Commentary

 

Confessions of a female boxer

How I didn’t fight like a girl.

 

 “You’re too perty to be boxing,” the tall, chiseled, handsome, broad-shouldered white man teased. He spoke his words slowly, almost slurring them — Southern style — past my ear. From the corner of my eye, I sized up the woman he was addressing. She was around 5-foot-five, slender, and curvaceous. Her smooth chocolate skin was complemented by a thick black ponytail that rested in the dip between her shoulder blades. Her outfit was color-coordinated and probably name brand: a double-layered, two-toned pink and green sports bra visible under a sheer T-shirt, and green jogging shorts that stopped just short of her crotch.

The perty woman had expected to be seen in the gym and did not want to disappoint. Nice ass, I thought, but legs way too skinny.

Her powdery smell and nice clothes were quite a contrast to the dank atmosphere of the gym and to the rest of the amateur boxing class of 12 students. We were a motley crew in cutoff denim, faded sweats, soccer shorts, and a variety of “wife beaters.” Until that night — six months into my training — I had been the only female student in the class.

Our coach looked deeply into her eyes and then rolled his gaze over the rest of her body. She smiled and blinked her eyes quickly as she adjusted her awkward fight stance. Maintaining his intense eye contact, he stepped closer to her and moved her gloved hands farther apart. As he did so, I watched his fingertips glide slowly along one of her forearms into the bend of her elbow. There was more blinking and smiling from her, but I thought I saw her shoulders slump as he walked away. It was obviously her first day. Boxing moves feel and look unnatural for the first week or so because you have to unlearn the instinct to strike first with your strongest hand.    

The coach then moved toward me and stood directly in front of my poised, gloved fists. 
 
“Okay, let’s repeat the combination,” he instructed the class. “Jab, cross, and hook on my command.” He was checking each person’s form and speed. “Go!”

I too worked hard not to disappoint.

“Keep your elbows tight on that hook,” he told me before demonstrating. He curled his back slightly and bent his knees for balance and mobility.

“You don’t want to leave your face open when you hit, see?” His eyes peeked over his large bare knuckles for a second before his three punches shot through the air. The muscles in his neck and arm flexed through the thin T-shirt.

“Pshew! Pshew! Pshew!” He forced air through his teeth in loud whispers with each skillful punch.

“Push from the shoulders and curve at the waist. Let your body give you the force, so the arms don’t have to do all the work. Always protect yourself. Go!”

This time I felt the strength of my whole body concentrated in the motion of my arms. I pushed my fists through the nose of my invisible opponent and then finished her with my right hook to the temple. It felt good to be in such powerful control of my body.

He glanced into my eyes, nodded his head, and moved to the next student. I am not too pretty to be a boxer.

I am 5-foot-nine. My shoulders are broad and my arms toned. My dreadlocs are pulled back with a headband. My thigh muscles bear the mark of resistance training. Though I could never be mistaken for a man, I embrace my masculine edge in a way that helps me blend in with the guys in the gym. My form, my precision, my “don’t fuck with me” face as I hit the heavy bag, can be very attractive to people who know what to look for in a fighter. I see the men — other trainers, semipro competitors, as well as some in my class — smiling and leaning their heads together to whisper while they watch me move. One or two of them usually comment to me directly, saying with innuendo: “Take it easy on your (sparring) partner” or “I hope I don’t get too close to you!”

As you can probably tell, I like — even seek — their approval. This desire to be acknowledged by men is a dirty little secret my lesbian feminist sensibilities will only admit to in the context of boxing. I know that the lesbian boxer is oh-so-clichéd, but this is a relatively new passion for me. I only began this training when running became too painful. It was not because Laila Ali or Ann Wolf inspired me, or because I’ve always had a repressed wish to be in the ring. In fact, being a fighter is the opposite of my usually inhibited personality. 

However, my body — tall, broad, black, and inclined to muscularity — can be intimidating for some people, but until recently I’ve never been conscious of that. Now that I’ve been boxing for awhile, I delight in the fluid motion of my swing, the way I feel as I “stick and move” around the heavy bag. This physical confidence spills over into my daily interactions. When I am dissatisfied with customer service, for example, I complain with my arms folded or throw the most piercing look I can summon. People usually react the way I want by either leaving me the hell alone or stammering their apologies.

I never had that kind of relationship with my body as a runner.

This brings me back to the perty girl. The coach continued with his flirtatious compliments throughout the class, and she never returned. I have thought of her often since that day. It occurs to me that she should be celebrated in a sport that can also serve as self-defense because she’s the type of woman many men assume they can victimize or dominate. She should be encouraged to feel comfortable in being seen as strong, athletic, and attractive. Too often we are perceived and treated a particular way based on only one of those characteristics from our early girlhood. Pretty girls do not fight and, as we are told in so many ways, strong girls are not pretty.

Instead of flirting with her, the coach should have instructed her the way he would have any novice male student: with patience, critical feedback, and affirmation of her potential. Yeah, she was attractive. So what? His response to her made her self-conscious and affected her performance in that already very masculine environment. His attitude represents mainstream culture’s view that only certain types of women — those with big muscles, a heavy build, or an unattractive face — are acceptable outside of traditional feminine roles. When is a man ever considered too attractive for any given activity?

And what about my response? Assuming that she believed him, what should I have said or done as a witness to this crushing of her desire to learn? I should have made some witty retort to put him in check for his sexist behavior. I should have shown some female solidarity because I knew better than anyone else what it took for her to have shown up in the first place. It was weeks before I felt completely comfortable there.

But my confession is that I didn’t say anything. The truth is, I reveled in the contrast her perceived weakness created between us. Because she was perty, I was by default a natural. Actually, most of the men, even the skinny ones, hit harder than I do and have better form. This is because, biological considerations aside, boys are generally taught the basic principles of boxing throughout boyhood, in the rough-and-tumble “play fighting” that goes on between male siblings and friends or with uncles and father figures. With few exceptions, girls are taught to expect protection from those same relationships.

I must confess that I failed myself and my classmate in that moment. When we stand idly by and witness that kind of behavior without intervening, we become passive participants in the act. Women have been fighting for centuries for equal treatment and equal opportunity. So if I find myself in that situation again, I’ll have to be faster on my feet. I’ll speak up. I’ll stick and move, bob and weave, “sting like a bee.” I confess I was too busy being one of the guys when I should have been fighting like a girl.
 

 

Writer in exile

Three seasons away from freedom.

 

It was fall in Mongolia, and the dusk falling round the State Department Store, the central meeting place in the capital city of Ulaanbaatar, made it hard to see anyone’s face — not that I knew what the man I was supposed to meet looked like. I had just arrived for the year to work with writers, and my desire to see the creation of a Mongolian branch of International PEN was shared by Dugar, an Inner Mongolian writer living in New York City.

The two of us had never met. Dugar got my name from the Freedom to Write and international programs director Larry Siems at PEN in New York when Dugar called to ask about the possibility of establishing a Mongolian PEN Center. Larry happened to know I was in Mongolia, trying to make that very idea a reality. Dugar emailed me and asked me to look up an Inner Mongolian writer living in exile from China, in Ulaanbaatar: Mr. Tumen Ulzii Bayunmend. I thought the two were friends, but later I’d find out that Dugar knew of Tumen Ulzii because Tumen Ulzii was a prominent essayist — he wrote about the Chinese government’s actions toward Inner Mongolians — and a leading figure in the People’s Party of Inner Mongolia.

The man I met in front of the State Department Store didn’t look like a refugee, which goes to show how many assumptions I had. Tumen Ulzii has an open, smooth, and youthful face. We wove through the crowds of young people hanging out in front of the State Department Store, and made our way onto Peace Street and into a melee of knockoff sunglasses stands and Korean restaurants. That night at Broadway Pizza, with only the most basic Mongolian words under my belt and about ten English words under his, Tumen Ulzii and I relied almost entirely on pens, paper, an electronic dictionary, beer, and universal gestures for conversation.

Tumen Ulzii is keen and quick. He told me about himself first, then about his move to China, his wife and daughter who are still there, and the books he wrote about race and politics that brought Inner Mongolian fans in from the countryside just to meet him. These same books precipitated a ban on his writing in China and the police raids on his office and home after he left China for Mongolia in 2005. The reason so many Inner Mongolians speak out against the Chinese government — or would like to — is the long history of oppression like that suffered by Tibetans; the effort for cultural preservation, expression, and autonomy among ethnic minorities has often led to clashes with the Chinese government, and Tumen Ulzii’s story is just one of many.

Differences between Inner and Outer Mongolia

The country of Mongolia is the territory once referred to as Outer Mongolia, and the territory of Inner Mongolia lies in China. The size of the difference between Inner and Outer Mongolians depends on who you ask.

Inner Mongolians see themselves as part of a larger Mongolia, but this view is not shared by the Outer Mongolian public, and anyone from any part of China is at risk here due to a sentiment proven by the “fucking Chinese go home” graffiti outside my apartment, and the recently acquired black eye of my young Chinese friend Li, who is here to study. Ulaanbaatar is a small city, and Tumen Ulzii, audibly from a Chinese region, does not feel safe.

Language differences between the two are also apparent; Tumen Ulzii speaks differently from Outer Mongolians. Inner Mongolian dialect has a “j” sound where Outer has a “ts” sound, and the pronouns are a bit different. Inner Mongolians still use the traditional Mongolian vertical script for everything from school notes to street signs. Tumen Ulzii, also fluent in Japanese and Chinese, is confounded by the Cyrillic type used here in (Outer) Mongolia. My Mongolian teacher, Tuya, is the only younger Mongolian I’ve met who knows traditional Mongolian script well. Though the Cyrillic type was instituted here in (Outer) Mongolia only in 1944, it has taken deep hold. The pages of Tumen’s notebook, however, are covered in the rows of lacy black script whose vertical nature, Mongolians say, makes you nod yes to the world as you read instead of shaking your head no.

Refugee situations are not easy

On a much colder and clearer day in January, Tumen Ulzii and I walked the five minutes from my apartment to the Mongolian branch of the United Nations (U.N.). Uniformed men in their early 20s guarded the compound. Even without my passport — I had left it on my dresser to remind myself to get more pages at the American embassy — they let me in. Tumen Ulzii and I crossed an eerily quiet parking lot filled with white vans to a pink, Soviet-style building, where the receptionist asked about my lack of documentation. We walked into the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) office, whose walls were home to UNICEF posters and the air smelled of coffee, and I asked one large Mongolian man, Mr. Och, what the holdup was on Tumen Ulzii’s refugee status.

Refugee situations are never easy, and this was no exception. Mongolia does not have an official UNHCR branch, only a liaison office, so the decision to grant Tumen Ulzii refugee status had to come from the nearest branch, which happened to be in … Beijing. Mongolia also has no provisions for asylum seekers in its law, so as long as Tumen Ulzii remained one, he was at risk of deportation and then punishment at the hands of the very government who had its police officers storm his house and strip-search his wife.

Tumen Ulzii has not been the only one. His friend Soyolt, another Inner Mongolian dissident, was arrested on January 7, 2008, upon touchdown in Beijing on a business trip. Soyolt was in the impenetrable world of arbitrary detention without charge or trial somewhere in China for the next six months while his wife and three children remained powerless here in Ulaanbaatar. He was allowed one phone call back in January, and he reported that Chinese officials had told him that if he made a fuss or alerted any foreign media, things would get worse.

The imminent Olympic Games in Beijing seems to be both a blessing and a curse for Chinese dissidents: Attempts by the Chinese government to silence them during the buildup to the Olympics has increased, but for the lucky dissidents who get noticed by the international community — a community currently paying extra-close attention to China and its human rights record — the imminence of the Olympic Games can help their cause.

Mr. Och at UNHCR told me to secure a letter of support for Tumen Ulzii from Freedom to Write at PEN in New York, and that a decision should come in the next week — something he would tell me for three months. Afterward, Tumen Ulzii and I went to get a beer. Tumen loves that I like beer. It was midafternoon, but around here people drink beer at lunch — at least the demographic I work with (read: middle-aged male writers).

Bayarlalaa, minii okhin,” he says. Thank you, my daughter. “Sain okhin,” he says. Good girl.

Visiting with friends and family

Tumen Ulzii is extremely intelligent, but there are some things he says that boggle me. He can understand lesbianism, but not male homosexuality, and he wants to know why it exists, and how the sex happens. He thinks Hitler’s fine, since he wasn’t as bad as Stalin. He likes President Bush, purely because Bush is the president of the United States.

He does have a few good friends here. Uchida is a gentle Japanese man and a great friend of Tumen Ulzii’s. I met with both men several times at the pub around the corner from where I live. Uchida, who studied in Inner Mongolia, showed me cell phone pictures of his four-month-old baby — the baby and her mother live in Japan. When I wrote up a bio of Tumen Ulzii to forward to PEN’s Freedom to Write program, the men checked it over, with Uchida translating, while I dug into fried meat and rice. Though they are both in their 40s, they looked and sounded like school buddies hunched over a cheat sheet, casual and affectionate. Afterward, I told them I needed to go and clean my floor. They told me they would like me to stay and drink beer with them instead.

“Do tomorrow,” Uchida said.

“What do tomorrow?” I asked, and at the same time, one man mopped with an invisible mop and the other swept with an invisible broom.

Tumen Ulzii had Tuya and me over for a real Inner Mongolian dinner at his modest and bare but immaculately clean apartment, which was on the worst side of town, near the black market. To begin, he gave me a bowl of milky tea with some kind of grain cereal at the bottom. This was suutetsai, a dish nomadic Mongolians have at every meal, which consists of green tea, milk, and salt. He then surprised me by thumbing off pieces of meat from the boiled sheep leg on the table and dropping them one by one into the bowl, something he kept doing throughout the meal. It wasn’t half bad, once I expanded my mindset to one that included garnishing something like crunchy Cream of Wheat with mutton.

The second time I visited Tumen Ulzii at his home, I came by myself during the February holiday of tsagaan sar (“white moon” or “white month”). He had invited me weeks beforehand to be present on the first day of his wife and daughter’s 10-day visit. He and his daughter Ona, a delicate university student speaking very good English, picked me up in a taxi (which in Ulaanbaatar is usually a beat-up stick-shift car driven by a regular guy who could use a thousand or two tugriks). We stopped for groceries; he wanted to get beer for me and he wanted Ona to have one too, like me, something which she does not usually drink and which I tried to stop drinking.

On the way up the stairs, Tumen Ulzii took us one floor too far, then couldn’t figure out why his key didn’t work, and Ona gave him grief for it in universally understandable tones. That night Tumen Ulzii came alive, bickering with Ona, their voices singing in Mongolian and Chinese across the kitchen. Tumen Ulzii is immensely proud of his daughter; she tested into the top 10 percent of university students in China. I took videos of them singing traditional Inner Mongolian songs and smiled at his wife, a quiet geography teacher a few years older than Tumen Ulzii. I felt guilty for knowing what was done to her at the border the last time she visited her husband, trying not to imagine it now that I had seen her tired face.


An official refugee, at last

Spring 2008 … not spring by the standards of my home in California — it snowed last week — but sunny enough for sunglasses as I waited for Tumen Ulzii in front of the State Department Store. He approached in a long black coat and shades that made him look like a spy in a big-budget movie. He smelled my cheeks, the customary Mongolian greeting, and as we walked away from the throngs, he said, “Min! United Nations, okay!” and put his thumb up. I whooped and called Och, who confirmed the news. Tumen Ulzii had become an official refugee, eligible for resettlement. The letter Larry Siems at PEN Freedom to Write in New York sent expressing concern about Tumen Ulzii had been crucial to the decision.

To celebrate, Tumen Ulzii took me to a Korean restaurant. He laid several strips of fatty meat (Mongolian meat always comes this way) on the griddle set up at our table. My Mongolian was better than it was six months ago when we first met, but we still did a fair amount of the gesturing. He raised his beer, pronouncing me an Inner Mongolian daughter.

Resettlement, yes. But where?

Uchida comes and goes from Japan every couple of months, always with new pictures of his child to show Tumen Ulzii. Their friendship thrives despite distance, so when Tumen Ulzii resettles, there is no doubt they’ll remain in touch. Meanwhile, Tumen Ulzii’s keen to know which presidential candidates are leading in my country, and overjoyed that Obama is dark-skinned. He now wonders where I think the best place to resettle would be. America? He mimes an injection into his arm, then, reading from a book, puts his arm high into the air: “Hospitals and university fees are high in America.”

Resettlement can be a long and difficult process. Canada or Europe, we hope. He is very concerned that Ona go to a good university. He loves dogs, but can’t have one here — somewhere he can have a dog. Tumen Ulzii insists that when I visit Hohhot next month I stay with his wife.

Sain okhin,” he says, kissing the top of my head. Good girl.

 

 

 

District of despair

For some, Washington, D.C., considered the capital of the free world by many, is all about missed opportunity.

Washington, D.C., is, to date, my greatest failure. My Waterloo. More aptly, perhaps (if you want to remain on the firm soil of American history), my Bunker Hill. 

To those unlike me, D.C. isn’t a site of lost opportunities, but instead stands tall as the capital of the free world — a shiny beacon of white, pristine hope, symbolic for those wishing to flee from tyranny and seek out more fruitful pastures. Even in the face of multiplying criticisms and America’s perceived antagonism in the arena of world politics, millions around the globe still look upon the city’s magnificent landscape and see the representation of lofty achievements and dreams that can be accomplished from very little — or, more often, nothing — returning their longing gaze. D.C., with its air of inherent optimism, is many things to many people.

But to me, it represents failure.

No, I’m not concerned about the uncertain swampland of its foundation, nor plagued by its notoriously oppressive summer heat; it’s not even the inadequacies of the fumbling judicial system that leave me feeling on edge. Rather, it’s the fact that I’ve been to this city-state four times and have yet to actually see or set foot upon anything touristy, noteworthy, historically significant, or otherwise. The Capitol Building? Washington Monument? White House? Nope. On four consecutive occasions, these tributes to democracy have eluded me with the swift, lethal precision of a top-tier CIA agent.

The first time I ventured forth into the District of Columbia was in eighth grade, when a seriously flawed plan to send 200 suburban Detroit middle-schoolers to Washington, D.C., for only one day was conceived and executed. Over the course of a single 18-hour period, every member of Anderson Middle School’s eighth-grade class piled into a charter flight, which appeared to be on par with the Wright brothers’ plane in terms of safety features, and set forth, bound for our nation’s capital. Upon landing, we spent the day learning what the district looked like from the inside of a tour bus, whizzing along at 70 miles per hour. For an uncommonly generous allotment of 45 minutes, we were allowed to teeter on the edge of Arlington National Cemetery, which was, on this particular day, roped off and closed to the public, due to an elaborate military ceremony which would probably have been interesting to watch, had we been allowed within 80 feet of it. Without any historical context for the site or ceremony imparted upon us by our chaperones, we let our inquisitive eyes fall over the closed gates, and the agenda pressed onward.

The next stop on our itinerary, naturally, included a quick interlude for some regional food at Taco Bell, followed by four hours of sitting in the lobby of the Smithsonian, waiting for the chaperones to regroup and, more than likely, figure out how to cast their charges as liars when the story of their ineptitude eventually made its way back to the parents. By the time we flew back to Detroit that evening, I was already drafting a complaint letter to my congressman about the abysmal state of public education in this country.

So it was that inaugural foray into D.C. that set the precedent for repeated disappointments. I returned to Detroit feeling angry, frustrated, deceived; utterly betrayed by what was supposed to have been a whirlwind tour full of sightseeing and wonder. As a child, I had grown up worshipping the aura of D.C.: Both of my parents were — and still are — active political junkies, and my little brother and I lived in a household where MTV was forbidden, but the personalities on Capitol Hill and National Public Radio were revered as demigods. From the time I could start stringing sentences together in my mind, I idolized political nerd-icons like John Adams, Thomas Paine, and especially the man on the money, Benjamin Franklin. In school, I continually impressed my teachers and befuddled my classmates with my ability to drop names like Newt Gingrich and Walter Mondale into casual conversation.

Washington, D.C., was therefore something I felt entitled to. It was always supposed to be mine — setting foot upon the same city where so many great leaders had lived and governed was not just my privilege, but my God-given right. Yes, to my 12-year-old self, I had been endowed by my creator with certain unalienable rights, and the most valuable of these was to visit D.C. — I was the girl who would have far preferred the license to vote over that to drive.

Years later, putting aside my battered feelings of rejection, I decided to attempt a calculated foray into D.C. again at the age of 21, but this time, on my own grown-up, self-mandated terms. My second trip to the District took place during the summer of 2006, when I traveled by Amtrak to visit a close friend who was working in the city for the National Breast Cancer Coalition as an unpaid intern. Seeing as how summertime in D.C. is about as climate-friendly as a hot tub on Mercury, we could barely manage to coax our sweat-stained flesh out of bed each morning, let alone go out and see the sights. Alas, my desperation to traverse hallowed ground could not match my lust for the arctic blast of air-conditioning. The closest encounter I had with an authentic D.C. experience occurred when Danielle, my friend’s ultra-right-wing roommate (for whom Hitler would not have been conservative enough), participated in a number of antagonistic staring matches with my Seven Sisters college-attending, rugby-playing, woman-loving friend. These showdowns happened while Danielle was in the midst of preparing to go see Sean Hannity deliver a speech — although, according to Danielle’s plaintive whines, poor Sean’s political views just didn’t make the “conservative enough” cut. (Perhaps he and the Führer could have, in an alternate universe, commiserated over beers together.)

Trip number three to D.C. only served as a stopover on the way to New York City. As I watched its tantalizing skyline rush by through the tinted windowpane of a Chinatown bus, I shook my head in disbelief that my favorite city — by proxy — was yet again slipping through my fingertips. It was like digging through an overflowing goldmine and not being able to clasp the riches within the clench of my palm. Another gold rush, vanishing into the horizon like a dreamy, beautiful mirage. I was an eager miner without a prayer.

Trip number four occurred on Groundhog Day, 2008, just after Punxsutawney Phil disappointed millions by seeing his shadow and thus selling far fewer novelty beer steins than usual. The purpose of this fourth and as yet final trip was to see two of my favorite stand-up comedians — Michael Ian Black and Michael Showalter — perform live on a double bill at a historic synagogue on I Street. While I have yet to set foot on Capitol Hill or see the likeness of the Lincoln Memorial depicted on anything other than a snow globe, I am proud to say that the historic — it’s historic! — I Street Synagogue has felt the tread of my foot and has been absorbed by my tourist’s eye. And while the evening ended on a decidedly happy note, I could not help but pay acknowledgement to the familiar sensations of disappointment and loss that always seemed to accompany any association I might have with the city itself. Yet again, I had approached the heart of D.C. only to be turned out at the last minute — an outcast lost among insiders. Perhaps it was my lot to be a continual immigrant — not crossing from one country to another, but still hoping against hope to slip through the invisible threshold undetected. For the fourth time in my scant 23 years on earth, I had found myself on the wrong side of the deportation proceedings.

Washington, D.C., has thwarted my efforts of exploration four times. Each journey leaves me feeling unfulfilled, wasted, and spent, but yet I continue to remain completely enthralled by the city’s imposing presence. It has failed me as much as I have failed it, but I somehow manage to abide by a strange sense of optimism, in the hopes that one day I will achieve my American dream and conquer the mystical city. Someday, I will make the long-overdue pilgrimage to reclaim what is mine — what has always been mine since the days of my childhood. Modern America may sport a reputation for brutish arrogance and impatient action, but perhaps those who judge us as hotheaded have forgotten that nearly a decade elapsed before independence was obtained from Britain. If our founding forefathers could wade through indecision, treason, war, and suffering, then surely I can remain faithful until the District is ready to embrace me.

These days, whenever I encounter D.C.’s iconic image, emblazoned with hope before my eyes, I turn eastward and punctuate the atmosphere with my determined fist, saying “You will be mine. Someday, you will be mine.”

 

Buenos Aires

Best of In The Fray 2008. Throughout its roller-coaster history, Argentina has counted on one constant: tango.

His rancid odor, of midnight smoke soaked in days-old liquor, broods around me. Somehow, intense smells at either end of the spectrum incite the same reaction. Heavy cologne. Sewer water. It’s the same. The man dangles a bottle in his trembling, muddy hands, and tumbles toward me. And his beard — his beard is the bearer of many wandering nights, like this one. I prepare to sidestep him as he approaches me, but the zigzagging couples shish-shinging their feet on an improvised dance floor detour his path.

El tango te llama,” he growls as the swarm of tightly embracing dancers swallows him. The tango calls you. This tango, in Plaza Dorrego in San Telmo, Buenos Aires, nestled under the sweet daze of dim lights, is carried on the bandoneón’s (a free-reed instrument) cry through the whistling tree leaves, transpiring in the streets where Argentina recovers seven years after its gravest economic crisis.

Maybe it’s the fetor. Maybe it’s a drunkard’s aphorism. Maybe it’s the distorted lament pouring out of an old record player or the newness of my milonga (tango gathering) journey’s first stop, but here under the muted Buenos Aires sky, I feel close to the heart of tango, which perhaps beats more intensely after a testing ordeal. This tango is mortal, with flesh and sweat and stench, too human for the imagination — at least for my glamorous fantasy.

“Tango is a one-way journey,” Romina Lenci cautioned me before my trip. “You don’t come back.” Romina has surrendered to that fate; she has danced tango for more than a decade, and she sees no return. But that just emboldened me. I guess I’m just as intoxicated with the possibilities of tango — with the romanticism of surrendering to a stranger, with the relief of not knowing where I’m going and not caring — as any other rookie. But I have another morbid yearning: I want to confirm the doomed Argentine cycle, epitomized in the back-and-forth, twisting steps of tango. Tango, after all, is the well where Argentine thinkers and corner drunkards look for la argentinidad, the country’s identity. I wonder how, through all the nation’s upheavals, Argentina’s signature music and dance resonate in its people.

I throw a furtive look at Guillermo Segura, who, in utter contrast with the drunkard, stands stoically beside me, his tall, clean-cut silhouette squeezing through the mountains of shadows that stand shoulder to shoulder on the dusty wooden dance floor. Languid feet fly like birds over the peaks and valleys. Guillermo, eyes half-closed, remains silent, but occasionally blurts out little snippets about tango, about his life.

He started dancing tango after he separated from his partner.

He despises the old-fashioned tango rituals.

He’s just waiting for Argentina’s next crisis — economic or political.

A crisis every 10 years

Tonight, nothing seems to surprise Guillermo. Not this decaying lushness, not all the hype about his country’s miraculous recovery. In early 2002, the value of the peso dropped 75 percent. Five presidents took office in 10 days. Half the country fell below the poverty line. Five years later — an outstanding amount of time to come out of the mess that was Argentina — the new president, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, seems to continue Argentina’s new chapter, which was started with her husband, Néstor Kirchner. But even this new chapter is tainted by doubt (reports about misleading inflation numbers emerge) and pessimism (economic gains still haven’t solved pivotal social issues).

And to that, Guillermo seems to stand unfazed; he submerges himself in tango and waits for the next low. “Every 10 years there’s a crisis,” he says. It’s a learned line that almost every Argentine disguises as a self-sabotaging joke. “It’s mathematical,” he grins as he counts in his head — just a couple more years. I wonder if he could smell the storm coming: In March, Argentina’s farmers went on strike — four months into the new president’s term — leaving Argentina’s stores and pantries empty.

To survive their tribulation, many Argentines are pinning their hopes on tourism to bring the country’s economy back to health. Tourism, an industry that boomed after the recession, is Argentina’s third source of revenue, bringing in more than $4 billion dollars in 2007. And in times of crisis, improvisation — as always — came in handy; the tango scene was reinvigorated with an increasing number of lessons and clubs. From three-figure tango packages at the Buenos Aires Hilton, to shows in La Ventana and Madero Tango, to low-key, low-budget classes in hostels such as Sandanzas, tango is the well Argentina is drawing from for its selling essence as well.

Its people, however, can’t help but cloud those hopeful signs with skepticism.

Here, in the half-lit Plaza Dorrego, in a culture of muffled extremes and controlled debauchery, nothing appears to have changed, yet everything has happened. Signs of the nation’s revival are clear though fragile, as they lie alongside the scars: graffiti decrying corruption and calling for presidents to step down scratch historic buildings; a beautiful boy huddling in a corner, eyes shut, lost.

Avenida Corrientes: a twilight zone

Having seen enough, Guillermo tries to figure out our way out of the labyrinthine cobblestone streets of the tango barrio (neighborhood).

“San Telmo disconcerts me,” he mutters as we dodge the cracks on the impossibly narrow sidewalks. We move swiftly, breathe in the spring’s silvery air, leave block after block behind us, cross over spilled garbage, pass the tumultuous Plaza de Mayo, where pigeons flock during the afternoon. Their flight, a mirage of lazy days, deflates the brewing intensity of innumerable protests. Then, the ever-expanding Avenida Corrientes, that decadent boulevard that harbors the porteño* sensibility and broods tango, unfolds before us.

It is around 10 o’clock; the streets are waking up for the famous Buenos Aires nightlife. There is no better stage than Corrientes to showcase its contradictions: the glitzy theater plays and hectic nocturnal revelry amid the constant rummaging of cartoneros (collectors of cartons) among the garbage. How true that old tango song, “Tristezas de la calle Corrientes,” sounds now:

¡Qué triste palidez tienen tus luces!
¡Tus letreros sueñan cruces!
¡Tus afiches carcajadas de cartón!

What sad paleness your lights bear!
Your billboards dream of crosses!
Your posters are cardboard laughter!

It’s like a twilight zone, la argetinidad and the blinding lights in an unusually deserted Corrientes. The street widens, and on its concrete horizon rests the translucent Obelisco, defiantly piercing the blue night. Guillermo is warming up to me now and is more talkative. So I ask this question, which I figure these days is as normal as asking how someone is: “How did you survive the crisis?

With a nonchalant tone, he said he was OK.

A physicist at an oil company. OK.

Did he want to leave, like the 300,000 who fled the recession?

“I like having a place to belong to.”

Buenos Aires is his home. And that’s that.

Tango: resignation and rebellion

We leave Corrientes and descend into the dim grotto of the subte, the metro. Our next milonga is several stations away. Encased in this metallic worm, blank stares and lifeless expressions seem to fade in the fluorescent daze as time creeps by with each lulling revolution. A slender Asian girl sits across from us, her black-tight legs crossed, her hair entangled in a bun, and in her lap, a tango-shoes bag. I can’t wait to get out.

As the train makes a stumping stop, Guillermo points out that just a few blocks away are the villas miseria (slums), which ironically are what the most luxurious buildings look out over. After the crisis, many moved into shantytowns and have not come out.

He falls silent, again.

I wonder if Guillermo’s deadpan expression and sporadic blasts of laughter are a disguise for that ingrained melancholy so well known in tango, an amalgam of resignation and rebellion to a condemned cycle: 1966 — rise of military dictatorship; 1976 — dirty war; 1989 — economy melts down; 2002 — half the population falls below the poverty line after years of illusory bonanza.

“Every 10 years there’s a crisis,” I remind myself; I’ve heard it so many times.

That roller coaster of a history resembles the ocho (figure eight) that milongueros (tango dancers) draw on the dance floor. With each dip it confirms what writer Ezequiel Martínez Estrada once said: “[Tango is] the dance of pessimism … the dance of the monotonous great valleys, of an overwhelmed race who, enslaved, walk these valleys endlessly, aimlessly, in the eternity of its present that repeats itself. The melancholy comes from that repetition.”

La Glorieta: scene of contradictions

Ten blocks and a subte ride later, we arrive at La Glorieta, a pavilion in Barrancas de Belgrano, one of the well-off parts of town. La Glorieta is a milonga hot spot during summer and spring. On this late October night, it’s packed. A nerdy-looking guy twirls his partner, the girl from the metro, counterclockwise. She does the caminado (walking) with her eyes closed and the side of her head glued to her partner’s.

I look around. It’s fair ground: all ages, nationalities, and skill levels. Amateurs, who stay in the middle, to veteran tangueros, who loop the outskirts of the round pavilion — and all with baggage, with something they need to forget.

“The milonga is a place that gathers very special people, lonely people, whose heads are a quilombo [mess],” says Romina, whose ancestors have danced tango for as far as she can remember. “Some people go to therapy, others go to milongas.”

In the months after the latest crisis, Romina noticed differences in the milonga scene: some perfunctory, some profound. To dance, people didn’t fix up as nicely as before. But they would go to the milonga after a cacerolazo, where, banging pots and pans, they would protest against the government.

La Glorieta is getting crowded. I huddle in a corner, still insecure of my tango skills and still rusty with the do-you-want-to-dance rituals. Guillermo has already done a few rounds. From one end, he spots me, and with an energy I haven’t seen before, he walks toward me grinning and introduces me to Regina Alleman. Poised as a delicate tulip, Regina talks with that Argentine cadence and glides her slim frame in the arms of a milonguero. I think Regina is porteña* until she says she moved here from Switzerland two years ago, following the call of tango.

It was the paradigm that attracted her. “The city, like tango, has this contradiction: joy and sadness, people that are open and people who are mistrustful [living in the same place and time].” Though she arrived three years after the economic meltdown, Regina can still perceive the fear in people. “However, [the crisis] did yield something positive: People live in the moment.”

In this moment, beads of sweat glide down foreheads, heels and sneakers mingle in a poetry of movement. It’s been almost an hour since I arrived at La Glorieta, and the crowd is overflowing. The music — a mix of old and new tango — fills the plaza: Los Reyes del Tango, Juan D’Arienzo, Orquesta Fernández Fierro, Osvaldo Pugliese, and an occasional batch of salsa, rock, or swing between rounds of tango.

My eyes sweep through the swarm of milongueros, and suddenly they meet with the stare of a woman leaning on the fence. Señora Ramona, a 50-something porteña who lives nearby, frequents La Glorieta, but not as often as before, she tells me. She fears for her safety; the streets of Buenos Aires have roughened up. I ask for her last name. She declines. And then she hugs me, tells me to take care, and walks away. I grin as I begin to savor the charm of tango’s contradiction.

Yo soy el tango de ayer…” I’m the tango of yesteryear, an old man sings.

The last note dies away, but lingers in memory. The crowd spreads to all directions, and I reunite with Guillermo at the foot of the stairs where a line of girls are taking off their heels and changing into tennis shoes. Sandra, a petit brunette with a quick smile, packs up her tango shoes and pulls out a map from her bag. We join her and agree to go to Porteño y Bailarín, in Riobamba.

The night is young.

A sad thought danced

On the meandering route 29 bus, our newly formed trio navigates the clogged veins of a proud, bruised Buenos Aires, the city of Jorge Luis Borges, of “the uncertain yesterday and different today,” the home of 11 million souls. A bump, a turn, a stop. I begin to feel Buenos Aires’ beat. Through the fingerprint-stained window, I see patches of light and darkness; European-style buildings and unassuming houses; shadows swallowed by the light of a night lived as day.

Porteño y Bailarín bears a more formal demeanor than La Glorieta. Guillermo is not fond of this smoky place: He doesn’t like the old rituals, like the cabeceo (when a man asks a woman to dance with a head movement), that are still practiced in traditional milongas, and the two dance floors — one for veterans (all dressed in dark attires, sitting stoically at minimalist tables) and another for the younger, rookie crowd, squeezed in the back.

Sweet cologne, aired wine, used air. We make our way through the hall. I’m smelling smelled odors; I’m seeing seen scenes. A few heads turn, murmurs tickle our ears as we scurry among tables. I’m walking walked paths, of immigrants, of prostitutes, of taxi drivers, of pathologists, of seized memories. In the back, we find a spot. Is this la argentinidad? Squeezed between social lines, among the cracks of a tired valley, walked over time and again? Reinventing, reducing, resuming the journey to a known end?

Extremes, in the end, meet at the same place.

“Do you tango?” a man asks me from his corner, skipping the cabeceo ritual, breaking conventions.

“No,” I say from my end. I’m tired. I’m afraid. I’m not ready to plunge into the endless walk of tango. Not tonight.

But Guillermo, despite his reservations about the place, lunges into a tango with Sandra. It’s better to dance than to stand still.

“Tango is a sad thought you dance,” Enrique Santos Discépolo once said. The venerated tango lyricist’s simple definition is in each step Guillermo propels and Sandra anchors — two shadows merged in their solitude, furling, breaking the monotony of the green walls that shelter their ephemeral escape from reality.

I silently count the number of years to the next crisis. Five or four. That omen invariably hangs over every Argentine’s head. But this night is old and tango is alive in Buenos Aires.

Guillermo walks me to a corner and helps me grab a cab back to my hostel. We promise to see each other the next day; we’d never fulfill it. I hop in the taxi. The city shines through the cab’s window. The humid streets emanate a heavy, fishy mist, and once in a while I’d see dead pigeons on the sidewalks.

* Porteño/portena refer to an inhabitant native to Buenos Aires.

 

 

Stimulate social justice

Ten ideas for putting your tax rebate check to good use.

InTheFray Magazine You may or may not think that the stimulus checks the government is sending out this month make good economic sense, but either way, you’ve got to decide what to do with the extra 300 to 600 bucks. You could buy yourself a bottle of 1980 Dom Perignon, for instance, or take yourself and 29 friends to see Speed Racer. But in case you want to put some of your windfall to work for a good cause, here are 10 specific, action-ready ideas:

1. Feed the grassroots.
Send your money directly to the people who need it by using the online system at GlobalGiving.com, which pairs "average Joe" donors with grassroots charity projects around the world. It’s eBay meets foreign aid, with projects searchable by topic, country, and a host of other criteria. GlobalGiving has just launched a resource page and a relief fund to help victims of the Myanmar/Burma cyclone, which has left up to 1.9 million people homeless, injured, or vulnerable to disease and hunger. www.globalgiving.com

2. Offset yourself.
Worried about climate change? Whether you’re reducing your own carbon footprint, you can use the cash to buy carbon offsets, which fund projects designed to counteract atmospheric pollution and global warming. Carbon Catalog provides a long list of providers and information about transparency and verification. www.carboncatalog.org

3. Help the troops phone home.
Think "support the troops" has become a platitude? Do something real to help servicemembers serving abroad by paying for their calling cards so they can keep in touch with their families back home. If you don’t have a person in mind, look at the bottom of this page for ideas: thor.aafes.com/scs

4. Fight poverty.
While the government has decided to give most people a tax rebate, families of few means will receive smaller checks, and sometimes nothing at all. You can make sure resources go to the people who need it most by making a donation to the Low Income Investment Fund, which helps low-income communities develop in a sensible way and avoid the poverty trap. www.liifund.org

5. Fight racism.
Want to do something concrete about racial injustice in the United States? The Applied Research Center advances racial equality through research, advocacy, and journalism. Their work helps to change both policies and minds. www.arc.org

6. Fight homophobia.
If you think that human rights should include the right to love, consider donating to the Astraea Lesbian Foundation for Justice. Astraea supports social justice in the United States, and organizations that benefit LGBTI communities worldwide. www.astraea.org

7. Don’t donate it … loan it.
Microcredit is a burgeoning field that fights poverty by making small, targeted loans in order to foster entrepreneurship in developing countries. Two organizations (one for-profit and one non) offer you the chance to personally finance some of those loans. Your investment may even make a little money at the same time. www.kiva.org / www.microplace.org

8. Do more than talk about Tibet.
Speaking out against China’s record on human rights is a good start. But why not put your stimulus check where your mouth is? A donation to The Tibet Fund will deliver needed resources to the educational, cultural, health, and socio-economic institutions inside Tibet and the refugee settlements in India, Nepal, and Bhutan. www.tibetfund.org

9. Nurture young minds.
Support the arts as a way to empower young people by giving your tax rebate to Girls Write Now, a creative writing and mentoring organization for high school girls in New York. www.girlswritenow.org

10. Support independent media.
We’re not too proud to suggest it: Donate to your friendly neighborhood nonprofit online magazine! www.inthefray.org

Update: Another worthwhile use of your tax rebates would be donating them to help victims of the recent earthquake in China, which has left tens of thousands of people dead or missing. Consider donating to the International Response Fund of the American Red Cross (www.redcross.org), Mercy Corps (www.mercycorps.org), or World Vision (www.worldvision.org).

 

Views on politics and religion from around the web

While the intersection of politics and religion is the theme of this month’s InTheFray, a quick look around the Internet makes it clear that we’re not the only ones talking, thinking, and writing about it.

ReligionLink

“ReligionLink is produced by the Religion Newswriters Foundation, the educational arm of the Religion Newswriters Association (RNA). It is funded by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts. RNA is an independent, nonpartisan organization of journalists, who cover religion for the secular media.”

Religionsource

“The American Academy of Religion operates Religionsource, which is supported by Lilly Endowment Inc. and The Pew Charitable Trusts. Religionsource provides journalists with prompt referrals to scholars who can serve as sources on virtually any topic related to religion.”

The Roundtable on Religion & Social Welfare Policy

“Formed in January 2002 with a grant from The Pew Charitable Trusts to the Research Foundation of the State University of New York, the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy was created: ‘To engage and inform government, religious and civic leaders about the role of faith-based organizations in our social welfare system by means of nonpartisan, evidence-based discussions on the potential and pitfalls of such involvement.’”

Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life

“The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, launched in 2001, seeks to promote a deeper understanding of issues at the intersection of religion and public affairs.”


“Religion & Politics,” The Pew Forum

“The United States has a long tradition of separating church from state, yet a powerful inclination to mix religion and politics. Throughout our nation’s history, great political and social movements — from abolition to women’s suffrage to civil rights to today’s struggles over abortion and gay marriage — have drawn upon religious institutions for moral authority, inspirational leadership and organizational muscle.”

“According to an August 2007 poll by the Pew Forum and the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, the vast majority (69%) of Americans agree that it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs. However, a sizable majority (63%) opposes churches endorsing candidates during election campaigns. Just 28% say churches should come out in favor of candidates, but that number has grown slightly since 2002 when only 22% held this opinion.”

“‘First Freedom First’ Offers 10 Church-State Questions to Ask the Candidates,” Americans United for Separation of Church and State, February 2008

“This year’s crop of presidential hopefuls has talked about where they go to church, how they interpret the Bible, what they pray for and other spiritual matters.

“But where do they stand on crucial religious freedom issues like ‘faith-based’ initiatives, ‘intelligent design’ and church-based politicking?”

Spirituality

A blog hosted by Utne magazine with a regular roundup of faith-based topics.

 


Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

One Vote Under God: The Role of Faith in the 2008 Presidential Campaign

“One Vote Under God attempts to provide a comprehensive, interactive portrait of the ways in which faith has been invoked in the race for the White House in 2008.”

 

 

“Who Would Jesus Vote For?” The Nation, March 24, 2008

“In a time when the much-ballyhooed evangelical political machine shows unmistakable signs of flying apart and scattering in uncertain directions, here was a momentary return to the old order.”

“Obama and the Bigots,” Nicholas D. Kristof, New York Times, March 9, 2008

“Yet the most monstrous bigotry in this election isn’t about either race or sex. It’s about religion.”

“Can Religion Lead to Peace?” Marshall Breger, Moment Magazine, October/November 2007

“Like the dog that didn’t bark, the absence of religious content speaks volumes about the assumptions that drive conventional diplomatic wisdom in Washington. Foreign policy professionals instinctively recoil at the notion that religion can or should play an important role in foreign policy. They see religion as a ‘private matter,’ according to Tom Farr, former director of the State Department’s office of international religious freedom, ‘properly beyond the bounds of policy analysis and action.’”

God-o-Meter, Beliefnet.com in partnership with Time Magazine

“The God-o-Meter (pronounced Gah-DOM-meter) scientifically measures factors such as rate of God-talk, effectiveness — saying God wants a capital gains tax cut doesn’t guarantee a high rating — and other top-secret criteria (Actually, the adjustment criteria are here). Click a candidate’s head to get his or her latest God-o-Meter reading and blog post.”

“Religion as a political weapon,” David Domke, USAToday, December 3, 2007

“Though the Founders sought to avoid the communion between politics and faith, presidents of the past three decades have thought, and acted, otherwise. Carter ran proudly as a Southern Baptist but honored the church-state line while in office. But beginning with Reagan, that distinct line began to fade.”

Mitt Romney in a speech at the George Bush Presidential Library, December 6, 2007

“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.”

“Politicians Can’t Serve Two Masters,” Randall Balmer, WashingtonPost.com, February 22, 2008

“I see precious little evidence that any of the candidate’s declarations of faith — all of them claim to be Christians — have a direct impact on their policies.”

“Faith & Politics: After the Religious Right,” E.J. Dionne, Jr., Commonweal, February 15, 2008

“Notice what is happening here: the new politics of religion is not about driving religion out of the public square. It is about rethinking, again, religion’s public role. It is the latest corrective in our ongoing national debate over religious liberty, not a repudiation of religion’s social and political role.”

“Reclaiming God,” Mimi Hanaoka, InTheFray, June 25, 2005

“With 63 percent of church-going Americans voting Republican, it seems self-evident that the vocal and visible Christian right would enjoy a monopoly on political influence. Now Patrick Mrotek has decided to pit faith against faith and has founded what he hopes will be the voice of the Christian left: the Christian Alliance for Progress .”

“President Bush’s God,” Mimi Hanaoka, InTheFray, May 22, 2006

“‘I worked for two presidents who were men of faith, and they did not make their religious views part of American policy.’”

Eleanor Roosevelt on religion, InTheFray, November 30, 2006

“…the domination of education or of government by any one particular religious faith is never a happy arrangement for the people.”

 

The Founders’ attitudes toward religion, by Jill Lepore in The New Yorker
"Far from establishing a religion, the Constitution doesn’t even mention God. At a time when all but two states required religious test for office, the Constitution prohibited them. At a time when most states still had an official religion, the Bill of Rights forbade the federal government from establishing one. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were controversial when they were written and they’ve been controversial ever since…."

 

The Black Church Arrives on America’s Doorstep

Best of In The Fray 2008. What Obama’s race speech didn’t acknowledge.

Presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) makes a stop at the Iowa Veterans Home in Marshalltown, Iowa.

Those who personally witnessed Barack Obama’s Philadelphia speech on race were riveted by what many consider to be an address of historic importance. Given the sobering nature of the moment, ovations from the Constitution Center audience were few and far between. However, at least one remark by Obama drew applause: It was his recalling of the well-worn saying that the “most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

This truism pushes out beyond the pews and continues to be played out long after Obama’s speech ended. Whether critical or laudatory of Obama’s words, the predominantly white editorial voices in the mainstream press largely agreed that Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s comments were scandalous, racist, and far afield of sober public opinion.

On the other hand, many of my fellow black folk and people of color understand why Obama had to distance himself from Wright’s remarks, but they don’t necessarily disagree with those remarks themselves. (In the same way, many people of color understand that Michelle Obama’s comments about being proud of the United States for the first time in her life were politically clumsy, but not the least bit unreasonable.) They might not openly discuss this around an integrated office watercooler, but such expressions of sympathy with Wright’s point of view can be found in side conversations at the office, inside people’s homes, in Internet chat rooms, and in the barber shops and hair salons that Obama references in his speech. And despite Obama’s claims to the contrary, this conversation is happening across generational lines, among the embittered and the upbeat alike.

Even the comments by Wright considered to be the most incendiary — the idea that the violence directed against Americans on September 11, 2001, was karmic comeuppance for America’s legacy of imperialism and violence abroad — resonate widely in the black community and in houses of faith. Just like Obama condemned Wright’s remarks, Elijah Muhammad sanctioned Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X because he made the “chickens coming home to roost” comments about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, comments that also tread on what is considered to be sacred political ground.

Reverend Wright is hardly a fringe figure on the American religious scene. The church where he pastored until recently, the Trinity United Church of Christ, has over 10,000 members. The reason Wright’s views figure so prominently at Trinity and countless other black churches is because the black church, going back to the time of slavery, has always been the place where black folks have indulged in conversations considered subversive.

Furthermore, Reverend Wright is not unlike countless other kente cloth–clad ministers throughout the country with sizable followings who are critical of everything from right-wing politics to hip-hop music. These messages are inseparable from a promotion of self-determination, self-help, and self-love, which some might dismiss as Black Nationalism.

In the same way the black church incubated so much political activity during the civil rights movement, Trinity United Church of Christ was compelling enough to Barack Obama that he was a member for 20 years and gave tens of thousands of dollars to it. For politically conscious black folk — particularly members of the middle class who are acutely aware of glass ceilings — their church can provide a space where racial justice is viewed in spiritual terms, a sanctuary where hard truths can be spoken and where righteous political action can be inspired. The Bible — a text that champions struggles against state power, oppression, and injustice — is the perfect trumpet of this message.

While Obama bravely waded deeply into the waters of race, he profoundly understated how much Reverend Wright speaks for a great deal of black people across the country, including Obama himself. That is something from which neither America nor candidate Obama can hide.

Mark Winston Griffith is senior fellow for economic justice at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy.

 

Is there a religious test in politics?

Responses from our contributors and readers.

We asked contributors and readers to answer this question, which refers to the U.S. Constitution ban on a “religious test” to hold public office in America. The question could be answered as narrowly focused or as generally as desired, touching on the interplay between religion and politics in American society — what’s good and what’s bad about it.

Here are their responses. Join in and add your comments and opinions. What do you think?

 

Larry Jaffe , writer and Poet Laureate for Youth for Human Rights
(Los Angeles, California)

From the United States Constitution, Article VI, section 3:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

In my humble opinion, we have lost the meaning of religion, and those who “swear” by their faith believe more in dogma than the spirit. Thus, “religious test” would not even be an accurate statement given today’s standards. It is not religion we see mixed with politics, but dogma. It is not appreciation of God or spirit, but a belief system one must adhere to in order to belong to the “winning” side. Religion, in the truest sense of the word, is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. Politics of late, and perhaps always, certainly lacks moral code; simply witness the latest presidential primaries.

Furthermore, religious tolerance, perhaps one of the most important aspects of being religious, is all but abandoned. It is important to treat another’s religion as you wish yours to be treated. We have seen that when religious dogma mixes with politics, we lose all sense of religion.

Ryan Fuchs, mechanical engineer, blogger (Minneapolis, Minnesota)

The religious views (or lack thereof) should be no more relevant to their office than their sex or the color of their skin. The drafters of our Constitution understood this and bothered to state exactly that quite clearly. Many voters, however, are happy to be comforted with the knowledge that someone thinks as they do beyond the pertinent issues. In order to gain sway with this group, a candidate will advertise their religious beliefs. This has become the norm in elections of late. So much so that a growing number of people think the Constitution should be altered to make faith in a god necessary. I think that’s as silly as the desire to teach “creationism” in public schools. You’re free to have faith in whatever you choose. So am I. And so is anyone running for a public office.

John Amen , writer, musician, and founder and editor of The Pedestal Magazine (Charlotte, North Carolina)

Well, in theory politics and religion aren’t supposed to mix; i.e., a politician ought to be able to run a successful campaign regardless of his or her religious leanings. But we know that isn’t the case in America, at least currently. Bottom line, you’re not going to get elected to any significant office in America unless you espouse Christian principles. Clearly this is the case as far as getting the Republican vote but, in the end, I think it’s true with the Democratic vote, too. If you’re not a “Christian,” you’re fundamentally “the other,” regardless of all the PC talk, etc. This might change at some point. I mean, we’re looking at having a woman or African American in office, so that’s huge progress. Perhaps we’ll experience progress, too, in the relationship between politics and religion. But right now, if you espouse too loudly anything that departs from what’s considered essentially Christian, you’re probably not going to get very far.

Shawn Sturgeon, writer, author of Either/Ur (The River City Poetry Series) (Denver, Colorado)

There has always been an unofficial religious test for political candidates in the United States, since in the broadest terms, religion is concerned with the morals and values of a community. The question that challenges each generation of Americans is this: Who will write the test? We find the nature of the conflict over religion in American political life in two contradictory mottos engraved on the money we spend daily — “In God We Trust” and “E Pluribus Unum.” The first motto represents one way of deciding who writes the test: Let a single group with a sincere but narrow ideology determine the candidate who best represents “the good life” as they understand it. The second motto represents another approach: Respect differences of opinion and practice while achieving a consensus that “the best life” excludes no one. Personally, I favor the latter approach, but what does a poet know? Now I need to get back to chasing beaches and flowers.

Pris Campbell, writer , clinical psychologist (West Palm Beach, Florida)

If we’re talking theoretically, yes, of course they should. A candidate should be judged on his or her qualifications, alone. That’s not the way voters’ minds work, though, and sometimes with good reason. It’s only human nature to look at a candidate’s beliefs/religious associations, since we feel, at some level, those two things could play a role in political decisions. Take the flap with Obama’s minister, for example. When I saw the videos of him denigrating white people, calling us the U.S. of KKK, saying that 9/11 was a punishment … well, to know that this man was like family to Obama floored me. It also dramatically increased my leeriness about his potential presidency. A white minister could never be televised making racial statements and not damage a close political friend in the process. Obama has only said that his friend had the right to say what he thinks (which he does), but he’s not gone further, as of this writing, to say he disagrees adamantly with the anti-white statements.

The flap with Obama’s minister is even worse than when John Kennedy was running for office. The outcry was “Do we want the Pope to run our county?” I still remember that campaign. People were terrified over that issue. Now, if a Catholic ran, it would be a moot point. I wonder how a candidate who was close friends with a TV evangelist telling us he’s been called by God to collect money from little old ladies living on tiny SS checks would fare? Bottom line, beware of your bedfellows. Religious or not, they may kick you in the kneecaps when you least expect it.

David Paskey, graphic designer and songwriter (Chicago, Illinois)

I am not a fan of labels, so while I am reluctant to call myself a “Christian,” I would say that I aim to be a follower of Christ. My beliefs are not just an area of my life; I see them as something that runs through all of the parts of my life and the decisions I make. But I think it is important that a candidate realize that she/he would be serving the whole of the populace, those of many backgrounds and beliefs, including the belief in no God. So it is important to make choices that best serve the basic human rights and needs of the populace, while using one’s personal beliefs as a motivator to continually seek what is best for the public. I do not think it right to require a person to adhere to any belief in order to hold office. However, I feel it is human nature that people tend to elect a person who seems to hold their common interests and beliefs at heart, whether those beliefs be Christianity, Islam, Agnosticism, Scientific Inquiry, etc. Who the “right person for the job” is seems inextricably tied to the voters’ own beliefs. But once elected, it is important to remember that you serve the whole of society, not just the people who believe as you do or elected you.

Barton Smock, InTheFray contributor (Columbus, Ohio)

Is there a “religious test” in politics? One that can be passed, anyway? I don’t think so.  Voters have their pencils, and boxes that mark a soul. And politicians sharpen those pencils accordingly. If a test exists, it is merely of a need to get the right students in the classroom. I don’t doubt that many in office hold personal, strong beliefs of moral content in regards to religion, and vice versa, but I am not one to believe that these personal beliefs are on display in full. They are parsed and directed. And when they are on display in full, when they are not personally exclusive, they are uncompromising and damaging. See the current administration. And, in a possible misquoting of a William Stafford poem, the Aztec design has God in a pea that is rolling out of the picture. We say god is everywhere, but how did he get out of the pea? What I believe has been given to me, mostly, by others. So, as humans, I think it is our responsibility to remain human.  The internal is more external than we think. If one wants to name it god, or post it on the refrigerator like so many totems, so be it. God should be in the picture, so long as he remains in the pea.

Joel Lowenstein (Charlotte, North Carolina)

I believe strongly in the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. This separation is the fundamental difference between a theocracy and a democracy. The question of whether we are, as a people, to follow the dictates of conscience or those of organized religion can be a contentious one. We must only look at history to see the failures of governing from a religious pulpit. The puritans left England to escape religious persecution; at that time the government and the church were practically one and the same. The safeguards written into the First Amendment were put there to protect the citizenry from religious intolerance, to prevent religious prejudice and persecution.   There should be no political religious test, lest we fall prey to religious zealotry or xenophobes and are all decreed heretics.

Joel Lowenstein is a military veteran who was conscripted into the service during the Viet Nam era; he was honorably discharged from the service in 1972. He resides with his wife and two daughters in Charlotte, North Carolina, where he currently is the owner and president of a for-hire maintenance repair, home improvement corporation.

 

Muslim/Mormon

Best of In The Fray 2008. Caught between heritage and faith.

I remember sitting in Wisconsin while the coup in Iran was being broadcast on television in February 1979. Bearded clerics and their black-clad disciples had their fists and banners in the air, while they forced the Shah into exile and the country into a Muslim theocracy where politics and religion became married. I was just nine years old, but I remember thinking, “Don’t hurt my people.”

I was born in Iran, sometime in December 1969. Only days after my birth, I was left on the doorstep of a police station in Gorgan. The authorities took me to the capital, Tehran, and put me in a government-run orphanage that had been founded by Empress Farah Pahlavi, the wife of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi.

Then one day in 1976, I was pulled out of school and driven back to the orphanage, where I met a short dark-haired woman wearing a rain coat and glasses. She spoke a strange language that made me giggle. Later she would tell me that I reminded her so much of her son David when he was that age, that she immediately knew I was the one she wanted. The Holy Spirit had guided her to me, she said. Indeed, she believed the Holy Spirit had led the family to Iran just so they could find me.

At the time, the family was living temporarily in the industrial seaport town of Bandar-e ’Abbas. She was teaching English to adult Iranians, while her husband was working for a British company that built ships for the Iranian navy.

So I was adopted — into a family of Mormons.

The family I joined was certainly American. For much of my childhood, my new father, mother, two older sisters, three older brothers, and I lived in a two-story Victorian house in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, a lazy, beautiful town of shipbuilders and tourists. I learned to play Tag and Kick the Can, helped mow the lawn, participated in Little League games, sailed, biked, and went to garage sales and barbeques.

When I got older, I played football, sometimes as a running back, but mostly in the “left-back” position — as in “left back on the bench.” I watched our 13-inch black-and-white television like any other American kid, but maybe with a bit more attention to events like the Iranian Revolution.

But even more than being an American, I was a Mormon. At eight years old, I was baptized into the church. At 12, I was ordained a deacon, which meant I could pass the bread and water for the sacrament to the congregation. At 14, I was ordained a teacher. At 16, I became a priest, which meant I could say the prayer on the bread and water. At 18, I was made an elder.

And then I went on my mission for which my parents had been saving up money in a piggy bank since my baptism. I remember receiving the letter from the Salt Lake City, Utah headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, informing me where I would be serving God.

I opened the letter, hands shaking and afraid to read the words, with thoughts of an exotic mission to some far-off place in South America or a French-speaking part of Africa. I had taken French and Spanish in high school and put those languages on my application.

Then I learned where I was going, the one place I would have never imagined: “You have been called to serve in the Nevada, Las Vegas Mission.” I spent two years in Sin City knocking door to door, baptizing and participating in the baptism of 24 adults and children.

With the religion came attitudes that seemed like bedrock principles. I learned that abortion is an abomination, divorce is a disgrace, and Democrats are just wrong about nearly everything.

After my mission I did what was, once again, expected of me: I got married.

Looking back at it now, I remember having doubts about my faith as young as 12, when I become a deacon. I felt like a fake at church, and I had an urge to be a rebel. But having been adopted, my fear of being rejected by my family was stronger than my need to question them or the church, so I did what I was supposed to.

But one event began to turn this upside down. My wife and I got a divorce. Under the Mormon faith, she was to write a letter to the church to obtain permission for our divorce and then send me a copy for my approval and signature. (Being the man, I didn’t have to write my own letter.)

It wasn’t until I started conducting research on Iranian Americans for my master’s thesis that I was struck by the parallels between the life of the Muslim I would have been in Iran and that of the Mormon I became in America.

Both religions were founded by men who suddenly had a vision of God — one god being “Allah,” the other being the “Heavenly Father.”

While both cultures revere women in their roles as mothers and emphasize the strong bonds of family, both are also male-dominated and oppressive to women on many levels.

Women in Orthodox Muslim culture have to wear a veil to cover their bodies; women in Mormon culture have to dress conservatively. Divorce is frowned upon by both cultures, and if divorce is necessary, the burden of proof is on the woman. Men are in positions of power in both religions — they are imams and clerics in Islam, and prophets and general authorities in Mormonism.

My study of these two religions led me to look at other religions. Then, one sunny afternoon in June 2002, I had a sudden moment of clarity while reading a passage in an English translation of the Quran that read just like one of the 10 commandments of the Bible. If the Quran and the Bible and the Book of Mormon and the Torah all have the same “moral guidelines,” why does each religion think it better than the others? What is the basis for centuries of religious wars, the clash of civilizations, the modern threats of terrorism, and religious-inspired nuclear annihilation?

I found myself feeling both disappointed and relieved. I was disappointed that it had taken me so long to understand what now seems self-evident to me, and relieved that I suddenly, after all these years, realized it was okay to question.

In looking at other religions and their political associations, I recognized the fears instilled in both religions. In Iran, to turn away from Islam is to deny Allah, for which punishment might equate to death. In Mormonism, to deny the “one and only true church” might lead to a punishment of loss of a social network and friends.

I often fight between my own belief of what should be and what I was taught: the hell of not following what I questioned about the church versus an underlying fear of going to “hell” when I had been taught the “truth.” I was fully inculcated with the fears, teachings, and beliefs of Mormonism, and it is difficult to deny that while a child can leave a church, the church may not leave the child.

To answer my own questions, I have looked elsewhere for a foundation of beliefs that do not resonate with such orthodox theocracies. I have found that my ultimate truth is the blending of all religions’ positive teachings and the forsaking of their fear tactics. In short, to teach love is my ultimate truth.

 

RAYMOND

Finding friendship in West Africa.


 

The women next to me are crying. Silently, to themselves, but unabashedly. As the men in the truck bed look over the terrain, their faces are abnormally blank and sullen. My face is squished against the window in the crowded back seat, and I notice the ubiquitous red dust (a staple of West Africa) flying off of the road as we drive. Like it does every day, today it coats the banana leaves, cocoa trees, and assorted green bushes that cover Ghana. People are still walking along the road with baskets on their heads, smiling at everyone they meet and maneuvering around goats that flood the streets and bleat loudly. 

But unlike these people who move to the normal, almost ineluctable West African rhythm, today does not feel like a normal day for me. In shock, I can’t believe that I’m driving along a dusty road in Ghana, with the wind whipping in through open windows, and my dead friend Raymond wrapped in a blue bed sheet on the truck bed behind me.

•••

I’d only met Raymond once before that day. About a week into my six-week volunteer stint in Ghana, I began working in the Accidents and Emergencies Ward in the Volta Regional Hospital — a different experience from being in American emergency departments, because the hospital had no ambulances, defibrillators, or electrocardiograms (EKGs). The primary emergencies that they managed were broken bones, sutures, or diabetic emergencies requiring IV fluids.
 
Because I didn’t speak the native language, Ewe, I felt like I was being ignored in the hospital ward. After about a week-and-a-half of this, I wandered over to the General Male Ward where I knew some other volunteers were working. I spotted Katie, with her short, curly hair escaping from the pigtail braids she had tried to wrestle it into, and the top half of her head bleached blonde from the sun. She had taken out her large, silver nose ring, but I could still see the two bluebird tattoos peek out from behind the straps of her tank top. Amy, a quiet, blonde volunteer, was hunched over a shopping bag on a windowsill. As I entered the ward, she looked up and kindly smiled before pulling a package of adult diapers out of the bag.

Katie called me over to where she was, sitting at the head of a bed with the remnants of a Fanchoco ice-cream bar coating her hands. “This is Raymond,” she explained, gesturing to a rail-thin figure lying on the bed next to her, “and he is here from Togo.” 

Immediately I felt excited because I could practice my French with him. Katie patted his arm and told me that he had “eaten some bad beans” that made his stomach hurt, and that medicines from an herbalist had only made him more sick. The family took him to one hospital, but the hospital’s operating room “couldn’t help him,” and so they sent him to the Regional Hospital. In the meantime, the wound from his surgery dehisced so that the intestines basically spilled out through the hole. They were held in only by the diapers that he wore in the hospital.

Without much muscle mass, Raymond was basically a skeleton wrapped in a sheet of his own skin. I stared at his huge feet attached to twig-like legs. His knees were by far the largest part of his legs, bulging out like two baseballs between two muscle-less sticks. When Katie told Raymond my name, he looked at me with velvety brown eyes. His eyes reflected a thousand pains, but they were also the strong eyes of a 17-year-old boy. Reclining amidst a sea of sheets, he held out a limp hand with long fingers for me to shake.

•••

We all chatted for a while, learning about each other’s lives. Raymond told us how his sister sold green beans in the marketplace in their hometown, Aflao. He eventually asked Katie when she was returning to the United States. I translated for Katie while she pointed to a date in her planner. August 4. “That is when I go home,” she said, being careful to speak without contractions like the Ghanaians did.

Raymond turned his wide eyes to me and stated matter-of-factly, “I will go with her then. Tell her I go to America, too.”

As I relayed the message to Katie, I shifted my feet beneath me and glanced at Amy, who was still sitting on the windowsill next to Raymond. Katie looked at me with thoughtful, slightly sad brown eyes, and then playfully patted Raymond’s hand. “I’ll try,” she said grinning at him, “but you have to get some more muscle before then!” 

I decided to translate “try” as essayer. Once Raymond understood me, his eyes bulged with alarm, and his whole body writhed as he shouted, “No! Not try! Will! Will! You will bring me with you!”

Katie stared pensively at Raymond’s smooth hands as he assured her that he would be big and strong in three weeks. Nodding along, she untwined her fingers from his and turned his palm over delicately. Sliding her hand over his, she wrapped her fingers around his wrist. “OK, Raymond,” she said, noticing how her fingers made a complete circle around his arm, with room to spare on all sides, “I will. But remember, big and strong.”

Raymond nodded at her and found a pencil from a table next to his bed. With shaky but deliberate movements, he leaned over Katie and wrote his name, RAYMOND, in her planner underneath August 4. “Now it is a plan,” he explained, pulling up a sheet so that it covered his diaper. “I am going to America.”

•••

About a week later we went to the hospital again and brought more volunteers. I was laughing as Katie stomped and banged on her Jimbe drum, imitating our drum teacher, Joseph, and his testosterone-filled teaching style. The drum had a resounding, hollow, but somehow pure sound that broke up the relative silence in the ward. As we walked in, one of the nurses (in Ghana, nurses are “Sisters”) smiled sheepishly from behind the administrative desk. Her hand stopped its casual lilt on the page, and hesitated for just a moment. “You are here to see Raymond?” she asked out of complete stillness.

“Yes,” we answered, blundering into the room and talking amongst ourselves.

“Ah.” Pause. “We lost Raymond this morning.”

I turned my head to the Sister, whose hand was still frozen on the page, and Katie stopped drumming. We all stood still. The Sister’s words hung in the air like reverberations from a musical performance, and in their silence they were almost as loud as the sounds from the Jimbe drum. The sudden change from loud to quiet echoed the unexpected news we had just received, and I couldn’t believe what had happened. 

•••

It was a particularly warm day when we got Raymond’s body from the morgue. It’d been about a week-and-a-half since he died, and his body had been kept in refrigeration. When they brought Raymond out, I was shocked by how peaceful he looked. He was so still that it was as if he had eternally extended the pause between inhaling and exhaling so that there was a breath trapped inside of him. His mother and Katie couldn’t stand to see him, and so I cleaned his body with two of his aunts and Becca, a nursing student volunteer with a sunny disposition and a go-getter attitude. 

I kept wondering why I was cleaning his body in the first place. Holding his lifeless left hand, I realized that I had only met this boy once before, and that I hardly knew him at all. I wasn’t sure why I even cared about what happened to him. But as I wiped his elbow with a rag, I thought about how happy it had made him that we came to visit him. I realized that the whole reason I came to Ghana was to connect with new people and to learn from their life experiences. I’d certainly met many people when I observed a physician, blood lab technicians, or a traditional bone healer. By spending time with these people I was able to learn a lot about their life stories. 

But I just sort of stumbled upon Raymond and his story, and it still impacted my life. I realized that these informal relations are clearly important ways to make a connection with other people. Even more significantly, I understood that by making Raymond even a little bit happier, I had affected his life as well. Gazing into his slightly sunken, matted eyeballs, I realized that I was giving back to him for what he had taught me. It became clear that these sorts of informal connections, with Raymond and with other West Africans, were not only important, but actually some of the most significant ways through which I gave back to Ghana.

Back with Raymond, I still felt confused as I moved the rag between his bony fingers, but I also felt in awe of our own connection and what it meant.

•••

It is almost afternoon by the time we leave the morgue and arrive at Raymond’s family’s house in Aflao with his body. We plow quickly through the unpaved streets, which are more like glorified paths, and dodge chickens and avoid hitting huts on either side by six inches. 

When we pull into a clearing, people are milling about between the noises of chickens and goats. Jumping out, the men seem to know what to do and start speaking in Ewe. Against the backdrop of a dialect that sounds like a rushing brook, I feel completely confused.

Raymond’s mother grins at me with the type of smile that turns complete strangers into instant friends. Other volunteers had mentioned that she had been extremely distraught over her son’s death for about a week, but it looks like she has finally calmed down and is able to interact with other people. She waves me over to a group of people who are the rest of Raymond’s family. I almost cry when his younger sister looks at me with her huge eyes and holds out a hand that also has long fingers like Raymond’s. 

The men hoist Raymond’s body onto their shoulders and carry him to a sandy area. I guess this is a cemetery, though the only grave markers are Coke cans and plastic wrappers. One of the family members starts digging a large hole to my right. I am still confused about what I should be doing, and so I stay back with Becca, kicking the sand with my flip-flop. I watch Raymond’s father lower his son into the hole, and I watch the different layers of sand cascade around Raymond. “No grave marking,” everyone explains to me, but “maybe the family will plant a tree later.” I take a last look at the grave, now a wet patch of sand, and go back to the compound, stepping on a dusty Fanchoco wrapper on the way.

Back in the clearing, in the huts, I meet members of Raymond’s extended family. I shake about 20 hands, and I see so many faces that are creased with age and worry, but they crinkle even more with warm smiles for me. I feel embarrassed, like I haven’t done anything to deserve this kind of unstinting love from strangers. Raymond’s mother gives me a huge hug as she sobs silently, and Raymond’s sister kisses me on the cheek as she walks back elegantly to her father, like a dignified queen, even though she is crying.

Continuing this generosity, someone hands me a coconut he has just chopped open and his eyes simply say, “Thank you.” As I drink the milk, another relative throws more and more coconuts back into the pick up truck. After convincing them that I cannot take coconuts with me, I slide back into the truck and wave goodbye. 

 

 

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.

 

Obama and me

200712_obama.jpgThe feeling was mutual, when it came to getting fired up.

 

Barack Obama has come too close for comfort. I went to his rally for just one reason: to shoot an assignment for my photojournalism class. But when I saw him, my imagination began to take hold. I was struck by his sharp jawline and enrapturing white smile; I was smitten by his charming baby face and charismatic air.

As he looked out at the crowd, I swear our eyes met for a second. I told myself I was just imagining this momentous connection. But I know what I felt was real. I left the rally blinded by my own infatuation and knowing my feelings for him would likely go unrequited.

Then the following day there was an email from him in my inbox. It began: “I’m just leaving New York, and you’ve got me fired up.”

I thought I was the one getting fired up, but apparently the feeling was mutual. I saved his email in my inbox, but did not respond. I did not want him to think that I was that easy or to immediately set myself up for heartbreak. I resolved to play hard to get, so he would not lose interest.

A few days later he sent another email. This one addressed me by name and told me about his appearance on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. The email also asked me to donate $25 to his campaign. This was a little off-putting; we had not even officially met, and he was already asking me for money? But I tried to ignore my initial frustration and reminded myself that, after only a brief encounter, I had already received two emails from Barack! Not even men I’ve dated have been this straightforward. I was charmed by his frankness, his apparent distaste for dating games. Flattered, I kept my emotions in check — and again did not respond.

But I secretly searched for him on MySpace. I sifted through a bunch of impersonators until I found his official profile. But instead of finding common interests in sports and music, as I had expected, I found: “Status: Married” and “Of all my life experiences, I am most proud of my wife Michelle and my daughters Malia and Sasha.”

Married? How could he do this to me? I felt as though someone had torn out my heart and thrown it against a wall. I’d dreamt of our dinners together in the White House and of knocking on the Oval Office door to see how his day has been. How could he be so heartless as to string me along like this?

I went for a long walk to clear my mind. When I came back, I looked at my computer again, hoping for answers. And there it was — yet another email from Barack. He addressed me as “Dear Leslie.” He still remembered my name!

This time he asked for $100, because he did not have as much money as Hillary Clinton.

“The bum!” I thought. “How could he be so brazen to call me his ‘dear’ and hit me up for money again?”

I was fired up all right, but this time with anger, thinking of his poor wife and kids, and how they would feel if they knew about his emails to me. Then I got an email from Kristina from Kansas, a regular voter like me, reinforcing Barack’s request for money. It was then that it struck me. Barack was not emailing only me; thousands of people must be feeling my same heartache. Our personal connections to Barack were all feigned. We were all prey of a heartless campaign monster.

This new revolution of campaign propaganda is getting much too close for comfort. The personal space between public figures and private business is closing way too fast, and the media we depend upon for personal communication are being invaded. We’re letting candidates move more deeply into our lives — and falsely into our hearts — than they should ever be allowed to come.