D Magazine reports on an interesting conference:
Perkins School of Theology will host a seminar on April 12 at Perkins Chapel on the topic, “God Loves Diversity & Justice.” Here are the self-descriptions of the panelists:
“A Human and Feminist from Gaza, Palestine”
“A Jewish Prophet”
“An Exilic Chinese-American”
“A White American Working-Class Feminist”
“A Feminist Muslim Lawyer”
“A Transethnic Korean-American Feminist Theologian”
“A Progressive White Male German-American Theologian”
“An African American Communications Professor”
“A Jewish Russian-American-Israeli Hebrew Bible Scholar”
I looked at the flyer and that is indeed how they identified themselves. Here are some random thoughts I had after reading this list of panelists:
* Are there any feminist—even from Gaza—that are not also human? Because if they have some space alien feminists on the panel that would make for a really diverse conference!
*Who knew that a “Jewish Prophet” could be found at a Baptist university (Baylor) in Texas? Is he a major prophet or a minor prophet? (Since, like Obadiah, I have never heard of him or read anything he wrote, I assume he’s in the minor leagues.)
* If someone is “Chinese-American” then they are American, right? So if a Chinese-American is “exilic”—in a state or a period of forced absence from one’s country or home—are they being exiled from the United States? And if that’s the case, how can they attend a conference in my hometown of Dallas (which, last time I checked, was still in America)?
* Is the “White American Working-Class Feminist” also a human? I’d normally assume she was, but maybe she isn’t and that’s why the feminist from Gaza felt the need to clarify.
* I wonder if “A Feminist Muslim Lawyer” is a Sharia lawyer. (Probably not, huh?)
* According to Urban Dictionary (the only place I could find a definition), a “transethnic” is a person that is born to one ethnic background but seemingly belongs to another through their actions. Does that mean that “Transethnic Korean-American” is person who is born as a Korean-American but, through their actions, belongs to third group? If so, what’s the group? Why leave us in suspense? (And while we’re at it, maybe they could also clarify where they are in that whole feminist-human thing.)
* If someone identifies as a German-American wouldn’t you assume they were white? And what’s up with the white folks on the panel making a point to clarify their whiteness? Is it a matter of White Pride (i.e., they’re closet racists!) or are they just trying to say, “This panel is so diverse that it even includes white people.” (I suspect it’s the latter.)
* The inclusion of the “African American Communications Professor” smacks of tokenism. Not because the panel includes an African American (that is fitting in this context) but because the organizers invited a communications professor. Let’s be honest, are there any academics who consider people in the communications department to be real scholars? Of course not. It’s like journalism, a made-up field that nobody really respects. (Note: I’m an adjunct professor of journalism so please don’t tell my dean I just said that.) The only reason they would include a communications professor is so they organizers could say, “You know how diverse our panel was? It was so diverse that we even had a communications professor.” and then smirk impishly when their fellow academics gasp and admire their cheekiness.
* The “Jewish Russian-American-Israeli” scholar seems to have a hard time narrowing down that whole nationality thing. Dude, you can only live in one place at a time. Just choose one.
* Only four of the panelists identify as feminist? Are the other five saying that they are not feminist? Also, eight of them didn’t identify as human. Suspicious, no?
(Via: Rod Dreher)
April 6th, 2011 | 3:06 pm
I guess I’m just a French-Canadian-Mexican-Yaqui-American Exilic (I live in Boston, was born in L.A.) Human Software Engineer. I haven’t figured out the color thing yet, but I like my sister Annie’s self designation as “light brown”. I guess I could add “Height challenged” (I’m tall enough to bump my head constantly on open cupboards) and “Sight challenged” (You wouldn’t be able to see if you put on my glasses).
Oh, the heck with it, I’ll settle for Geek.
April 6th, 2011 | 3:38 pm
Wouldn’t you think that a conference on the wonders of diversity would include a few conservatives?
April 6th, 2011 | 3:40 pm
Wow. I can remember when Reagan’s Secretary of the Interior, James Watt, was pushed out of office for saying he had a “black, a Jew, and a cripple” on an advisory panel. Now designations such as this are considered a badge of honor.
April 6th, 2011 | 4:02 pm
If God loves “diversity” so much, why aren’t there any Radical-Reactionary Scots-Irish-American Grumpy Young Bible-Thumping Good-Old-Boys like me anywhere to be seen?
April 6th, 2011 | 4:19 pm
Thanks Ben! I forgot to put in senior, which means a get a 50 cent discount at the cinema so far (and endless letters from the AARP telling me of the wondering of joining.)
So I’m an old Geek. Does that shorten to Geezer?
April 6th, 2011 | 4:39 pm
You’re welcome, Mike! Perhaps we could found our own identity-political lobby: Geek-Orthodox Americans for Justice and Diversity.
April 6th, 2011 | 5:40 pm
I’m going to go out on a ledge here.
I predict there will be no diversity at this Diversity Conference.
April 6th, 2011 | 5:52 pm
I was feeling good until I read the list. I’m … I’m … I’m just a landscaper. Oh, Oh, I’m a geezer! Whew. Thank God I’ve made it this far.
April 6th, 2011 | 7:44 pm
The best part is that the actual title of the conference is “God Loves Diversity and Justice!” God doesn’t just love diversity and justice, he really, really loves diversity and justice.
April 6th, 2011 | 8:37 pm
God, I hate diversity!
April 6th, 2011 | 9:55 pm
Diversity = Liberal Democrats of Two or Three Different Tones of Skin.
April 6th, 2011 | 10:03 pm
The white thing bugs the heck out of me. When I fill out forms that ask me to designate my ethnicity and the options as things like “African-American”, “Hispanic” and “White” I check “Other” and, if given the space to write in a designation I usually write, “European-American”.
I may be pale, but I’m hardly white.
Kamilla
April 6th, 2011 | 10:52 pm
I am a Swiss-German-ex-Mennonite Ohioan living in unforced exile in Michigan. Perhaps I could fill a spot?
April 6th, 2011 | 11:24 pm
Why does that poster make me think of fair-trade coffee?
(Oh – and put me down as just some white guy. Or American Mutt.)
April 7th, 2011 | 12:07 am
For the “race” question on my Census form, I wrote “HUMAN.”
April 7th, 2011 | 1:26 am
Carter is jealous Because he’s just an average Joe.
April 7th, 2011 | 5:58 am
What, no disabled black lesbian vegans wearing dungarees, sensible shoes and no make-up and with “agricultural” armpits? Hardly a diverse group at all.
April 7th, 2011 | 7:14 am
As to nationality, I once knew a man who had been, successively, Austro-Hungarian, Czechoslovakian and German and, all the while, living in the same house. How’s that for diversity?
April 7th, 2011 | 7:20 am
While I have no doubt that God loves diversity, do you notice the way boundaries get blurred between things that you just are (human, white, from Gaza) vs. things that you choose (progressive, feminist, etc)?
We view it as wrong and unethical to discriminate against someone based on who they are – that is, based on what ethnic background or skin color they are, or any other trait that is beyond one’s choice.
By conflating two different ideas of what constitutes “an identity”, we are being asked to extend the ideals of protection and non-discrimination to “identities” that are in fact not really “identities” in the same sense of the word.
April 7th, 2011 | 8:01 am
Ginger-American. We are the fifth column!
April 7th, 2011 | 8:38 am
I am responding as one of the participants of the diversity conference you are having so much fun with.
Why “Chinese-American” and not just “American”? That’s bc when I say “American,” people say, “Why, you don’t LOOK American.” You know, something called “racism”? That’s why blacks would like be called African Americans. Y’all have a problem with that?
Why “exilic”? I didn’t choose the adjective but gladly embrace it. Why? Gee, maybe it’s bc the Bible uses it? Many times, but try 1 Peter 1.1, 17. That’s a self-diasporizing title the author uses to describe Christians living in this world.
“Bible-thumping,” Ben? You got it! Sorry, not white or “good-ole-boy” enough for you, tho. You won’t let me, I am sure. Dallasites don’t let me forget that either. Everyday. The kinds of taunts I get on the streets of Dallas tell me we have a lot of work to do.
For your information, bloggers and snide commentators, the topic of my presentation: “Does God Really Love Diversity? Counter-Examples from the Bible.”
Now, I am sure y’all have something to say about this.
Sze-kar Wan
Professor of New Testament
Perkins School of Theology
Southern Methodist University
April 7th, 2011 | 10:45 am
Thanks for writing, Sze-kar.
At least two ironies emerge from the uniformity of comments on this thread. One is that on other threads there’s much intense discussion of diversity as Roman Catholics argue with Orthodox who argue with Greek Catholics even as they all argue with Reformed who meanwhile argue over who’s really evangelical. Meanwhile, the nationalists argue with the end-of-democracy tribe who argue with the quietists. This month’s edition even features an argument between meliorist and traditionalist evangelicals. So diversity and justice turns out to be very important on First Things, but the idea of what constitutes either diversity or justice turns out to be quite limited.
The second irony is that another article in this month’s edition of the magazine is also explicitly focused on identity, an article about memories of a Catholic boyhood. The responses to that article are all warm and fuzzy, just as if diversity were in fact a cherished and meaningful thing.
But the folks commenting on this thread have decided to hate all this talk of kinds of diversity they don’t care about, really, really hate it, and so they figure that it’s all just silly. It’s somehow threatening to believe that people could be serious and still disagree with you. It’s more comforting to imagine that they just silly.
Meanwhile, a couple of days ago on First Things, there was wonderful article by Donna Calk, entitled “Render Unto Caesar,” about what disagreeing as a Christian really means. The other commenters on this thread should reread and let it sink in.
April 7th, 2011 | 10:48 am
“Why “Chinese-American” and not just “American”? That’s bc when I say “American,” people say, “Why, you don’t LOOK American.” You know, something called “racism”? That’s why blacks would like be called African Americans. Y’all have a problem with that?”
Wouldn’t it make more sense just to acknowledge the ignorance of such a comment and move on, than to concede the person’s point that there’s something less than American about someone who looks like you?
So, yeah, I have a problem with fighting racism by catering to it and then complaining that it continues.
April 7th, 2011 | 11:10 am
Sze-kar Wan Why “Chinese-American” and not just “American”? That’s bc when I say “American,” people say, “Why, you don’t LOOK American.” You know, something called “racism”?
Let’s be honest, is this something has ever happened, much less happens frequently? I’ve lived in Dallas and know a lot of people who go to SMU. I seriously doubt that anyone there has ever said that a someone doesn’t look like an American because they are of Asian descent.
Why “exilic”? I didn’t choose the adjective but gladly embrace it.
Well, that’s an interesting twist. Are you saying the organizers used that adjective on the flyer without it being included by you in your bio line? That too me sounds like they are making some weird assumptions.
Why “exilic”? I didn’t choose the adjective but gladly embrace it. Why? Gee, maybe it’s bc the Bible uses it?
C’mon, Professor Wan, you know how language works. The term exilic is an adjective and is used as a modifier when placed in front of a nationality (e.g., Korean-American). A clear reading of that sentence implies that you are a exile of America (or maybe Korea). In the context “exile” does not describes your Christian relationship to the world.
Dallasites don’t let me forget that either. Everyday. The kinds of taunts I get on the streets of Dallas tell me we have a lot of work to do.
Oh please. I hate to question anyone’s honesty but this just does not pass the smell test. Dallas is a cosmopolitan city and the Asian population in the area is nearly 7 percent. Are you really going to pretend that you get that sort of treatment “everyday”? What streets are you walking down where this is happening? Is it going on at the SMU campus?
MichaelAt least two ironies emerge from the uniformity of comments on this thread.
You seem to have a peculiar understanding of what the word irony means.
No one is disputing the value of diversity. In fact, you point out that there is a great deal of intellectual and religious diversity among the readers of FT. What people are making fun of is a panel on diversity that appears to be constituted of people who belong to an intellectual monoculture but think that the color of their skin or their nationality is the most significant aspect of “diversity.”
April 7th, 2011 | 11:31 am
“Now, I am sure y’all have something to say about this.”
Only that your comment–in tone and substance–reminds me less of a professor and more of a student. I’m not sure this helps your conference seem any less frivolous or unserious.
April 7th, 2011 | 11:31 am
Michael,
Can you identify some examples of comments on this thread that express anything resembling your accusation of “really, really hate”? Silliness? Sure. Hate? I’m not seeing it at all. Unless verbally rolling ones eyes is the new hatred.
I don’t think anyone here hates diversity. I think they do resist the kind of preening nonsense that reduces people to their self-selected labels and accords the highest value to the longest ones. Perhaps that’s not what is happening at this conference, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we might be forgiven for mistaking it for a duck. Sometimes the best thing to do in the face of the duck of nonsense is to laugh at it.
April 7th, 2011 | 12:09 pm
@Michael, Diversity is all around us and in us. There is no need for a special conference on just that. Yet, here is one. Why?
My serious take: I am French-Canadian-Mexican-Yaqui American. That should matter greatly to me and does. It shouldn’t matter much to anyone else. It does make for interesting conversations to compare origins and heritage. It does help shape our thinking. But the United States has proven itself big enough to encompass that diversity. When people start demanding that I pay homage?/attention? to their heritage and origins, then I think we’ve got a problem. Such problems do exist but it is counterproductive to exacerbate them.
April 7th, 2011 | 12:31 pm
Why “Chinese-American” and not just “American”? That’s bc when I say “American,” people say, “Why, you don’t LOOK American.” You know, something called “racism”? That’s why blacks would like be called African Americans. Y’all have a problem with that?
Yes.
If you want people to get used to the idea that an Asian person can be an American, then stop using language that suggests otherwise.
April 7th, 2011 | 12:32 pm
But the folks commenting on this thread have decided to hate all this talk of kinds of diversity they don’t care about, really, really hate it, and so they figure that it’s all just silly.
IMHO the correct word is “manipulative”, not “silly”.
April 7th, 2011 | 12:50 pm
“rolling ones eyes is the new hatred.”
Dear TimC: I am definitely going to steal this. Thanks!
April 7th, 2011 | 12:52 pm
To Joe Carter:
Do you really want to question my integrity?
Re your statement: “I’ve lived in Dallas and know a lot of people who go to SMU. I seriously doubt that anyone there has ever said that a someone doesn’t look like an American because they are of Asian descent”?
You seem to be saying: “Because it has never happened to you, it could not have happened to me or happened to me frequently.” You really want to stake your First Things reputation to that kind of logic?
As for the use of “exilic,” I refer you to, among others, John Elliott, A Home for the Homeless (1981), 220-33, esp. 232f. If you want an exegetical discussion of how 1 Peter constructs the word paroikoi, I would be happy to oblige.
To DBP:
“Only that your comment–in tone and substance–reminds me less of a professor and more of a student.”
Thanks for the compliment. I take pride in using the tone of the ones with whom I am conversing. I take that as a sign of being an effective teacher.
April 7th, 2011 | 1:26 pm
Thanks, Michael, for your post. It’s good to know not all readers of First Things are so uniformly negative about a pressing issue in our society.
Frankly, I am surprised. I used to read First Things avidly and find the quality of the article to be top notch.
What this conference tries to accomplish is not to be frivolous but, in a provocative way, to examine how the 21st century is shaping up to be a time when we need to accommodate and respect people who look and sound different from us. This includes Jews and Muslims and all kinds of Christians, etc. And we do so by affirming our own individual identity in all its glorious manifestations and by speaking honestly, with love, to others who are different from us.
And if you claim to be who you are, diverse and proud, come join us. You can take ownership of who you are, and you will be respected for who you are.
Full disclosure: I am a Chinese-American-male-heterosexual-married-ordained Episcopal priest. I am fully Chinese (when people let me claim it), fully American (when people let me claim it), and yes, “exilic.” As a biblical Christian, I claim that adjective with conviction and relish.
The alternative is what we see a lot today: Islamophobia, homophobia, polarization of party and religious affiliations, religious bigotry, Huntington’s “clash of civilization” (which, by the way, was first championed by the Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt), etc. Do you want our American experiment to descent into such depths? Aren’t we better than to question the legitimacy of a president just because he has a different-sounding name?
Readers of First Things are better than that, aren’t they?
April 7th, 2011 | 1:39 pm
Dear Professor Wan,
I have never taunted you or anyone else, on any street in Dallas or anywhere else, for being Chinese-American or anything else. So please don’t imply that I have. I’m pleased to hear you thump your Bible. In that, you strike me as indeed a good old boy. Perhaps you should *read* your Bible more carefully. Especially the part about bearing false witness against your neighbors, which includes — quelle dommage! — even good old boys like me.
April 7th, 2011 | 1:47 pm
Sze-kar Wan Do you really want to question my integrity?
Well, that depends. Were you speaking hyperbolically or are you really claiming that everyday the good people of Dallas are taunting you by making racially insensitive remarks?
You seem to be saying: “Because it has never happened to you, it could not have happened to me or happened to me frequently.” You really want to stake your First Things reputation to that kind of logic?
No, what I’m saying is that for over 25 years I have know people of all races who have lived in the Dallas area and I have never heard anyone make a such an outrageous claim. Like every American city, racism is a problem. But I highly doubt that Dallas in 2011 is like Selma, AL in 1965.
Of course I could be wrong. Can you give us some examples of the taunts you are referring to? Since this occurs every day you should have at least five examples from this week alone.
As for the use of “exilic,” I refer you to, among others,. . .
You seem to be missing the point. I’m not saying that saying that “exilic” can be used in the way you mean. I’m saying that in the context of the way it is being used on that flyer, it does not mean what you think it does.
Most people who would read “exilic Chinese American” would assume that you were an exile of either China or America. It would take a stretch of the imagination to assume that in this context “exile” meant “Christian.”
And if you claim to be who you are, diverse and proud, come join us. You can take ownership of who you are, and you will be respected for who you are.
Fair enough. Are you saying that they will be allowing non-progressive voice on the panel? Will their be that type of diversity displayed?
April 7th, 2011 | 1:50 pm
I want to thank Mr. Wan. Because of his comments, I am definitely taking ownership of who I am. Starting now. Damn right! I’m feeling better already.
April 7th, 2011 | 2:11 pm
>>Seems like the “Jewish Russian-American-Israeli” scholar seems to have a hard time narrowing down that whole nationality thing. Dude, you can only live in one place at a time. Just choose one>>
Joe Carter, you seem to be unable to wrap your mind around the *very* widespread phenomenon of complex identities, so let me clarify this particular instance for you.
I am Jewish because my religious beliefs are Jewish and because my ancestors are Jews (mostly).
I am Russian because I was born in Russia and steeped in Russian culture, and because I still speak Russian at home (mostly).
I am Israeli because I am a citizen of the State of Israel and its ardent champion – which in no way makes it difficult for me to appear on the same panel with a Palestinian from Gaza. And yes, I speak Hebrew, although there is not much use for it in Dallas except in my scholarly work and in the synagogue.
Finally, I am American because I live and work and pay my taxes here and expect one day to become a citizen. And yes, I love this country though I love Israel too (I don’t love Russia, but that would take too much time to explain).
I speak English with a heavy Russian-Israeli-Californian-Texan accent, which is why the people I meet usually ask me where I’m from. I say “Dallas, Texas.” And I think my written English is better than yours. At least I do not use “seems” twice in the same sentence.
I am proud of being all these and many other things. So who are you, Joe, to tell me to choose?
Oh, by the way, I do not consider myself liberal or progressive. I am staunchly, fiercely independent.
Serge Frolov
April 7th, 2011 | 2:27 pm
Serge Frolov Joe Carter, you seem to be unable to wrap your mind around the *very* widespread phenomenon of complex identities, so let me clarify this particular instance for you.
And you, Dr. Forlov, appear to be unable to warp your mind around the *very* widespread phenomenon of sardonic humor.
In other words: It was a joke. I wasn’t being serious.
And I think my written English is better than yours. At least I do not use “seems” twice in the same sentence.
Oh my.
The fact that you are able to speak Hebrew and Russian makes me think that you likely have a facility with language that I lack. For that reason I would assume that you are probably a better than I am at writing English prose. But the fact that you were able to find a word repeated in a hastily written, completely unedited, blog post doesn’t really prove anything other than that you might need to add “priggish pedant” to your bio line.
Oh, by the way, I do not consider myself liberal or progressive.
I appreciate the clarification but I’m sure you can understand why we made that assumption. After all, the flyer for the panel says, “Progressive scholars speak. . . ”
And despite the protests of you and Dr. Wan, what we were gently mocking is not the content of the panel but the obnoxious flyer (which appears to have been put together without the knowledge of the participants).
April 7th, 2011 | 2:30 pm
Joe Carter: “Well, that depends. Were you speaking hyperbolically or are you really claiming that everyday the good people of Dallas are taunting you by making racially insensitive remarks?”
First all, if you re-read my line again, I said Dallasites do not let me forget that I am not white and not good-ole-boy everyday. That would mean copes following my car, people staring at me from their yard, etc.
How about questions like:
“Where are you from?”
“I am from Boston.”
“No, no, no, where are you REALLY from?”
As for taunts, how about: “You f**king Communist b*tch, why don’t you go back to where you came from?” Then the real insults begin.
How about sticking a camera in your face as you walk by, even after you tell them to stop?
This sort of things happen enough that they color the way you look at the world and society around you.
You seem to assume racism is dead and gone. Why do you think all the vituperation against our first Afr-Am president? Racism comes in many forms. Ask any non-white. Ask any non-white residents of 2011 Dallas.
April 7th, 2011 | 2:55 pm
I gather Mr. Wan and Mr. Frolov don’t seem to understand. If emphasizing differences is the problem (that is after all what racism is), then emphasizing differences isn’t going to solve the problem. All this proclaiming of diversity emphasizes differences. Joe’s point is that Mr Wan does not work in a laundry, Mr Frolov wasn’t chased out of town for being a Communist, and I don’t live on a dirt street.
Ethnic prejudice is fading in this country, thank God. My father grew up on one of those dirt streets in Chavez Ravine though his parents moved out before the city of L.A. exercised eminent domain. OTOH, I have experienced ethnic prejudice only twice. Once from a conservative group of men who couldn’t understand how a Mexican could graduate from MIT. The second time, the group was a self-proclaimed liberated group of highly intelligent liberals, who were certain that they were not prejudiced. I was just Mexican and therefore dumb, not to mention prejudiced because everyone knows that Mexicans are anti-feminist. Guess which group was less ethnically diverse?
I believe Mr Frolov is half right. We all should be proud of our own roots. The other half is that that doesn’t make any of us better than anyone else. Mr Wan betrays his proclaimed sentiments by providing a list of his prejudices, all recast as someone else’s.
April 7th, 2011 | 3:01 pm
Joe, seems like you are jumping to a lot of conclusions and getting into quite an argument over a flier. Did you consider attending the event before writing this? Did you at least call and request info from Perkins about the content of the event?? Seems like pretty lazy journalism to me.
April 7th, 2011 | 3:05 pm
Dallasites don’t let me forget that either. Everyday. The kinds of taunts I get on the streets of Dallas tell me we have a lot of work to do.
I’m sorry, but I don’t believe this for a minute. I really don’t. Are there racists in the Dallas area? Sadly, yes. But you work in one of the most prosperous and culturally liberal precincts of the city. I don’t know where you live, but unless it’s in some far redneck suburb, I find it impossible to believe that every single day, you are subject to “taunts.” Is it at least possible that being in the kind of professional environment in which one is encouraged to be exquisitely conscious of one’s own ethnic identity as a marker of progressive distinction, one has developed a rather too fine sensitivity to the gaze of the Other?
The idea that you would compare a scholar of the late Sam Huntington’s distinction to a Nazi supporter because you don’t care for his ideas really is reprehensible. I do hope it is not indicative of the level of intellectual seriousness at the Perkins School, at least among the progressive herd of independent minds.
April 7th, 2011 | 3:06 pm
>>And you, Dr. Forlov>>
>>hastily written, completely unedited, blog post >>
Oops, Geo Karter, you did it again!
>>And you, Dr. Forlov, appear to be unable to warp your mind around the *very* widespread phenomenon of sardonic humor.>>
What you make fun of tells a lot about you. And in your post you were making fun of identities that are different from yours. Which makes this conference very relevant, methinks.
>>the obnoxious flyer (which appears to have been put together without the knowledge of the participants)>>
It was circulated among the participants prior to publication, and I approved it. For those who respect others even if they are different there is nothing obnoxious about it.
April 7th, 2011 | 3:19 pm
Joe Carter,
I read (and enjoyed) your book, “How to Argue….” Now I’m enjoying the practical application of it :) . Enjoying the way you refute Serge Frolov & Wan. By the way, I’m a mongoloid.
April 7th, 2011 | 3:21 pm
Sze-kar Wan: “Why do you think all the vituperation against our first Afr-Am president?”
Ummm… Because he is President, and the job comes with some degree of vituperation? Just my guess.
(Recall how lovingly folks from the progressive end of the political spectrum treated the previous President, for example.)
I hope you do not mean to suggest that our President should be given some sort of kinder, gentler treatment because of the color of his skin, as if his ethnic heritage somehow renders him too weak to stand up to criticism.
He’s an adult, who has actively and successfully pursued high political office. He can stand the heat that goes with working in that particular kitchen.
April 7th, 2011 | 3:39 pm
***That would mean copes following my car, people staring at me from their yard, etc.***
Wait a minute, you’re saying that the Dallas police follow your car because you are Chinese?
I can honestly say that I’ve never heard that one before.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but some of what you are saying sounds like innocent behavior that is being misinterpreted as racism. For example, on occasion I notice a cop car behind me and, on occasion, when I make a turn the cop turns too. My first instinct isn’t to think, “What a racist! He’s following me because I’m white!.” I think, “Oh my, I hope my tags aren’t expired.”
And as for people staring at you from their yard, do you happen to be walking through a neighborhood that you don’t live in? Because when I walk through a neighborhood that I don’t live in the people tend to stare at me too. I don’t think, “What racists! They are staring at me because I’m white!” I think, “Like people should, these folks are making themselves aware of who is in their neighborhood.”
Now I’m not an academic (only an adjunct which doesn’t really count) and I’m not trained in the hermeneutic of suspicion. I was never given a class on how to read the slightest racial cues from what might appear on the surface to be innocuous conduct. Because of my lack of formal training I may be unable to detect the festering racism that is plaguing Dallas and making life unbearable for the Asian American community.
But don’t you think that there is a chance that maybe you are reading more into these “racists behaviors” than is really there?
***How about questions like:
“Where are you from?”
“I am from Boston.”
“No, no, no, where are you REALLY from?”***
Then tell them, “No, really, I’m from Boston. . . Boston, China.” That should shut them up. ; )
***As for taunts, how about: “You f**king Communist b*tch, why don’t you go back to where you came from?” Then the real insults begin.***
To avoid that happening I would advise staying out of the faculty meetings. ; )
Seriously, though, how often has this happened? And where does it occur?
***How about sticking a camera in your face as you walk by, even after you tell them to stop?***
Again, I have to ask: Where in the world are you going that people are “sticking a camera in your face as you walk by”? That’s not just racist, it’s extremely weird. Where is this happening?
***You seem to assume racism is dead and gone. Why do you think all the vituperation against our first Afr-Am president?***
No, I don’t assume that racism is dead and gone because you’ve provided a good example by making a racist accusation. You are implying that non-African Americans oppose the president because of the color of his skin. Assuming that people are engaging in behavior based on their skin color is racism.
The reason there is so much “vituperation against our first Afr-Am president” (by the way, he’s biracial) is not because of the color of his skin but because he is one of the worst presidents we have had in fifty years.
JAK Joe, seems like you are jumping to a lot of conclusions and getting into quite an argument over a flier.
Really? What conclusions have I jumped to?
Serge Frolov Oops, Geo Karter, you did it again!
Ack. Okay, you got me there. My apologies. (I like that “Geo Karter.” Maybe I can use that as a pseudonym.)
What you make fun of tells a lot about you. And in your post you were making fun of identities that are different from yours. Which makes this conference very relevant, methinks.
Whoa, wait a minute. Is that really the point you take away from my post? That I’m making fun of racial and ethnic identities?
Normally, I’d apologize and claim that the fault in interpretation lies with me. But I honestly don’t think anyone (except for maybe an academic looking for evidence of oppression against subalterns) could have read it that way.
Why I suspect the conference won’t be all that relevant (based solely on the responses by you and Dr. Wan) is because it is unlikely to address anything that is occurring in the real world. There are true racial and ethnic problems that need to be addressed. No doubt about that. But what is really going to be changed by having a handful of academics, some of whom seem to see racism everywhere, talking about the problem?
What makes the conference flyer (if not the conference itself) a suitable topic for (lighthearted) mockery is that it is promoting and event on diversity yet the panel is an intellectual monoculture and comprised of people of privilege from the same socioeconomic academic class who are presuming to tell others (Others?) about how we lack diversity in this country. That, to me, is a bit funny.
April 7th, 2011 | 3:46 pm
The alternative is what we see a lot today: Islamophobia, homophobia, polarization of party and religious affiliations, religious bigotry, Huntington’s “clash of civilization” (which, by the way, was first championed by the Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt), etc.
I’m really impressed with how tolerant Wan is when he himself is confronted with the big bad scary Other.
April 7th, 2011 | 3:56 pm
That would mean copes following my car
Father Wan, if this is happening to you in the Park Cities, where you work (I don’t know if you live there), join the club. This is a common Dallas experience. It happened to me several times driving my Honda Accord through the Park Cities, and I’m a middle-aged white male.
I was cursed at by a couple of teenaged boys because I had a New York Yankees sticker on the back of my car. They assumed I was some sort of Yankee myself. Jackasses are everywhere. I wouldn’t presume to think that all Dallasites hate people they assume to be from New York. Then again, if I had built a professional identity around Oppression Studies, perhaps I would have.
You guys defending this Perkins School silliness are completely wrong to think that the people on this thread laughing at you are laughing at non-white Christians (at least one of the guys laughing at you is Hispanic). We’re laughing at how utterly, predictably parochial you are. Father Wan, I suggest you drive outside of your office in the elite Park Cities one day, then over the bridge to impoverished Southern Dallas, and visit one of the storefront Hispanic Pentecostal parishes, or one of the black churches there. Give a prophetic sermon about the evil of homophobia in one of those totally non-white parishes. You’ll be run out. As a college-educated middle-class white Christian of traditionalist theological and moral views, I identify far more with those Christians than I do with people like you, who are almost certainly of my cultural class, and even white males like me who share your views. Then again, I tend to judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
Folks like you think you’re all about diversity, but really you’re about 10 different shades of vanilla. In your circles, you can be any ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation you wish to be, but you must walk in theological lockstep. The difference between what y’all are, and what you think you are, is what is so amusing to us mongoloid outsiders.
April 7th, 2011 | 4:33 pm
Joe,
“You seem to have a peculiar understanding of what the word irony means”
Perhaps you don’t use a dictionary.
On the other hand, you have a peculiar sense of what counts as “sardonic humor.” When you tell Frolov that you weren’t “being serious” and was making a “joke,” perhaps you didn’t understand that sardonic humor is always making a joke in order express your contempt for someone, which makes your joke always “serious” since it expresses how much you don’t value their opinion.
You said to Wan, “No, what I’m saying is that for over 25 years I have know people of all races who have lived in the Dallas area and I have never heard anyone make a such an outrageous claim. Like every American city, racism is a problem. But I highly doubt that Dallas in 2011 is like Selma, AL in 1965”
I have an uncle in Dallas. When he met the daughter I adopted from China, he asked me how the “chink” was doing. Like you, he thinks he has a great sense of humor, but I have watched him routinely mistreat blacks and Mexicans in word and deed my whole life.
—
TimC,
“Can you identify some examples of comments on this thread that express anything resembling your accusation of “really, really hate”?”
Thanks for this correction. You’re right. I chose the wrong word. I should have used “contemn” or something like that.
“I think they do resist the kind of preening nonsense that reduces people to their self-selected labels and accords the highest value to the longest ones.”
It sounds to me that you decided in advance that they are preening and speaking nonsense, which says something about your imagination.
—
Mike Melendez,
“There is no need for a special conference on just that. Yet, here is one. Why?”
Because they wanted to talk about diversity. Since first things are first, why do this journal have to talk about first things. Haven’t they all been covered?
You see, anything can be mocked. But why we choose to mock people we don’t know is another question, and one Carter and the rest should really think about. It’s one thing to mock the text of a talk at a conference, but it’s another thing altogether to mock something you don’t know anything about except the title.
“When people start demanding that I pay homage?/attention? to their heritage and origins, then I think we’ve got a problem.”
They didn’t ask you to pay homage or attention to their identity. You’re not at the conference. Do you blame the writers and posters on this site when they call attention to themselves as Roman Catholics, traditionalist evangelicals, etc.? You don’t because you think their identity is an important part of the conversation. Maybe, just maybe, the conference is about something important, too. At least to them.
—
Former Dallasite,
“Are there racists in the Dallas area? Sadly, yes. But you work in one of the most prosperous and culturally liberal precincts of the city. I don’t know where you live, but unless it’s in some far redneck suburb, I find it impossible to believe that every single day, you are subject to “taunts.”
There’s a fine wealth of assumptions here. That racists are poor, culturally conservative, rednecks, and suburbanites. Reread Mike Melendez’s post about racist liberals.
“Folks like you think you’re all about diversity, but really you’re about 10 different shades of vanilla. In your circles, you can be any ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation you wish to be, but you must walk in theological lockstep. The difference between what y’all are, and what you think you are, is what is so amusing to us mongoloid outsiders”
More assumptions. Maybe you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover or a conference by its titles. Perhaps there’s some slight chance that the conference might be more interesting and different from what you supposed. Just perhaps, of course. The odds are against it, aren’t they?
April 7th, 2011 | 4:44 pm
Perhaps you don’t use a dictionary.
I looked in the dictionary and the way you used it wasn’t there. Maybe you are thinking of that Alanis Morissette song where she used the word ironic to refer to things that are clearly not ironic.
On the other hand, you have a peculiar sense of what counts as “sardonic humor.” When you tell Frolov that you weren’t “being serious” and was making a “joke,” perhaps you didn’t understand that sardonic humor is always making a joke in order express your contempt for someone, which makes your joke always “serious” since it expresses how much you don’t value their opinion.
Since you’ll just tell me to look in the dictionary, I thought I’d post the definition of sardonic: characterized by bitter or scornful derision; mocking; cynical; sneering.”
I don’t see anything in there that implies that sardonicism makes something “serious.” And nothing in my post implied that I ddidn’t value their opinion. I think you’re just making stuff up now.
I have an uncle in Dallas. When he met the daughter I adopted from China, he asked me how the “chink” was doing. Like you, he thinks he has a great sense of humor, but I have watched him routinely mistreat blacks and Mexicans in word and deed my whole life.
Well, I take it all back. I didn’t realize there was an actual racist living in Dallas. If there is one, there must be a million of ‘em, right?
Couldn’t we also conclude that since your uncle is a jerk and lives in Dallas that the city is full of jerks?
April 7th, 2011 | 4:53 pm
That racists are poor, culturally conservative, rednecks, and suburbanites.
It’s not that I question that rich people can be racist. Obviously they can, and some are. As someone who lived for years in Dallas (not in the Park Cities, where SMU is), I find it completely impossible to believe that the cultural environment in that wealthy neighborhood would tolerate the bad manners of racist taunts openly made toward an ethnically Chinese professor. Could it happen? Yeah. Does it happen? I’m skeptical.
Maybe you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover or a conference by its titles.
Weak. It’s obvious that this conference is going to be exactly what it claims to be. Besides, in my line of work, I’ve spent years dealing with this mentality. There’s nothing quite like the educated progressive who congratulates himself on how tolerant and diverse he is, but who would have no idea what to make of the working-class white truck driver or the black Pentecostal secretary. Folks like this have to stay inside the artificial environment of the university, because they wouldn’t last five minutes amid the actual diversity of the real world.
April 7th, 2011 | 5:08 pm
>>What makes the conference flyer (if not the conference itself) a suitable topic for (lighthearted) mockery is that it is promoting and event on diversity yet the panel is an intellectual monoculture and comprised of people of privilege from the same socioeconomic academic class who are presuming to tell others (Others?) about how we lack diversity in this country. That, to me, is a bit funny>>
Joe (and all other contributors to this thread), please come to the conference, and I am sure you will notice a great difference of opinion among the presenters. If this is not the case, I’ll be the first to criticize it. As a former Soviet citizen, there are few things I hate more than ideological uniformity. And I agree that the flyer’s reference to all participants as “progressive” is unfortunate. As I said, at least one (yours truly) is not.
April 7th, 2011 | 5:15 pm
What venom you spew, Dallasite!
Just because I say I’ve been verbally attacked in Dallas and love diversity? I am here defending diversity, but why are you all so quick to dismiss my experience? You are not saying there can be no racism in Dallas, are you? Bc that would be stupid. What makes you so sure that none of this happened? Bc YOU know Dallas better than anyone?
I thought First Things was a Christian magazine and this was supposed to be a Christian forum. Yikes!
You and Mr. Carter see a flyer and you jump to all kinds of conclusions. What do you really know about me or the other panelists?
For your and others’ information, I do not live in Park Cities (can’t afford to). A recent national survey has theology profs at the very bottom of university salaries. I commute to work in my 21-year-old Honda Civic. Someone in Highland Park left a note on my car window to ask/warn me not to park in front of his/her house anymore. I am the first in my extended family in three generations to finish college, and I did it on financial aid. My home congregation in Boston was in the inner city, and it was 85% immigrants from the villages in China. Maybe 10% of them were illiterate, in both Chinese and English. I graduated from an inner-city high school with black and white students from poor neighborhoods of Boston. Our next-door neighbors called me ch*nk every chance they got. I lived near Ashmont Station in Dorchester, MA, where poor whites lived. I used to be scared to death walking home from the train station. Some African American families recently moved into the neighborhood. The diversity now makes me feel much safer when I visit my parents who still live in the same house—rented, by the way, not owned. They had no education. My father was kept away from us because of the Cultural Revolution; I didn’t meet him until I was 25. My mother worked as a seamstress as a single parent, because that’s the only job she could get in Chinatown without the language. I had to work every summer until I graduated from seminary and grad school; I worked for minimum wage until I had my first full-time job.
So, Dallasite, are you sure I am from your class? I dare say you and I have absolutely nothing in common. Not our upbringing, not our culture, not our language, not our experience or non-experience of racism, not our experience or non-experience of privilege. Nothing.
Can you “judge me by my character”? What do you really know about me? I dare say: Nothing.
It is precisely because I went through so much that I find prejudice so damaging to me and, more importantly, to those who practice prejudice and to our society as a whole. I am working as an academic and as a priest on this issue. What are you doing?
Sorry to say that judging from vitriol I’ve seen here—started, mind you, with a flyer—we might have a lot of work to do.
April 7th, 2011 | 5:31 pm
Former Dallasite hits the nail on the head:
“There’s nothing quite like the educated progressive who congratulates himself on how tolerant and diverse he is, but who would have no idea what to make of the working-class white truck driver or the black Pentecostal secretary. Folks like this have to stay inside the artificial environment of the university, because they wouldn’t last five minutes amid the actual diversity of the real world.”
The sort of people he describes are right about a lack of diversity, but wrong about where it is that diversity is lacked and wrong about where the blame lies for the lack of diversity there. The least diverse parts of the United States are the faculty lounges of its colleges and universities. The reason that diversity is lacking there is that most of the faculty like it that way, because they’ve come to be there precisely so they don’t have to deal with white working-class trucker drivers, black pentecostal church ladies, and Others of their ilk, i.e. the vast majority of people who are not academic liberals, and therefore not obsessed with the very diversity that they themselves lack more than anyone else.
April 7th, 2011 | 5:34 pm
Serge Frolov Joe (and all other contributors to this thread), please come to the conference, and I am sure you will notice a great difference of opinion among the presenters. If this is not the case, I’ll be the first to criticize it.
Unfortunately, I don’t think many of use will be able to make it. But to be fair, if you will send us a transcript of the presentation or a link to it I’ll post it on the blog. If we are misrepresenting the panel I’ll be the first to admit that we judged too soon.
Sze-kar Wan Can you “judge me by my character”? What do you really know about me? I dare say: Nothing.
Actually, I think we are learning a lot about you from the comments you are making. And I regret to say that it probably isn’t disconfirming people’s original suspicions.
April 7th, 2011 | 5:42 pm
Former Dallasite:
(Sorry for leaving out “Former” in my last post.)
“The idea that you would compare a scholar of the late Sam Huntington’s distinction to a Nazi supporter because you don’t care for his ideas really is reprehensible. I do hope it is not indicative of the level of intellectual seriousness at the Perkins School, at least among the progressive herd of independent minds.”
Schmitt’s notion of the “Grossräume” (super-large spaces) consisting of large blocs of alliance in geopolitics is part and parcel of his “Freund-Feind” (friend-enemy) distinction. Political power and stability is guaranteed as much by who your friends are as who your enemies are. Schmitt in fact proposes that a powerful state needs an enemy to remain powerful. The discussion is detailed in his Concept of the Political (ET pub. in 1976). In form and function, this is exactly what Huntington proposed first in his 1992 Foreign Affairs article and expanded in the book. Don’t take my word for it; see Michael Kirwan, Political Theology (2008), p. 202 n. 12. Kirwan, by the way, is no progressive or liberal.
Hope this comment doesn’t further damage Perkins’s reputation, which no doubt is already taking a hit by my foray into this verbal joust.
April 7th, 2011 | 5:43 pm
Joe,
“I looked in the dictionary and the way you used it wasn’t there.”
Perhaps you should do a better job of using the dictionary.
“And nothing in my post implied that I ddidn’t value their opinion.”
So you make bitter, scornful, derisive, and sneering comments about these people you don’t know, but you still value their opinions?
“I didn’t realize there was an actual racist living in Dallas.”
My uncle doesn’t think he’s racist. He just thinks he’s witty.
—
Former Dallasite,
“I find it completely impossible to believe that the cultural environment in that wealthy neighborhood would tolerate the bad manners of racist taunts openly made toward an ethnically Chinese professor.”
Well, Joe, would tell you that any racism a Chinese professor experienced in such a neighborhood would be because the professor is one of those who “some of whom seem to see racism everywhere.” In the meantime, my uncle doesn’t live in the Park Cities, but he lives in a pampered enough neighborhood. Racism is there.
“It’s obvious that this conference is going to be exactly what it claims to be.”
Right. There’s absolutely no chance that anyone at this conference is going to say something worthwhile, fresh, or interesting. Got it.
“There’s nothing quite like the educated progressive who congratulates himself on how tolerant and diverse he is, but who would have no idea what to make of the working-class white truck driver or the black Pentecostal secretary.”
So the woman who describes herself as a “white American working-class feminist” has no idea what to make of her father, brothers, uncles, cousins, and neighborhood friends who drive trucks. Likewise with the African American communications professor.
If you’ve gone to such events, then you probably know that the working-class feminist might spend some time talking about how self-congratulatory educated progressives aren’t as tolerant as they think they are, in which case the educated progressive learned something that he didn’t know before he attended the conference.
April 7th, 2011 | 5:58 pm
Joe Carter: “Actually, I think we are learning a lot about you from the comments you are making. And I regret to say that it probably isn’t disconfirming people’s original suspicions.”
This is, of course, your blog, and you can probably get away with saying anything. But I want to appeal to your better nature and ask you to try to walk in someone else’s shoes before you make your judgment.
To others, in the heat of the moment, we probably said a lot of things we’ll regret in a few years. Maybe even sooner. If I did, I apologize.
To detractors and supporters alike, blessings of God be with you all.
Signing off.
April 7th, 2011 | 6:42 pm
What surprises me most is how juvenile this conversation has become. I think some substantive points have been made by those “gently mocking” the conference flyer, but that has been lost in a lot of “I know you are but what am I?” back and forth by both sides (Exhibit A: the “dictionary” war). At first the commentary was fun to read, but it has descended into petty insults and quibbling. I would have to say that the conference participants were the first to go there, but everybody else took the bait and is just as culpable.
To the author and friends: Your points are much more salient when you refrain from childish banter. Next time, don’t take the bait.
To the conference panelists: I could take you more seriously if you took yourselves less seriously. Can you really not see the humor in those completely over-the-top hyphenated and layered labels? You could really connect with people who think differently than you do and even change some minds if you could take a little ribbing and see how you appear to those on the outside. You wound up confirming all the presumptuous things they said about you. Way to go.
April 8th, 2011 | 1:46 am
To Neighbor:
Thank you. What started as humerous light-hearted mocking of the inflated self-importance exhibited by the panelists, and the silly pigeon-holing that goes with all the “diversity” labels, now has degenerated to fifth-grade caliber name calling. First Things is better than this.
April 8th, 2011 | 2:43 am
A Neighbor,
You thought the commentary was “fun to read” because you thought the conference subject was silly. It’s hard to imagine that the conference organizers themselves thought their subject or approach was silly, so any mockery was mean-spirited.
I’m curious to know just which points you found early on to be “substantive.”
I notice that of the two descriptions of his intent Joe offers you chose “gently mocking” rather than “sardonic humor.” Joe tends toward the derisive, not the gentle.
You are wrong to claim that the “conference participants were the first to go” into the “petty insults and quibbling.” Joe’s initial post is insulting and Ian’s is ugly, but I don’t see any insults, pettiness, or quibbling in either Wan’s first post or Frolov’s. Anger, yes, but not the other things. The first set of insults, pettiness, and, yes, dictionary references appear in Joe’s first response. TimC followed soon after.
I copped to going overboard with the word “hate,” but only the conference participants and I have made any conciliatory gestures. Nothing from the “gentle mockers” themselves.
I don’t know why you would say that Wan and Prolov confirmed all the “presumptuous things” said about them when they explained themselves well in their first posts and only got angry when their integrity was questioned.
—
Bob,
I don’t know why you would describe the panelists as having “inflated self-importance.” To begin with, you don’t know them. Secondly, all those hyphens that you make fun of are asking the audience to recognize how limited the speakers’ views are to their particular experience. If anything, the participants are self-deflationary.
April 8th, 2011 | 9:14 am
I don’t know why you would say that Wan and Prolov confirmed all the “presumptuous things” said about them when they explained themselves well in their first posts and only got angry when their integrity was questioned.
Because they don’t practice what they preach re: tolerance and/or respecting diversity?
Because they are so concerned with their own status as victimized and oppressed identities and yet feel perfectly free to behave hatefully toward the people they themselves perceive as Other?
Yes, other people disagree with them, have a different point of view. That is what Other means.
Maybe someday if y’all will learn what “Reciprocity” means, we might actually come to value diversity and tolerance.
April 8th, 2011 | 10:13 am
@Michael (great name that!): Your 2:43am post demonstrates the problem and reminds me of a quote from a reading program I was part of in Junior High. “I’m firm-willed, you’re stubborn, he’s pig-headed.” It’s all in the viewpoint, a fundamental appreciation of diversity that is supposedly the soul of the conference. Yet, you also seem to lack it. Not to worry, we’re human too.
@Fr Wan, I suggest you have become a bit paranoid about the people around you. Let me tell a different story. When I was a Seaman in the Navy, I was frequently called a Spic. I never found any racism in it. In fact, being a Geek, I explained, every now and then, that Spic was a derogatory term for a Spaniard and I was Mexican which has it’s own derogatory terms. No one bit but everyone got along fine. If you’ve seen Eastwood’s Gran Torino, you’ll have some idea of what I am talking about. To give you the other side, if some chicano calls you a Gringo, pay no attention to them. It is not a serious term. But if he calls you a Gabacho, smile and tell him you are not French. If he asks, tell them a Red Haired Devil chicano told you to say that.
Ese, Tia, como esta, ‘mana! (Notice how I assume by her name that she is hispanic, not to mention female. I also took mongoloid to be from the old tripartite racial description of us humans, by which division, I am also a mongoloid and in the same class as the Father.)
April 8th, 2011 | 11:04 am
Michael,
Your last comment highlights what is for me the basic problem with all this “diversity” mongering. You tell us that all of this exquisitely detailed self labeling is to be understood as a sign of cognitive and personal humility (at least I think that’s what you mean by “self-deflationary”).
Some problems with this claim in my view. First, there is an air of meticulous preening about it: Here are the things that make ME different. Here are the things that identify ME as opposed to anyone else. How, pray tell, does such an exercise in self examination and promotion come to be called “deflationary”?
Second, how does labeling further the cause of non labeling? The putative aim of diversity education is to increase tolerance and respect for the “Other” and to combat reductionist labeling based on race or class or sex or gender etc. and yet the promoters of this program are clearly exquisitely conscious of all of these things. It reminds one of the sloganeering in Animal Farm — “Your labels bad; our labels good….”
But most disturbing is the implicit anthropology and cognitive framework that underlies such labels. If we separate human beings into ever smaller categories based on strings of hyphenated markers we create alienation and suspicion not community nor appreciation. And if we further insist that one must have lived, personal experience in order to understand a particular point of view we move ever closer to completing the process of making each individual an island apart from the main (indeed there is no main!).
This seems to me to be the polar opposite of a genuinely Christian anthropology. At its root, the multicultural agenda has as a guiding principle the notion that what unites us (and indeed makes us ‘strong’) is difference. In contrast, a genuinely Christian anthropology must have as a central understanding not our differences but our sameness: the universal stamp of the imago dei; the universal need for redemption and reconciliation; the commonality of our brokenness. Starting from difference can only, in my view, spin us further apart.
April 8th, 2011 | 11:18 am
Blake and Mike,
A guest you know only by reputation walks into your house just as you’re making fun of him and he gets angry. What do you do?
Do you tell him that he really is worthy of mockery?
Do you make fun of him for getting angry?
Do you dismiss his reasons for getting angry and accuse him of lying about his reasons? (Joe’s approach)
Do you lecture him about his self-contradictions, disrespect, and thin skin? (your most recent approaches)
Or do you apologize for hurting him, explain why you were making the joke, and ask him to explain whether you had misunderstood what you were mocking?
April 8th, 2011 | 11:43 am
Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
1. You are so spun up about this that you checked back in to comment at 2:43am, which would be rather over the top in any US timezone.
2. You can only see vitriol in the opposing viewpoint and can only see righteous indignation in your own. Normally, I award immediate victory to the opposition when somebody uses a Nazi reference in an analogy.
3. You never considered the idea that when I said that I enjoyed reading the “commentary” I might have meant ALL of the comments.
4. You left untouched my central point, that you take yourself too seriously, while attacking the quibbling points on the periphery in a manner that shows a narrow perspective. Thanks! I couldn’t have made my point as strongly without your help.
So far I have seen only one person in these comments take a jab in good humor, and that was Mr. “Geo Karter” himself. That told me more than anything else I read in the article or in the commentary.
If this conversation could be turned back to meaningful issues, it would address the central points, rather than the quibbling side issues like the definition of irony:
- Labels perpetuate and create divisions where they would ordinarily have dwindled or never even existed.
- It is possible to amass an impressive collection of hyphenated labels without having any meaningful diversity of perspective. In fact, it is probable that there would be little real diversity in a collection of people comfortable with that kind of labeling.
And I’ll throw in one from your side, rephrased for salience…
- It is self-evident that a general understanding of someone’s background helps contextualize their actions in a way that makes society more just and welcoming to everyone. How can you take into consideration someone’s background if you are unaware of it?
Let me kick off this idyllic Comment Section 2.0 with a question from my own experience:
My almost-five-year-old son is currently in a preschool class with students of many different backgrounds (ethnic, social, etc.). Currently, he has no labels for these. He perceives skin color, but currently thinks no more of it than eye color or hair color. He perceives differences in speech pattern and interests, and even in religion, but doesn’t seem to think anything of it. I could provide him with labels for these differences, if I chose. So far, the preschool has not (which is part of why I love this preschool, they’re leaving that up to us as parents… I don’t expect public school to be as respectful of our role next year).
So. Tell me: why should I provide him with labels to classify these students? Yes, I know that in today’s world he will be exposed to them one way or another, but let’s make this a discussion of how things should be rather than how they are. Will introducing him to the labels and having a “diversity” discussion with him bring him closer to the ideal envisioned by MLK and others of black children and white children playing in the park together and not knowing the difference? Or, will introducing him to these labels perpetuate the divisions and the sense of “otherness”?
The rules:
- No ad hominem attacks.
- No grammar critiques. If you must, include a link to the Underground Grammarian at the bottom of your post, and be done with it.
- No jargon or theoretical constructs. If it can’t be plainly and concisely described, it doesn’t pass the logic test.
- No quibbling! Go after the central assertion of each post. If you pursue a side issue, you must show how it undermines the central point. You cannot win anyone over by “proving” that you’re smarter and expecting that folks will take the rest of your assertions on faith because you have flexed your intellectual biceps.
- No chronological snobbery. Ideas are not inferior because they are older. There is no expiration date on sound logic and principles. Furthermore, just because today is slightly better than yesterday does not mean that everything you thought yesterday was wrong.
Ready? GO!
April 8th, 2011 | 11:57 am
Serious question: do “diversity” confabs like this actually reach people who don’t already agree?
Even though Fr. Wan seems to think I’m some sort of knuckle-dragging cracker, I actually belong to a theologically conservative church that is far from the whitebread fantasy he appears to entertain about people like me. In fact, the Wonder Bread Christians of his nightmares would probably freak out over some of the things we do in our church. We have people whose cultural and ethnic backgrounds are even more alien to my own life experiences than Fr. Wan’s. And you know what — it’s great. I learn so much about what it means to follow Jesus from people who grew up doing it a lot differently than I did, and to be compelled to think about what diversity in Christ means (we have lots of immigrants) — and this is something especially important as the center of gravity in the Christian world moves to the global south.
But you know what? Few of us sit around mulling our ethnic identities, especially not in terms of the Oppression that the Other may have visited upon us. It just seems really beside the point. What unites us, in our diversity, is a shared love for Jesus Christ, and a dedication to follow Him. My guess is that Fr. Wan and the professionally diverse folks like him would say the same thing about themselves, but with that crowd, there’s always this precious exaltation of difference, of demographic characteristics raised to a virtue (and, of course, the fact that some demographic characteristics are more virtuous than others), combined with a general thin-skinnedness and total humorlessness about it all, that I find really silly at best, and destructive at worst.
I find the best way to respond to things like this is to make fun of them, because if there’s one thing Puritans cannot abide, it’s laughter.
April 8th, 2011 | 2:42 pm
You are so spun up about this that you checked back in to comment at 2:43am, which would be rather over the top in any US timezone.
Hey, some of us are routinely awake and on the computer at 2:43 AM, for reasons that have nothing to do with being pathologically hung up on a debate about ethnic identities!
April 8th, 2011 | 2:54 pm
David,
“First, there is an air of meticulous preening about it: Here are the things that make ME different. Here are the things that identify ME as opposed to anyone else. How, pray tell, does such an exercise in self examination and promotion come to be called “deflationary”?”
At the same time that these labels identify “me,” they also identify “we,” other people who use or have attached to them the same label. The exercise can be either inflationary or deflationary. You’ve decided without attending the conference that these people are preening and self-promoting.
“Second, how does labeling further the cause of non labeling?”
Where did they ask people to remove labels?
“And if we further insist that one must have lived, personal experience in order to understand a particular point of view we move ever closer to completing the process of making each individual an island apart from the main (indeed there is no main!).”
Where did they claim this?
“Starting from difference can only, in my view, spin us further apart.”
What makes you think they are “starting” from difference? They’re discussing difference, but you don’t know whether they start there, end there, or pass through there. And you don’t know because you’ve made assumptions.
—
A Neighbor,
“You are so spun up about this that you checked back in to comment at 2:43am, which would be rather over the top in any US timezone.”
Unless you’re up late with out-of-town friends and the subject came up.
“You can only see vitriol in the opposing viewpoint and can only see righteous indignation in your own.”
As I said, I was wrong to describe the feeling of most of the critics as hate, but I think contempt captures the feelings of most of the critics. What word would you use?
“You never considered the idea that when I said that I enjoyed reading the “commentary” I might have meant ALL of the comments.”
You did not say you enjoyed all the comments. You said the early comments were “fun,” but the later ones were “juvenile.”
“You left untouched my central point, that you take yourself too seriously, while attacking the quibbling points on the periphery in a manner that shows a narrow perspective. Thanks! I couldn’t have made my point as strongly without your help.”
Your comment had three paragraphs. The first was addressed to all, the second to Carter and friends, and the third to conference participants. Since I neither side with Carter nor am participating in the conference, I took only the first paragraph as addressed to me. I answered all the points you made in that paragraph, but you have not responded to any of my points.
“If this conversation could be turned back to meaningful issues”
That’s the point, isn’t it? The conversation never started by addressing meaningful issues. It started in mockery. The first voice to actually start addressing an issue was Blake, but the issues were only engaged when Wan joined.
“it would address the central points, rather than the quibbling side issues like the definition of irony”
No one has asked the conference participants what they think the central points are. They were on the site, you all had a chance to ask and discuss it with them, but because Carter had started the thread on such a low note, you all drove them right off of the site. Good job.
In the meantime, the central points you want to raise are yours, not mine. I don’t care much or talk much about identity politics, and when describing myself, I don’t use any hyphens. I’ve learned a lot from reading people who talk about these issues, but I don’t find it helpful to describe myself in these ways.
So if you’re looking for a defense of hyphens, I can’t give you one. It’s not my fight. But I think I know rudeness when I see it. And you’ll notice that, even though I had visited the thread a couple of times, I didn’t enter it until Wan did. When I did enter, I tried to show that First Things in fact cares a great deal about the kinds of diversity it wants to discuss while disdaining the kinds of diversity that the conference wants to discuss. I then called for a more Christian approach to disagreeing by recommending a fine article that appeared on this site. Since then, I’ve tried to get people to see that the conference may not be what they want it be, that they’re making unwarranted assumptions. I think that counts as a central point of this conversation.
“The rules: Go after the central assertion of each post.”
And yet you didn’t address a single one of my responses to your first post.
—
Former Dallasite,
“Serious question: do “diversity” confabs like this actually reach people who don’t already agree?”
Agree on what? Like most conferences, I assume there will be discussion of what diversity and justice mean and especially of what it means to say that God loves diversity and justice. Otherwise, there’ll be general agreement on the ideas that diversity is important, especially the kinds of identity they spotlighted, and that God is primarily concerned with justice.
Meanwhile, a journal like First Things only reaches people who already agree that religion is important to the public square and that abortion, divorce, and homosexuality are wrong. From the outside, this seems like close-mindedness, but anyone who spends anytime here sees a greater diversity than that.
People gather usually because they share a broad agreement on something. From the outside, this looks like what Carter derides as a “monoculture,” but it is usually not.
“My guess is that Fr. Wan and the professionally diverse folks like him would say the same thing about themselves, but with that crowd, there’s always this precious exaltation of difference, of demographic characteristics raised to a virtue (and, of course, the fact that some demographic characteristics are more virtuous than others), combined with a general thin-skinnedness and total humorlessness about it all, that I find really silly at best, and destructive at worst.”
I think you’re right that Wan would say the same things about his group, but the rest of this comment just shows how little you are interested in people who might think differently about their identity and experience than you do. The way other people think is “silly” and maybe “dangerous”; yours is holy.
If you hadn’t helped “laugh” Wan off the site, perhaps you could have asked him how he thinks diversity relates to a shared love of Christ.
April 8th, 2011 | 4:31 pm
What a pipedream that was. Goodbye all, it’s been fun. Michael, I’ll let your response speak for itself to anyone else reading. You’re beyond reach.
April 8th, 2011 | 5:06 pm
A Neighbor,
But you didn’t really try to reach. When asked a question, you didn’t answer it directly. When offered an argument, you didn’t respond to it to directly. When your misstatements were pointed out, you didn’t clarify.
In the meantime, I played by all your rules. Perhaps you didn’t really want a conversation after all.
April 8th, 2011 | 5:48 pm
the issues were only engaged when Wan joined.
The problem is that Wan does not recognize that he needs to extend to others exactly the same courtesy he wants others to extend to him.
Those of you who want a world where diversity is recognized, please go back to Wan’s post, identify the stereotypes, judge him according to the same standards by which he judges us, and apologize for not standing up to the presumed motives and other bigoted slurs – for instance the crack about Samuel Huntington being like a Nazi.
April 8th, 2011 | 6:28 pm
Wan thinks the late Sam Huntington was a crypto-Nazi for discussing cultural difference as a catalyst for geopolitical conflict. I’m not sure that Wan was really interested in this discussion in the first place. I’m also not sure what can be profitably said to, or heard from, someone so quick to deploy such offensive non sequiturs to describe distinguished scholars who don’t share his opinion.
April 8th, 2011 | 6:30 pm
Reading the above has been distressing. Not in the best traditions of First Things. The point-scoring, the shouting (it is hard to read some of the above and not hear shouting). I have a great sense of people not listening. Prof Wan can rightly ask us to respect her account of her experience of life; I for one found her account of her background very moving. On the other hand, Prof Wan does not seem to take on board the serious charge lurking beneath all the banter and mockery: namely, that academe seems to self-select in a self-referential way, indeed I would say self-reverential way. The more thoughtful of the voices above were highlighting the irony of a conference on diversity without contrarian voices. Here Prof Wan could at least remind us that her paper is about contrary examples from scripture, about God not loving diversity. We never really took that point on board. I for one would nominate the shocking scripture of 1 Samuel 15.3.
April 8th, 2011 | 11:15 pm
Prof. Wan is a man.
April 9th, 2011 | 5:32 am
Dallasite, I hate to refer to invective, but I was assuming that Prof Wan was female because of one of the insults suffered by Prof Wan cited above, namely:
As for taunts, how about: “You f**king Communist b*tch, why don’t you go back to where you came from?”
If I am wrong, I apologise.
April 9th, 2011 | 5:35 am
I have now looked up Prof Wan’s website, which I should have done previously, and indeed he is male. Presumably the unpleasant invective cited above was directed against a member of his family.
April 9th, 2011 | 6:49 am
Prof Wan can rightly ask us to respect her account of her experience of life
There are a certain class of values one might call “social values”.
Reciprocity – the understanding that you do not have the right to demand a courtesy you are not willing to extend to others – is one of them.
April 9th, 2011 | 10:40 am
[...] title alone got me to read it: God Loves Diversity and Hyphenated Ethnic/Nationalistic Self-Identifications. Interesting comments also—some funny; some serious. Related Posts:Not the 50 books you must read [...]
April 9th, 2011 | 9:56 pm
My last two cents. Back when I was a kid, there was a common saying, “Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can never hurt me.” Today it seems to be all about hurting words and projecting our emotions onto others. I still think the flyer is funny. Now had it been about sticks and stones it might have gotten serious attention from me.
My two, and only two, experiences with direct personal prejudice had nothing to do with inflammatory words, which all parties carefully avoided, but with the actions they took based on their beliefs. How did I know their beliefs? It’s amazing how intelligent people can, through indirection and careful selection of words, make their actions clear given sufficient time to think about the confluence.
April 10th, 2011 | 3:47 pm
Reading the responses of these conference people and this Michael fellow feels like watching “Portlandia”.
The only thing “diverse” about these people is the amount of hyphens they can cram into their bylines. Otherwise, they all talk like the same collective academic hipster.
Now if I can just channel my persecution complex onto a 50 page research paper and pimp my Filipino (Or is it Ilocano-Tagalog? How deep into the tribal level do we have to split heirs?) heritage and dusky skin tone into my diversity profile, I think I can fit right in.
Ugh. And they wonder why liberal arts programs and divinity schools are being shuttered at alarming rates…
“When I did enter, I tried to show that First Things in fact cares a great deal about the kinds of diversity it wants to discuss while disdaining the kinds of diversity that the conference wants to discuss.”
I just want to address this point. The difference here is not that this place “disdains” the kinds of diversity the conference wants to discuss. It is that “diversity” isn’t even an issue here at all, and I think its a good thing. People here already know we are different. The difference is that people here don’t spend copious amounts of time belaboring that very obvious point. Folks here don’t sit in a corner discussing our feelings about being social or fiscal conservative, or Orthodox or Catholic. The identity hand-wringing may be relevant in some other places, but I’ve been coming to this place for quite some time now partly because it is not one of those places.
April 10th, 2011 | 6:25 pm
First Voice: “You are German-American.”
Second Voice: “I am not an ethnicity; I am a free man!”
First Voice: ” Ha,ha,ha,ha…”
April 10th, 2011 | 10:27 pm
I’m coming to this a little late, but I have a brief comment. as a danish-american, middle-class-expatriate, heterosexual string theorist, I find that none of these things defines my identity. cultures fade and break, money corrupts, I am laid bare before God here or in my hometown, and work is a tempting idol. the thing that is most important is the one that is left off that list. that I am an adopted son of God, redeemed from wretched idolatry by the blood and Life of the risen Christ.
sure, it’s a trite sunday school-ish statement, but it is nonetheless correct. if I define myself by any of those worldly things or if I expect respect from others on such a basis, then I am participating in one of the many lies of this world. do I love my wife and marriage? passionately. my work and inquiry? fervently. but all of these things are but dust and ash unless they are submitted to Christ, so that He is above all.
with regard to this conference, I do not want to presume the intentions or purpose when I have only seen the flyer. aside from joe’s ironic point about the composition of the panel, we should give the benefit of the doubt to the participants. I can anticipate several useful functions for this program as well as several less-than-beneficial ones. the metric is whether or not the program leads those present closer to Jesus.
best,
kristan
April 11th, 2011 | 12:25 am
I’m still quite astonished by the lack of human insight in the responses here. Imagine that you are excited to be participating in a conference that you find meaningful only to find other people mocking it. One quite human response is anger, the kind of anger showed by Wan. Carter is both an editor and a writer so he had the responsibility of ratcheting down the emotion and creating a more charitable space. But he threw grease on the fire instead, accusing Wan of dishonesty and oversensitivity. Both things might be true, but Carter should have worked to defuse the situation and call for more clear heads. Isn’t that what you would do if a dinner guest got upset about some ribbing he was receiving?
—
Blake,
“please go back to Wan’s post, identify the stereotypes, judge him according to the same standards by which he judges us, and apologize for not standing up to the presumed motives and other bigoted slurs”
Was there anything in the commentary that would make Wan or any of the conference participants think that the commenters weren’t conforming to stereotype? All they read was mockery and insults. Why would they assume you were capable of anything else, especially when the responses to their posts were even more insulting?
Remember, too, when you complain that they assigned “presumed motives” that all of the insults directed at the conference also “presumed” what their “motives” were.
“There are a certain class of values one might call “social values”
One of those values is being a good host, and Carter wasn’t one. Wan was attacked, and he attacked in kind.
—
Former Dallasite,
“I’m not sure that Wan was really interested in this discussion in the first place.”
There was no discussion. The people here were insulting him before he even arrived. The insults had no substantive claims that he could respond to.
—
Terry,
“I for one found her account of her background very moving.”
I’m glad to hear someone acknowledging the power of his story.
“On the other hand, Prof Wan does not seem to take on board the serious charge lurking beneath all the banter and mockery”
When he did try to explain what the conference was about, he was accused of dishonesty. It’s hard to keep one’s head in such a poisonous environment.
“The more thoughtful of the voices above were highlighting the irony of a conference on diversity without contrarian voices.”
Does any conference invite speakers who question the premise of the conference? In one column recently, Carter was asked whether First Things would ever publish an article that argued that life didn’t begin at conception, and he said he would resign if it did. A good conference will present a range of views, but they usually fall within the field of query.
“Presumably the unpleasant invective cited above was directed against a member of his family”
More likely, the comment refers to him. To call a man a bitch is to question his masculinity.
—
Jonathan,
“The only thing “diverse” about these people is the amount of hyphens they can cram into their bylines.”
You can’t tell from the titles whether they are diverse or not. The two conference participants we heard from were diverse. Wan’s attitude toward diversity differs from Frolov’s, who disdains the words progressive and liberal. You’re making your judgments based on stereotypes.
“It is that “diversity” isn’t even an issue here at all, and I think its a good thing…. The identity hand-wringing may be relevant in some other places, but I’ve been coming to this place for quite some time now partly because it is not one of those places”
Diversity is explicitly here. Lots of newcomers to this site assume it is a Roman Catholic journal only to discover a diversity of sects and a range of opinions. I’ve been visiting this site for six months now, and identity is very important in many, but by no means all, of the conversations. Is an evangelical still an evangelical if he is a meliorist? Was the culture of Catholicism different in the fifties? What kind of Christian identity is possible now?
You don’t call these kinds of conversations “hand-wringing,” but I find that I sometimes describe them that way when I am outside the issue. When the Orthodox or evangelicals start arguing among themselves, I’ll find myself chuckling before I catch myself and bring to mind the implications that are important to them.
The issues important to this conference aren’t your issues, so they’re going to seem silly. Let it go. There’s no need to insult something you don’t get. As I said, I don’t care much about the kinds of identity questions raised by the conference. I often roll my eyes at them, but then, every once in a while I hear a talk or read an article, and I learn something. Just as I learn something when I hear evangelicals arguing over something that initially seemed silly to me.
—
Kristan,
Thanks for your post. I think you’re absolutely right. I bet if you had been able to respond either before Wan’s first post or soon after that the conversation would have taken a healthier turn and that the participants would have agreed with your point.
April 11th, 2011 | 7:05 am
Terry: “The more thoughtful of the voices above were highlighting the irony of a conference on diversity without contrarian voices.”
Michael: Does any conference invite speakers who question the premise of the conference? In one column recently, Carter was asked whether First Things would ever publish an article that argued that life didn’t begin at conception, and he said he would resign if it did. A good conference will present a range of views, but they usually fall within the field of query.
I’d say you have something of a point, Michael. The conference was billed as one for “progressive” scholars. Personally, I wouldn’t have expected them to have had on the roster a theologian who would fit the First Things mold. That said, what makes me roll my eyes at this event is what it says about the concerns of self-labeled theological progressives, and about progressivism in general as it expresses itself among academics.
This preoccupation with identity politics, especially having to do with race and gender, is so retrograde, but the people who practice it consider themselves on the front lines of cultural advancement. More to the point, all the talk of “justice” according to this model actually obscures a discourse of injustice, because it makes achieving justice a matter of exchanging one supposedly illegitimate group of power-holders (white males) with another group of power-holders whose claim on authority rests with their status as a member of a minority group of which contemporary liberalism approves.
I do not doubt that in some precincts, Prof. Wan, as a Chinese-American, stands to suffer from prejudice. What I doubt very much Prof. Wan can see, or would be willing to concede, is that working-class whites, or whites in general, can suffer from injustice too, because of the color of their skin or their gender.
I have seen in my line of work qualified whites, especially white men, refused employment solely because of an accident of their birth: they didn’t fill desirable demographic criteria. This is galling enough, but what rubs it in is when the elites (often white themselves) making these employment decisions do so in full consciousness that they are making employment choices based on race and gender, with little regard for the quality of the job candidates’ past work or potential — and they declare this to be a virtuous act. You don’t often see white managers who hire according to this corrupt calculus offering to resign to make way for a candidate of color, as an act of racial “justice.” This kind of progressivism always makes some other poor jerk take it in the neck to fulfill what Tom Sowell calls “the vision of the anointed.”
I would not want my children studying at the Perkins School, because frankly, what its administrators see as a virtue, I see as the vice of racism. This is always wrong, but when it is carried out in the name of educating ministers and educators for service to the church, it is especially offensive. If Perkins continues on this current path, it will be a blessing to us all if the institution fades into irrelevance.
So say I, a product of the white working class, whose parents grew up dirt-poor and hungry in the countryside during the Great Depression. You know, running dogs of the oppressor class, and the kind of people whose grandchildren would be stigmatized by the “progressive” caucus at SMU, should they ever be unwise enough to agree to pay $12,000/yr in tuition to be educated for Christ’s service by these people.
April 11th, 2011 | 7:25 am
Was there anything in the commentary that would make Wan or any of the conference participants think that the commenters weren’t conforming to stereotype?
Wait a minute, just who is the one pushing the importance of “diversity”?
Why am I obliged to obey Wan’s rules of how we all ought to behave, and he isn’t obliged to obey his own rules?
If “diversity” is so irrelevant that even the people who claim to be defending it treat it as optional, then why should I care about offending people?
Typical behavior from the professional victim crowd. “Oh ohh oh ohh ohhh you treated me the way I treat you! OHHHH how I suffer!”
April 11th, 2011 | 9:10 am
[...] post on the Diversity & Justice seminar at Perkins School of Theology was picked up by the religious journal First Things. Their commenters had as much fun with the topic as ours did, including Ben who noted the [...]
April 11th, 2011 | 9:44 am
When Michael writes that he is “still quite astonished by the lack of *human* insight in the responses here,” he helps us understand why Professor Shihada may have felt the need to label herself a “human” in addition to a “feminist” from Gaza [emphasis mine]. Apparently the humanity of those who disagree with “progressives” is in question for at least some “progressives,” of whom Michael appears to be one. How such a view of those who are different from oneself serves either “diversity” or “justice” is something that Michael should explain.
April 11th, 2011 | 10:20 am
The problem with diversity is that it’s not the opposite of racism, which is its only real claim to being a good. The opposite of racism is not caring about other people’s appearance or ethnicity and simply judging people on their character. Not only does diversity promote a very mild form of racism itself, by emphasizing ethnicity, but it tends to be a collector of offenses, which is sad and annoying. Diversity is really the negative of a negative, and that doesn’t add up to something positive.
April 11th, 2011 | 12:33 pm
Former Dallasite,
“What I doubt very much Prof. Wan can see, or would be willing to concede, is that working-class whites, or whites in general, can suffer from injustice too, because of the color of their skin or their gender”
You raise good points in your post about employment discrimination. While you doubt Wan’s ability to be free enough from his own prejudices to “see” the problem or his honesty in being “willing to concede” its existence, I would just note that your estimation of his prejudices and dishonesty are based on thin evidence. Furthermore, he’s not here to prove your guess one way or another because of the hostility he found here.
—
Blake,
“Typical behavior from the professional victim crowd. “Oh ohh oh ohh ohhh you treated me the way I treat you! OHHHH how I suffer!”
Wan was maligned first by the commenters on this site. Your intolerance preceded and perhaps provoked his. Furthermore, he apologized for his words and his actions. You haven’t.
—
Ben,
I was using the word “human” here as a rough synonym for a psychological feature we all share. When people are insulted by people they don’t know, they get angry. Mockery is not known for producing calm, measured reactions. But instead of acknowledging this “human” truth, folks have attacked Wan for things he said when his blood was up, even after he apologized.
—
Mike,
“The problem with diversity is that it’s not the opposite of racism, which is its only real claim to being a good.”
There are many other uses of diversity besides a concern with racism. First Things is explicitly concerned with eliciting a diversity of faith perspectives with the proviso that there is agreement on conservative social stands. This diversity is pursued without a belief that unity should be achieved. In fact, the journal is not interested in ecumenism, preferring instead that the differences in the various faiths here be honored and respected.
Wan’s description of the conference doesn’t sound too far different from this when he says that the conference affirms “our own individual identity in all its glorious manifestations and by speaking honestly, with love, to others who are different from us.”
“it tends to be a collector of offenses, which is sad and annoying”
Tends, yes, but not always. Wan’s own description of attending to the “glorious manifestations” of individual identity doesn’t sound focused on offenses, but we don’t know how the conference itself worked out.
April 11th, 2011 | 1:06 pm
Michael,
You write: “I was using the word “human” here as a rough synonym for a psychological feature we all share.” But clearly we *don’t* all share Professor Wan’s “psychological feature” of taking inordinate umbrage to good-humored, good natured joshing and jesting that wasn’t, in any case, directed toward him specifically or individually, save in Carter’s initial post. What seems to have prompted Professor Wan’s accusation that folks around SMU in Dallas verbally harass him “every day” in racist ways was my own joshing and jesting description of myself as the sort of “good old boy” whose contribution to “diversity” is likely not welcome on a panel like his — a josh and a joke whose accuracy Professor Wan’s response only served to confirm. You’ll note that I have taken rather less umbrage to Professor Wan’s insinuation that as a “good old boy” I must also be the sort of racist who supposedly harrasses him “every day” than Professor Wan himself took to my rather more modest suggestion that an absence of “good old boys” limits his panel’s diversity, perhaps in an unjust way. Your argument seems to be that taking such inordinate umbrage as was taken by Professor Wan is a sign of “psychological features that all of us share” through our common humanity, such that anyone who hasn’t responded in the course of this discussion in the way that Professor Wan has is not entirely “human.” So, it still seems to me that you are, in some sense, insinuating that I and others here have been *inhuman* or *subhuman* in responding as we have to the discussion here — which, again, is an insinuation that doesn’t seem to me to demonstrate that you yourself really do love “diversity” and “justice” as much as you are trying to claim, but rather just the opposite of that.
April 11th, 2011 | 1:37 pm
Blake,
“Typical behavior from the professional victim crowd. “Oh ohh oh ohh ohhh you treated me the way I treat you! OHHHH how I suffer!”
Wan was maligned first by the commenters on this site. Your intolerance preceded and perhaps provoked his. Furthermore, he apologized for his words and his actions. You haven’t.
I have done nothing to apologize for.
Obsessing on victimhood and unrealistic (and usually unfair) demands for reparation is a game. A dance, if you will.
It is essentially the same dance as “domestic violence”. One side hurts the other side in physical, material ways. The other side is rightfully upset, and has a legitimate grievance. But the choice to seek justice doesn’t end the situation. The moment comes when one has to choose between doing what is right for oneself, vs. doing what is wrong for someone else. The game player is the one who is willing to abandon his own future because, for whatever reason, he just can’t – or won’t – let it go. Instead, the game-player escalates the confrontation – sometimes trying to punish or shame the perpetrator, or dragging bystanders into the fray, but always, always, there is above all the desire to have one’s status as bona fide victim affirmed and then affirmed some more.
Being overly concerned with one’s status as victim is a form of narcissism. It is obsessive and it destroys both one’s ability to have a future and one’s ability to have relationships with others, except the most superficial sorts of relationships where victims console (and of course affirm!) each other. It is the type of game that needs to be mocked. If there is a particular injustice that needs to be righted, then right it – but do so without jumping into a victim’s game.
April 11th, 2011 | 3:30 pm
Ben,
“So, it still seems to me that you are, in some sense, insinuating that I and others here have been *inhuman* or *subhuman* in responding as we have to the discussion here”
I’m not insinuating any such thing. I’m saying that it is perfectly normal for someone to react as Wan did. The fact that you responded differently only shows that people respond in different ways. Keep in mind that before he responded Wan had read twenty posts that mocked his conference.
There’s a handful of ways of interpreting anything that Wan or you or I said on this thread, but each time you’ve chosen the less charitable way of understanding what Wan or I were trying to say.
—
Blake,
“I have done nothing to apologize for”
Of course you haven’t.
April 11th, 2011 | 4:59 pm
“I’m not insinuating any such thing … The fact that you responded differently [from Professor Wan] only shows that people respond in different ways.’”
If that really is so, why then your observation that there hasn’t been much “human insight” in my responses or those of others here to Professor Wan? Wouldn’t an alleged lack of “insight” such as that then insinuate that those of us here who have responded in “different ways” from you yourself and Professor Wan are somehow therefore less “human” than you?
“There’s a handful of ways of interpreting anything … said on this thread, but each time you’ve chosen the less charitable way of understanding [what's been said].”
Pot calls kettle black, since that’s exactly, precisely what you yourself and Professor Wan have done — i.e., bear false witness against your neighbors, by calling them “inhuman” and “racist,” when none of them, including me, are either of those.
If this is “justice,” then give me “injustice” any day of the week — and spare me any more of your “diversity.”
April 11th, 2011 | 11:56 pm
Ben,
“Wouldn’t an alleged lack of “insight” such as that then insinuate that those of us here who have responded in “different ways” from you yourself and Professor Wan are somehow therefore less “human” than you”
Yes, it could insinuate that. Absolutely. The trouble is that I did not intend to insinuate any such thing. I feel like I’m a fairly reliable guide to my own intentions. You can believe me or not. It’s your choice.
“calling them “inhuman” and “racist,” when none of them, including me, are either of those”
I’ve told you twice now that I did not mean to insinuate that you were “inhuman,” and I explained what I was trying to say. You’ve decided to disbelieve me. I don’t know what else I can say. You’ve decided to take the worst possible interpretation of what I’m trying to say in the face of my repeated disclaimers.
April 12th, 2011 | 2:50 am
“I was cursed at by a couple of teenaged boys because I had a New York Yankees sticker on the back of my car. They assumed I was some sort of Yankee myself. Jackasses are everywhere.”
Yankess fan, huh. I’d say you had it comin’ to ya.
Anyway, I can top that. In my current home of Maryland, I had my minivan’s tires were slashed because I had a “BALTIMORE IS STEELERS COUNTRY” bumper sticker on the rear bumper. Talk about rank prejudice and bigotry!
April 12th, 2011 | 8:39 am
Michael,
Like Blake, you feel you have nothing to apologize for. Only, in Blake’s case, he’s right.
April 12th, 2011 | 10:56 am
Ben,
Tim called me out on my choice of the word “hate.” I reread what I wrote, reread the comments, and even though one commenter said, “I hate diversity,” I decided that Tim was right to call me out, and I apologized for the poor word choice.
I’d be happy to apologize to you if I had accused you of being inhuman or implied that you were, but I didn’t. I explained what I was trying to say, but you won’t accept my explanation, so I really don’t know what else I can do.
As for Blake, normally I would go back through his comments and show him how he contributed to the inhospitality shown to Wan and Frolov, but Blake has a history of not responding to such explanations.
Beginning with Carter, several commenters have claimed that Wan was being overly sensitive in perceiving racism where there was none, and yet here we are with you and Blake protesting your bruised feelings. Meanwhile, Wan has apologized for his hasty words.
April 12th, 2011 | 11:29 am
Michael,
Don’t flatter yourself that my feelings can be bruised by your words. I’m not protesting my bruised feelings, but pointing out your hypocrisy. You play rhetorically fast and loose, lobbing round brickbat terms like “hate” and “inhumanity,” and not in a spirit of joshing or jest. But then you take others to task for not being careful with their words, and for throwing rhetorical brickbats or bombs.
As for Professor Wan apologizing, I don’t think he actually did, not not sufficiently so. He didn’t specifically apologize to me for implying that I am a racist, nor did he apologize to most of his neighbors in Dallas by admitting that neither are they, and that he isn’t actually faced with racist harassment by them “every” single “day” as he initially claimed.
April 12th, 2011 | 3:30 pm
Ben,
“I’m not protesting my bruised feelings, but pointing out your hypocrisy. You play rhetorically fast and loose, lobbing round brickbat terms like “hate” and “inhumanity,” and not in a spirit of joshing or jest.”
I understand that you think I’m being hypocritical, but I can’t understand why you think so. I retracted the word “hate.” I never used the word “inhumanity,” so I don’t know how I can be accused of using it “loosely.” I used “human” and later explained how I was using it and how that use was not intended to insult anyone. I understand that you don’t accept by expectation, but I can’t understand why you don’t.
(I’ve reread the paragraph where I mention “human insight,” and I noticed that I also say “one quite human response is anger.” I hope you can see that I am indeed using the word “human” to be shared psychological characteristics and am not using it to insult anyone as being inhuman.)
“But then you take others to task for not being careful with their words”
It’s true that I have complained that most on this thread have used language to mock the conference participants. It’s also true that I’ve handed out some of my own. When called on it, I’ve apologized. After Wan bowed out on the 8th, I’ve tried to follow his lead and be more temperate. Since that time, I’ve made only the one dig, and that was at Blake for the reasons I explained.
“As for Professor Wan apologizing, I don’t think he actually did, not not sufficiently so. He didn’t specifically apologize to me for implying that I am a racist, nor did he apologize to most of his neighbors in Dallas by admitting that neither are they, and that he isn’t actually faced with racist harassment by them “every” single “day” as he initially claimed”
You’re right that he didn’t itemize his apology but offered a blanket one. Sufficient or not, he offered more than anyone who mocked him.
April 13th, 2011 | 8:59 am
Michael,
Here’s what passes — at least with you — as an “apology” from Professor Wan:
“In the heat of the moment, we probably said a lot of things we’ll regret in a few years. Maybe even sooner. If I did, I apologize.”
Professor Wan makes clear that he doesn’t yet feel regret for anything he said, though he does concede that he, like everyone else who spoke here, may, at some point in the future, feel such regret for some as yet unspecified portion of what was said, in which hypothetical case, he, Professor Wan, issues a blanket apology, in advance of such a contingency.
The problem is that apologies — genuine apologies — don’t work that way. One has to specifically address what one has done wrong and to acknowledge one’s regret and to express those regrets specifically to the those whom one has wronged. Professor Wan has done none of those things, which is why his “apology” was not received as such by very many here besides you.
April 13th, 2011 | 12:12 pm
Ben,
Can you think of any other reasons he might have responded tentatively rather than the more full way you would have preferred? Is the only reason that he doesn’t feel “genuine” remorse, or are there other reasons?
April 13th, 2011 | 1:32 pm
Michael,
Professor Wan wasn’t at all tentative in labeling me and the whole population of Dallas, Texas racists, on the basis of an anecdote or two. This was especially odd in my case, since I have never been to Dallas or even to Texas, not have I met Professor Wan. That Professor Wan seems more tentative and more hesitant in issuing apologies than in bearing false witness only goes to confirm the widespread suspicion that the panel at Perkins might — just might — be rather less “just” and less “diverse” than it is advertised to be.
My very last word. No need to reply, since I won’t be checking in here again. All the best. Au revoir.
April 13th, 2011 | 2:24 pm
Ben,
This is your last post because you can’t answer my previous questions, and you can’t answer them because doing so would require that you admit that there are other, more charitable ways of understanding what Wan said. It’s more important to you at this point to preserve your projection that he is a bad, hypocritical man.
April 25th, 2011 | 10:52 am
Sadly, hyphenated names and identifiers (ie, Chinese/African/Asian/Russian-American) can reveal a confused, dilluted, unsettled, ambivalent or divided identity and loyalties….the same thing children of divorce and abuse often experience.
Only God is I AM – an unchanging, unwavering being. Only God has THE stable identity. The Fall and sin have severed us from our identity in God. We become whom or what we follow, believe, serve, give ourselves to…(this is the definition of worship). (Jeremiah 2:5)
The best (only real, stable, secure) place/way to find and achieve real and lasting identity is in (surrendering to, worshipping, serving, following) Christ – by the new birth into His family, – by being grafted into His Blood-line, – by dying to the old self in the water of baptism, – by growing up and becoming fellow servants of Christ, finding purpose in His Will and Word – we find and make our true home among others of His family.
This is how we find the only authentic transcendent eternal identity Christ created and suffered to give us and wants for us.
In Christ, as Scripture states, we also acknowledge that this world is not our home and that we are all pilgrims, exiles and ‘seek a country’. We pilgrims/exiles are a family, we are all one, and our home on earth is the Church (our ark), a house not made with hands, whose maker and builder is God.
We find our identity, unity, home, place through authentic whole-hearted worship in which Christ feeds, fills, fulfills us…we know the search is over for a place to belong.
One Chinese who knew he was one with American Christians was Watchman Nee, whose books have helped millions of Christians find their true identity in Christ.
As a Christian, I have found a deeper kinship with Africans, Asians, Americans who know Christ and have been born into his family, and ancient saints long dead, with whom I share spiritual birth, than with my natural-birth family who live inauthentic identities in conformity with the world, flesh and devil. We cannot be close because their souls are divided, insincere or ambivalent (hyphenated?) in rebellion against God. We cannot share the Blood of Christ and the life and unity of the Holy Spirit.
I pray you each will find Your home, family and country in Jesus Christ who makes us one. Read over Acts 2 again and notice how the Holy Spirit gives them one language, one heart and one-ness in God. Sin divides, scatters and fractures, the Holy Spirit of God gathers, unifies, integrates – makes us whole and one in Him.
Amen.
April 25th, 2011 | 11:04 am
In fact, it may be a sign and/or an act of rebellion for a human being to say, ‘I am’ since only God is I AM and HE who has made us to to re-make us (through sanctification and maturity in Christ as we worship and are taught by the Holy Spirit) into who He originally created us to be so that we may serve and achieve HIS purposes.
We must pray THY Kingdom come, THY will be done.
A Scripture that came to mind while reading this discussion is Proverbs 19:11:
“If you are sensible, you will control your temper.
When someone wrongs you, it is a great virtue to ignore it. GNV
The wise are patient;
they will be honored if they ignore insults. NCV
It’s wise to be patient
and show what you are like
by forgiving others.” CEV
April 26th, 2011 | 1:36 am
I love how all these folks ran over here to defend themselves… I can see them meeting up and getting righteously outraged. Its the reason far left kooks (and I’ve met all you, they are far left kooks) are successfully re-writing everything on their terms, they cannot bear anything said against them whether serious or in humour.
April 26th, 2011 | 12:57 pm
Trans-ethnic? Does that mean a New England Yankee (Yankee in its most precise definition meaning a family of English origin that arrived in New England before the Revolution) whose family was variously Congregationalists, Unitarians and Anglo-Catholics, who was raised in the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod and is a translator of German documents into English?
BTW, does the diversity of this conference include confessional Lutherans, or indeed anyone holding to ANY of the Reformation Confessions?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact