This raises disturbing questions about self-image. It seems that even in the Obama era, black children still lack the kinds of role models in everyday life, that would make them feel good about themselves. Alternatively, it could also be indicative of a behavioral phenomenon brought on by subtle influences about how the brain processes color in terms of how it assigns worth to individuals based on physical appearance. If this is the case, then the idea, “you can’t judge a book by its cover” is a learned behavior that determines how a person will interact with others throughout his life. This means that teaching people to resist the temptation to prejudge another human being based on color is even more important than previously believed and should begin very early in life.

Lest one be tempted to assume that such a behavior, if determined to be natural, might be healthy on some basic level (because how can something determined to be natural be unhealthy right?), one must also remember that the natural human attraction to red fruits for example, would lead to a quick death if acted upon by sheer instinct. Since any naturalist will tell you that the color red in nature is generally a warning of danger and that the overwhelming majority of red fruits, vegetables, and insects are extremely poisonous to humans, tomatoes and apples not withstanding. Having completed survival school during my military years proved very valuable in this regard. In fact, the first thing they taught us is to never eat anything red unless you know what it is.

Comments

It is likely that most parents believe they are raising their kids to the best of their abilities with the goal of making them the best human beings possible.  That is obviously the goal of this mother.  Perhaps more attention needs to be given to how attitudes and perceptions develop over things we tend to not talk about.  Maybe that is the point of this.

Comments

Singer Erykah Badu

By now you have no doubt seen the stories about singer Erykah Badu stripping down for a naked stroll in the city of Dallas.  Dealey Plaza, which is mainly known as the place where President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, is in the news once again but for an entirely different reason this time.  There is no doubt that Ms. Badu broke the law by stripping in a public place while filming her new music video.  The facts of the case are not in dispute.  She has been charged with disorderly conduct—a charge that typically carries a $500 fine.  As generally happens with celebrities, you will probably see people who think the penalty is too lenient for someone who can probably expense the fine to her record label.  You are also likely to have the typical celebrity sycophants, who always find superficial reasons for absolution and will demand that charges be waived.

The points that I think are more interesting are the philosophical considerations.  Specifically, is nudity—which is unarguably natural—a threat to society?  Is Ms. Badu endangering the children who are clearly visible in the background of the video clip below?  Are we even sure that nudity is something that children need protection from?  Are we simply uptight and therefore, overreacting?  Before I continue, be warned that I tend to discuss sex and sensuality in objective terms like any other topic without all the guilt, recrimination, and discomfort that many people feel.  Such discussion makes some people feel very uncomfortable or embarrassed.  If you are such a person, the following discussion may  not be for you.

First, let me say that as an American who lives in Europe, my perspective is bound to be quite different from someone who has never seen nudity in public.  My first experience with public nudity was during a business trip to Stuttgart, Germany nearly 20 years ago.  I stayed in a 5 star hotel that had  a beautiful sauna and pool on the Mezzanine.  I was with 3 American colleagues and it was our first trip there.  We were amazed that most of the Germans were swimming in the nude.  About 10 feet away from the pool was an open shower and people were coming out of the pool and the sauna and showering out in the open.  After we swam for a while, we all sat by the pool and talked.  Our disbelief was evident as people showered out in the open as if it was nothing.  The experience was especially memorable because later on, a very tall and very beautiful blond woman went to the shower and lathered up like she was filming a soap commercial.  I mean, she was very thorough giving all due care to every nook and cranny.  As we looked on in disbelief, one of our group, call him Mike, chose that moment to go and hit on her.  This would turn out to be a disaster we’d remind him of for the next several years.  As he approached the shower area, his arousal became evident to everyone in the vicinity.  The woman, who could easily have been that year’s Miss Germany, laughed out loud.  So did everyone else.  One gentleman sitting a few yards from us said under his breath, “Heh, Americans.”

My second experience was a trip to Amsterdam with some friends.  We decided to make a detour to a lovely beach town called Zandvoort.  The first thing any American notices there is that 90% of the women are topless.  Not just while sunbathing mind you, I mean everywhere.  I went with a friend to buy ice cream.  The shops are lined along the boardwalk, with a separation of about 3 feet and a drop of about 2 feet down from the walkway.  In order to get ice cream you stood in line on the boardwalk and when it was your turn, you walked down 3 or 4 steps then over to the counter where  you would place your order.  After my friend and I got our ice creams, I turned around to leave.  A young woman stood directly behind me on the second step, so that her breasts were quite literally in my face.  I can’t imagine what my facial expression looked like but the young lady and her friend both laughed.    She said with a Dutch accent, “From the shock on your face you must be American.”  “Is it that obvious,” I asked.  “Look around you, no one else finds it interesting,” she replied.  She was right.  No one else was looking at her, which amazed me since she was absolutely striking.  I stepped aside and said, “Oh, sorry.”  She giggled and said, “It’s okay, I thought it was cute.”  We stayed there for the weekend.  I began to see what she meant because as the newness wore off, it became less and less interesting.  Over time I came to see that the reason Americans are so hung up about nudity, is the novelty of it and its taboo nature in the United States.  I can vouch to any young guys who want to come to Europe to see young naked women on the beach, that if you want to remove the excitement you currently feel about it, that is exactly what you should do.  It doesn’t affect everyone that way but the majority of Americans I have spoken with over the years agree that if you stay longer than a few weeks, you are likely to become substantially desensitized to nudity.

So what does that mean?  If you are religious, remember that in the story of Adam and Eve, it was only after they ate the forbidden fruit that they saw a problem with nudity.  In other words, there was nothing inherently wrong with their nudity until they THOUGHT there was.  Theologians generally agree that the sin comes from the way nudity makes one feel and how it affects a person’s behavior, not from the state of nudity itself.   Nevertheless, society has collectively decided that public nudity is something to be avoided altogether.  Is there a way to qualify this belief in scientific terms?  There is clearly no biological reason to avoid nudity aside from the obvious environmental concerns.  In other words, clothing is practical when retention of body heat is a concern.  There are also various other utilitarian considerations.  The answer to our question of whether or not nudity poses a threat to society is clearly no, when considering effects of nudity in purely physical terms.

How about psychological terms?  There are many traditional cultures like several in the Pacific islands, Africa, and South America where adults wear little or no clothing.  No ill effect has ever been scientifically documented of exposing children to social nudity although there were occasions where possible consequences were inferred by Freud and Spock with regard to self-esteem (An interesting discussion can be found here or just Google it).  Contrast Freudian ideas with old civilizations like Germany and the Netherlands were people are cultured and live in highly structured societies, yet no negative effects can be found from their openness toward nudity of the human body.

Is Ms. Badu endangering children?  As noted above, a typical beach in Holland will have dozens of very attractive, almost completely naked women within viewing range of the average frolicking family on a given sunny day.  There are 8, 12, 16-year-old males playing hacky sack next to groups of high school to college-aged girls throwing Frisbees or some similar activity while topless.  I swear to you, you would think the girls were completely transparent because the boys have absolutely no reaction to them.  To be sure, there are always boy-meets-girl stories.  The human race must go on after all.  The point is, the boys don’t react to exposed breasts at all.  I can understand this because on several occasions, I have been in situations like those described above where the nudity held no interest for me at all, after so many years.  That is not to say that I am not aroused by an attractive woman but typically, it is the setting that differentiates a sensual experience from a non-sensual one.  In a setting with intimate implications like going on a date, nudity has the effect it always does when two people are attracted to each other.  In answer to the question, my experience suggests that the nudity Ms. Badu exposed the children to, posed no danger to them at all.

The last question I asked is, are Americans simply uptight?  Do we tend to overreact to nudity?  Well my answer is yes and no to both questions.  One of the most common threads that arise when discussing this topic with non-Americans is the hypocritical aspect of the American sexual dichotomy.  It is difficult to reconcile being the country that exports the most pornography, sexually explicit movies scenes, and sexually suggestive television, not to mention the most successful erotic publications in the world with the public cries of outrage and anger that are expressed when a woman walks naked in public for a few minutes.  In addition, does anyone doubt that we could easily see the D.A. bringing the case, the mayor, the governor, or even the citing police officers finding themselves embroiled in a prostitution or infidelity scandal any day now?  It seems that every time someone tells us they are fighting for public decency, their names are found on a madam’s list immediately preceding their being Spitzered by the press.  The question of whether or not we are overreacting depends on whether or not you can prove definitively that harm will be done if we do nothing.  Again, I think the answer is no.

On the other hand, a society has the right to protect its values.  I don’t think you need to prove that harm will occur to say, “I don’t like that.”  Opposition to public nudity is valid in a society that values modesty, provided that an individuals constitutional rights are not encumbered.  Also, people have a right to decide when they think something jeopardizes the belief system they want their children to be brought up under and once a threat is perceived, to react accordingly.  Just like an individual has the right to fight to preserve their rights, conservative-minded people have a right to champion the preservation of their way of life.  The problem I usually have with this is the way they go about it.  First, they typically try to suppress dissenting voices, which I believe underscores the weakness of any position.  When you believe strongly that law, right, and common sense are on your side, you are likely to tell the opposition with confidence, to take their best shot.  Second, they usually cite bogus comparisons, statistics, and other things taken out of context in a feeble attempt to prove their point.  Again, this underscores the weakness of an argument when a person or group is forced to do this.   Essentially I think in this case it is reasonable to answer yes, that it may damage ones ability to live within ones belief system, provided that it is consistent with public laws and the overriding will of the people.  In such a case, it may be a simple matter of explaining to someone, “Your nudity is fine, just not in my community.”  The obvious caveat is that a person need not accept that if they think they can successfully challenge the law.

To people who enjoy thoughtful discussions of a wide range of topics, a topic like this can be refreshing but can also get heated.  As a parent, I am happy that this probably won’t affect me.  My children are both Dutch-German and African-American.  All indications are that nudity will have no affect at all on them.  They watch Dutch TV and go to Dutch schools so any American puritanism they might have inherited from their dad has become entirely irrelevant.  I recognize that my outlook would have been entirely different if I was the same fundamentalist Christian I was when I came over here but a little bit of knowledge makes the world a much easier place to live in.  The main thing I learned is not that you must give up your beliefs to get along with people who don’t believe as you do, what you must give up is the desire to control how people who don’t share your beliefs live their lives.  I don’t believe for one second that Erykah Badu did what she did for spiritual or philosophical reasons nor was it done on principle.  Perhaps she observed how Apple gets the most free publicity of any entity on Earth and decided she could use some as well.  By reacting predictably, the public has given her the free press she had hoped for, if not a hundred times more.  A pragmatic look at the situation would have revealed that the best way to “protect” children in the future would have been to usher her aside, confiscate the video, and release her without comment.  The overreaction of all concerned virtually guarantees that other children will get “mooned” in the future as well.  After all, there is no such thing as bad press is there?

Comments

Today, it is easy to be dismissive of religious edicts but one must never forget that the church once wielded the power of life and death. In centuries past, excommunication by the Church was life-changing and often fatal. Individuals would lose their jobs, they’d be shunned by friends and family, forced out of their homes, and run out of town. According to tradition, such a person would be condemned to burn in hell forever as a son of perdition and after death, be denied the right of burial on family plots, consecrated land, or even within city limits.

Consider Joan of Arc who was declared a heretic and burned alive by agents of the Church for claiming that she could talk to God. The Church’s official position was that only priests could do that. Protestants were killed in droves and wars were fought for this very reason and the Church still maintains the same opinion today.

People today hear about papal dictates and chuckle like it’s no big deal. When the Pope says you should not use birth control, many Catholic women say, “Is he going to have the baby for me?” There was a time—not nearly as long ago as you might think—where such attitudes would be highly perilous and self-destructive. I can hear the Evangelical thinking, “It still is, you just don’t know it. You will answer to God for those words.” I must confess that if the same person said that to me my response would be something like, “Well, you are entitled to your opinion.”

One should educate oneself and cast off the pangs of guilt, superstition, and ignorance. This can make you less susceptible to fears of the bogeyman coming to get you because you don’t let a guy who is just like you except for some robes, tell you what to do. Oh by the way, are those robes pure silk? Imagine how many Haitians earthquake victims could be fed if you sold those fine vestments and gold chalices in favor of food, water, and medicine. Suffice it to say, I make every effort to respect every religion and respect each individual’s right to live according to their beliefs, provided those beliefs do not interfere with my lifestyle or my beliefs. I have heard it said that you have the right to make a fist and swing that fist as much as you like. But your right to swing your fist ends at my face.

Some religious ideology seems petty and almost comical. An example of this would be Pope Benedict XVI chiming in about the film Avatar. With all the hunger, war, and strife going on in the world, why would the Pope think it necessary to voice an opinion of something some might call trivial? The Vatican press and radio have warned of the dangers of worshiping nature because a major theme of the film deals with the indigenous inhabitants of the planet Pandora (called the Navi) living in harmony with the forces of nature on their world and revering a deity called Eywa which lives in a network of sacred plants (the word worshiping would be too strong since this is never depicted explicitly). The Pope warned that the “egalitarian vision” depicted whereby the Navi achieve an equilibrium with nature and do not elevate their importance in nature above that of other species, opens the way to “neo-paganism.” Vatican spokesman Rev. Federico Lombardi said that Pope Benedict XVI fears this will turn nature into a “new divinity.” Despite the assertions that Avatar has introduced a new form of spirituality, it is actually not without precedent in modern times. The Native American people worshiped the Great Spirit and many of their faith’s basic tenets dealt with how they should interact with nature.

Other religious gaffs are more hurtful. The most obvious example of this is 700 Club evangelist Pat Robertson calling Haiti “cursed” after the 12 January earthquake. He tragically claimed that the entire nation made a pact with the devil during the slave uprising, which led to their 1804 defeat of France and independence as a nation. He said that the slaves (ALL of them) asked the devil to help them in exchange for servitude and that the devil said, “Okay, it’s a deal.” The quotes are not a mistake, he actually quoted the devil on national TV (Albeit without proper attribution. I hear the devil’s lawyers are up in arms about it.). Then, he cleverly attempted to give it the ring of truth by following the statement with the phrase, “true story.” How could he have been privy to that conversation? Were there listening devices or is there a certified transcript somewhere that he is not sharing with the rest of us? Either way, that is a grievous and damnable accusation to hurl at people who are hurting enough already. Where is the expression of love that Christianity says God has for them? John Stewart did an excellent piece about this where he lists about a dozen things from the Bible that Robertson could have said to comfort the people of Haiti but instead, Robertson decided to rub salt in the wound and say basically that they had it coming.  Perhaps Mr. Robertson can tell us if the Archbishop killed in the quake had sold his soul as well..?  Or maybe the entire student body of a collapsed elementary school where ALL of the children were killed???

As you might imagine, this comment was not well received in Haiti or anywhere else outside of the conservative talk radio crowd.  Raymond Joseph, Haitian Ambassador to the U.S., delivered a scathing response.

In previous times, people would have been afraid to speak criticisms of religious figures aloud for fear of reprisal from either the Church or from God himself. Today, subjugation of world opinions is not so simple and thank goodness for that. Pat Robertson has been universally condemned for what he said. Does this mean that religious freedoms are under attack? I don’t think so. But liberty must not only guarantee freedom to worship as one chooses but must also guarantee freedom FROM religion as well, if one chooses to live that way. Modern communities are adopting this position at an ever-increasing pace.  This means that the days where religious leaders could get the reaction they wanted by wagging their fingers at people and prognosticating futures of doom and gloom are waning.  The need to convey religious values in a way that  highly educated populations can relate to is a reality that religions must adapt to in order to survive long term.  One still has the freedom to voice off-kilter opinions if one chooses but they must also accept whatever consequences that poorly chosen words will illicit. Notice has been served on religious figures the world around. Insensitivity and a lack of decorum will continue to sap their credibility and with it, their ability to influence the course of society. Hiding behind the banner of speaking the cold, hard truth only goes so far and it seems that shield has been worn out. If so, they have only themselves to blame.

Comments

Related topic: Pot and Kettle Call Each Other Blessed

On the surface this seems like a textbook case of racism but it is obvious that a man that allows black people to enter his home by the pile and use his bathroom, is no racist. So having eliminated this as a possible explanation, one must assume there is another reason that people of different races should not marry. For the answer to this question, we return to erstwhile esteemed Mr. Keith Bardwell. Bardwell says he believes it causes unnecessary strife on the children of such unions. “There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.” Bardwell then adds, that after discussing it with both blacks and whites, and having witnessed some interracial marriages, he concluded that most blacks do not readily accept offspring of such relationships, and neither do whites. For this reason Bardwell continues, he asks everyone who calls about marriage if they are a mixed race couple. If they are, he refers them to another justice of the peace because if he did it for one couple, he would have to do it for them all.

“Perhaps he’s worried the kids will grow up and be president,” said Bill Quigley, director of the Center for Constitutional Rights and Justice. He said, “Racial discrimination has been a violation of Louisiana and U.S. law for decades. No public official has the right to pick and choose which laws they are going to follow.”

The ACLU on Thursday said Keith Bardwell should quit immediately and asked the Louisiana Judiciary Commission to investigate Bardwell. These commission proceedings are held in private. If the commission recommends action to the Louisiana Supreme Court, the becomes a matter of public record. Tangipahoa Parish President Gordon Burgess said Bardwell’s personal views were not those of the local government but added, “I am certainly very disappointed that anyone representing the people of Tangipahoa Parish, particularly an elected official, would take such a divisive stand.” “I would hope that Mr. Bardwell would consider offering his resignation if he is unable to serve all of the people of his district and our parish.”

This is the kind of story that will give you a surreal feeling that says, “This can’t be happening today. Not in the year 2009.” When you have a black president in the white house, people tend to relax and make assumptions about how progressive individuals will be, as opposed to communities. It is very easy to become complacent. Little strongholds of bigotry remain.  What we need is for more people to think critically about their principles and how they were raised.  Simply having been taught to believe something is not proof that it is correct or more importantly, that it is not destructive. These kind of rural, small town situations are charming and have many advantages over big city life. The main disadvantage is the pressure placed on each person to embrace the ideals of the community. When racist ideas persist, people are pressured to accept those ideals as well.

Being a good person does not mean living up to the ideals of the community, it means living up to your own ideals. For this to work, you must develop priorities of your own. It is fine to start with community or family ideals as a starting point but you should vet each of those ideals against your own personality, priorities, and life experience. If you find that people are still pressuring you to do things that you have found inconsistent with your priorities, you must take a stand. This was the process of Washington, Lincoln, King and anyone else who one day said “Enough, this must change now.” They could have simply gone along with the plan, but it would have been inconsistent with their priorities. The question is, if a guy like Keith Bardwell can serve as Justice of the Peace for years having admitted to turning away mixed couples in the past who wanted to marry, what does that say about the priorities and the people of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana?

Source and quotes: Associated Press

Comments

See other racially charged issue
Vogue In Blackface