Driving back to Sheffield

 I took Liz back to Sheffield today and in the car we discussed the fascinating subject of gender.  Liz explained to me why she, despite lots of persuasive criticism, will continue to write stories with gender neutral pronouns.

It reminded me of one of the main arguments in Emma's Dabiri's book, "What White People Can Do Next".  This book discusses the invention of the power politics of 'Whiteness'.  Dabiri notes that the concept of whiteness was used to explain why as the indentured white workers (aka slaves) on the Caribbean plantations were replaced by black enslaved people, an explanation was concocted to describe why the whites were treated better than the blacks.  The colour of the skin made a very useful defining distinction to justify this separation.  A ridiculous distinction of course, as humanity easily mixes, (especially with dominate white males in the picture).  A famous example is the story of 'The Black Count', or the father of Alexandre Dumas, also called Alex Dumas.  Alexandre Dumas' father was a French Count, who married a black Haitian enslaved woman.  Alexandre inherited the estate in Normandy.  His father was a general in Napoleon's Army and the inspiration for Dumas book, The Count of Montichristo.' For a while, the French state held that to be French, was to be Free.  Indeed, the etymology of the word Frank comes from the Latin 'to be free'.

My discussions with Liz reminded me of this, because we wondered about how the use of gender might also be used to create this distinction.  The 'power' associated with gender began to slip when farms became mechanised, and the power of an average woman became very similar to that of an average man.  The same applies for warfare, and virtually all other occupations.  Physical difference has lost any distinguishing difference.

We see how discrimination between gender and race actually has a subtle impact on the whole system and ultimately affects all sides.  Can similar principles be applied to other forms of discrimination?  What about the way prejudice in favour of beauty operates?   Is it important to define a difference in order to allow distinctions to be legitimised?  I do not see this with beauty, or disability interestingly.  It is the discrimination that can not be spoken.

On my drive home today, on a reasonably empty road, there was one hold up.  It was made by about 300 cars from the Free Palestine Protest, making a protest on the motorway- a very French experience.  

An interesting Picture from yesterday in London.
The Free Palestine Rally included Orthodox Jewry.

 .  

Driving Home

I'm  Listening to a book by John Adair called 'The Art of Judgement'.

In it he quotes CS Lewis who said that it is impossible to experience 'hope' and think about being hopeful at the same time.  It reminded me of Schon's (1991) learning model which compares reflecting  'in action: and reflecting 'on action', two parallel processes.  This is either through active experience (by touching the kettle), or learning through contemplation ('don't touch the kettle!')

I though that this was true of many experiences in life, such as humility.  You can't be humble, and think about being humble at the same time.  Also fear.  It is difficult to feel fear, and also contemplate being fearful.  Adair notes that it's like eye direction.  You can't concentrate on look forwards and backwards at the same time.  

Waiting by the traffic lights on the inner ring road I noticed that as my lights approach the change from red to green, the behaviour of the cars turning in opposite lane in front of me becomes predictably more erratic.  They speed up to the extent that they are really taking the corner at some considerable rate as they jump lights.  I smiled at the irony that traffic lights are a safety device that actually intensifies the risk for these drivers.  As the light changed and I drove forward I heard the horns behind me of many cars  negotiating the congested road they had just joined.

Cycling yesterday through the country roads of Harborough district I notice that the council had put up a sign on every gate saying 'No Fly Tipping'.  I was reminded of the cartoonist Gary Larson (Farside) and thought that this sign could also be erected in a local restaurant where a 'fly' waiter secretly rubs his two pairs of hands as he  receives a tip from a grateful customer of a pile of rotting fish bones.

My attempt with help from Cartoonstock

The Invisible Man

 Have you ever read H.G.Wells story 'The Invisible Man'?

I thought of it again when watching a fascinating documentary on Frank Lloyd Wright by Jonathan Adams, architect, and Welshman.  Frank Lloyd Wright's parents journeyed from Llandysul, Wales in a migration of the Lloyd Jones clan in 1844 to Wyoming in Wisconsan USA.  Lloyd Wright's father had been a Baptist minister, but converted to Unitarianism when he married  Lloyd Wright's mother, and joined the clan.

The family bought land which became the valley where his second family home was built- Taliesin (which is said to mean 'Shining Brow' in welsh, though Adams and googletranslate could not corroborate this. Google suggests Ael Disglair instead.) The second home was for Lloyd Wrights second family.  In 1914, the tragedy of the murder of his second wife and her children was made all the more poignant by the fact that it was a senseless murder by a trusted servant.  Julian Carton had been given notice to quit, because he had been behaving strangely, but the Lloyd Wright servants lived as relative equals in their large egalitarian household.  Carlton never explained why he committed the murders, and then burnt down the house.  He died from starvation having drunk bleach, which damaged his oesophagus.  Carlton was a black American of Barbadian decent.

I am amazed that Lloyd Wright went on to restore Taliesin.  This must have been a very brave act.  The house caught fire again in 1925, but this time it was an electrical fault.  It must evoked painful memories.  

In the Invisible Man, Wells eludes to skin colour.  People see darkness in the Invisible Man's body after a dog has torn at his trousers, they remark that his nose is pink.  Perhaps he is 'piebald' and ashamed of his skin.  After the Invisible Man, who we discover has the name Griffin, is felled and killed by a navy's spade, his lifeless body becomes visible, and we discover that he is albino.

Why are American jails full of black men?  The right wingers point to their criminal culture.  The left wingers note their position at the bottom of society - invisible.  The right wingers say 'join us- get on your bike'.  The left wingers say 'what have we done?'

Perhaps the opposite of the Invisible Man was the 'Elephant Man', who was the most wonderful and beautiful person by all accounts.  He was noticeable, but had to become invisible to protect himself, wearing a bag on his head.  Perhaps 9 invisible men lash out and attack, and 1 is extraordinary and restrained.  But the lashing out is to be expected.

I wondered whether Lloyd Wright was able to resist the racism of the age despite the powerful generalising  associations of skin colour?

And what about Jonathan Adams?  Do his building evoke Lloyd Wright?

Sherman Theatre - Cardiff (Adams)

Marin Civic Center-
San Rafael (Lloyd Wright)

The Stannary - Falmouth University (Adams)

Taliesin West - Arizona (Lloyd Wright)

Welsh Joint Education Committee HQ Llandaff
(Adams)

Johnson Wax HQ - Racine, Wisconsin
(Lloyd Wright)

The Ivisible Man?  No don't bother reading it.  Watch Jonathan Adams on Frank Lloyd Wright instead.

A significant day, and a sad day

 So for perhaps the first time, an  American Jury tells a police officer he went to far.  There are limits to his power.  He has murdered someone.

What if the white officer were a black officer?  What if he was a woman? How would his actions be viewed then?

What about the policing culture that allows this behaviour?  His colleagues who stood by?  His superiors who allow abuses of power.  

What if George Floyd was Georgia Floyd?  What if he had a clear disability?  We learn that he was weakened by his addictions.   Many disabilities are invisible.  Was there an assumption being made that he was a strong tough man?

When a person is sent to prison, so is their family.  They will be visiting him for a long time.  People in Jail are more at risk of being harmed.  More at risk of mental breakdown. More at risk of dying.  Do we care?

I listen to the podcast discussion between Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Emma Dabiri entitled "Untold damage has been done in the name of race'.

My thoughts  on the podcast:

I am interested that they both say they do not like the term BAME.  Interestingly they are not alone here.  But to me it's too bad.  It is an ugly sounding word, but it is there for a reason, and not one imposed on people by white oppressors.  BAME means what Americans call 'People of Color'.  Now we don't say 'Coloured', because that is an oppressive term.  We all have colour.  So we now accept this new concept without raising an eyebrow, and reject BAME?  BAME is an attempt not to allow the idea that people cannot share their experiences collectively.  Also that some cultures have experienced much greater levels of oppression.   This is colluding with the idea of a hierarchy of oppression.  It feeds into the concept that there is a ranking of power in race.  For me both individual experience, and collective experience are important.  Tell me what term to use- I don't care.  Skin colour is trivial- it means nothing, and it is also vital and defining, both at the same time.

Why am I interested in race?  Am I allowed to be so as a white middle class male?  I have experienced discrimination-  I do know what it is like.  I've not suffered like others, but I agree with the Roman emperor who said that 'as a human, I have the capacity to understand all things human'.  I see that we are all connected.  I might not be the one sent to jail, but I am part of the family that is sent to jail.

Dabiri and Guru-Murthy discuss what is needed for things to get better.  I agree with Dabiri that the idea of linear progress is false.  Of course it is.  The world swings and oscillates over who is given importance and status, and who is oppressed.  Dabiri's first book is called 'Don't Touch My Hair'.  She spoke of her experiences in Dublin of people touching and pulling her hair.  I recalled that as a small child in Hong Kong, older Chinese children would pull my blond hair as we walked down corridors at school.  I felt indignant- it hurt.  I wondered whether Dabiri was young too when this happened to her (liberties taken only with children.)  Her experience of course has a far more pernicious context.

I am interested that Dabiri also challenges basic concepts, such as diversity.  I am reminded of Phillip Pullman, who uses sacred words with irreverence. My thought is don't be too harsh on the poor ignorant world.  Lets make it clear that there are people with evil intentions, and also those who mean well, but fail through ignorance and prejudice.  I like to think of my intentions are pure, but perhaps I am not as enlightened as I think I am.  So I remain interested and involved.

Think before you give!

BBC reporter Rebecca Wearn published an article yesterday that raised my eyes.  But it was only about the risk of passing on 'covid-19' to charity shops.  I am more interested in the deeper thoughts about 'charity' as a whole.

I do believe in 'thinking (and perhaps praying) before giving'.

Two recent conundrums.

1) Our friends have been volunteering at a foodbank.  A couple came to them.  Originally from India, the wife is doing a Masters degree in Engineering at DeMontfort University and would ideally like to find work in the UK.  Having taken out loans to study (haven't we all) they arrived in the UK during  lockdown, and have not found any work to pay from living costs.  So now they live off charity.  Who is responsible here?  DeMontfort gave them an opportunity to be in the UK when their situation is not secure.  We know Lockdown has has offered limited work, especially for foreigners.  We don't know how or what the couple have done to find work.   The foodbank means their situation limps on with the daily threat of eviction.  

2) A year ago a friend (who has since returned to Indonesia) introduced me to a man he found sleeping in the university library.  My friend helped him out and gave him accommodation.  I met him.  He is a graduate from Israel.  He does not want to return to Israel, as he finds the culture stifling.  He is in the UK on his wife's visa.  Recently he returned to his wife, but again the relationship broke down, and she kicked him out onto the streets.  He was no right to public resources because he is a foreigner.  He now comes to me.  If I let him stay with me, this will be quite a commitment, because he has no where else to go. My family are not happy about this.  On the other hand it's cold outside.  This person knows they have messed up because their difficulties were solved, and they have irresponsibly returned to the old problems.  

In both these cases the official response is 'return to your country of origin'.  This is based on the strong message from the majority of this country that immigration to the UK is only for the very rich and privileged.  David Cameron promised that he would reduce immigration to the 'tens of thousands'.  Hence the system has become xenophobic.  Even the Windrush generation found this chill wind blow. 

Charity is the 'best of times, and the worst of times'.  So much charity covers the cracks of inequality, exploitation and greed.  Charities often maintain the 'Status Quo'.  But charities also provide the heart to society.  They stimulate creativity, sacrifice and altruistic motivation.  It is one of the 5-ways, to promote mental wellbeing.   Charities are 'flowers in our concrete garden'.

Let's keep thinking. 

The Problem with Daniel Nine

Nebuchadnezzar by William Blake -
Tate, Minneapolis and Boston Art Galleries

 DANIEL Chapter 9:  26-27

²⁶ “And after the sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.  The end of it shall be with a flood, and till the end of the war desolations are determined.  ²⁷ Then he shall confirm a covenant with many for one week; but in the middle of the week He shall bring an end to sacrifice and offering.  And on the wing of abominations shall be one who makes desolate, even until the consummation, which is determined, is poured out on the desolate.”  (New King James Version)

²⁶ ”After the sixty-two “sevens”, the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing.   The people of the Ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: war will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. ²⁷ He will confirm a covenant with many for one “seven”.  In the middle of the “seven” he will put an end to sacrifice and offering.  And at the temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation, until the end that is decreed is poured out on him.”  (New International Version)  

²⁶ “After this period of sixty-two sets of seven, the Anointed One will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a Ruler will arise whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end. ²⁷ The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him.”  (New Living Translation)

²⁶ ”And after the sixty-two weeks, an Anointed One shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the Prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its^[e] end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed. ²⁷ And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.”  (Revised Standard Version- Catholic Edition)

²⁶  ”Finally, after the sixty two weeks of years, the consecrated priest shall be cut off, leaving no successor; the city and the sanctuary shall be destroyed along with the consecrated priest, and then ruin shall pour in with a flood of warfare to the very end.  ²⁷ For a week of years the main body of the people shall cease to practise their religion; for half of that time sacrifice and offering shall cease, and instead of this there shall be an appalling abomination, till finally the appointed doom falls upon the sacrilegious abomination.”  (James Moffatt Translation)

 

Very interesting… and confusing.  If only it were possible to rewrite some of these prophecies to make then fit with the story as we know it now in the New Testament.

I have chosen five translations to compare the message.

The Messiah, (Anointed one or consecrated priest).  Most Christian commentators believe this to be Jesus. 

The Timings.  Most commentators see the seventy sevens and sixty-two sevens, as being either weeks or sets of seven years.  This allows the timings to fit with the prophecy of the coming of Jesus, taking the date right up to when Jesus was 27 years old.  This is when he was baptised and began his ministry on earth.

The one week, and the middle of this week.  Some people see this as the Holy Week, when the need for sacrifice in the Jewish religion was made redundant. 

It is noted that the verses are not clear about who the ‘He’ refers to.  We have ‘The Ruler who will come’.  Most commentators believe this to be the Emperor Titus, who in 70 AD sacked Jerusalem so severely that the city was obliterated.  But the ruler is then described as the one who ends sacrifice, and puts up an abomination in the temple.  So are the rulers the same force or different?

What does the NIV Bible commentary say?

·         Verse 25 relates to the times of Ezra and Nehemiah, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem following the Babylonian destruction.  483 years follow to the arrival of the Messiah, and his ‘cutting off’.  Verse 26 also notes that the death will appear pointless. 

·         The destruction of Jerusalem was predicted by Jesus in Matthew 24:7-22. 

·         The commentary highlights the problem of our knowledge of the sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and suggests the ‘Ruler’ is a collective term. 

·         The commentary notes that Jesus refers to this passage in Matthew 24:15, indicating that it is for the future. 

·         Barker an Kohlenberger III does not see how ‘the ruler’ can both be Jesus and the Romans.  The note this as a difficulty in understanding these verses.

What does John Calvin say?

·         Calvin starts by explaining why he believes the anointed one is Jesus Christ.  He notes the manner of the description of the death, and likes it to the prophecy in Isaiah 53, vs2.  Calvin also believes the destruction predicted was most likely to be at the behest of Titus. 

·         Calvin wonders whether the prophecy might aid those reluctant to lose their affinity with the Jewish congregation, understanding that this was all to come to an end.

·         Calvin comments on the significant of the ending of the old covenant and beginning of the new.  This is done through Christ’s death, but also through the destruction of the past through Roman violence.  However a clear link to the passage is not made.

Summary

²⁶ “After this period of sixty-two sets of seven [434 YEARS], the Anointed One [CHRIST] will be killed, appearing to have accomplished nothing, and a Ruler will arise [TITUS] whose armies will destroy the city and the Temple. The end will come [70 AD] with a flood, and war and its miseries are decreed from that time to the very end [JUDGEMENT DAY].

 ²⁷ The ruler will make a treaty with the people for a period of one set of seven, but after half this time, he will put an end to the sacrifices and offerings (THIS IS REMINISCENT OF THE MEANING OF CHRIST’S DEATH]. And as a climax to all his terrible deeds, he [ROMAN AUTHORITY?] will set up a sacrilegious object that causes desecration, until the fate decreed for this defiler is finally poured out on him [FINAL JUDGEMENT].”  (New Living Translation)

I think these verses continue to perplex and intrigue.  Nothing comes ‘presented on a plate’, and that is a good thing.  The gospel is all about working out from the position of the heart, not the page.

Just as in English 40% of words have more than one meaning, perhaps biblical prophecy fits a similar pattern?

Racism is....

 

A Sense of superiority plus the ability to enact ‘my’ will over others on the basis of race. 

“I know that my perspective, my beliefs, and my knowledge are in no way perfect, but I sense that they are more sound and sensible than those of the people around me.” 

“What if I have the power to impose this position on others?- I can be assured that I won’t have to follow their inferior ways.  I might even help them?” 

Racism = Prejudice + Power

Sense of Entitlement. 

“My family have worked hard.  I went to school and university and worked hard.  I have not got to where I have got to without some merit.  I deserve the pay I get.”  I deserve the respect I am given.  I have lived here a long time and people should know that the space on the road outside my house is for my car.  I’m looking forward to my inheritance.  I will be comfortable then.”

But….

Other people also work very hard for a much smaller rewards.  How would I feel if they were paid more that me, or considerably more than me, for similar work?  There is no rule to say that the space on the road outside my house belongs to me.  There is nothing to say that this country actually belongs to me or 'my' people, other than the laws that I (and 'my' people) have created . 

Yehudi Menuhin said “Borders are the prisons we chose live within.”

Sense of Aggression

Racism also involves aggression because in order to impose over others, I have to deny the other as a fellow human being.  Would I honour Nelson Mandela in the same way if he was white?  Consider the lens of colour.  Do I treat all people as equals, ‘eye to eye’?  Why not?  I must stop feeling in order to be racist.

Micro and Macro

Small local effects are seen in systems where discrimination has been present for many years.  Every year the old ways are reinforced.  After a while we do not see what’s going on.  Things become immutable and fixed: too expensive now to change.  Who is motivated to go to that effort of creating change anyway?

“White woman crying is racist” (as discussed on Reni Edo-Lodge podcast). Using the filter of race, Reni asks whether this person on the front row of a talk she gave would be crying if she were white?What about other lenses?  Age, disability, sexuality, gender?  Always interesting to consider these lens.

Race in the News

Grammar School Debacle https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56524850  

Parents protest outside Batley Grammar School after a teacher show children a defamatory picture of the Prophet Mohammad. 

Questions:

A third of the children at this school were from Muslim back grounds- does this make a difference?

What if this were pictures that would upset other communities, such as the naked photos taken of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge on Honeymoon that were band from publication in the UK.  What about manipulated pictures of national treasure doing lewd things?  What about pictures of the headteacher doing lewd things?

This is a battle of rights.  The right to say and do things that might cause offence, so long as it does not provoke violence.  The right of the teacher in question to be safe, and for his/her family to feel safe.  Also the rights of people not to be treated with sensitivity and respect. 

My thoughts are that the teacher could have discussed all of this without showing the offensive article to the children, and the children would have been able to discuss and debate it…and that this should equally apply to children of non-Muslim background.  The parents are upset because they feel their powerlessness.  They have a right to protest.

Murder of Sarah Everards.  https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-56524850

The outpouring of grief and rage was not just because a serving police officer is likely to be show to have murdered an innocent woman, but also that this happens far too frequently, and the level of fear women are subjected to is intolerable.  And then we discover that similar incidents have happen recently to two other women, who happen to be non-white. 

Why to some stories take off and others not?  This is a mirror for our society to look in.  This illustrates the point ‘Do black lives matter?’

India Eva Rae experience with BAFTA sponsorship. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56524511

Eva Rae eloquently relates her experience of racism while taking part in a programme designed to address racism in the entertainment industry.  BAFTA denies her experience.  This is a case where it would have been far better if BAFTA had done nothing that that it exposes itself to international ridicule and hypocrisy.  Eva Rae is also exposing herself to the other great unchallenged discrimination; that of the hideous cult of beauty. 

£50 Bank note https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56503741

Alan Turing- a good choice, but would he have been chosen if he were not known to have also been homosexual?  There is some debate about his unique greatness.  The paradox of computers is that they are so complex, there is no one person who understands them.  They are like an ants nest, created by a community.  So what comes first, diversity or greatness?  How can there be an equal playing field?  Numbers, history, and power ensure that white heterosexual men will fill most vacancies on the back (or is it front) of bank notes.  So who should be the representative face for the British black and Asian community?  Can you name then.  1) no longer alive, 2) known to at least 25% of the population (cf Jane Austin and Alan Turing).  3) Not divisive.  Emmm.

The obvious person is known across the hospital wards of the UK.  This is Mary Seacole.  But there may be forgotten people we have not heard about.  This might be one for 50 year time after a bit more history has been created.  My vote would go for Zaha Hadid (architect).

Zaha Hadid on an Iraqi Stamp