Thoughts on slavery

Thinking about slavery. And families. And people.

There are people who have claimed slaves were treated like family. And other people, rightly, pointing out that, no, that wasn't true. Including that the very fact of being, legally, property, is different than being family. But I was thinking, both of those viewpoints seem to be assuming "treated like family" is a good thing. Usually true. But not always the case. Abuse within families is very real.

Of course, on average family were treated significantly better than slaves, I think it's safe to say. But also, with all the variations in how slaves were treated, and how family was (and is) treated, one thing was universal. Slaves couldn't leave. Legally bound to stay. Family more freedom. Adult males, free to leave. Children, women, less so. Not the same freedom to leave as an adult white male. But still more free than a slave.

And, though I'm not an expert on the time period, I imagine people would have been more likely to want to intervene to help someone experiencing abuse in their family than with slaves, and also much more legally able to.

Society is a complex thing. But some things are fairly simple. And people being considered, legally, to be property is a nasty thing. It's human trafficking endorsed by and enforced by the legal system.

On responsibility for choices

A friend posted a quote. It was about being responsible for the choices we make. But the way it was worded, it was too dismissive of circumstances and experiences. I'm not going to repeat the quote, but my reply was:

Yes, we are responsible for our choices, I agree. But our choices interrelate with things we didn't choose. And this text on the graphic ignores the strong impact on our lives of the things we didn't choose. It doesn't say we can overcome difficulties. It just brushes everything that's not choice aside like it doesn't matter.

But it reminded me of another quote I heard years ago. Which I had to seek out so I could quote it.

"We are not responsible for how we came to be who we are as adults but as adults we are responsible for whom we have become and for everything we say and do." Dr. Joseph Santoro.

In my own words: You aren't responsible for the bad things that happened to you. You aren't responsible for things you didn't learn, or wrong things you learned growing up. But you, as an adult, are responsible now for learning and growing, for becoming the best you that you can be. Continually challenging yourself. And trying your best to make good choices.

And the context of where I encountered that quote was definitely talking about self-improvement, not an expectation of instantly doing everything right.

Yeah, I believe in being responsible for our choices. But let's recognize, in ourselves and others, the things that affect who we are, as well as the things that continue to limit us.

Profit as a motive for good or bad

So, the Washington NFL team are no longer the Redskins. And, apparently, the reason they are doing it now is not because they've seen the light about the wrongness of the name. It's profit. Other companies won't do business with them, and suddenly they change their mind.

This reminds me of something I was thinking after reading a book on racism.

One tragic part of racism was companies and politicians using racism, even feeding it, for profit. J.C. Nichols and Bob Wood, each in different ways, in Kansas City real estate for a couple examples.

And I was thinking, it's much better when companies making their choices with a profit motive make good choices... choices that respect diversity and bring people together, instead of nurturing division and hatred. Choices that foster sustainability, rather than using up resources and destroying the planet.

No, I'm not thrilled by people or companies doing good for profit. But it beats doing ill for profit.

The phrase vs. the movement

I've seen people discount the whole "Black Lives Matter movement" because they disagree with something done by people in some way associated with it, or with some goals of some of the people.

But, see, "Black lives matter", it's a simple phrase. And you don't have to agree with everything said or done by people using that set of 3 words to agree that the lives of Black people matter, and to, thus, say Black lives matter.

People are complicated, and people are varied. It's probably impossible to agree with everything that falls under the "Black Lives Matter" umbrella. Because likely different people have different ideas that conflict. But none of the real or imagined negatives discount the fact that the lives of Black people matter.

Engaging with others

A couple things got me thinking about how we talk to others.

One, a friend posted something, involving politics and religion, something I disagree with. I didn't comment. Doing so, I felt, would have required more time and thought than I had to put into it. Others who also disagreed did comment, and without bothering to put care and thought into it (it seems to me). And what struck me was the pointlessness of their comments. They weren't going to change anyone's mind, or give them something to think about. It's a comment that would push away anyone who doesn't already agree. Including the person who posted. Which, why would you do that on a friends post? What's the point?

When we speak or write, especially on matters where there's a lot of disagreement or differing viewpoints, we really need to think about who we are talking to, speak to them, not at them. And, if replying to something, think about what was said. Engage. Dialogue.

On the other hand, sometimes you do have to stand up against false statements, putdowns, harshness, and such.

I got muted for a week recently in a Facebook group I'm in (for fans of an author I like). I'm not unhappy about it. Because, I know that, on my part, I was standing up for something. And I also understand how it made sense for the admin or moderator to just do that to everyone in the conversation, rather than pick apart who was at fault.

The person, in a discussion of a detail in the books (which don't have much religious content at all, but this bit was) made a comment saying Catholics differ from Christians in something. I said Catholics are Christians. She gave a half-hearted apology but didn't really get why she was wrong in her wording.

Speak up for the truth when appropriate. When someone's listening for whom what you say might make a difference. Speak up against attacks. In particular, to the person attacked,  in support (or just more generally, in their support). To the person who said it, if they might listen, in a way that's engages them, rather than making them feel attacked.

But be willing to not say anything at all. And be prepared to listen and think, and sometimes research, before you do say something.

On "All Lives Matter"

Written by me in response to someone who was in turn responding to something commenting on "all lives matter" as a response to "Black lives matter":

It's a matter of context. Yes, all lives matter. That's why the message that black lives matter is so important. "All lives matter" as a response to "black lives matter" is dismissing the experiences of black people, and the importance of the message that their lives matter. "All lives matter" used used to mean white lives matter more than black lives is despicable.

Changes

I really hate the argument that changing X doesn't solve problem N, therefore it's a waste to do X. Grrr. Just because something doesn't solve the world's problems doesn't mean it doesn't need to be done.

Of course, usually, the real reason behind the argument is they object to the change. A change others recognize is a change that should happen.

Treating someone with respect doesn't solve all their problems. But I should still treat people with respect. (And I mean an equality sort of respect, not a some people above others sort of respect.) And some changes people, companies, governments, and such, choose to make because they realize making those changes is necessary for treating everyone with respect.

Why we should wear facemasks

The evidence that wearing masks works is statistics. We know that in areas where almost everyone wears masks, there's less spread of COVID-19. Understanding the specifics of why and how that works isn't necessary to know that it does.

Did you know that Florence Nightingale was a statistician? She used statistics to understand what was and wasn't good nursing care, and thus improved nursing care.

And looking at the numbers is how we know that wearing masks works. If people in a community wear masks, that reduces the number of people in the community that get COVID-19. And, yes, you might be one of the people that benefits from everyone wearing masks.

Lives Matter

Seems to me "all lives matter", that set of words, has been appropriated by people who don't actually believe that. Or who at least don't believe all lives matter equally. I feel like we need to re-appropriate those words in our responses to them. Use the words "all lives matter" (no capitals) along with "Black lives matter" (with or without capitals). Something like, "I believe all lives matter, and that's why I support Black Lives Matter", or, "Yes, all lives matter, thus the importance of the message that "Black lives matter".

Additionally, people listen more if you start by agreeing with them rather than by disagreeing with them or attacking them.

#BlackLivesMatter

I see "Black lives matter", and for me it's a reminder that all lives matter, mine included, with a focus on black lives, in response to black lives being treated as if they don't matter. It's pointing out that some lives are treated as if they don't matter.

Thoughts on abortion

Written May 17, 2019, posted on Facebook.

So, lots of talk related to the issue of abortion. Which I tend to not comment on because I can't just simply agree. I definitely am on the pro-choice side of the legal issue, but I don't agree with everything pro-choice people say. Some things I strongly disagree with.

The "pro-life" side, the argument (at it's best at least) seems to be unborn children have a right to life, therefore abortion is morally wrong, and therefore it should be illegal. Unborn children have a right to life, I have no problem with that idea (though one can be more nuanced about it). Therefore it's morally wrong... as a general viewpoint that's more or less how I feel, but, for me, that does not at all extend to judging particular people in particular situations. I hear woman who tell stories of why they got an abortion, and I can't judge. I can't say they are wrong. And the idea of doing so is alien to me. And, so, as you can imagine, I also don't agree with jumping from "it's morally wrong" to "it should be illegal". I don't believe in basing laws on morality.

I think laws should be based on rights. Protecting rights. And not just as a statement that something is wrong because it's infringes on someone's rights, but practically protecting rights. I'm not going to go into all the detail of my thinking on this issue, but there's a few thoughts I want to share.

I do think abortion is not a good thing, and we should do everything we can to minimize abortions. But I don't at all like the idea of doing that by legally preventing a woman who wants an abortion from getting one. I'd rather we, as a society, do what we can so she's not in that situation. Which can mostly be summed up as: support women. Make birth control available and affordable. Men, don't have sex with women without their full and clear consent. And do your part to create a culture where that's the norm. And let's support pregnant women and mothers. No matter how the mother got pregnant.

I dislike the "exception for rape or incest" idea. It seems to me supporting such a provision in an abortion law comes from either wanting the law to be based on mortality, or else a compromise because it's better than the same law without that provision. But I don't like the idea of a woman having to prove she was raped. I don't like the idea of the woman's decision being everyone else's business. Seems to me better to leave it to her, her chosen medical professionals, and those she goes to for support. Trying to implement an "exception" law, for those reasons or medical reasons, seems both really messy to implement and unfair to women.

And I dislike that abortion being illegal, rather than this stopping abortions, it would mean going back to the days when women can't trust the safety of an abortion. The law does a good job of making sure abortions are safe. How about we let it do that and work to reduce/eliminate abortions in a way that supports and empowers women.

And then there's the fact that it seems like those that push for anti-abortion laws aren't coming from a place of respecting life. And if you don't respect women (or blacks, or foreigners, etc), then you can't really be said to respect life.

People and Dogs

People and dogs are alike in that mostly they/we are gentle and non-violent, but pretty much any of us with enough abuse at some point just might react with violence.

Why I'm for Same-Sex Marriage

Here I share about what in my background and thinking leads me to my view on the issue of gay marriage. And, in doing so, I share a lot about who I am as a person. The ideas in here affect my attitudes to, well, pretty much everything.  Or a lot of things, anyway. (Note that while this post has a heavy dose of religion, my way of thinking does not require belief in God or being religious.)

Growing up, homosexuality wasn't addressed in my religious education. Or elsewhere, for that matter. I wasn't taught it was bad, not because I had enlightened teachers, but simply because it wasn't seen as an issue. At least, so it seems to me based on what I remember. My experience was that homosexuality was something out there in the greater world, and not an issue for me or the people in my life. (As an aside, I can see how, for a homosexual, coming to terms with being homosexual can be a challenging process if coming out of a similar experience growing up.)

I did learn, in my religious education, about morality. I learned we are responsible for making good moral choices. Part of that was that the Holy Spirit guides us, each of us. What I came to understand is that we each are responsible for choosing to do what is right in our own life. The church guides us and helps us, but we, ultimately, are responsible for choosing what's right.

I also learned that we are not supposed to judge others. That judgment belongs to God.  And this value is pretty central to who I am.

I learned that we are supposed to love one another. Everyone.  Love your enemy.  If they are human, love them.  That and not judging really fit together closely for me.

Along with that, I also always understood homosexuality as something innate. That finding one's own gender attractive is not something one chooses. And, thus, not something that can be a sin.  I also feel that the feelings I have for a man I find attractive, even when I can't act on that attraction, that's not wrong, and there's beauty in being able to see someone that way.  It doesn't make sense to me to think the same reaction is wrong or bad when a man feels it.

I'm pretty thoroughly heterosexual. The morality of homosexual relationships is not an issue I've had to consider in my own life. Nor have I ever, thus far in my life, been in the place of helping someone else deal with relationship choices in a homosexual or bisexual context.

With all that background, my default position is that each homosexual person must make their own choices about what's right or wrong for them. It's not up to me to decide if homosexual relationships are right or wrong. That is something for people to decide on their own. With help from the community, yes, but making their own choice rather than blindly following.

I think tobacco use is wrong (smoking or otherwise). Yet I don't judge the smokers that I know.  I don't even share my viewpoint that it's wrong.  I've nothing to say to them on the matter that they don't already know.  Yes, they've made a choice that I think is a poor choice.  But we all make poor choices sometimes.  I don't condemn them.

And I don't even see them as smokers.  They are people.  They happen to use tobacco sometimes, but they are people.  I interact with them just like the people I know who don't smoke.  I like them or not for their many personal traits.  I see their humanness.

I am called to do that with every person who has a trait I don't like or disagree with.  Sometimes that's harder than with smoking.  Still, I am called to love those I disagree with.

So, seems to me that, whatever my view on the morality of homosexual relationships, I am called to love those who choose such relationships.  To see them as human, as every bit as human as I am.  I am called to love them.  To see them as an "us", not a "them".

Without even considering whether their relationship choices are right or wrong, I know I'm supposed to love them, to see them as a whole person, and not to judge them.  And to respect their right and ability to make their own life choices, based on their own understanding of right and wrong.

Which brings my to my view on the morality of homosexual relationships.

I come from a church with a tradition of celibacy, the Roman Catholic Church. Our church believes that some people are called to celibacy.  That is, called to not marry, not date, etc.  I too, believe that; I believe some individuals have that calling.  And I also believe that, if they have that calling, the Holy Spirit will speak to them in their heart.  They may need someone to suggest the possibility to them, but they don't need anyone to make the choice for them.

The Catholic Church position on homosexuality and homosexual relationships, as I understand it from reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, is that being homosexual is not a sin, but that all homosexuals are called to celibacy.

My view is that the church has no place to make that blanket judgment about their calling.  Each homosexual person discerns for themself whether they are called to celibacy or to something else.  If the Catholic Church is right, they will each receive that calling individually.  There's no need for an authoritarian judgment.

Observation suggests to me that, on the contrary, most homosexuals are not called to celibacy.  There seems to me to be enough sound homosexual relationships out there for me to come to that conclusion. Homosexuals don't do any worse a job at these relationships, and making choices about them, than us heterosexuals do, from what I see.

Many homosexuals feel they are called to a life-long, committed, monogamous relationship with someone of the same gender.  I feel I am called to respect their judgment about their own life.  To recognize those relationships as a marriage just as I would any other couple.  And I believe they should have the right to be legally married, and to have the rights and benefits that come with being legally married.  The same rights and benefits that I have.

Male-Female Friendships

This is adapted from a post in a discussion on a message board.

My thoughts on friendships between males and females. Mostly my experience.

One thought that comes to mind is that bisexuals manage to have friends. And homosexuals have same-sex friendships. That suggests that a "no it can't work" is too simplistic.

Though socialization makes the male female dynamic different than those.

The brief generalization would be, yes, friendship between a man and a woman outside a romantic/sexual relationship is possible, sometimes a very beautiful friendship, but good boundaries are needed.

There's variation though. My guy friends aren't people I call up to get together with individually. I don't make plans to see them outside of where I regularly see them. It's not that I don't have contact information. But I don't often use it. It's not something I planned out that way, for my friendships with guys to be like that. But it's how it's worked out.

(Note that the not using contact information doesn't apply to internet friendships. I'm talking in-person ones. On the internet, pretty much gender/sex doesn't make any difference for me.)

Also, with friends where there is a significant attraction, I don't think those would work as one on one friendship. But in a social situation, and with freedom to not interact when attraction feelings are strong, I've had some pretty meaningful friendship happen.

Some guys there's not much if any attraction there and it's really not an issue. That might be different with more time spent with them. Or maybe not. Depends on the guy, and the boundaries in the relationship.

I have one friend who for a while I used as someone I could share stuff on my mind with by email. Sometimes he emailed back with advice. (Yeah, an exception to that not using contact info much. Although, really, not used much, actually.) I wouldn't say no attraction. But little. But it's also not a friendship where it's someone I hang out with all the time.

I've one friendship with a guy where there's been a lot of attraction at times, and yet, other times it's not an issue. One thing that's made it work is there was a lot of respect for each others feelings, and a lot of space. And a lack of flirting. I'm not against some playful flirting, but in this friendship, it would be wrong.

On the other hand, I've another friendship where I do sometimes flirt. He's someone I've come to be able to be very relaxed with, and free to share whatever thought comes to mind. This is always, though, in a social context. Not a getting together just to see each other.

And then there's the one friendship where it's all been pretty messy, and I've pretty much, for now, given up trying to make a friendship work. So sometimes it doesn't work out so well.

I'm glad for my guy friends. The single ones respect that I'm married and loyal to my husband (or just aren't interested). The married or in-a-relationship ones are interested in friendship, not an affair.

our various faces and the core self

There's the strong core self, and there's who we are in different situations. And those various things that we are in various situations, those connect with the core self. So, who I am at work comes out of both the situation, and my core self. It's a meeting of the two. I don't ignore the situation and just be myself. I don't ignore myself and totally let the situation dictact how I act. Rather, both inform how I act.

Feeling loved comes from the inside

Feeling loved comes from the inside? It seems a bit illogical, doesn't it? I feel loved because someone loves me, right? At least, that's the way we tend to think. Ah, but see, that misses a step. I feel loved because I see someone as loving me. My interpretation.

I had an experience that illustrated this. What happened was a shift in perspective. This person I know, I felt like he loved me. It was something new. And the thing is, this shift, it wasn't because he did anything different. In fact, he hadn't done anything new at all: I hadn't recently interacted with him. It was something else entirely, completely separate from him, that inspired my change in thinking. It was me that changed. I felt loved by him, where I hadn't before, because how I saw things changed.

So, yeah, feeling loved can't come from someone else. Other people can only do so much. They can be kind and caring. Or playful. Etc. But it's up to me to see that as loving. Until I can do that, I won't feel loved.

past and present

The past informs the present, but doesn't rule it.

Deifying Belief

I'm thinking, one of the problems that religion and religious people sometimes get into is deifying belief. We make belief a false god. We cling to our beliefs about God. Other beliefs too. But, in particular I'm thinking, sometimes our beliefs about God become more important than our relationship with God. And this is unfortunate.

Our beliefs are a guide to a relationship with God. They aren't an end in themselves. They don't save. Rather, they lead us to a relationship with God. It's the relationship with God that saves.

Just trying to put this into words makes me think of something else. Beliefs help us to put into words, to talk about, the ineffable. Being a Christian, I tend to talk about spirituality in Christian terms. I talk about God, and the Holy Spirit. Which is a plus when talking to other Christians.

But a negative when talking to those who aren't Christians, who may feel I'm talking about something they don't believe in, rather than seeing beyond the words to a shared experience.

For me, in my life, listening to the Holy Spirit has been very important. The Holy Spirit has been a wonderful guide for me on the journey of personal growth.

It's important to be open to the Holy Spirit challenging our beliefs. Beliefs about ourselves, other people, the earth and everything on it, and even about God. Both individually, and as a church (or other religious institution or equivalent organization). I do feel like, unfortunately, the leadership in my church, the Catholic Church (or Roman Catholic Church, if you prefer), sometimes puts belief ahead of the Holy Spirit. Not open to listening to what the Holy Spirit is saying to us here and now in the present. And that's unfortunate. (Note that when I say "my church" here I'm referring to the worldwide Catholic Church, not the local congregation.)

The term Holy Spirit is a Christian term, but the idea, the experience of God, which that terms captures for me is not unique to Christianity. Other religions have other terms for this idea of connecting with God (though they also don't all use the term God) on a personal level, hearing God's message.

Salvation is another notion where we might cling too much to our beliefs. Cling to the belief in Heaven after we die. Ah, but in truth, we don't know what will happen after death. We do know from experience that the Holy Spirit has a lot of saving power to offer us in the here and now. I've experienced this. Others have.

Perhaps biblical fundamentalism is a subtype of deifying beliefs. Deifying what one believes the Bible says to be true. The Bible, rather, should be a guide to us in our spirituality.

The point is, we should listen to God, the Holy Spirit, that spiritual place within, whatever one calls it, rather than clinging to beliefs and ignoring spirituality.

The Da Vinci Code and writing style

Dan Brown's book The Da Vinci Code has certainly got a lot of attention. And criticism. Of the criticism, I find most interesting the criticism of his writing style. As in, word and phrasing choices.

A good well written example of such criticism is a post in The Language Log titled The Dan Brown Code. It mentions specific points that make it bad writing.

I can't argue with those specific points. I can't argue that they are good, that there's a good reason for Brown to have worded things as he did.

However, frankly, for me as a reader, it doesn't matter. I liked his writing style. Those things which are criticised didn't bother me. They didn't attract my attention, and thus didn't distract from following the story, a story that I did enjoy.

It's all a matter of taste. Different people have different things we like, dislike, or are neutral about. Dan Brown's prose writing is not a negative for me. For me, I'm neutral. When reading the book, it didn't attract attention negatively or positively. For me as a reader, it did the job of conveying the story. For others, it doesn't do that so well, and that's okay.

Racism

We still hear about racism. Personally, I question if racism is the right word. Not that there's not plenty of prejudice out there. But I don't think it's about race.

It's about class. Or perceived class. Not that race, or more properly physical traits, isn't a factor. But only one factor. Not the only factor. Basically, many of us, we either don't like, or are uncomfortable with, those who are different than us. When it comes to differences of social classes, we may respond differently to that discomfort for those we see as above as than to those we see as below us. Deference perhaps to those above us, distain for those below us. Though the discomfort is there both directions.

But, see, we don't make those class judgements based purely on physical traits. Not that it's never a factor. Yes, it probably is, at least for some folks. However, I think it's extremely rare, in the U.S. today, for racial predudice to stand alone without other factors mixed in. If someone treats a poor black different than a rich or middle class black, then something besides racism is going on.

I think we would better be able to counter such predudice if we started calling it by a more accurate term; seeing it for what it is instead of oversimplifying and calling it racism. Call it class prejudice, or maybe classism. And, really, racial prejudice is only one example of the larger problem of predudice towards other social groups. A problem which we see all too much of. Including examples that aren't at all along racial lines.

Reactions to music.

I've been busy lately, and I guess I haven't been motivated to make time to write in here. So, if anyone actually reads this, and if you've been wondering about the lack of posts, that's why.

Now, to the topic of the moment.

It's interesting the different ways people react to really good music. Someone on one music related forum I visit asked if anyone ever laughs because the music is so darn good.

Laughing as a response to music I don't do. I'll laugh at a performer's facial expression sometimes. And sometimes lyrics are worth a laugh. Or stories or jokes performers tell. But not just a "wow that's good" thing.

Sometimes I'll scream or yell after a song in appreciation. Or simply clap.

Othertimes, though, my reaction is quiet. Silent stillness. Which is I suppose a carryover from reacting that way during the song. Not breaking the quiet.

I hope performers understand that reaction. Particularly certain performers who know me. I'd like to think that when the see me quiet after a song, they know it's a positive response to the music.

Another during the song reaction is, sometimes, I just gotta get up and dance. Other songs inspire me to chair dance.

I'm sure my mood affects my reaction, but, also, I think the kind of music affects the kind of response I have.

And I don't think there's one right response to music, or to any given music.