Tuesday, March 30, 2010
me and Jesus (again)
"Prayer of the Day: For those in need
03-30-2010
God of the broken, God of the wanderer, Christ who is without shelter, surround those in deep need among us. Surround them and help us hear their cries for help. We are a people who long for the broken to be mended. We long for justice in the face of much corruption. We want to practice hospitality but have legitimate fears. Surround us in our trying times and help us to reach beyond ourselves. We confess we are bogged down by so much need in the world. May we have the courage to stand for what is right even when it offends, the imaginations to help create a better world, and the strength of your Spirit to carry on. Let us be as you are in this world. Amen."
So, today on facebook (shame) I got links to the above and to this in my "news feed"
The prayer really speaks to me. I don't talk to Jesus/God/Christ/Anyone like that, but sometimes, when someone else does (on my behalf?) It stirs something deeply in me (often if someone does it on my behalf it pisses the hell out of me - maybe I just have to be able to choose whether I identify with the supplicants in question.)
As for joy. Yeah, I want more joy. I want more joy in meeting. I want room for it. I don't necessarily feel like there isnt' room for it (and what do I know? I mostly hang out with middle schoolers, and mostly corrupt them at least as much as I teach them anything - we made paper airplanes a few weeks ago, which I felt sort of guilty about, until someone pointed out to me that there had been a message in meeting about our lack of joyfulness, then I felt downright productive!)
The comments on the blog post veered toward the joy that people who have given their lives over to Christ feel.
and I come up short.
It's not even that I DON'T want to give my life over to Christ. I have no idea what that means. I have to say that pretty much anyone I've seen who claims to have done it seems to range from about as happy and loving as I am to downright petty and nasty. I know a few Christians, as I've mentioned before, who really radiate the love of Christ (or whatever) but they generally spend zero, nada, absolutely NO energy telling me that I'd be better off if I was a Christian. They seem relatively firm in their belief that Christ loves the stuffing out of me and there's nothing I can do about it. (but true love isn't stalking, or manipulating, or threatening - if you really love someone and they have no interest in you you don't harass them mercilessly, you love them, from whatever distance they require)
Sometimes I feel like I have a really amazing relationship with Jesus, I just have to keep it secret from his "followers" (and I'm not just talking about Pat Robertson, I'm talking about Quakers) that makes me really sad
Monday, December 28, 2009
Christmas Spirit
I've been thinking a lot about Christmas (oddly enough) and the "meaning" of it and all lately, particularly in relationship to my atheism (pantheism, you know)
I'm dating someone who doesn't like christmas, which in a way is nice for me. There are no expectations, no family gatherings that not only are family-gathering-awkward, but which I am an outsider to to boot! This year we painted my upstairs apartment, which badly needed doing. we kinds exchanged gifts (I bought her a $6 hat a few weeks before and said this is your xmas present, she bought me a used dvd at the blockbuster going out of business in her neighborhood)
Anyway, I love being free of obligations on Christmas, I really do.
But sometimes I miss it, a little bit. I don't miss buying stupid stuff you know someone doesn't need or want because you need to have a present for them and you haven't found the right thing yet, I don't miss the stress of wanting it to be perfect, which almost always made it awful when I was younger. But there are parts I still love, that I wish we shared more easily.
When I was a kid I was particularly present focused. It was all about the "haul" - I do think about if there's a way to steer children away from that in the US without having them simply feel terribly deprived. I have no clue.
But one year, when I was six or seven, I "got" it - I really did (or thought I did) and I LOVED Christmas, without regard to presents. I felt all warm and as one with humanity, full of love and light. Awed at the wonder of birth (any birth) and light in the darkness and warmth in the cold, and the essential humbleness of even the most important people. None of that came in words, it just was.
And it felt wonderful.
And for moments of each year, I feel it again. Very fleeting moments. I love Christmas lights on houses. I know that they're run by nuclear power and coal plants, but in the moments I forget that they bring me joy.
I love knowing that light is returning (which is solstice, not christmas, but really now, to those of us who don't attach mystical importance to the dates and the myths, it's really all the same, no?) - it makes no sense, it's still dark. It's still gonna be dark for a good long time, but it's getting better..... Hope, especially this year, is crucial to survival sometimes.
And I feel alienated, cranky and petty that someone might question my right to celebrate. Cause I'm not excited that that baby born among the critters (how cool!) will grow up to be tortured to death (how awful!) - supposedly in some sort of payment for my sins (how really awful!)
My favorite Christmas Carol from my childhood was Good King Wenceslas, a carol that really has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas, it clearly states that it happens the NEXT day (St. Stephen's), and Christmas never come into it. What I love about it is the spirit of generosity. I guess that's what Christmas Spirit is to me, maybe, a concern for other humans, in the part of the year that's hard to get through, where people might freeze or starve or catch pneumonia so much more easily. Like maybe we wake up to each other and feel a real sense of urgency to save us all, not just our own skins. And true connection. The king doesn't just order that help be sent, he GOES, he walks through the snow and bitter cold himself. He doesn't have to (like the page does, he was ordered, poor thing!) - at least not technically, but he does. That thing I call God (and don't) tells him he has to, and so he does. (Of course there's so much in that song about wealth and privilege and obligation and charity and justice - I could tear it to shreds too, but not today)
I'm dating someone who doesn't like christmas, which in a way is nice for me. There are no expectations, no family gatherings that not only are family-gathering-awkward, but which I am an outsider to to boot! This year we painted my upstairs apartment, which badly needed doing. we kinds exchanged gifts (I bought her a $6 hat a few weeks before and said this is your xmas present, she bought me a used dvd at the blockbuster going out of business in her neighborhood)
Anyway, I love being free of obligations on Christmas, I really do.
But sometimes I miss it, a little bit. I don't miss buying stupid stuff you know someone doesn't need or want because you need to have a present for them and you haven't found the right thing yet, I don't miss the stress of wanting it to be perfect, which almost always made it awful when I was younger. But there are parts I still love, that I wish we shared more easily.
When I was a kid I was particularly present focused. It was all about the "haul" - I do think about if there's a way to steer children away from that in the US without having them simply feel terribly deprived. I have no clue.
But one year, when I was six or seven, I "got" it - I really did (or thought I did) and I LOVED Christmas, without regard to presents. I felt all warm and as one with humanity, full of love and light. Awed at the wonder of birth (any birth) and light in the darkness and warmth in the cold, and the essential humbleness of even the most important people. None of that came in words, it just was.
And it felt wonderful.
And for moments of each year, I feel it again. Very fleeting moments. I love Christmas lights on houses. I know that they're run by nuclear power and coal plants, but in the moments I forget that they bring me joy.
I love knowing that light is returning (which is solstice, not christmas, but really now, to those of us who don't attach mystical importance to the dates and the myths, it's really all the same, no?) - it makes no sense, it's still dark. It's still gonna be dark for a good long time, but it's getting better..... Hope, especially this year, is crucial to survival sometimes.
And I feel alienated, cranky and petty that someone might question my right to celebrate. Cause I'm not excited that that baby born among the critters (how cool!) will grow up to be tortured to death (how awful!) - supposedly in some sort of payment for my sins (how really awful!)
My favorite Christmas Carol from my childhood was Good King Wenceslas, a carol that really has absolutely nothing to do with Christmas, it clearly states that it happens the NEXT day (St. Stephen's), and Christmas never come into it. What I love about it is the spirit of generosity. I guess that's what Christmas Spirit is to me, maybe, a concern for other humans, in the part of the year that's hard to get through, where people might freeze or starve or catch pneumonia so much more easily. Like maybe we wake up to each other and feel a real sense of urgency to save us all, not just our own skins. And true connection. The king doesn't just order that help be sent, he GOES, he walks through the snow and bitter cold himself. He doesn't have to (like the page does, he was ordered, poor thing!) - at least not technically, but he does. That thing I call God (and don't) tells him he has to, and so he does. (Of course there's so much in that song about wealth and privilege and obligation and charity and justice - I could tear it to shreds too, but not today)
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Facebook is eating my brain
seriously, I think my lack of blogging coincided pretty closely with getting a facebook account, it's AMAZING how hard it is to actually get myself to think for five minutes about an interesting concept, and come up with something to say about it.
It's so much easier to just "update my status" and I get so much more feedback, you know?
It's pretty sad.
Like junkfood for the electronic soul.
I dreamt last night that a blogger I'm facebook friends with published a link to a blogpost of theirs, and I tried to write this long, elaborate response in the facebook comments section and then I remember that I HAD A BLOG.
It was kind of scary. So I thought I'd check back in here, and see if I can think of something worthwhile to say.
I also dreamt I was in love with a guy I barely knew in high school, who I now know to be gay (like me, more or less) - he liked me back, but we kept both saying, "but wait, we're gay!"
I don't KNOW what the answer to that one is
It's so much easier to just "update my status" and I get so much more feedback, you know?
It's pretty sad.
Like junkfood for the electronic soul.
I dreamt last night that a blogger I'm facebook friends with published a link to a blogpost of theirs, and I tried to write this long, elaborate response in the facebook comments section and then I remember that I HAD A BLOG.
It was kind of scary. So I thought I'd check back in here, and see if I can think of something worthwhile to say.
I also dreamt I was in love with a guy I barely knew in high school, who I now know to be gay (like me, more or less) - he liked me back, but we kept both saying, "but wait, we're gay!"
I don't KNOW what the answer to that one is
Monday, May 25, 2009
Pagan Values
Yike, It's nice to have something to write about, since I seem to have been "blocked" for over a year now.
At the same time, it makes me want to giggle, like I'm nervous.
It feels weird, rebellious, contrary, to try to take over "values" (not like exclusively, but like really own that we have them too)
How did they (yes, "they" you know, "them") manage to cordon off that word for themselves? no fair!
and then, like I said, I don't know if I have "pagan values"
I've been intrigued for a while by the fact that "pagan" and "heathen" kind of mean the same thing, and that isn't really about religion, it means like country folk, right? people too far from the city centers to be hip to the church. Now the city folk seem more likely to be pagan or atheist than the country folk, but I don't have stats on that, so don't quote me.
But I like to think of it meaning "just regular folks" - living our lives, not so caught up in the stories people tell each other that we forget the basics.
Anyway.....
I have values, and they're rooted in something, but they're rooted in like truth, or they try to be, which feels different from being rooted in religion. You can't disprove something that would uproot my values. At least I don't think so, is there something like that out there?
At least I HOPE they're rooted in truth.
Right now I cant' think of much beyond
Reverence for life
Is that my only value?
Possibly.
Now, for me that doesn't translate into being opposed to legal abortion, it doesn't even translate directly into opposing the death penalty (though as it stands, I do)
It's not so much about that kind of stubbornness. It's never that easy, life is way complicated
and quality of life is important, fullness of life, being able to fully blossom as a human being (or a flower, or a bug, or a giraffe), so equality is important, respect is important, kindness is important, justice is important.
But it's NOT simple.
Today at the dogpark, I was like COVERED with caterpillars and inchworms and things (ok, not covered, but seemed always to be finding a new one on me) and I kept moving them, not killing them, and putting them on trees and leaves and things - reverence for life, right? Except, I wonder about the trees, and what those caterpillars grow into, and what they consume to do it. If I was focusing on the plants they will go on to eat, killing them would most likely have been "best"
So my values often don't give me answers, they give me questions I don't know the answers to
(and it's not June yet, so maybe this doesnt' count?)
At the same time, it makes me want to giggle, like I'm nervous.
It feels weird, rebellious, contrary, to try to take over "values" (not like exclusively, but like really own that we have them too)
How did they (yes, "they" you know, "them") manage to cordon off that word for themselves? no fair!
and then, like I said, I don't know if I have "pagan values"
I've been intrigued for a while by the fact that "pagan" and "heathen" kind of mean the same thing, and that isn't really about religion, it means like country folk, right? people too far from the city centers to be hip to the church. Now the city folk seem more likely to be pagan or atheist than the country folk, but I don't have stats on that, so don't quote me.
But I like to think of it meaning "just regular folks" - living our lives, not so caught up in the stories people tell each other that we forget the basics.
Anyway.....
I have values, and they're rooted in something, but they're rooted in like truth, or they try to be, which feels different from being rooted in religion. You can't disprove something that would uproot my values. At least I don't think so, is there something like that out there?
At least I HOPE they're rooted in truth.
Right now I cant' think of much beyond
Reverence for life
Is that my only value?
Possibly.
Now, for me that doesn't translate into being opposed to legal abortion, it doesn't even translate directly into opposing the death penalty (though as it stands, I do)
It's not so much about that kind of stubbornness. It's never that easy, life is way complicated
and quality of life is important, fullness of life, being able to fully blossom as a human being (or a flower, or a bug, or a giraffe), so equality is important, respect is important, kindness is important, justice is important.
But it's NOT simple.
Today at the dogpark, I was like COVERED with caterpillars and inchworms and things (ok, not covered, but seemed always to be finding a new one on me) and I kept moving them, not killing them, and putting them on trees and leaves and things - reverence for life, right? Except, I wonder about the trees, and what those caterpillars grow into, and what they consume to do it. If I was focusing on the plants they will go on to eat, killing them would most likely have been "best"
So my values often don't give me answers, they give me questions I don't know the answers to
(and it's not June yet, so maybe this doesnt' count?)
Saturday, May 16, 2009
How to label myself re: religion - Quaker Pagan Atheist Pantheist, what? (maybe Buddhist too)
So, in my last post which really didn't say much, Pax commented and asked/said:
"I am curious though that you do not consider yourself a Pagan, is this because of your Atheism? Yet you also describe yourself as a Pantheist?
I guess I am confused, or perhaps intrigued, by your use of the word Pantheist..."
Ah, words, I love 'em and I hate 'em.
First let me say that words don't play a part, any part at all, in my spiritual experience. I sort of assume that's true for everyone, but it's easy to forget.
I would guess that when I am having a particularly spritually "in tune" moment, it might well be measurable in various ways (though I've never tried) - my heartrate, my breathing, what my skin is doing, etc., but, at least so far, there are not words inherent to that experience.
They come later, to try to communicate with other human beings about what happened, and if it's similar for us, or different, or whatever. Sometimes I wonder if this is even a useful practice, but there it is, I do it.
So, various words and how they might or might not apply to me.
Pagan- I think I goofed, and what I really meant is that I'm not a Wiccan. I don't have a chalice and a blade, I don't do coven-y things. I marched with the pagans in an earth day parade about 20 years ago, cause they were the most fun group close to where I was standing, but that's about all I can say. I don't find myself desiring to celebrate pagan holidays with the people I see around me who self identify as pagans (though I do tend to acknowledge solstice and equinox, and occasionally the ones in between, whose names I'm worse with - but sometimes with just a word to a friend, sometimes with a picnic, the bonfire idea intrigues me, but I've never done it as a holiday thing)
So, am I a pagan? I don't think so, but I'm not so sure. I'm a non-christian with a sense of spirituality, does that count? I find forests and lakes more spiritually infused than churches, does that count? I don't apply the word to myself much, though I toy with doing so as a kind of short hand for, well, "earthfreak" really :)
Atheist - by this I mean, first, that I don't believe in the god I thought I believed in when I was a child at catholic school. I don't believe in a father figure god, I don't think there's a guy (or a person of any sort) I can pray to when I need something (though when I'm desperate I have been known to do so anyway)
I mean second that I have not replaced him with another god, not the horned god, not zeus, not athena for that matter.
I mean third that the word "supernatural" just seems downright silly to me. Plastic might be outside nature (I"m not sure) but I'm sure as hell not gonna worship it. As far as some force that is inherent in reality/the universe/being being somehow outside nature, that seems like the stupidest contradiction in terms I have ever heard of.
I also HATE the term, "higher being" or "higher power." I absolutely reject the hierarchy inherent in the religion I was raised with (and in the vast majority of what I've been exposed to since)
That does not mean that I think I am the highest being/power, or maybe it does. I have toyed with the term "broader power" - I can believe in the spiritual relevance of the interconnectedness of life and being, and the power inherent in the whole that we are all a part of.
But I don't think it's supernatural. I think what's amazing and compelling about it is just how damn basic and natural it is.
Pantheist - I have actually settled on this as more true for me than "Atheist" -
What I still recognize, that I used to think was "god" is everything, is life, is the world and the mystery and wonder of it all.
What I was praying to when, at 6 or 7 at that catholic school, I wrote in a notebook (was it an assignment? I don't know) "Dear Lood, thank you for my cat and my dog and love" (is it telling that the only word I misspelled was "Lord"?) - turns out that feeling wasn't "Lood" it was my cat, and my dog, and love.
Makes a lot more sense that way, at least to me.
So that's how I'm a pantheist.
How I'm an atheist too is, I don't know if it's honest (since, going back to the beginning, the word "God" is not part of my spiritual experience, but part of trying to talk to other people about it) If "God" is everything, if God is love and life and being and the universe and all that is and mystery, then
Is it useful, and is it honest to use a word that so many people use to mean something very different? To mean something OUTSIDE or beyond of all of those things? I don't feel that it is.
I was on some Quaker forum/list/thingy years ago where the word panENtheist kept coming up, and to some (the majority) of people there is was VERY important to distinguish that God is IN everything, but transcends it too, that God is supernatural, that God goes beyond nature, it is VERY important to me that that's not true (not that I'd be that upset if it were true, though the God of the Bible is a meanie, in my opinion) but it seems very much not true, again not in a way I can argue with words (though I might give it a shot another day) but in a way I know without words.
And Buddhism, which is sort of an awkward tagalong topic here, but felt dishonest to leave it out for the sake of some sort of efficiency...... I don't identify as a buddhist, and I don't tend to follow buddhist practice very much at all. When I studied comparative relgion in college it "spoke to me" the most of anything I studied, but I also had an advisor who was adamant that one can't "be" a religion outside the contact of the culture that religion belongs to. Americans often pick and choose what they like from "foreign" religions, and to me there's something very cool about that, and also something really annoying.
I have heard Buddhism described as an atheist relgion, and that makes sense to me. It is a religion in that it seeks to address the mystery and in that it is about how we should be in the world (should is the wrong word there, I'm at a loss) but it is not theist in that is does not appeal to an outside source to answer any of those questions for us. It is about practice, not about believing something in particular. That makes sense to me, as does most of what the buddha (the one we talk about anyway) is quoted as having said, so there's that.
Interestingly, I am quite aware that buddhism has its practicioners who are all about superstition and not at all about how to be in the world, just as christianity (oh yeah, christianity....) has its followers who are all about how to be in the world (following some really good suggestions attributed to Jesus) and not at all about superstition really.
In fact, I was describing my atheism to a christian quaker a few weeks ago, and he kept insisting that what I was talking about wasn't atheism at all, but true christianity.
It's damn confusing.
"I am curious though that you do not consider yourself a Pagan, is this because of your Atheism? Yet you also describe yourself as a Pantheist?
I guess I am confused, or perhaps intrigued, by your use of the word Pantheist..."
Ah, words, I love 'em and I hate 'em.
First let me say that words don't play a part, any part at all, in my spiritual experience. I sort of assume that's true for everyone, but it's easy to forget.
I would guess that when I am having a particularly spritually "in tune" moment, it might well be measurable in various ways (though I've never tried) - my heartrate, my breathing, what my skin is doing, etc., but, at least so far, there are not words inherent to that experience.
They come later, to try to communicate with other human beings about what happened, and if it's similar for us, or different, or whatever. Sometimes I wonder if this is even a useful practice, but there it is, I do it.
So, various words and how they might or might not apply to me.
Pagan- I think I goofed, and what I really meant is that I'm not a Wiccan. I don't have a chalice and a blade, I don't do coven-y things. I marched with the pagans in an earth day parade about 20 years ago, cause they were the most fun group close to where I was standing, but that's about all I can say. I don't find myself desiring to celebrate pagan holidays with the people I see around me who self identify as pagans (though I do tend to acknowledge solstice and equinox, and occasionally the ones in between, whose names I'm worse with - but sometimes with just a word to a friend, sometimes with a picnic, the bonfire idea intrigues me, but I've never done it as a holiday thing)
So, am I a pagan? I don't think so, but I'm not so sure. I'm a non-christian with a sense of spirituality, does that count? I find forests and lakes more spiritually infused than churches, does that count? I don't apply the word to myself much, though I toy with doing so as a kind of short hand for, well, "earthfreak" really :)
Atheist - by this I mean, first, that I don't believe in the god I thought I believed in when I was a child at catholic school. I don't believe in a father figure god, I don't think there's a guy (or a person of any sort) I can pray to when I need something (though when I'm desperate I have been known to do so anyway)
I mean second that I have not replaced him with another god, not the horned god, not zeus, not athena for that matter.
I mean third that the word "supernatural" just seems downright silly to me. Plastic might be outside nature (I"m not sure) but I'm sure as hell not gonna worship it. As far as some force that is inherent in reality/the universe/being being somehow outside nature, that seems like the stupidest contradiction in terms I have ever heard of.
I also HATE the term, "higher being" or "higher power." I absolutely reject the hierarchy inherent in the religion I was raised with (and in the vast majority of what I've been exposed to since)
That does not mean that I think I am the highest being/power, or maybe it does. I have toyed with the term "broader power" - I can believe in the spiritual relevance of the interconnectedness of life and being, and the power inherent in the whole that we are all a part of.
But I don't think it's supernatural. I think what's amazing and compelling about it is just how damn basic and natural it is.
Pantheist - I have actually settled on this as more true for me than "Atheist" -
What I still recognize, that I used to think was "god" is everything, is life, is the world and the mystery and wonder of it all.
What I was praying to when, at 6 or 7 at that catholic school, I wrote in a notebook (was it an assignment? I don't know) "Dear Lood, thank you for my cat and my dog and love" (is it telling that the only word I misspelled was "Lord"?) - turns out that feeling wasn't "Lood" it was my cat, and my dog, and love.
Makes a lot more sense that way, at least to me.
So that's how I'm a pantheist.
How I'm an atheist too is, I don't know if it's honest (since, going back to the beginning, the word "God" is not part of my spiritual experience, but part of trying to talk to other people about it) If "God" is everything, if God is love and life and being and the universe and all that is and mystery, then
Is it useful, and is it honest to use a word that so many people use to mean something very different? To mean something OUTSIDE or beyond of all of those things? I don't feel that it is.
I was on some Quaker forum/list/thingy years ago where the word panENtheist kept coming up, and to some (the majority) of people there is was VERY important to distinguish that God is IN everything, but transcends it too, that God is supernatural, that God goes beyond nature, it is VERY important to me that that's not true (not that I'd be that upset if it were true, though the God of the Bible is a meanie, in my opinion) but it seems very much not true, again not in a way I can argue with words (though I might give it a shot another day) but in a way I know without words.
And Buddhism, which is sort of an awkward tagalong topic here, but felt dishonest to leave it out for the sake of some sort of efficiency...... I don't identify as a buddhist, and I don't tend to follow buddhist practice very much at all. When I studied comparative relgion in college it "spoke to me" the most of anything I studied, but I also had an advisor who was adamant that one can't "be" a religion outside the contact of the culture that religion belongs to. Americans often pick and choose what they like from "foreign" religions, and to me there's something very cool about that, and also something really annoying.
I have heard Buddhism described as an atheist relgion, and that makes sense to me. It is a religion in that it seeks to address the mystery and in that it is about how we should be in the world (should is the wrong word there, I'm at a loss) but it is not theist in that is does not appeal to an outside source to answer any of those questions for us. It is about practice, not about believing something in particular. That makes sense to me, as does most of what the buddha (the one we talk about anyway) is quoted as having said, so there's that.
Interestingly, I am quite aware that buddhism has its practicioners who are all about superstition and not at all about how to be in the world, just as christianity (oh yeah, christianity....) has its followers who are all about how to be in the world (following some really good suggestions attributed to Jesus) and not at all about superstition really.
In fact, I was describing my atheism to a christian quaker a few weeks ago, and he kept insisting that what I was talking about wasn't atheism at all, but true christianity.
It's damn confusing.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
June 2009 is International Pagan Values Blogging Month!
Stasa turned me onto this, which was actually started over here at "Chrysalis"
Now, I'm not exactly a pagan. I mean, in lots of ways I'm REALLY not a pagan, I don't know much at all about the trappings and ritual involved.
But my spirituality is most manifest in natural settings, or something.
Besides, Stasa says atheists are invited too :)
So, something to write about.
The implication, which seems to be all over in these past years/decades that morals come from religion sort of baffles me. Which I suppose is very different from challenging the implication that they come from christianity, with the idea that they can come from another religion. Good fodder, but I'm sleepy and incoherent right now :)
Now, I'm not exactly a pagan. I mean, in lots of ways I'm REALLY not a pagan, I don't know much at all about the trappings and ritual involved.
But my spirituality is most manifest in natural settings, or something.
Besides, Stasa says atheists are invited too :)
So, something to write about.
The implication, which seems to be all over in these past years/decades that morals come from religion sort of baffles me. Which I suppose is very different from challenging the implication that they come from christianity, with the idea that they can come from another religion. Good fodder, but I'm sleepy and incoherent right now :)
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
Amazon.com ruckus
So, I'm serious hepped up about this
I blogged about the difference between Amazon and indpendent bookstores over three years ago. Since then the independent bookstore I was talking about sort of folded and sort of got bought out. I hate to admit that, now that I don't know anyone who works there, I visit much less frequently, and I get most of my books at the library anyway.
But all the uproar, or most of it, as far as I've seen, so far has been about what choices we want Amazon to make about censorship and who reads what and what gets promoted. Sometimes criticism will touch on the fact that it really matters what Amazon lets us read (well, find, they're not policing used bookstores or anything, isn't that a relief?) because they're huge, and so many people never look anywhere else for a book.
If it's not on Amazon, it doesn't exist, right? So it's really important that Amazon doesn't begin to randomly diss major subsets of the population.
But how/when/why did we come to accept that it's just fine that if it's not on Amazon, it doesn't exist?
That's SCARY people!
And I know, that's not exactly a catch phrase, but it is very true for publishers and authors- the ex mentioned in the three year old post above used Amazon rather than "books in print" for preliminary searches on customer requests (to find out if it's in print, the ISBN, the publisher, whatever)
And, she told me once (and this is old, second-hand hearsay, so don't sue me, Amazon, I acknowledge it) that they (independent Amazon bookstore) called a vendor (a small regional press, I think) whom they had somehow neglected to pay for six months because they felt just awful about it, and the person she got there informed her that they'd just assumed that it wouldn't get paid cause they thought it was Amazon.com and not the independent Amazon. They "sell" (or give) books to Amazon because no one would know that they exist if they didn't. (I assume they do pay some of their vendors)
It seems like something people can't even wrap their brains around, somehow. I came across this great bookstore blog about it, but the comments all go back to, "well, it was a hacker, it's not their fault" - or someone else who's had independent bookstores refuse to order books with gay themes for him (so independents aren't any better, as if that's a competing chain) or whatever.
I don't even CARE (much) if it was a hacker - the point is, even if Amazon is completely "pure" by whatever standards I could dream up (and it will never be) - diversity is essential.
Potatoes were GREAT food in Ireland, good producers, nutritious, everything you could want
Until they weren't
And there was nothing else to eat
I blogged about the difference between Amazon and indpendent bookstores over three years ago. Since then the independent bookstore I was talking about sort of folded and sort of got bought out. I hate to admit that, now that I don't know anyone who works there, I visit much less frequently, and I get most of my books at the library anyway.
But all the uproar, or most of it, as far as I've seen, so far has been about what choices we want Amazon to make about censorship and who reads what and what gets promoted. Sometimes criticism will touch on the fact that it really matters what Amazon lets us read (well, find, they're not policing used bookstores or anything, isn't that a relief?) because they're huge, and so many people never look anywhere else for a book.
If it's not on Amazon, it doesn't exist, right? So it's really important that Amazon doesn't begin to randomly diss major subsets of the population.
But how/when/why did we come to accept that it's just fine that if it's not on Amazon, it doesn't exist?
That's SCARY people!
And I know, that's not exactly a catch phrase, but it is very true for publishers and authors- the ex mentioned in the three year old post above used Amazon rather than "books in print" for preliminary searches on customer requests (to find out if it's in print, the ISBN, the publisher, whatever)
And, she told me once (and this is old, second-hand hearsay, so don't sue me, Amazon, I acknowledge it) that they (independent Amazon bookstore) called a vendor (a small regional press, I think) whom they had somehow neglected to pay for six months because they felt just awful about it, and the person she got there informed her that they'd just assumed that it wouldn't get paid cause they thought it was Amazon.com and not the independent Amazon. They "sell" (or give) books to Amazon because no one would know that they exist if they didn't. (I assume they do pay some of their vendors)
It seems like something people can't even wrap their brains around, somehow. I came across this great bookstore blog about it, but the comments all go back to, "well, it was a hacker, it's not their fault" - or someone else who's had independent bookstores refuse to order books with gay themes for him (so independents aren't any better, as if that's a competing chain) or whatever.
I don't even CARE (much) if it was a hacker - the point is, even if Amazon is completely "pure" by whatever standards I could dream up (and it will never be) - diversity is essential.
Potatoes were GREAT food in Ireland, good producers, nutritious, everything you could want
Until they weren't
And there was nothing else to eat
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Spritual or Religious?
a f/Friend posted a question about this on his facebook page today, and I think maybe it's worthy of some chatter on my part. I was surprised at how many responses there were, without one being at all like mine.
I used to use this phrase more for myself, about ten years ago, when it didn't feel quite so cliched or flaky. I wrote it in a personals ad (of all places, how embarrassing!) of all things, and explained it as, "anti-dogma, pro-awe" - which probably is a better all around phrase, and unlikely to catch on and become overdone.
So, for me, "spiritual" is, or has been, a way to say, I experience something that feels like God (being atheist, I wouldn't actually name it god, at least not without extensive hedging) - I get that, I'm part of it (it being creation, lifeforce, mysticism, I"m not even sure)
and "Religious" is tainted with, essentially, for me, well, believing stupid things. I was trying to think of a better way to say it, but that's not my gift, so there it is.
If you're religious, maybe you believe the pope when he says that condoms are the enemy when combating AIDS. This essentially goes against reason, logic, and, well, reality. But if you're that kind of Catholic, he's right because he's the pope.
I used to use this phrase more for myself, about ten years ago, when it didn't feel quite so cliched or flaky. I wrote it in a personals ad (of all places, how embarrassing!) of all things, and explained it as, "anti-dogma, pro-awe" - which probably is a better all around phrase, and unlikely to catch on and become overdone.
So, for me, "spiritual" is, or has been, a way to say, I experience something that feels like God (being atheist, I wouldn't actually name it god, at least not without extensive hedging) - I get that, I'm part of it (it being creation, lifeforce, mysticism, I"m not even sure)
and "Religious" is tainted with, essentially, for me, well, believing stupid things. I was trying to think of a better way to say it, but that's not my gift, so there it is.
If you're religious, maybe you believe the pope when he says that condoms are the enemy when combating AIDS. This essentially goes against reason, logic, and, well, reality. But if you're that kind of Catholic, he's right because he's the pope.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Fit for Freedom, not for Friendship
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/magazine/39129752.html
I'm excited for this book coming out.
My recent ex (I'm still very sad) asked me a while ago about why there weren't many black quakers, especially seeing that we were so involved in the antislavery movement. I just choked out a really long and rambly, guilt-laden, essentially, "I dont' know"
Turns out quakers can't claim nearly as much credit as we'd like to for being above/beyond this racist world and country we live in.
Still haven't figured out how to get there, but I'm pondering it.
I'm excited for this book coming out.
My recent ex (I'm still very sad) asked me a while ago about why there weren't many black quakers, especially seeing that we were so involved in the antislavery movement. I just choked out a really long and rambly, guilt-laden, essentially, "I dont' know"
Turns out quakers can't claim nearly as much credit as we'd like to for being above/beyond this racist world and country we live in.
Still haven't figured out how to get there, but I'm pondering it.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Um, hi?
I'm thinking about blogging again, but seem to have a combination of writers block and abject terror that I have nothing to say, or worse, that I do, but it's incoherent or at least stupid,
So here's me putting my foot in the water with nothing to say, just to break the ice or something, hopefully I'll be back soon.
I watched "Finding Nemo" the other night for the first time maybe since it came out. I'd forgotten, there's one part where they have to take a big risk and the one fish says "how do you know nothing bad will happen?" and the other fish says "I don't"
I swear this was the best insight I've received from the universe over the last decade or so, something I really need to hang onto - If you're alive sometimes you just gotta push through even with no clue how bad it might be. A timely reminder for me too. Ah, the wisdom of Pixar
So here's me putting my foot in the water with nothing to say, just to break the ice or something, hopefully I'll be back soon.
I watched "Finding Nemo" the other night for the first time maybe since it came out. I'd forgotten, there's one part where they have to take a big risk and the one fish says "how do you know nothing bad will happen?" and the other fish says "I don't"
I swear this was the best insight I've received from the universe over the last decade or so, something I really need to hang onto - If you're alive sometimes you just gotta push through even with no clue how bad it might be. A timely reminder for me too. Ah, the wisdom of Pixar
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Only a coincidence if you're a clueless WASP
Allison's answer to,
"1. Is there something about Quaker theology that makes it more appealing to the kind of people who get college degrees? Is there something about Quaker theology that makes it unappealing to the kind of people who don’t get college degrees? If so, why?
2. Or is it something about current liberal Quaker culture? If so, why?
3. Or is it something to do with current liberal Quaker practice? If so, why?
4. Or do you think it is just a coincidence? If so, why?"
On Jeanne's Quakers and Social Class Blog
At this moment I think this is like the ONLY task before quakers in terms of dealing with classism, racism, diversity (a term I'm coming to hate from overuse and cluelessness)
If we are called to "answer that of god" in everyone, and HUGE swaths of humanity are turned off/chased away by how we're doing things, that's not "okay"
It's at the very least not okay to simply chalk it up to "coincidence" and refuse/fail to examine what about us alienates people.
Jeanne also points out:
"I can think of all sorts of things Friends would deem as "inappropriate." Dress (low-cut tops, muscle shirts), language (non-standard grammar, swearing, Jesus talk), food at potluck (fast food, processed food, non-organic food), conservative views (pro-life, Republican), spending habits (owning an SUV, subscribing to cable), to name just a few (and I bet you can add to this list)."
Now, I have to say, my defensive, clueless wasp brain immediately assumes I'm being asked to start wearing low cut tops and subscribe to cable, which is NOT the point.
The point is a little elusive to my fallible human brain, but it's something about getting too attached to outward forms.
Does organic food bring us closer to God? maybe, especially if, like me, your spirituality is very earth-based, it might.
Does squinching up our noses at food that isn't organic bring us closer to God? I bet you can guess my answer to that.
I've been a vegetarian for 20 years, have gotten a lot less militant (and a lot more confused, go figger) about it lately.
I used to get really angry at what became a relatively common story I'd hear: "I used to be vegetarian" (and maybe they are again) "but I travelled abroad and found myself in situations where to refuse a meat dish would have been terribly insulting to my hosts, so I made an exception." For years my ONLY response to this was that this person was a "sellout", now I'm finally beginning to see the value in being somewhat flexible in honoring other people's culture, even when it conflicts with your own.
I'm not saying I would eat meat in such a circumstance, I don't know. But I might miss out on a lot if I don't. And, even in I decide my personal ethics have to come first, there are a variety of ways to approach the situation, some of which are terribly self righteous and alienating, some of which could be much more friendly (than is my natural inclination)
I think it's a lot about letting go of the idea that there is A right way to do things (to think about things, to talk about things) and that we know what it is. What if we saw every exposure to something new/alien/scary/different, not as a threat to our ivory tower of perfection, but as an opportunity to learn more, or to grow in love? To know God better.
I dunno
"1. Is there something about Quaker theology that makes it more appealing to the kind of people who get college degrees? Is there something about Quaker theology that makes it unappealing to the kind of people who don’t get college degrees? If so, why?
2. Or is it something about current liberal Quaker culture? If so, why?
3. Or is it something to do with current liberal Quaker practice? If so, why?
4. Or do you think it is just a coincidence? If so, why?"
On Jeanne's Quakers and Social Class Blog
At this moment I think this is like the ONLY task before quakers in terms of dealing with classism, racism, diversity (a term I'm coming to hate from overuse and cluelessness)
If we are called to "answer that of god" in everyone, and HUGE swaths of humanity are turned off/chased away by how we're doing things, that's not "okay"
It's at the very least not okay to simply chalk it up to "coincidence" and refuse/fail to examine what about us alienates people.
Jeanne also points out:
"I can think of all sorts of things Friends would deem as "inappropriate." Dress (low-cut tops, muscle shirts), language (non-standard grammar, swearing, Jesus talk), food at potluck (fast food, processed food, non-organic food), conservative views (pro-life, Republican), spending habits (owning an SUV, subscribing to cable), to name just a few (and I bet you can add to this list)."
Now, I have to say, my defensive, clueless wasp brain immediately assumes I'm being asked to start wearing low cut tops and subscribe to cable, which is NOT the point.
The point is a little elusive to my fallible human brain, but it's something about getting too attached to outward forms.
Does organic food bring us closer to God? maybe, especially if, like me, your spirituality is very earth-based, it might.
Does squinching up our noses at food that isn't organic bring us closer to God? I bet you can guess my answer to that.
I've been a vegetarian for 20 years, have gotten a lot less militant (and a lot more confused, go figger) about it lately.
I used to get really angry at what became a relatively common story I'd hear: "I used to be vegetarian" (and maybe they are again) "but I travelled abroad and found myself in situations where to refuse a meat dish would have been terribly insulting to my hosts, so I made an exception." For years my ONLY response to this was that this person was a "sellout", now I'm finally beginning to see the value in being somewhat flexible in honoring other people's culture, even when it conflicts with your own.
I'm not saying I would eat meat in such a circumstance, I don't know. But I might miss out on a lot if I don't. And, even in I decide my personal ethics have to come first, there are a variety of ways to approach the situation, some of which are terribly self righteous and alienating, some of which could be much more friendly (than is my natural inclination)
I think it's a lot about letting go of the idea that there is A right way to do things (to think about things, to talk about things) and that we know what it is. What if we saw every exposure to something new/alien/scary/different, not as a threat to our ivory tower of perfection, but as an opportunity to learn more, or to grow in love? To know God better.
I dunno
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Friends of Color Blog
try this
with the subtitle: "...helping the Religious Society of Friends be whole" wow.
It just started up, and I think it's a great idea. I'm hoping there will be a lot of activity and some interesting stuff will come up.
I am also thinking of starting a discussion list for allies, so that those of us who are well intentioned have a place to discuss what comes up for us without getting too much in the way, but I'm wondering if there's any interest? Let me know
OK - the links in my post aren't working, but the link on the side in "quaker blogs I follow" does
bleah, technology
(ok, now I think it works)
with the subtitle: "...helping the Religious Society of Friends be whole" wow.
It just started up, and I think it's a great idea. I'm hoping there will be a lot of activity and some interesting stuff will come up.
I am also thinking of starting a discussion list for allies, so that those of us who are well intentioned have a place to discuss what comes up for us without getting too much in the way, but I'm wondering if there's any interest? Let me know
OK - the links in my post aren't working, but the link on the side in "quaker blogs I follow" does
bleah, technology
(ok, now I think it works)
Friday, December 21, 2007
"Dibs"
who has them? particularly on "living the love which Jesus spoke about" - from a recent post of mine.
I wondered what it would mean to define ourselves as "seeking to live out the love which Jesus spoke of" (paraphrasing Jeanne)
and, in the comments, the question was raised, to paraphrase,
Well, doesn't EVERYONE seek to do that? Can't we claim that we've actually experienced it? (done it?) Don't we have something more special to offer the world? (evidence that it's possible?)
Freaked me out.
I'm still not sure what to say about it.
I'd like to say that my first reaction was excitement that that's true of Quakerism - not only do we seek to live in that love, but we actually, as a whole, do it. Heck, I'd be excited to think that everyone else is trying to. That hasn't really been my experience.
So, really, my frist reaction was SCARY CHRISTIAN! (note: the commenter is a friend of mine and member of my home meeting, and I can attest is not scary in the least) I have a visceral, unhappy reaction, to any implication that anyone has some special "in" with Jesus, or especially with LOVE, especially me, or my group.
Also, and I think I've said this before, I've met a few people who actually do, in my experience, live in and radiate that sort of love, and they're all Catholic, or at least were for most of their lives.
I'm not making some giant statement that Catholicism is the way. They're also all women, and I believe that sort of light is available to men, too.
And, in spite of this repeated experience, I'm not Catholic. I'm just not. Much like I'm not straight, even though most of the relationships I would like to emulate are heterosexual ones.
That doesn't mean that I have to be straight to find true love, it does mean that a lot more people are straight, so it's more likely the good relationships I see will be straight (the worst ones I've seen have been straight too)
There are lots more Catholics than Quakers, too. And I don't even want to get into how easy it is to find Catholics who are NOT managing to be someone I'd want to emulate spiritually (or any other way)
So, back to the beginning, CAN we claim that we know it's possible? that we've done it?
I don't know. I think maybe I've done it in tiny moments here and there throughout my life, but now, it's not my general state of being.
As for Quakerism, I've found that it offers ME more of an opportunity to tap into that love, or to nurture it, than anything else I've tried.
But a huge part of my (universalist) quaker experience is standing in awe of how many paths there are to it, how many guises it takes, and how true one can be for someone else while being the worst fit in the world for me.
So, for me, I SEEK, I don't really claim to have found or accomplished much. But the seeking is important, and the moments where it works out are amazing.
And I love quakers, but I'm not exactly blown away by our superior level of spiritual evolution or anything. I expect us to be flawed, and I'm not all that disappointed in that expectation.
I wondered what it would mean to define ourselves as "seeking to live out the love which Jesus spoke of" (paraphrasing Jeanne)
and, in the comments, the question was raised, to paraphrase,
Well, doesn't EVERYONE seek to do that? Can't we claim that we've actually experienced it? (done it?) Don't we have something more special to offer the world? (evidence that it's possible?)
Freaked me out.
I'm still not sure what to say about it.
I'd like to say that my first reaction was excitement that that's true of Quakerism - not only do we seek to live in that love, but we actually, as a whole, do it. Heck, I'd be excited to think that everyone else is trying to. That hasn't really been my experience.
So, really, my frist reaction was SCARY CHRISTIAN! (note: the commenter is a friend of mine and member of my home meeting, and I can attest is not scary in the least) I have a visceral, unhappy reaction, to any implication that anyone has some special "in" with Jesus, or especially with LOVE, especially me, or my group.
Also, and I think I've said this before, I've met a few people who actually do, in my experience, live in and radiate that sort of love, and they're all Catholic, or at least were for most of their lives.
I'm not making some giant statement that Catholicism is the way. They're also all women, and I believe that sort of light is available to men, too.
And, in spite of this repeated experience, I'm not Catholic. I'm just not. Much like I'm not straight, even though most of the relationships I would like to emulate are heterosexual ones.
That doesn't mean that I have to be straight to find true love, it does mean that a lot more people are straight, so it's more likely the good relationships I see will be straight (the worst ones I've seen have been straight too)
There are lots more Catholics than Quakers, too. And I don't even want to get into how easy it is to find Catholics who are NOT managing to be someone I'd want to emulate spiritually (or any other way)
So, back to the beginning, CAN we claim that we know it's possible? that we've done it?
I don't know. I think maybe I've done it in tiny moments here and there throughout my life, but now, it's not my general state of being.
As for Quakerism, I've found that it offers ME more of an opportunity to tap into that love, or to nurture it, than anything else I've tried.
But a huge part of my (universalist) quaker experience is standing in awe of how many paths there are to it, how many guises it takes, and how true one can be for someone else while being the worst fit in the world for me.
So, for me, I SEEK, I don't really claim to have found or accomplished much. But the seeking is important, and the moments where it works out are amazing.
And I love quakers, but I'm not exactly blown away by our superior level of spiritual evolution or anything. I expect us to be flawed, and I'm not all that disappointed in that expectation.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Both of the people I know who killed themselves did it in November. Tonight is the sixth anniversary of my cousin's suicide.
I feel like it's hitting me harder than I remember it doing in years past...
My friend Kate who is adopting an older kid tells me that they warn you that your kid may "act out" on anniversaries of significant/bad things, without even knowing it.
Yup, it feels sorta like that, except I'm not really acting out, more folding up.
God, it sucks.
I feel like it's hitting me harder than I remember it doing in years past...
My friend Kate who is adopting an older kid tells me that they warn you that your kid may "act out" on anniversaries of significant/bad things, without even knowing it.
Yup, it feels sorta like that, except I'm not really acting out, more folding up.
God, it sucks.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Love as Testimony
I just got a new comment on a post from last February, good thing I turned on notification for those things, or I'd never have seen it.
Allison (whose blog looks really interesting) asks what I've been thinking since about love as a testimony.
I wrote something the next day, about love being the soil that the testimonies grow out of, which I think is more to the point.
But I'm still frustrated that it's not what we talk about. Jeanne wrote, in a recent post about class, "I think it's fair to say that all Friends seek to live out the kind of love Jesus spoke about." in the context of what we're motivated by, and striving for, when we choose to tussle with the issue of class.
Maybe I'm only frustrated with myself. When people who don't know anything about Quakers ask me about it, I go on about waiting in silence, being moved by the spirit, that of god in everyone, what canst thou say, simplicity, equality, integrity, peace (community doesn't seem to be a testimony in my community! - or at least didn't make the list) what if I just said, "Friends seek to live out the kind of love Jesus spoke about"?
Wow.
I mean, aside from sounding more Christocentric than I'd prefer (while not actually being so. Doing something Jesus talked about is totally different from what most people think of as "christian" and what I resist about it - accpeting that he was in some way supernatural)
but aside from that, it sounds freaky, mushy, hippy-dippy, new age, flaky or something.
Why does LOVE sound like that? It's so basic, so essential, like dirt, necessary to life, to growth, unassuming at its best....
Allison (whose blog looks really interesting) asks what I've been thinking since about love as a testimony.
I wrote something the next day, about love being the soil that the testimonies grow out of, which I think is more to the point.
But I'm still frustrated that it's not what we talk about. Jeanne wrote, in a recent post about class, "I think it's fair to say that all Friends seek to live out the kind of love Jesus spoke about." in the context of what we're motivated by, and striving for, when we choose to tussle with the issue of class.
Maybe I'm only frustrated with myself. When people who don't know anything about Quakers ask me about it, I go on about waiting in silence, being moved by the spirit, that of god in everyone, what canst thou say, simplicity, equality, integrity, peace (community doesn't seem to be a testimony in my community! - or at least didn't make the list) what if I just said, "Friends seek to live out the kind of love Jesus spoke about"?
Wow.
I mean, aside from sounding more Christocentric than I'd prefer (while not actually being so. Doing something Jesus talked about is totally different from what most people think of as "christian" and what I resist about it - accpeting that he was in some way supernatural)
but aside from that, it sounds freaky, mushy, hippy-dippy, new age, flaky or something.
Why does LOVE sound like that? It's so basic, so essential, like dirt, necessary to life, to growth, unassuming at its best....
Do They Know It's Christmas?
So, now two of my 5 radio presets in my car are playing xmas music 24/7. One has been since early november, and I'm already pretty sick of it.
But I still scan through them on my way to work, and usually stop if one is playing
"Do They Know It's Christmas?" by Band Aid.
The song was released at the end of 1984, right before I turned 16, and is perfectly dramatic and bleeding-heart-ish for where I was then in my life. I still love it, in a weird nostalgic way.
The lyrics, however, are just ludicrous. I'm embarassed by them. I mean, the name for one thing. "Do they know it's Christmas?" - Well, some of "them" are christian, and certainly know. Some of them aren't, and for them it's NOT. A more appropriate question might be do WE know it's not Christmas for everyone? And should people have enough to eat even if it's NOT Christmas?
And then the "there won't be snow in Africa" - well, actually, there most likely was, some places in Africa. There are some dang high mountains over there, from what I hear. I bet there's snow on at least some of them. But more to the point, who the hell cares about snow? Yeah, that's what starving people are missing out on, snow. Poor things.
I know, poetic license and all that. It sounds good, and was very moving. Sold a lot of records, made a lot of money, which I heard didn't actually help the situation all that much. (as famine is almost always political, rather than due to actual lack of resources anyway)
So I guess it just got me back into thinking about charity and how we see our relationship to the world. The song is so much about guilt because we have and others don't, but also, in this weird way, about how we're better than them (we, after all, know it's christmas, and we have snow to boot)
I'm all for a sense of justice - a sense that something is wrong when we have a huge excess and others are suffering from want, but guilt is different, somehow, I don't like it. And the idea that people are starving because they're missing something that "we" "get" is just offensive.
But the song still moves me. Nostalgia? Poetry? Still caught up in my western world white guilt? Yeah....
*edit* link to youtube video, courtesy of Martin, Thanks!
But I still scan through them on my way to work, and usually stop if one is playing
"Do They Know It's Christmas?" by Band Aid.
The song was released at the end of 1984, right before I turned 16, and is perfectly dramatic and bleeding-heart-ish for where I was then in my life. I still love it, in a weird nostalgic way.
The lyrics, however, are just ludicrous. I'm embarassed by them. I mean, the name for one thing. "Do they know it's Christmas?" - Well, some of "them" are christian, and certainly know. Some of them aren't, and for them it's NOT. A more appropriate question might be do WE know it's not Christmas for everyone? And should people have enough to eat even if it's NOT Christmas?
And then the "there won't be snow in Africa" - well, actually, there most likely was, some places in Africa. There are some dang high mountains over there, from what I hear. I bet there's snow on at least some of them. But more to the point, who the hell cares about snow? Yeah, that's what starving people are missing out on, snow. Poor things.
I know, poetic license and all that. It sounds good, and was very moving. Sold a lot of records, made a lot of money, which I heard didn't actually help the situation all that much. (as famine is almost always political, rather than due to actual lack of resources anyway)
So I guess it just got me back into thinking about charity and how we see our relationship to the world. The song is so much about guilt because we have and others don't, but also, in this weird way, about how we're better than them (we, after all, know it's christmas, and we have snow to boot)
I'm all for a sense of justice - a sense that something is wrong when we have a huge excess and others are suffering from want, but guilt is different, somehow, I don't like it. And the idea that people are starving because they're missing something that "we" "get" is just offensive.
But the song still moves me. Nostalgia? Poetry? Still caught up in my western world white guilt? Yeah....
*edit* link to youtube video, courtesy of Martin, Thanks!
Monday, November 05, 2007
Sad - Missing my co-op
Yesterday was North Country's last day open. I went there in the early evening. I'd been meaning to all week, but this stuff does get put off....
I was amazed at how sad I was. I've known this was coming for ages. Even officially. They announced they were closing a while ago. When the New Riv closed I found out cause I planned on going to lunch there that day. Much more of a shock (but also a long time coming..)
I'm mad that it didn't work, and yet I was part of it not working too. I haven't done my grocery shopping there in ages. It's a little further away than Seward Co-op, maybe a mile, and just that little bit harder to get to (at a weird intersection, with very little parking, sort of trapped between two highways and the river) In addition it sort of never had critical mass, or something. The produce wasn't as good, because it didn't have the level of turnover the other coops do, and so fewer of us bought it, making the turnover even worse.
I miss the community-ness of it. From the handpainted wooden signs which retained a little of the old co-op feel, to the signs salvaged from other closed co-ops that they saved, a bit of history. I wonder where they'll go now.
I know when I was more involved there was a sense of an "in" group. Working members and board members, lots of people who knew each other and were excited to chat when we saw each other. I think that created sort of an "out group" feeling for lots of people, and have heard that was part of what was alienating. Many of us would rather go somewhere where no one has much of a connection (though regulars will often know some of the cashiers, or whatever, anywhere), but it makes me really sad.
I got interviewed, along with lots of other people, for a west bank (the neighborhood) history project. I'll be interested to see that when it's up (I think it will be a website, I'll link to it) - I don't feel very articulate, but it was actually suprisingly healing to talk to this unknown young woman about my history of the place, and what it's meant to me.
Afterwards I swung by Seward Co-op on the way home. It's beautiful, with abundant, lovely produce as you walk in the door, lots of stuff, lots of lights, marketing endcaps. They're doing it "right". So right, in fact, that they're in the process of moving down the street to a much bigger place. The large parking lot is often filled, and the lines are getting long.
And they exist because in 1973 or whenever North Country was getting too big and needed to spin off another co-op. Weird.
I love Seward too, but it felt sort of soulless. I resented it, sort of like when my old dog, Patches, died, I resented my younger dogs, just for not being her, really. How could they ever compare?
I guess they won't. Something real is lost, and something else continues on.
I was amazed at how sad I was. I've known this was coming for ages. Even officially. They announced they were closing a while ago. When the New Riv closed I found out cause I planned on going to lunch there that day. Much more of a shock (but also a long time coming..)
I'm mad that it didn't work, and yet I was part of it not working too. I haven't done my grocery shopping there in ages. It's a little further away than Seward Co-op, maybe a mile, and just that little bit harder to get to (at a weird intersection, with very little parking, sort of trapped between two highways and the river) In addition it sort of never had critical mass, or something. The produce wasn't as good, because it didn't have the level of turnover the other coops do, and so fewer of us bought it, making the turnover even worse.
I miss the community-ness of it. From the handpainted wooden signs which retained a little of the old co-op feel, to the signs salvaged from other closed co-ops that they saved, a bit of history. I wonder where they'll go now.
I know when I was more involved there was a sense of an "in" group. Working members and board members, lots of people who knew each other and were excited to chat when we saw each other. I think that created sort of an "out group" feeling for lots of people, and have heard that was part of what was alienating. Many of us would rather go somewhere where no one has much of a connection (though regulars will often know some of the cashiers, or whatever, anywhere), but it makes me really sad.
I got interviewed, along with lots of other people, for a west bank (the neighborhood) history project. I'll be interested to see that when it's up (I think it will be a website, I'll link to it) - I don't feel very articulate, but it was actually suprisingly healing to talk to this unknown young woman about my history of the place, and what it's meant to me.
Afterwards I swung by Seward Co-op on the way home. It's beautiful, with abundant, lovely produce as you walk in the door, lots of stuff, lots of lights, marketing endcaps. They're doing it "right". So right, in fact, that they're in the process of moving down the street to a much bigger place. The large parking lot is often filled, and the lines are getting long.
And they exist because in 1973 or whenever North Country was getting too big and needed to spin off another co-op. Weird.
I love Seward too, but it felt sort of soulless. I resented it, sort of like when my old dog, Patches, died, I resented my younger dogs, just for not being her, really. How could they ever compare?
I guess they won't. Something real is lost, and something else continues on.
Friday, November 02, 2007
what privilege do you have?
From Jeanne, who often rocks my world
Father went to college
Father finished college
Mother went to college
Mother finished college
Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor
Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers
Had more than 50 books in your childhood home
Had more than 500 books in your childhood home (I don't know, I think so?)
Were read children's books by a parent
Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18
Had to take out less than $5000 in student loans in order to go to college
Didn't need student loans to go to college out of high school
Went to a private high school
Went to summer camp (a YMCA one, but still)
Had a private tutor before you turned 18
Family vacations involved staying at hotels (occasionally, when I was young)
Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 (I adored hand-me-downs, but I didn't need them)
Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
There was original art in your house when you were a child
Had a phone in your room before you turned 18
You and your family lived in a single family house
Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home
You had your own room as a child
Participated in an SAT/ACT prep course (in order to wangle the scholarship that allowed me to go to college without student loans)
Had your own TV in your room in High School
Owned a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College
Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16
Went on a cruise with your family
Went on more than one cruise with your family
Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up
You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family (true, but we also couldn't always pay them)
Wow, I figured I'd have a lot bolded, but this is particularly a lot.
Of course this list is flawed, or at least incomplete.
Someone else somewhere mentioned that it doesn't ask if you went to, or finished college, if you worked your ass off not to have college loans, or took 8 years to do it cause you were working full time...
I went to a private (Friends) high school, but in grade 4-5 I went to public school, where my compatriots were much richer, one of my classmates was the FDR's granddaughter. Bill and Hilary Clinton bought a house in that suburb when they went to New York. So if I'd graduated from that public high school, would I have less privilege? I don't think so. The most working class school I went to was Catholic, not public. I'm not sure if that would have been "private" or not.
Also, in my experience having a tv or phone in your room was a status symbol of much greater interest to my working class friends. I'm pretty sure my best friend, who was clearly more "working class" than me had both of these well before I did. She had a greater awareness of them as status symbols, and to some extent it was easier for her family to provide those than, say, a college fund.
Also, lots of my wealthier friends had hand me down cars. Getting your parent's 4 year old audi when they get a new one certainly isn't less privileged than getting a 10 year old junker that's new to your family cause your parents aren't done with their 10 year old junker yet :)
And original art. My grandma's house had tons of stuff that she'd made, perhaps falling in the category of crafts ratehr than art, but how do we count that? we had *my* original art, from middle school art classe, on the walls :)
Which actually reminds me of a conversation I had with Jeanne about grade school classes. I left my main room for art, gym, music, and I think science in grade school. I think she said they didn't leave for any of those. That's a difference I had no clue about, I thought all kids did that. Though I know those programs are getting gobbled up in public schools these days, I thought they were alive and well everywhere in the 70s.
Oh, PS, I'm not tagging anyone, but I'd love to see lots of people do this.
Father went to college
Father finished college
Mother went to college
Mother finished college
Have any relative who is an attorney, physician, or professor
Were the same or higher class than your high school teachers
Had more than 50 books in your childhood home
Had more than 500 books in your childhood home (I don't know, I think so?)
Were read children's books by a parent
Had lessons of any kind before you turned 18
Had more than two kinds of lessons before you turned 18
The people in the media who dress and talk like me are portrayed positively
Had a credit card with your name on it before you turned 18
Had to take out less than $5000 in student loans in order to go to college
Didn't need student loans to go to college out of high school
Went to a private high school
Went to summer camp (a YMCA one, but still)
Had a private tutor before you turned 18
Family vacations involved staying at hotels (occasionally, when I was young)
Your clothing was all bought new before you turned 18 (I adored hand-me-downs, but I didn't need them)
Your parents bought you a car that was not a hand-me-down from them
There was original art in your house when you were a child
Had a phone in your room before you turned 18
You and your family lived in a single family house
Your parent(s) owned their own house or apartment before you left home
You had your own room as a child
Participated in an SAT/ACT prep course (in order to wangle the scholarship that allowed me to go to college without student loans)
Had your own TV in your room in High School
Owned a mutual fund or IRA in High School or College
Flew anywhere on a commercial airline before you turned 16
Went on a cruise with your family
Went on more than one cruise with your family
Your parents took you to museums and art galleries as you grew up
You were unaware of how much heating bills were for your family (true, but we also couldn't always pay them)
Wow, I figured I'd have a lot bolded, but this is particularly a lot.
Of course this list is flawed, or at least incomplete.
Someone else somewhere mentioned that it doesn't ask if you went to, or finished college, if you worked your ass off not to have college loans, or took 8 years to do it cause you were working full time...
I went to a private (Friends) high school, but in grade 4-5 I went to public school, where my compatriots were much richer, one of my classmates was the FDR's granddaughter. Bill and Hilary Clinton bought a house in that suburb when they went to New York. So if I'd graduated from that public high school, would I have less privilege? I don't think so. The most working class school I went to was Catholic, not public. I'm not sure if that would have been "private" or not.
Also, in my experience having a tv or phone in your room was a status symbol of much greater interest to my working class friends. I'm pretty sure my best friend, who was clearly more "working class" than me had both of these well before I did. She had a greater awareness of them as status symbols, and to some extent it was easier for her family to provide those than, say, a college fund.
Also, lots of my wealthier friends had hand me down cars. Getting your parent's 4 year old audi when they get a new one certainly isn't less privileged than getting a 10 year old junker that's new to your family cause your parents aren't done with their 10 year old junker yet :)
And original art. My grandma's house had tons of stuff that she'd made, perhaps falling in the category of crafts ratehr than art, but how do we count that? we had *my* original art, from middle school art classe, on the walls :)
Which actually reminds me of a conversation I had with Jeanne about grade school classes. I left my main room for art, gym, music, and I think science in grade school. I think she said they didn't leave for any of those. That's a difference I had no clue about, I thought all kids did that. Though I know those programs are getting gobbled up in public schools these days, I thought they were alive and well everywhere in the 70s.
Oh, PS, I'm not tagging anyone, but I'd love to see lots of people do this.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
It never goes away
Speaking of mourning, tomorrow (or the next day, I don't remember dates well) is the anniversary of a dear friend's suicide. It's been two years.
I've stopped forgetting and thinking I can call her, or we should really hang out.... mostly.
I met her when I was 22 and she was, I think, 10. I was with my new girlfriend at her lake cabin, and Marina was a family friend. I remember a motor boat ride in which all she said, pretty much, was, "you guys are so weird!", repeatedly - and she was clearly thrilled with our weirdness.
We would hang out together at family gatherings, the three of us, never terribly interested in "adult" conversation, even once we were all clearly adults.
Perhaps the last family gathering was a weekend at an inn, we all went for a walk in the woods and M and I ran ahead and tried to make things that looked like animal tracks in the snow, and then ran back to try to convince other people that some strange animal had been there before us (it just recently occurred to me that our own tracks were all around these, oops)
She also made snow angels with me, and tromped across a frozen lake with me when everyone else was inside watching sports or something.
That girlfriend and I broke up, and didn't talk for a number of years. Marina was key in getting us to be friends again. At one point she told me we had to talk because she was sick of feeling like she was from a broken home. Shortly thereafter, she got me to volunteer to stuff envelopes for the league of pissed off voters, right before the 2004 election, and then at the last moment slipped in. "oh, Sarah might be there for part of the time, that won't be a problem, will it?" She was a brilliant conniver sometimes.
I knew she was having a lot of trouble, I always felt completely at a loss as to what to do. She generally seemed pretty happy when I saw her, so it was hard to recognize how hard it all was. (I, on the other hand, mope at the drop of a hat). I wish I had been a better friend, called her more, perhaps even challenged her more to fight it, to value herself, I don't know. I think she had some pretty vicious demons.
This is a really old photo of us - maybe ten years ago.
I've stopped forgetting and thinking I can call her, or we should really hang out.... mostly.
I met her when I was 22 and she was, I think, 10. I was with my new girlfriend at her lake cabin, and Marina was a family friend. I remember a motor boat ride in which all she said, pretty much, was, "you guys are so weird!", repeatedly - and she was clearly thrilled with our weirdness.
We would hang out together at family gatherings, the three of us, never terribly interested in "adult" conversation, even once we were all clearly adults.
Perhaps the last family gathering was a weekend at an inn, we all went for a walk in the woods and M and I ran ahead and tried to make things that looked like animal tracks in the snow, and then ran back to try to convince other people that some strange animal had been there before us (it just recently occurred to me that our own tracks were all around these, oops)
She also made snow angels with me, and tromped across a frozen lake with me when everyone else was inside watching sports or something.
That girlfriend and I broke up, and didn't talk for a number of years. Marina was key in getting us to be friends again. At one point she told me we had to talk because she was sick of feeling like she was from a broken home. Shortly thereafter, she got me to volunteer to stuff envelopes for the league of pissed off voters, right before the 2004 election, and then at the last moment slipped in. "oh, Sarah might be there for part of the time, that won't be a problem, will it?" She was a brilliant conniver sometimes.
I knew she was having a lot of trouble, I always felt completely at a loss as to what to do. She generally seemed pretty happy when I saw her, so it was hard to recognize how hard it all was. (I, on the other hand, mope at the drop of a hat). I wish I had been a better friend, called her more, perhaps even challenged her more to fight it, to value herself, I don't know. I think she had some pretty vicious demons.
This is a really old photo of us - maybe ten years ago.
North Country Co-op is closing
I'm sure most people who know what I'm talking about already know this, but it's a thing in my life I need to talk about anyways...
The co-op has been around, apparently, for 37 years, just a little less long that myself. I think it's the oldest co-op in the Twin Cities, at the very least the oldest surviving one (for a few more days)
It was the last collectively run co-op left from the early days. Though I think it's had a general manager for the last few years. A friend pointed out at one point that in a way the fact that this didn't save it was a vindication of collective management. I guess so.
I used to work at the New Riverside Cafe, down the street. Another collective that never really seemed to have it together. North Country was like a role model - they actually managed to pay themselves significantly above (like twice!) minimum wage, a long term goal for us that we never reached while I was there...
I'm not sure what all happened. A forced move in about 2000 certainly didn't help things. North Country was maybe the only place that might have been able to pull off the tiny-store-with-wood-floors-and-wood-bins thing long term, but they lost the store and had to grow or die, for sort of unusual reasons.
I'm much more sad than I'd be if any of the other co-ops closed, though Hampden Park would be close, and none of the others seem to be in danger of it.
North Country, for a long time, retained so many of the old hippie co-op values, I guess. The co-op itself would participate in boycotts if they found the issue important enough, and put an emphasis on community building, education, and so one, even when it didn't help them market anything (take note, idealism can make life hard, damn) - They were one of the few co-ops left with a working member program (now hampden park will be the only one) - they're not very efficient, but such an important part of creating community. Oh well, strike one for efficiency I guess.
I guess I'm mourning, more than I expected.
The co-op has been around, apparently, for 37 years, just a little less long that myself. I think it's the oldest co-op in the Twin Cities, at the very least the oldest surviving one (for a few more days)
It was the last collectively run co-op left from the early days. Though I think it's had a general manager for the last few years. A friend pointed out at one point that in a way the fact that this didn't save it was a vindication of collective management. I guess so.
I used to work at the New Riverside Cafe, down the street. Another collective that never really seemed to have it together. North Country was like a role model - they actually managed to pay themselves significantly above (like twice!) minimum wage, a long term goal for us that we never reached while I was there...
I'm not sure what all happened. A forced move in about 2000 certainly didn't help things. North Country was maybe the only place that might have been able to pull off the tiny-store-with-wood-floors-and-wood-bins thing long term, but they lost the store and had to grow or die, for sort of unusual reasons.
I'm much more sad than I'd be if any of the other co-ops closed, though Hampden Park would be close, and none of the others seem to be in danger of it.
North Country, for a long time, retained so many of the old hippie co-op values, I guess. The co-op itself would participate in boycotts if they found the issue important enough, and put an emphasis on community building, education, and so one, even when it didn't help them market anything (take note, idealism can make life hard, damn) - They were one of the few co-ops left with a working member program (now hampden park will be the only one) - they're not very efficient, but such an important part of creating community. Oh well, strike one for efficiency I guess.
I guess I'm mourning, more than I expected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)