”

Painter April Harrison considers her art an expression of personal memories and universal emotions, not black identity.

“My paintings are about love and spirituality,” she said. “My main theme is family bonding, taking you back to a time when love meant something.” Harrison’s work is dreamy and colorful, often depicting children, family members embracing, and other scenes from her home in Simpsonville, South Carolina. Her gallery show “Southern Comfort/Southern Discomfort” in 2007 juxtaposed her images of black Southerners with those by painter Charly Palmer.

Palmer’s paintings are full of sorrow and frustration, anger and hope: several incorporate signs from the segregation era, like “Waiting Room for Whites Only” and “Entrance Colored.”

“I don’t think there is any type of ethnic art,” Palmer said in a phone interview from his home in Atlanta. “Our subject matter just happens to be African American.” The impulse towards labeling things “black art” is a sign that “American society wants to put all artists in a category.”

“When it comes to my art, I paint African Americans, but I’m really painting the American experience,” he said. The idea of “black art” is a sad legacy of racism in the United States. “It goes back to the history of America, when Europeans brought in the Africans as slaves,” he said. “The need for separation has been there from the beginning.”

 

Barack Obama’s speech on race

The transcript of Barack Obama's March 18, 2008 speech responding to criticism of his former pastor's sermons.

The following is the text as prepared for delivery of Senator Barack Obama’s speech on race in Philadelphia, as provided by his presidential campaign.

 

“We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.”

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched America’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars, statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nation’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least 20 more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution — a Constitution that had at its very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law, a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part — through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk — to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign — to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring, and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together — unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction — towards a better future for our children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in Patton’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. I’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the world’s poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners — an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles, and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

It’s a story that hasn’t made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one.

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either “too black” or “not black enough.” We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

On one end of the spectrum, we’ve heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it’s based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we’ve heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation, that rightly offend white and black alike.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely — just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial. They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wright’s comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity, racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems — two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way

But the truth is, that isn’t all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over 30 years led a church that serves the community by doing God’s work here on Earth — by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

“People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverend’s voice up into the rafters … And in that single note — hope! — I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lion’s den, Ezekiel’s field of dry bones. Those stories — of survival, and freedom, and hope — became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn’t need to feel shame about … memories that all people might study and cherish — and with which we could start to rebuild.”

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety — the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity’s services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and, yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions — the good and the bad — of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother — a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not. I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America — to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we’ve never really worked through — a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, “The past isn’t dead and buried. In fact, it isn’t even past.” We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still haven’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between today’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination — where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments — meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of today’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families — a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods — parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement — all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it — those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations — those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politician’s own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don’t feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience — as far as they’re concerned, no one’s handed them anything, they’ve built it from scratch. They’ve worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they’re told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren’t always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze — a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns — this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we’ve been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy — particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction — a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people — that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice if we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances — for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs — to the larger aspirations of all Americans — the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man who’s been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives — by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American — and yes, conservative — notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright’s sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

The profound mistake of Reverend Wright’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. It’s that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country — a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old — is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know — what we have seen — is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope — the audacity to hope — for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination — and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past — are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds — by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle — as we did in the OJ trial — or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina — or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she’s playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

We can do that.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we’ll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, “Not this time.” This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don’t have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn’t look like you might take your job; it’s that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should’ve been authorized and never should’ve been waged, and we want to talk about how we’ll show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

I would not be running for President if I didn’t believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation — the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I’d like to leave you with today — a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King’s birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, 23-year-old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and that’s when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother’s problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn’t. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they’re supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who’s been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why he’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, “I am here because of Ashley.”

“I’m here because of Ashley.” By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the 221 years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Women waiting outside Panzi Hospital sing to God for peace.

When Rape Becomes Normal

Despite worldwide news coverage, the brutality against Congolese women has become standard. Rape has proven to be an effective strategy for the armed groups in the country's unending war.

Click here to listen to podcast.

Women outside Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo
Women waiting outside Panzi Hospital sing to God for peace.

In an open-air hospital waiting room in Bukavu, a city in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 400 women sing a song, asking God to bring peace. They are tired, sick, and ashamed, all of them victims of rape, which has become the disturbing signature feature of the Congo’s unending war during the last decade.

Despite worldwide news coverage, the brutality against Congolese women has become standard. Each day, more than 250 rape victims come to Panzi Hospital to be treated. Dr. Denis Mukwege Mukengere, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Panzi, has found himself at the forefront of the crisis. “You see thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people who are completely destroyed and left lifeless, and you know the world knows about this,” he says. “I’ve begun to lose my faith in mankind.”

He hasn’t always been the spokesman for tens of thousands of rape victims, but it was when he was working in rural areas that the crisis unraveled before his eyes. In the late 1990s, Mukwege saw about fifty women every year who had genital mutilation from violent rape. The war was to blame. “I had never seen women with wounds to their genitals like this,” he says. “They shot them in the vagina or cut them with a bayonet.”

Since then, the number of rape victims has grown “exponentially,” Mukwege says. Rape has proven to be an effective strategy for the armed groups, forcing people to flee their homes. Women who are raped face death, either by HIV (the AIDS virus) or infection. Men face shame, because they are often forced to participate in the rape acts. Villages go empty, except for the children, livestock, and goods left behind as booty for the rebel groups.

Women in beds at Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo
Women recovering from fistula surgery.

Mukwege works fourteen-hour days, seven days a week, and is the only surgeon around qualified to perform complex gynecological surgeries. Twenty-five percent of the rape victims who come to Panzi must undergo surgery to repair their torn tissues, he says.

In the surgery ward, hundreds of thin women lay on metal beds next to each other, wearing threadbare cloths and protected by patchwork mosquito nets. Rubber hoses drip into open plastic buckets at the feet of their beds.

Inside his office, Mukwege speaks with a mix of outrage and exhaustion. (His experiences with rape victims were documented in the 2002 Human Rights Watch report The War within the War: Sexual Violence against Women and Girls in Eastern Congo.) He has been telling the international press about this crisis for years. But despite coverage by the BBC, CNN, and the New York Times, the gruesome violence has turned even more troubling: it has become normal to both the international community and the local people, Mukwege says. “That’s my fear, because we’ve shouted ‘Rape, rape, rape!’ And when nothing is done, it’s total impunity. Those who commit these acts — they know they can get away with it.”

The result is a problem “so vast, but also, in a sense, forgotten, in terms of the international radar screen,” says Pernille Ironside, a child protection specialist for UNICEF in Eastern Congo. “But in reality, what we are seeing in terms of sexual violence in the Congo is unparalleled in any other country.”

Listeners of Radio Okapi, a local station, can listen to daily reports of rape. Mukwege fears the routine reporting is leaving the community numb. His patients have come to see their lives as worth nothing.

Dr. Denis Mukwege Mukengere outside Panzi Hospital in Bukavu, Democratic Republic of Congo
Dr. Denis Mukwege Mukengere, leaving his office at Panzi Hospital.

One woman described her life as less valuable than that of a chicken, he says. “A chicken is someone’s property, and they protect it. And if you kill your neighbor’s chicken, the neighbor says to you, ‘You’re a bad person, why did you kill the neighbor’s chicken?’” the woman explained to Mukwege. “But when I go out and get wood and other things, they just take me and rape me.”

Mukwege says he no longer listens to his patients’ stories. They are too emotionally draining, so he just sticks to performing operations. “I thought I could help them. But in the end, I understood that I got more and more depressed.” He continues to host reporters in between surgeries, but is skeptical of the value.

“I’ve seen important people in this world pass through the hospital,” he says. “I’ve seen them in tears, and then nothing is done.”

UPDATE, 3/8/13: Edited and moved story from our old site to the current one.

 

You Really Can’t Go Home Again

Best of In The Fray 2008. Anya Ulinich’s Petropolis tells the tale of a Russian immigrant’s coming-of-age journey in America.

Anya Ulinich’s poignant and bittersweet debut novel, Petropolis, chronicles a teenager’s coming-of-age as seen through the lens of post-Soviet Russia. Motherhood, cultural and personal identity, and survival are woven into a literary narrative that follows misfit 15-year-old Sasha Goldberg from the Siberian outpost of Asbestos 2 to upper middle-class Brooklyn, only to find she will get what she wanted all along — albeit at a price she never realized she would have to pay.

Lubov Alexandrovna Goldberg’s tenacious grip on the intelligentsia goes, for the large part, unnoticed by her daughter. Sasha’s more preoccupied with her missing father, long-gone for America. Lubov, on the other hand, simply removed all traces of him and behaves as if he never existed. The two live quietly, if combatively, in a small Siberian town where the primary economic activity, asbestos mining, has seen more productive days.

Lubov is obsessed with fitting in, while misfit Sasha suffers the abuse heaped on her by other kids because she’s different; she is biracial, Jewish, and overweight. While Lubov dreams of securing a place for her daughter among the Moscow intelligentsia, Sasha, like any other teenage girl, is preoccupied with boys. She is especially enamored of one in particular who comes from a family that Lubov would never approve of.

Sasha’s unexpected pregnancy sets her story on a trajectory to Moscow and beyond. While Lubov hopes to protect her daughter’s future by raising Sasha’s child as her own, motherhood propels Sasha on a quest for the life that would allow her to reunite with her daughter as the child’s mother. One mail-order bride transaction later, Sasha finds herself unhappily engaged to an American man in Arizona. Once there, she decides to find her father, leading her on a cross-country journey that forces her to ultimately define her own identity and make her own future if she is to survive.

Sasha’s child-like, perpetual hope that Asbestos 2 remains the same while she is away, that someday she will be able to return to her hometown and reclaim the child, Nadia, as her own, evolves almost imperceptibly into an adult realization that things can never remain the same, the visual confirmation of which comes with her final visit to Asbestos 2.

Ulinich’s powerful final chapters synthesize the whole of Sasha’s experiences up to that point, allowing Sasha to cross over that invisible line that separates children from adults, with meaningful, thoughtful prose that resonates far beyond the immigrant experience.

As one character tells Sasha, she does not have to split off her childhood memories, as the key is “living in the world, not in a town.” Sasha counters that all Americans are alike: “You think that where you live is the World” (emphasis in original). Sasha notes that her descendants will merely think of themselves as from “Eastern Europe somewhere” rather than know Asbestos 2. By staunchly affirming who she is and where she comes from, Sasha makes firm her place — and her family’s place — in the world. And in the final poignant scenes, Sasha knows that place — that story that began in the far reaches of Siberia — remains immutable, regardless of her future.

With Soviet Russia and its days of homogeny over, in Petropolis, Sasha is emblematic of the new Russia. A direct descendant of a 1957 cross-cultural youth festival, she is culturally and ethnically different from most inhabitants of Asbestos 2, and she is culturally and ethnically different from most Americans she meets.

Curiously, more than any other theme in the book, it is the push and pull of motherhood that most defines Sasha and her relationships across cultures. In Asbestos 2, in Arizona, in Chicago, in Brooklyn, it is motherhood that binds and divides Sasha and the women in her orbit, setting them up as either ally or adversary for Sasha, and sometimes both. It is her child and the hope for a better future for that child that drive Sasha to survive, be it enduring a loveless engagement or the quicksand of misguided charity from an affluent, socially conscious Chicago family, whose actions imprison her more than what they perceive she must have suffered under Soviet rule.

Ulinich’s vivid descriptions make Sasha’s world come alive. Her ability to juxtapose the barrenness of Siberia with the lush landscape of Arizona, and later with Midwestern woods and Brooklyn brownstones, serves to subtly play up the differences and similarities in geography and culture.

With a comic sensibility, Ulinich’s eye for satire and cosmic absurdity illuminates the narrative in a way that elevates it beyond what most readers might expect from a debut novel. While Petropolis is a bit slow in the beginning and slightly awkward in the epistolary sections, where the narrative gets a bit jumpy, Ulinich, who shares some measure of personal experience with Sasha, as both are Russian immigrants to the United States, offers up a well-told, richly layered narrative that goes beyond the usual coming-of-age story.

 

Cooking like an Egyptian

200802_interact1.jpgTo learn about my heritage, I took classes in Arab politics and history. But they couldn’t make up for what I’d missed in the kitchen.

 

Weaving my way through the cramped aisles of the Middle Eastern import shops near my home, I felt a pang of nostalgia for my family in Egypt. As a little girl, I’d watched my aunts sift through bags of rice and roll stuffed grape leaves into neat logs. But it’s been 14 years since I was last in Egypt. I realized I was an outsider.

Growing up in Virginia with a Scottish mother and Egyptian father, I lived in a blend of accents, skin colors, and tastes. My mother whipped up everything from cornbread and chili to shepherd’s pie and Peruvian stew. I knew the difference between coriander and cilantro by the time I was six, and I could name all the vegetables at the farmer’s market. But Egyptian food was mostly a mystery.

In the Arab world, culinary traditions are usually passed down from mother to daughter, and, far away from his mothers and sisters in Egypt, my father had no way to recreate the dishes he ate growing up.

In college, I took classes on Arabic language, politics, and history. But I was missing something essential.

“I bet my mom’s goulash is better than yours,” one friend boasted.

“What’s goulash?” I whispered to another friend, Sara Elghobashy.

Her large Egyptian eyes widened.

I might have been well-versed in the rise of the Ottoman Empire, but I was a stranger to daily Arab life.

So Sara, raised in New Jersey but born in Egypt, agreed to teach me how to cook like an Egyptian.

Food is a pivotal part of Arab culture.

“I would much rather offer someone a plate of hummus than lecture to them on the geopolitical history of Amman,” says the Jordanian-American author Diana Abu-Jaber, who writes about food in her novels. “I think in the end you probably learn more about Middle Eastern culture — its earthy, delicious, hearty nature — from eating the hummus.”

As Sara and I shopped for ingredients for stuffed grape leaves and Egyptian rice pudding, greater ambitions took hold.

“Why stop with grape leaves?” I thought. “Why not eggplants and peppers and zucchini? Why not kebabs and falafel?”

But wise Sara knew to start slowly. We began chopping onion, parsley, tomato, mint, and dill. Add rice and ground meat, and you have the standard filling for all stuffed vegetables called mahshy. Sara’s roommates and I gathered around the table, and she showed us how to stuff each leaf and roll it into a perfect parcel. Her fingers worked quickly, tucking the green ends in as she rolled, locking all the delicious filling inside.

I gingerly picked up a delicate leaf and plopped a dollop of filling in the center, just as Sara had. But the filling squished out through the edges, leaving me with a messy blob.

“That looks great!” Sara lied, as I placed the blob into a pot lined with onions and peppers to infuse the leaves with even more flavor, a trick Sara got from her mother.

“Growing up, my mother was always in the kitchen, so if you wanted to talk to her, you had to go to the kitchen,” Sara said. “When I got to college, I realized that I could recreate most of the meals just from memory.”

After about five minutes, the pot began to sputter and spit broth. One of my leaves had exploded, spewing rice down the side of Sara’s stove.

For the rice pudding, Sara tossed rice and coconut into a baking dish filled with water and milk. She watched me with a perplexed look as I carefully measured two cups of sugar into a measuring cup.

“I never thought of using one of those,” she said. “All my measurements are from my mother, and two cups for an Egyptian are totally negotiable.”

After about two hours, the grape leaves were tender and the rice inside fluffy. We piled them atop a platter, burying the exploded one at the bottom. Traditionally, a full meal would begin with soup, followed by the mahshy, then either chicken or spiced meatballs called kofta.

The pleasant bitterness of the leaves contrasted nicely with the faintly sweet filling. After dinner, we pulled the pudding from the oven, where it had solidified more than Sara wanted.

“I swear my mother is keeping something from me,” she said while I cut the rice into squares. “No matter how much milk I put in, it’s never as creamy as hers.”

But the pudding was thick and delicious.

Back home, I found an email from my father in my inbox. I hadn’t yet told him about my plan to cook my way into Egyptian culture. But maybe he could smell the rice pudding all the way from Virginia.

“Today I tried to cook rice pudding like my mother used to make,” he wrote. “It didn’t turn out right, though. I called your aunt to ask for help but she didn’t pick up. It’s sitting in the fridge now uneaten.”

“You don’t need to call Aunt Nagwa,” I wrote back. “I’ll teach you when I come home for Thanksgiving.”

And with one click of the send button, I finally felt like an Egyptian.

 

Mitt Romney’s “JFK” speech

Faced with concerns over his faith, Mitt Romney delivered his "Faith in America" speech about politics and religion on December 6, 2007, at the George Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas.

It is an honor to be here today. This is an inspiring place because of you and the first lady, and because of the film exhibited across the way in the Presidential Library. For those who have not seen it, it shows the president as a young pilot, shot down during the Second World War, being rescued from his life-raft by the crew of an American submarine. It is a moving reminder that when America has faced challenge and peril, Americans rise to the occasion, willing to risk their very lives to defend freedom and preserve our nation. We are in your debt. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, your generation rose to the occasion, first to defeat Fascism and then to vanquish the Soviet Union. You left us, your children, a free and strong America. It is why we call yours the greatest generation. It is now my generation’s turn. How we respond to today’s challenges will define our generation. And it will determine what kind of America we will leave our children, and theirs.

Americans face a new generation of challenges. Radical, violent Islam seeks to destroy us. An emerging China endeavors to surpass our economic leadership. And we are troubled at home by government overspending, overuse of foreign oil, and the breakdown of the family.

Over the last year, we have embarked on a national debate on how best to preserve American leadership. Today, I wish to address a topic which I believe is fundamental to America’s greatness: our religious liberty. I will also offer perspectives on how my own faith would inform my presidency, if I were elected.

There are some who may feel that religion is not a matter to be seriously considered in the context of the weighty threats that face us. If so, they are at odds with the nation’s founders, for they, when our nation faced its greatest peril, sought the blessings of the Creator. And further, they discovered the essential connection between the survival of a free land and the protection of religious freedom. In John Adams’ words: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion … Our constitution was made for a moral and religious people."

Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

Given our grand tradition of religious tolerance and liberty, some wonder whether there are any questions regarding an aspiring candidate’s religion that are appropriate. I believe there are. And I will answer them today.

Almost 50 years ago another candidate from Massachusetts explained that he was an American running for president, not a Catholic running for president. Like him, I am an American running for president. I do not define my candidacy by my religion. A person should not be elected because of his faith, nor should he be rejected because of his faith.

Let me assure you that no authorities of my church, or of any other church for that matter, will ever exert influence on presidential decisions. Their authority is theirs, within the province of church affairs, and it ends where the affairs of the nation begin.

As governor, I tried to do the right as best I knew it, serving the law and answering to the Constitution. I did not confuse the particular teachings of my church with the obligations of the office and of the Constitution  and of course, I would not do so as president. I will put no doctrine of any church above the plain duties of the office and the sovereign authority of the law.

As a young man, Lincoln described what he called America’s "political religion" the commitment to defend the rule of law and the Constitution. When I place my hand on the Bible and take the oath of office, that oath becomes my highest promise to God. If I am fortunate to become your president, I will serve no one religion, no one group, no one cause, and no one interest. A president must serve only the common cause of the people of the United States.

There are some for whom these commitments are not enough. They would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do. I believe in my Mormon faith and I endeavor to live by it. My faith is the faith of my fathers I will be true to them and to my beliefs.

Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy. If they are right, so be it. But I think they underestimate the American people. Americans do not respect believers of convenience.

Americans tire of those who would jettison their beliefs, even to gain the world.

There is one fundamental question about which I often am asked. What do I believe about Jesus Christ? I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. My church’s beliefs about Christ may not all be the same as those of other faiths. Each religion has its own unique doctrines and history. These are not bases for criticism, but rather a test of our tolerance. Religious tolerance would be a shallow principle indeed if it were reserved only for faiths with which we agree.

There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the Constitution. No candidate should become the spokesman for his faith. For if he becomes president, he will need the prayers of the people of all faiths.

I believe that every faith I have encountered draws its adherents closer to God. And in every faith I have come to know, there are features I wish were in my own: I love the profound ceremony of the Catholic Mass, the approachability of God in the prayers of the Evangelicals, the tenderness of spirit among the Pentecostals, the confident independence of the Lutherans, the ancient traditions of the Jews, unchanged through the ages, and the commitment to frequent prayer of the Muslims. As I travel across the country and see our towns and cities, I am always moved by the many houses of worship with their steeples, all pointing to heaven, reminding us of the source of life’s blessings.

It is important to recognize that while differences in theology exist between the churches in America, we share a common creed of moral convictions. And where the affairs of our nation are concerned, it’s usually a sound rule to focus on the latter on the great moral principles that urge us all on a common course. Whether it was the cause of abolition, or civil rights, or the right to life itself, no movement of conscience can succeed in America that cannot speak to the convictions of religious people.

We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state, nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation "Under God," and in God, we do indeed trust.

We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our Constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from "the God who gave us liberty."

Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office is this: Does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

We believe that every single human being is a child of God we are all part of the human family. The conviction of the inherent and inalienable worth of every life is still the most revolutionary political proposition ever advanced. John Adams put it that we are "thrown into the world all equal and alike."

The consequence of our common humanity is our responsibility to one another, to our fellow Americans foremost, but also to every child of God. It is an obligation which is fulfilled by Americans every day, here and across the globe, without regard to creed or race or nationality.

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty. The lives of hundreds of thousands of America’s sons and daughters were laid down during the last century to preserve freedom, for us and for freedom-loving people throughout the world. America took nothing from that century’s terrible wars no land from Germany or Japan or Korea; no treasure; no oath of fealty. America’s resolve in the defense of liberty has been tested time and again. It has not been found wanting, nor must it ever be. America must never falter in holding high the banner of freedom.

These American values, this great moral heritage, is shared and lived in my religion as it is in yours. I was taught in my home to honor God and love my neighbor. I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. I saw my parents provide compassionate care to others, in personal ways to people nearby, and in just as consequential ways in leading national volunteer movements. I am moved by the Lord’s words: "For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye clothed me …"

My faith is grounded on these truths. You can witness them in Ann and my marriage and in our family. We are a long way from perfect and we have surely stumbled along the way, but our aspirations, our values, are the self-same as those from the other faiths that stand upon this common foundation. And these convictions will indeed inform my presidency.

Today’s generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation’s forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self-evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty  not as a matter of policy, but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

I’m not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired, so grand, so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too "enlightened" to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe’s churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom … killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: We do not insist on a single strain of religion — rather, we welcome our nation’s symphony of faith.

Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. They were too divided in religious sentiments, what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot. And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God, they founded this great nation.

In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine author of liberty. And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed with freedom’s holy light.

God bless this great land, the United States of America.

 

Their own Sankofa

200711_interact2.jpgGhana woos its black diaspora.

 

When most Americans start looking for their roots, they probably begin by leafing through family photographs or talking with family members. But black Americans are reefed intricately between a montage of history books and countless unanswered questions.

As a descendent of African slaves and white Europeans, the disconnect of my roots comes full circle on the sand where I’m standing now: in Elmina, Ghana. I’m sweating, thinking of ancestors who 400 years ago were so violently deracinated from their homes and scattered around the world. Anger and sadness play tug-of-war for my unknown relatives in Cuba, Haiti, and Brazil.

But the winds of the Atlantic comfort me. I exhale, and release all the horror of past transgressions. It is only through this journey home that I can find peace. It’s my own Sankofa. That’s the word in the local Twi language for going back to your roots.

African Americans like me pilgrimage to Africa each year, hoping to bring closure to our tumultuous past. So many tourists and new permanent residents have arrived that Ghana has developed special outlets to welcome us.
“Our people really have no clue as to what Africa really has to offer,” said Jerome Thompson, 64, president of Ghana’s African-American Association. Johnson, who once lived in Fort Washington, Maryland, said he decided to move to Ghana after he discovered, during visits with his church, how culturally rich the country was. “If African Americans come over with their knowledge, patience, expertise, and work together with the Ghanaians, there’s nothing that they won’t be able to obtain here that they couldn’t do in America,” he added.

Noticing the diaspora connection with Africa, Ghana’s Ministry of Tourism and Diaspora Relations created the Joseph Project to build upon pan-African foundations in the spirit of American civil rights leader W.E.B. DuBois, who took Ghanaian citizenship, and Ghana’s independence leader and first president, Kwame Nkrumah. The project’s primary goal is to celebrate Ghana’s 50 years of independence, and to use 400 years of slave trade, colonial exploitation, and cultural economic strife as a springboard for Africa to reunite with the African diaspora.

“The diasporans are such an important part of African development,” said E.V. Hagan, the tourism ministry’s director of research statistics. “The Joseph Project is the perfect outlet for diasporans and Africans to reconcile their pasts to build a positive future.”

Capitalizing on Ghana’s appeal to African Americans also seems a perfect vehicle for promoting economic development. Some 5,000 African Americans are said to be living in Ghana.

“The AU [African Union] fervently wants to make the Diaspora a sixth region of Africa,” said Dr. Erieka Bennett, founder of the new Diaspora African Forum in Accra.

There are even plans to introduce a diasporan visa, a lifetime visa for those with African roots.
The beautiful plush landscape and black cosmopolitan feel of Accra seems to make the transition easier. And the Ghanaian community embraces the diasporans warmly.

“I feel elated that my brothers and sisters are coming back to Africa,” said Eric Nortey, 30, a Ghanaian who lives in Accra. “Black Americans are my favorites. They are intermediates between black and white. They are finally coming back to build upon the civilization that they were stolen from.”

Despite 400 years of slave trade, 210 million African lives lost, and a complete disconnect from cultural identity, the African spirit has proven resilient. As I peer into the night sky and reflect upon my experience here, something in the distance catches my eye. It’s a curious celestial phenomenon, on a canvas of green, yellow, and red: the Black Star of Ghana. The star is a symbol of hope and life — perhaps a sign to diasporans of our connection to our beautiful Mother Afrika.

 

Surrender monkeys

I don’t know, but like some spellbinder straight out of a Tolkien book, President Bush has worked his magic again.

Democrats were failing to muster the required votes in the House to override Bush’s veto of a war-spending bill last week, and given the sad state of anti-war assertiveness within Democratics on the Hill, it seems Bush’s desired no-strings-attached funding may not be beyond hope.

Despite polls vastly supporting the Democratic positions in the war-torn nation  polls like the April 26 Gallup questionnaire indicating 57 percent of Americans support setting a timetable for removing troops from Iraq, whereas only 39 percent supported Bush’s proposal to keep troops in as long as necessary to achieve victory  the Democratic leadership still appears weary to stake a stand against the administration policy of indefinite deployment.

As Senator Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin told The New York Times, "There is virtually no one in our caucus who does not want to be associated with trying to get us out of this war. The only thing that is slowing some of them is the fear that somehow they will be accused of doing something that will put the troops at risk. The desire for political comfort is still overwhelming the best judgment even of some Democrats."

Translation: The Democrats are so afraid of making any politically exploitable misstep on Iraq or looking soft on national security that they are failing the American people and the troops.

Nothing “supports the troops,” to use the inane slogan the administration PR geniuses coined so effectively, more than getting them out of harm's way in an endless, goal-less conflict which has catastrophically increased instability in the region and continues to aid terrorist recruiters in finding new members.

I am with Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. The Democrats should revoke the war powers granted to the president and send Bush a memo straight from the majority of Americans: The game is up. Add an end to this open-ended debacle and do what is truly best for the troops. Stop making their enlistments and tours of duty in Iraq longer.

The only thing Democrats would surrender by setting a withdrawal date from Iraq, after all, is another failed policy by what history will surely remember as one of our worst administrations.

 

Something borrowed, something new

200705_lethem.jpgA close reading of Jonathan Lethem’s novel You Don’t Love Me Yet.

200705_lethem.jpgA few years ago, author Jonathan Lethem found himself well on his way to becoming the Philip Roth of Brooklyn with his two most well-acclaimed novels, Motherless Brooklyn (1999) and The Fortress of Solitude (2003) — both colorful and incisive accounts of his hometown borough — quickly propelling him into the somewhat reluctant role of a Brooklynite mouthpiece.

It was for this very reason that Lethem felt compelled to set his new novel, You Don’t Love Me Yet, in the complex maelstrom that is Los Angeles. It’s a bold move, not only because of the notorious competition between New York and Los Angeles, but because Los Angeles is a difficult place to penetrate — even for those who live there.

“There’s that famous Joyce quote about ‘artists need silence, exile, and cunning,’” Lethem told me over the phone in late March, “and I guess I’d just been looking for that ‘exile’ part of things; working from the margins, doing preposterous things, disavowing one’s credentials.”

The novel — Lethem’s seventh — stars Lucinda Hoekke, a bass player stumbling into her thirties while living in Echo Park, an up-and-coming, yuppie-hipster Los Angeles neighborhood. Like many of the city’s residents, Lucinda works odd jobs as she tries to make it with her wannabe rock band. Her latest career move is answering phones at the Complaint Line, an anonymous help line conceived by her conceptual artist friend. Eight hours a day she fields complaints from callers responding to randomly placed stickers that read, “Complaints? Call 213-291-7778.” (The number really works: Try it.)

It’s there that Lucinda falls for a regular caller named Carlton Vogelsong — affectionately nicknamed “the Complainer” — who confides to Lucinda at length about his sexual escapades, but also about his feelings of emptiness and dissatisfaction with life. The Complainer also happens to be a professional slogan writer and, indeed, his utterances beguile the wayward Lucinda, who makes note of them and passes them on to her band’s lead singer and songwriter. The Complainer’s words soon become the lyrics for some of the band’s best songs, calling the material’s ownership into question as the band starts to grow more popular. As the songs take on a life of their own, no one is quite sure just where they originated.

The plotline recalls Lethem’s essay “The Ecstasy of Influence,” which was published in the February 2007 issue of Harper’s Magazine. The essay explores the phenomenon of cultural borrowing and appropriation, and the effects of intellectual property rights. “The demarcation between various possible uses is beautifully graded and hard to define,” wrote Lethem in that essay, “the more so as artifacts distill into and repercuss through the realm of culture into which they’ve been entered, the more so as they engage the receptive minds for whom they were presumably intended.”

Appropriation is essential to creative vitality, Lethem reminds his readers, and strict copyright laws are consequently detrimental to artistic innovation. The essay urges consideration of the world of art and culture as a sort of public commons, impervious to possession by a singular person. “Copyright is a ‘right’ in no absolute sense; it is a government-granted monopoly on the use of creative results,” writes Lethem. “Whether the monopolizing beneficiary is a living artist or some artist's heirs or some corporation’s shareholders, the loser is the community, including living artists who might make splendid use of a healthy public domain.”

In that spirit, Lethem has initiated a project through his website called Promiscuous Materials that offers up his stories and lyrics at no cost for other artists to use, rework, and reinterpret at will. Already, artists such as One Ring Zero and John Linnell from They Might Be Giants have recorded songs to Lethem’s lyrics, and some short films are in the works.

Lethem has also recently announced that he will option out the film rights to You Don’t Love Me Yet to a filmmaker of his choice in exchange for just 2 percent of the profits once that film is made. In addition, both he and the filmmaker will give up ancillary rights to their respective creations five years after the film’s debut. By offering this nontraditional option, Lethem hopes to spark a reexamination of the typical ways in which art is commodified. “I also realized that sometimes giving things away — things that are usually seen to have an important and intrinsic ‘value,’ like a film option æ already felt like a meaningful part of what I do,” he writes on his website. “I wanted to do more of it.”

Lethem is not the originator of the battle against the increasingly tight grip of copyright laws; he points to Open Source theory and the Free Culture Movement as influences, as well as longtime collage artists like the American experimental band Negativland. But as a successful mainstream author, Lethem is a uniquely compelling advocate. “Almost everyone you find clamoring for strengthening the public domain or for reexamining the regime of intellectual property control that’s so typical right now is not so much like me,” Lethem told me. “I think there’s a really kind of sad abdication of this conversation by more established artists. That’s why I felt that I had a role to play in this talk.”

Projects such as Promiscuous Materials and the You Don’t Love Me Yet film rights option are potent responses to the rampant propagation of intellectual property rights — more effective, probably, than the latent messages encoded in the plot of Lethem’s new novel. It would be easy to create parallels. For instance, in the book, when the Complainer learns that the band’s hit songs contain his lyrics, he burrows his way into becoming a member — “Do you want to destroy the band?” the drummer asks the Complainer when he claims credit for the songs. “How could I want to do that?” he responds. “I basically am the band.” But this unpopular addition results in the band’s demise. Thus, the Complainer’s aggressive move to assert creative ownership ultimately destroys the artistic product.

Yet Lethem is quick to downplay the connection. “Of course, it comes out of a similar instinct, but it’s not like the book was written as a heavy way of bearing down on any idea. It sort of glances off those thoughts. But the book is, I hope, a little too frisky to seem like it’s got a big and ponderous agenda like that.”

As advised, it’s best to read You Don’t Love Me Yet as a light and playful “sex and rock ‘n’ roll” novel rather than overestimate its relation to Lethem’s crusade against what he calls “usemonopoly.” Though some reviewers are dismayed by the novel’s slightness as compared to the wondrous complexities of Lethem’s more major works such as Motherless Brooklyn and The Fortress of Solitude, it is not definitively disastrous for an author to maintain some equilibrium of tone and substance. As the Complainer says in the novel, “You can’t be deep without a surface.” Jonathan Lethem has sufficiently proved his depth as a writer; let us allow him his surface.