Month: February 2020

It is no secret that our elections are anything but free and fair. In addition to foreign meddling and phony social media accounts, there are also internal threats that divide groups within the United States. Groups that need to be unified end up pitted against each other and so weaken their corporate voice.

One such organization is ADOS which stands for American Descendants of Slavery. It was created in 2016 to describe and distinctly separate Black Americans/African Americans from Black immigrant communities from Africa, the Caribbean and Latino countries.

The central issue at stake, according to ADOS, is reparations for African American Blacks who are directly descended from slaves. William Darity, Professor of Economics at Duke University, writes extensively on the subject and supports the basic principles of ADOS. He argues that African American Blacks were subjected to a form of sustained, race based discrimination that is unique in American history.  

As Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post notes, the movement for reparations has gained support since the early 2000’s. It is, however, still widely rejected by a majority of Americans. The conversation about reparations cycles on a regular basis, especially in an election year.  There has been talk of reparations since the Reconstruction period following the Civil War.

The founders of ADOS, Antonio Moore and Yvette Carnell, are a cause for concern. Moore wrote for the right wing media outlet News Max. Carnell was on the board of a fake progressive organization, Progressives for Immigration Reform, which was aided by white supremacist and eugenics supporter John Tanton. These groups have a history of causing divisions in the Black Community.

While ADOS claims they will work for legal reparations, it is likely that the moniker will be used to create policies that will further marginalize and oppress Black communities.  ADOS is looking to influence the 2020 presidential election as well as the 2020 census.

With supporters like William Darity and Cornell West, ADOS has garnered legitimacy in various circles. The larger concern is that Black Americans who are concerned about reparations will be drawn into their disinformation and misinformation tactics.  Among critics of ADOS there is consensus that it is a highly sophisticated propaganda campaign that combines African American history with less savory motivations.

ADOS relies heavily on right-wing, anti-Black, anti-immigrant talking points, and a series of policy positions that rely on individuals’ ability to produce documentation that they are direct descendants of slaves. Absent that ability, they are excluded from further conversation about reparations.

The larger concern about ADOS is that it fractures the Black community and pits Blacks against Blacks. A further concern is that it begins the narrative with slavery when the Black experience has much more history than what happened four hundred years ago. Slavery is not a lineage, it was a condition foisted upon a group of human beings by oppressors and colonizers.

In addition, ADOS wants to split Black representation on the 2020 Census and make ADOS its own category, distinct from other Black groups. It would have a negative effect on the representation of Black communities, potentially impacting access to funding and other resources available to Black communities overall.

Sowing division in the Black community is reminiscent of the slave hierarchies that owners created to keep their slaves from organizing. By pitting slaves against each other, the hierarchy and the resulting animosity prevented any meaningful community or organizing among slaves.  ADOS does the same thing but in a different way.

ADOS co-founders claim to be proponents of reparations but refuse to support H.R.40-Commission to Study and Develop Reparation Proposals for African-Americans Act. Further, ADOS refuses to work with established Black reparations organizations like the National Coalition of Blacks for Reparations.

According to Jam Aiwuyor, ADOS members attack Black historians, scholars, activists and leaders through a variety of means, including social media. There is thinly veiled racism in the ADOS movement. The claim that African Americans are more closely connected genetically to white Americans is a cornerstone of their argument. This position serves to further alienate Black African Americans from other Black communities.

ADOS leaders co-opt the work of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and others to build trust within the Black community. They use their work out of context and exclude all references to African roots and global Black movements.

There is much that is distasteful, ahistorical and just plain wrong about ADOS. They masquerade as a progressive organization and advertise in liberal publications but really have an anti-immigrant stance that seeks to divide the Black community. Further, by limiting immigration by people of color, the movement could stall a Black and Brown majority population for an additional few years. This is a major goal of white supremacists.

There is a need for unity in the Black community. Yes, there is diversity within the Black community, but sowing divisions that exploit that diversity is in no one’s best interest except white supremacists. 

It is easy to fall prey to misinformation and disinformation. Desiring to be seen as progressive, the veneer of ADOS seems attractive. It’s only when you scratch below the surface that their true intentions and the potential for damage become clear.

 

 

History is written by the winners. There is always a dominant narrative that emerges and becomes the “official” history of any event or epoch. It means that the truths of those who “lost” are often lost to history. In any history, however, there is always a minority report.

It has been said that racism is America’s original sin. The Southern Poverty Law Center states that it is not America’s original sin but America’s origin. Every strand in the warp and woof of our country’s fabric is shot through with slavery and racism. In this election year it is especially important that we take a more honest look at our history because it is influencing our political process in disturbing ways. Over the next few weeks I will explore this in more depth. For this week I begin with some pieces of history that are not well known, but fill in crucial parts of the narrative that paint a more honest picture of who we are as Americans.  Warning: the stories we tell ourselves and the stories we were taught leave out a lot.

Most of us learned in US history in high school that the first slaves were brought to America in 1619 and landed in Jamestown, Virginia. The narrative that is left out is that the brutal slave trade was already thriving in the Americas. Portuguese and Spanish colonists in Central and South America began trafficking enslaved humans in the 1400’s. It is likely that Christopher Columbus transported the first enslaved Africans in the 1490’s to what is now the Dominican Republic.

The Spanish occupation of Florida in the early sixteenth century was the beginning of slavery in what was to become the United States. Linda Heywood and John Thornton of Boston University state that the earliest slaves arrived in 1526.

The reason any of this matters is because what we were taught truncates the narrative. The slave trade has a much broader history than the atrocities of the early colonies. Slavery was global. Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, Peru and Brazil, to name a few, were slave trading and slave holding areas. African people endured centuries of enslavement.

In 1663 a Virginia court set the precedent for generational slavery by declaring a child born to an enslaved mother was also a slave. This law made the slave trade in America unique in the world, a dubious distinction at best.

In 1661 Maryland was the first state to pass anti-miscegenation legislation. In the l960’s twenty-one states still had those laws in place. Alabama was the last state to repeal the ban on interracial marriage in 2000. Let that sink in a moment, just twenty years ago.

The date of 1776 as the date of American independence is celebrated and revered. What is less known is that all references to slaves were removed by Thomas Jefferson, himself a slave owner. Thomas Jefferson had six children by his house slave, Sally Heming. The truth is ugly; this woman endured years of rape and was forced to bear her rapist’s children. As the Southern Poverty Law Center notes, “We enjoy thinking about Thomas Jefferson proclaiming ‘all men are created equal.’ But we are deeply troubled by the prospect of enslaved woman Sally Heming declaring, ‘me too’.”

Eight of the first twelve presidents were slave owners. They had a deeply vested interest in the institution of slavery.

It is commonly believed the southern colonies were the only slave holders. In reality all the colonies held slaves. Massachusetts was the first colony to declare slavery an institution. In Rhode Island a law required the release of slaves after ten years of forced labor. Since the north was first to abolish slavery it is easy to think it never existed. Between 1774 and 1804 all the northern states abolished slavery.

The slave trade continued to grow in the south. The invention of the cotton gin in the late eighteenth century changed the face of the southern economy. Shifting from tobacco and rice crops to cotton was a turning point in the expansion of the slave trade in the south. It is estimated that enslaved people made up one-third of the population in the south. The growth of the colonies, westward territorial expansion and industrial growth were all dependent on the institution of slavery.

High school history teaches that the importing of slaves was outlawed in 1808. What it doesn’t teach is that it made the domestic slave trade boom. A slave was considered three-fifths of a human being. They were bought and sold like cattle at an auction.  

The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. The southern states wanted to secede so they could continue the institution of slavery. The northern colonies, having abolished slavery and the growing voices from Quaker and Mennonite communities protesting slavery all set the stage for a bloody and brutal war.

By the late 1800’s the Ku Klux Klan was thriving in the south. After the Civil War and the outlawing of slavery, the backlash to keep white supremacy in place was brutal. To this day the KKK, other hate groups and white supremacy groups keep the shameful legacy of racism alive and well.

In this election year, it is crucial that we learn our history, the whole story. It isn’t pretty but it is who we are. It is clear that the “official” end of slavery and efforts at reconstruction did little to improve the situation of African Americans. Efforts to legally redress discrimination have been minimally successful. In 1964 President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. In 1965 the Voting Rights Act was passed to correct disparities in voter access.  That law was repealed by a 2013 court ruling.  Let that sink in, too.

A year or so ago I was in high school. Last week I graduated from college. Earlier this year I marked thirty-seven years of ordained ministry. I have just one question. What the hell happened?

How did so much time go by so fast? It’s a question we asked when I was gathered with a group of my friends from high school for the sad occasion of one of our mom’s death. She was like mom to us. We were in and out of each other’s houses at all hours of the day and night. We just showed up, browsed through the fridge if we were hungry and hung out like we lived there.

Most of us are blessed if we have one second home. I am lucky enough to have had four. We have been there for each other through thick and thin for over fifty years.

Over a few glasses of wine we shook our heads and wondered what the hell happened? How did life go flying by so fast?

I’ve had a lot of time to think this past week (it’s not always a good thing, but I’m giving it my best shot anyway), and here’s what’s been rolling around in my head.

I know time is time is time. I also know that my moms were right when they said time goes faster as you get older.

It is humbling to realize more of life has been lived than is yet to be lived.

Time is precious mostly because there is so little of it but also because of the people who make time count and make life worth living.

To have friends for over fifty years is pretty cool.

Wine is a good thing.

Finding a few laughs in the midst of sadness is okay. It’s part of what makes the sadness bearable.

Memory is a great gift. Sure, it makes the losses harder because of all the good times, but it also makes the present tolerable.

Telling stories is a cornerstone of grief and healing.

Tears are a gift when there are no words.

Time is promised to no one, so if you happen to get a bunch of it, be grateful. Even with the aches and pains and creaks and groans and the occasional breaking heart, it is a good thing.

Time is what keeps everything from happening at once. That’s a good thing, too.

One day at a time is good advice. I am discovering it is also about all I can handle.

Loss is inevitable. No one will ever fill the space left in your heart when someone you love dies. Still, loneliness is optional.

You can only do what you can do. Some things just have to go by without being tended to. Having limits is part of being human.

It is humbling and annoying when the limits aren’t as far out ahead as they used to be.

I’m still not sure what the hell happened, but figuring out seems less important than living in the moment and making sure it counts.

And did I mention wine is a good thing?

There are so many misconceptions about abortion. Women feel no loss related to the terminated pregnancy. There are no physical symptoms that accompany the procedure. It is an easy decision to make, like having a hang nail clipped off. Abortion is an acceptable method of birth control. It is a decision a woman will regret for the rest of her life. All religions are universally against a woman’s right to choose. Women who choose to terminate pregnancies have emotional problems for the rest of their lives. Women who have abortions will never have children in the future. Abortion requires her partner’s consent. The list goes on and on. In truth, laws vary from state to state and it is important to get accurate information for the geographic region where the procedure is being considered.

Ever since Roe v. Wade was passed in 1973, our society has defined abortion as something shameful and worthy of judgement.  I hasten to say it is mostly “religious” people who make the judgement.

Many people think the “church” has always believed that life begins at conception. Nothing could be further from the truth. Having accurate historical information is an appropriate place to begin if abortion is going to continue to be used as a political and religious football to control women’s bodies.

There are two major religious groups that dominate the conversation: the Roman Catholic Church and conservative Christian evangelicals.

The Roman Catholic Church has an inconsistent history with women’s reproductive health. In ancient times it was believed that women spontaneously formed a child from withheld menses. When it was discovered that men were half the equation, along with the rise of patriarchal religion, women’s private health care became men’s concern.

In the early Christian church, the Didache asked two questions about abortion: was it being used to conceal fornication or adultery and did the fetus have a rational soul from the moment of conception? The latter debate remains the cornerstone which fuels the anti-abortion movement, although there is no consensus on the answer.

Augustine wrote in the Encridion, that the fetus received its soul at some point in its growth but not at conception. The first official Canon recognized by the Church dates from 1140. It states, in part, that “he is not a murderer who brings about abortion before the soul is in the body.”

It became more complicated as Popes disagreed about the issue. The most consistent lines of reasoning regarding abortion were two fold. First, abortion as contraception was a sin; second, abortion was a sin against marriage. This had more to do with property rights concerning women than with morality. Neither, however, was considered murder.

Other Popes like Sixtus V and Gregory the XIV continued the disagreements back and forth. As late as the 18^th century there was theological agreement that the fetus did not develop a soul at conception, but rather at “quickening” when movement was first felt by the mother.

The argument took a radical turn in 1869 when Pope Pius IX stated that excommunication was required for abortion at any stage of pregnancy and that all abortion was murder. This was in direct opposition to the theological positions that predated that document.

For those who believe in Papal infallibility, it is important to note that this doctrine has as complicated a history as women’s reproductive health. To this day there is lack of consensus throughout the Roman Catholic Church worldwide concerning Papal infallibility.

Jump ahead to 1917 and the revised Church Canon required excommunication not only for women who aborted fetuses, but also for all who participated in the abortion.

Jump ahead again to the Second Vatican Council in 1965. The official church doctrine stated that “life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.” This shifted the argument to protecting life. In 1974 the Declaration on Procured Abortion declared that the fetus is a human life from the moment of conception.

So much for the doctrinal purity of the Roman Catholics Church through the centuries.

Protestant Christianity didn’t fare much better, although there was general consensus that abortion was a serious issue. Martin Luther and John Calvin promulgated varying degrees of interpretation regarding the “sin” of abortion. Conservative and fundamental churches held with Roman Catholic doctrine, an irony not lost on church historians.

Given that Protestants don’t agree on much of anything (hence the name Protest-ant), it was not surprising there were multiple views on the nature, purpose and morality of abortion.

What was significant in the Protestant/Evangelical/Fundamentalist debate was that abortion was permissible under certain circumstances. These circumstances included family welfare and social responsibility. “They affirmed that fetal life may have to be abandoned to maintain full and secure family life.”  This was radically different from Roman Catholic Doctrine of the same period.

Mainstream evangelical leaders’ liberal views on abortion shifted in 1968. Christianity Today and the Christian Medical Society hosted a gathering of evangelical leaders to set the “conservative, evangelical position within Protestantism.” Apparently they neglected the fact that they didn’t speak for ALL Protestants, conservative, evangelical or other.

In the ensuing decades multiple conservative Christian voices from seminaries to denominational judicatories weighed in on the abortion issue. There were as many opinions as there were Protestant voices.

The next major anti-abortion movement began when Jerry Falwell confidently declared that conception was the moment when human attributes were given to a fetus. His unparalleled social, theological and political platform gave opportunity for a rallying cry and united much of the conservative Christian movement. Arguing that he spoke the definitive voice on a biblical view of abortion was arrogant. He was also selectively literal in his interpretation of the Bible. Preying on the biblical illiteracy of many people in the United States and using his bully pulpit, he did more to galvanize an anti-abortion movement than any of his contemporaries.

The reason any of this matters is because the “authoritative” voices declaring the way and will of God regarding abortion are selectively biblical and largely politically motivated. The upshot is that men and the women they influence, as well as political affiliations, define the morality of abortion in a singular voice when there are many voices, each with their theological strengths and weaknesses.

For any church, Protestant or Catholic to claim a definitive voice on abortion flies in the face of either tradition’s history. If we are going to argue the “morality” of abortion, let’s at least be honest that the church is inconsistent at best.

It also matters because women carry shame and blame for their unwanted pregnancies and choice for abortion. What is a personal decision for a woman and her health care provider has become a political football used to assert moral superiority and the subjugation of women.

It is time we stopped allowing patriarchal Christianity to define the meaning of abortion for women. The women who have come into my office for pastoral care through the years have, for the most part, drunk the religious Kool-Aid that is all too willing to judge them to hell and back. And it needs to stop.

The only way to stop shaming women for making a perfectly legal choice is for women to shed the shame that is foisted upon them, and the men who impregnate them to take responsibility. When women begin to speak openly about their abortions without shame or self-blame the conversation will begin to change. When women hold men equally responsible for the pregnancies that result from intercourse the conversation will begin to change. When men are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law for taking advantage of women who are compromised by drugs or alcohol the conversation will begin to change.

And it is far beyond time for that to happen.