In my Congregation as Learning Community class the other week, we had an exercise in which we were asked to self-identify our ethnic culture and then consider the practices and values our cultures generally hold and how some of those either affirm or go against the Gospel. As a “culturally self-aware” American studies grad, that task wasn’t too difficult for me, but only because I spent almost 3 years asking such questions. I then wondered how some of the high schoolers I work with at church would respond to similar questions.
So, tonight before our youth group started, I was able to talk with 6 young men and 3 young ladies, asking them how they would define their ethnicity/culture/race, and how some aspects of their culture (secular & Christian) either support or go against living the Christian lifestyle. (My second question was very difficult to convey in non-jargony terms! I had to rephrase it several times, and even then, I don’t think everyone got it.)
Only one student was white alone; she called herself “Irish” and shared how she goes “all out” on St. Patrick’s Day, but is more generically “white” the rest of the year—her “Irishness” didn’t define her that much. Another student was “German/Italian/Irish/Salvadorian” and says he has a particular fondness for Korean girls. He goes to Burroughs High School in Burbank, where he said he was in the minority as a “white person” (differentiating himself from Armenians), and contrasted that to Burbank High, where his step-brother goes, which he said was predominately white. He said it felt weird to him when he visited it once for that very reason. Don was “white” and a “little Mexican”; Justin was “Mexican and white” and as a skater kid, said he “feels like crap” when other Mexicans (mainly cholos) call him “white,” but says he himself often “forgets” that he’s Mexican because he sees his crowd and friends as white. Author Robert W. Pazmiño, in his book Latin American Journey, describes this tension: “…new-breed or new-generation Hispanics are looked down on both by Latin Americans for their cultural impurity and by whites for their ethnic ties.” (107)
That tension of living in two cultural worlds was echoed by two biracial (Black and white) females, one who felt segregated against by Black students, and the other (who looks stereotypically white) who said she sometimes feels like she “has to chose sides.” Trey is very light skinned, but said he was “99.9999% Black.” When the students were asked how important their ethnicity was in forming their self-identity, almost all of them said it wasn’t, that they primarily saw themselves as just “people, like everyone else,” though these questions reveal that ethnic-based tensions do arise from time-to-time. Ethnic identification was least important to the predominately white students, who usually had the most difficulty answering my questions, but that wasn’t surprising, since “majority culture” people in almost any society often lack the same type of ethnic self-awareness that minorities do. (Please see my "comment" below)
When I asked the students to try to compare their culture with the Gospel, 80% of the students had a real hard time figuring that out. Kyle, who sees himself as “Mexican and European” pointed out that most Latinos are Catholic, and therefore “religious,” and kind of “reserved,” and that family was very important to them. Sam, who said he is “Black, obviously” (he has very dark skin) gave the strongest voice in support of having a more conscious cultural identity, saying that as a Black man he felt it was important to “step up” by example, instead of “being lazy,” to help “eliminate stereotypes.” He said he sometimes receives criticism from other Blacks who say he is “whitewashed.” In relation to the church, he felt the “Black church” is strong in its Pentecostal-type worship, and that they have that as a gift to offer to the “white church.” He said a cultural problem is that many Blacks “will go and praise the Lord at church and then go and smoke pot with their hommies that same afternoon”; that people often compartmentalize their faith.
A great thing about our youth group is its ethnic diversity and how the students, by-and-large, build friendships across racial and ethnic lines, finding more commonality in their humanity and faith than their culture of origin. Nevertheless, these conversations show there is still work to be done among them in building understanding about these issues, which seem to lie beneath the surface, to help better understand the cultural strengths, weaknesses, and biases we bring to our faith journeys. From a cultural analysis perspective, these students in many ways reflect new types of mestizaje, “mixed” people--the product of multiple cultures, creators of new ethnic identities--and even more so when you add a religion that is life-transforming to the mix.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Californians! Say NO to 220 Proposed State Park Closures!
[The following is a minimally revised reprint of a Facebook "note" I wrote the other day]
A pic I took in March of the pier at Hearst San Simeon SP by Cambria, CA, one of the sites the Governator proposes to close.
Due to the indiscretions of state and nation and business and individual, we are in a huge economic slump. News flash, right? :-0 The state of California, estimated by many to be the world's 10th largest economy, has been hit hard and out of necessity, is looking for ways to cut corners in its state budget. This is right and understandable. One of Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposals for this trimming is to indefinitely close 220 out of 279 state-run parks across CA. (Which equals roughly 80% of them) As I consider this proposal, I am increasingly becoming irate and am befuddled as to why this would be a wise thing to do, after considering the likely cost-benefit analysis of such a move.
Let's switch the order of those two terms of that foundational economic principle for a minute:
The BENEFIT:
If this proposal goes through and 220 state-run parks are closed (= no legal access, no rangers, no security, no trash collection, no first aid, no educational programs, no maintenance, no income generated...), the state of CA will have skimmed off a whopping 0.01% of its budget deficit. Yes, that's right, a whole 1%.
The COST:
Political cost: First of all, there is the unjust political concept that the public will be denied access to public lands, which just goes against logic, considering we live in a democracy.
Cost for the sites themselves: the potential increased vandalism, fires, injuries, poaching, etc. that could happen in these places w/out supervision. During my internship up at the Great Smoky Mountains NP a few summers ago, I was constantly amazed at how foolish people can act out "in the wild," from leaving trash around to getting too close to bears. Most "city folk" don't know naturally how to respect the wilderness, and the same could be said for respecting our cultural sites from painted Indian caves to historic buildings. The solution is to show people how to safely enjoy the wilderness, but you can't do that without rangers.
Cost for the residents and tourists who enjoy these sites: remove educational programs which connect people to the land and their history; take away camping opportunities which make for great, healthy, fun, family- and friend-building, and cheap(!) vacations in our tough economy and it's like, "Schwartz--what are you thinking?!" Many popular surfing beaches will be closed, meaning no place to park, no camping, no restroom facilities or trash collection, and NO LIFEGUARDS.
Cost for the local economies: consider the damage to the local, oftentimes rural economies around state parks which rely on tourist dollars and then add the fact that closing all of these state parks will include "laying off" approx. 1,500 employees, increasing our state's unemployment level, further reducing business income in small communities.
Cost for the State's economy: A UC Berkley study concluded that for every $1 CA spends on its state parks, the state receives $2.35 in taxes and local business revenue. Again, using a basic cost/benefit analysis, it makes economic sense to keep these parks open.
And then there is the "priceless" factor that no one can easily quantify. You can't place a $ value amount on the experience of standing below a towering Redwood tree up in the Henry Cowell Redwoods in Santa Cruz. You can't reproduce the silence and the night sky you find in the Anza-Borrego Desert, east of San Diego, back in the city. Who would think of closing Ellis Island, and yet we are proposing to close Angel Island up in the San Francisco Bay, which was the Ellis Island of the West. No more access to fields of endless golden poppies (our state flower) out in Lancaster; no visits to Bodie, one of the best-preserved ghost towns anywhere; no more camping trips to Carpenteria; no hikes up at Malibu Creek or even the Verdugo Mtns, just a shot above Burbank and Glendale; and no safe surfing seshes down at C-Bad or Refugio.
To summarize: I'm afraid for the integrity of these sites w/out any security, and I'm pissed I may not have legal access to them! :-0 Remove all of these awesome opportunities and you begin to ask yourself, "Wait, why do I live in California again?"
****
Data Sources:
CA State Parks Foundation: http://ga3.org/campaign/bu
(You can take action here by signing a letter which will be sent to the Governor and your appropriate state representatives. And believe it or not, this matters! A similar, but much smaller proposal [for closing 48 parks] was brought up last year by the Governor, but was quickly shut down after an overwhelming public response through petitions, letters and the like. Let's remind Sacramento again where our priorities lie!)
Surfline.com:
http://www.surfline.com/su
Silicon Valley Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
