Will you still hashtag tomorrow?

"Will you still love me tomorrow?"

The Shirelles asked this question in their 1960 hit of the same name.  While they were asking about a romantic relationship, I think the question, or a variant on it, is a good one to ask.

Recently, social media celebrated "Blackout Tuesday".  People put up black squares as their avatar, passed around the hashtag #blackouttuesday, #blacklivesmatter, and other similar slogans.  (A backlash attempt, "whiteness Wednesday", backfired when K-Pop fans stormed Twitter and posted K-Pop videos with that hashtag.) 

I looked at the hashtags, and the posts, and thought, this is a good gesture, but what about tomorrow?

To call these last few weeks "convulsive" is a bit of an understatement.  We're dealing with coronavirus, a very contentious election, and now, more violence of whites against blacks, and specifically, white police officers against black suspects. 

I've heard of and seen wave after wave of protests across the country.  I know people who have participated in peaceful protests.  I have heard people say "we are sorry", "we repent," and I have heard African-Americans say, "I'm exhausted," "I'm beyond exhausted."  In our virtual lobby last Sunday, an African-American woman spoke of her feelings about recent events, and you could hear the exhaustion in her voice and see it in her demeanor. 

But people cannot march in protest forever.  No one can keep up the level of intensity that's permeated this country for the last several weeks.  Eventually, the public protests will die down and hashtags will not be trending quite as much.

What then?

What are you planning to do tomorrow, and the next day, and the next day, to fight racism and other sins in our country? 

Today, the hashtag is on your Facebook and Twitter posts. 

But will you still hashtag tomorrow?

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

"Oh, hell no."

"Oh, hell no."

That was the response that one woman put on another woman's Facebook post.

C. is a Christian woman.  She's African-American, a single parent to a wonderful teenage boy.  I know them both.  

Yesterday, she wrote that someone she knew posted the following on Facebook.

"All of this could have been prevented if:

1. George Floyd would have used an actual $20 bill and not to try to pass off a counterfeit bill.

2. Gave the cigarettes back to the store when they asked for it.

I don't agree how the officers handle [sic] the situation.  I believe all of them should and have been held responsible for there [sic] actions.  They all have been arrested and charged.  There has been a lot of lives and business lost over something that could have been prevented."

C. went on to write, "I really wonder if people understand how much this hurts."  Then added:  "I am tired of the justifications ... if if if . . . He was murdered on camera over eight minutes."

J., another woman, who's white, and whom C. and I also know, wrote the following in reply:

"Oh hell no.  Y'all.  It's time to take back the church from this kind of co-opted, tone deaf, insulated Americanism.  No. No more."

Some of you that read that sentence are going to be offended at her use of the term, "Hell no."  After all, she's a follower of Jesus and she shouldn't swear, right?

I'm reminded of a quote attributed to preacher Tony Campolo: 

 "I have three things I'd like to say today. First, while you were sleeping last night, 30,000 kids died of starvation or diseases related to malnutrition. Second, most of you don't give a $%*&. What's worse is that you're more upset with the fact that I said $%^& than the fact that 30,000 kids died last night."

We Christians, especially us white, American Christians, are very touchy when it comes to certain subjects.  We're especially touchy when it comes to sex and swearing.  We don't want to talk about sex because it might encourage kids to do it.  And we especially don't want people to swear around us because it offends us.  Not because it's offensive, but because it offends us.  There's a difference.

I am sick and tired of our white-bread, sugar-coated Christianity that emphasizes a shallow theology composed of "accept Jesus into your heart, and here's five ways to be a better Christian (man, woman, wife, husband fill-in-the-blank)."  Like the audiences Tony Campolo spoke to, we are more offended by swearing, sex, and the lack of prayer in schools than we are about poverty, racism, domestic violence, and the general poor treatment of people of people in our society.  We'd rather have our greed and our appetites filled than have any sort of care and compassion about those whose bank accounts and stomachs are empty. 

We women, especially, are encouraged to buy our pink, lace-covered Bibles with soft, breathy sayings from the current celebrity de jour of Christianity.  We're encouraged to keep a clean house and homeschool our many children and are shamed when we can't/don't.  

I don't plan to make a habit of swearing.  It is offensive and indulging in a steady diet of cuss words is a bit like eating junk food for every meal.  Lay's and Fritos taste good, but after a while, they make your body sick.  We Christians should be better than this. 

But isn't it time to lay aside our sugar coating, our white bread, our lacy pink Bibles, and confront our sin and engage in some serious repentance, on our knees and maybe on our faces?  

I don't know if George Floyd knew that the $20 bill he handed to a cashier was counterfeit or not.  (I probably would not know the difference between a real and counterfeit $20 bill.)  I've heard reports that "he was a criminal who was turning his life around".  I've also read where he had fentanyl in his system at the time of death.  I've read that he was positive for COVID-19.

Even if he had a criminal past, even if he had committed a crime, even if he was resisting arrest, does that give anyone the justification to put their knee on another person's neck for eight minutes and 46 seconds while that person is saying "I can't breathe"?

Isn't it time for us to think about how that is just one more piece of evidence that the life of a black man is not worth as much as the life of a white man?

Isn't it time for us to listen to our friends of color who are afraid to go jogging, afraid to wear a mask to the store, afraid that their teenage sons might be stopped by the police on suspicion of fill-in-the-blank and possibly shot even though they obeyed orders? (See Philandro Castile.)

Isn't it time to think about how what we post on social media will affect our Christian brothers and sisters of color?

Isn't it time to stand up and say, "Oh, hell no!"

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Words usually associated with the Bible Belt . . .

Right now, I'm doing a re-reading of Ray Blackston's Flabbergasted, a hilarious, wonderful Christian novel about a stockbroker who went to church to meet women and wound up meeting Jesus instead.   (Read it!)

In one scene, the stockbroker is trying to calm down an angry client.  The client's response is written as:  "Words not usually associated with the Bible Belt rattled in my headset."

I found that a funny, appropriate way of describing the client's response without resorting to the actual words.

Yesterday, I got to use that phrase in responding to a thread containing atrocious, offensive, racist responses to someone's blog.

Bobby Valentine, a Church of Christ preacher, writes a blog about church history and his theological journey.  Yesterday, he posted a link to this blog entry on a Facebook group.  He wrote about why we need Black History Month.  Bobby is white but has a heart and desire to learn about people of color and to understand their history and culture, as much as it's possible for a someone who's not a person of color.

He received this response:  "Why do we spend an entire month celebrating the history of a group of people who make 15% of the American population, and literally contribute nothing but violence and crime, and then completely ignore the European Americans?"

That, alone, makes me want to use a long list of words "not usually associated with the Bible Belt".  Does he not remember the names of Ron McNair, Oprah Winfrey, Barack and Michelle Obama, Mae Jemison, Nichelle Nichols, Stevie Wonder, and others?

And does he also not realize that "European Americans" are hardly ignored?  See George Washington, our Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, et. al.

I truly hope this poster was a troll, or a bot, because he went on to state:  (and the following contains words that will be considered offensive, so please exercise appropriate self-care.)
"If you're white and don't understand or care why your own race, and your own people who founded this country, and created the greatest civilizations aren't celebrated, you're blind."

"I'm asking why there's no celebration, not even one day, for the achievements and influence of European people in America, who founded and created this country, and wanting that makes me a white supremacist?"

He ended with "you're just completely cucked by the (((media)))".

When someone asked what (((media))) meant, I was stunned by the answer (this Wikipedia article gives a more thorough explanation):  The triple parenthesis is right-wing hate speech for "Jewish."  "Cucked" is right-wing hate speech meaning "people who are fools and believe "lamestream" media.  "Cucked" is short for "cuckold," a reference to a man whose wife has been unfaithful to him.  The word is often used as a term of derision.

In other words, Bobby was being stupidly deceived by the Jewish-owned media.

No, those are not words usually associated with the Bible Belt, but I deliberately used them to show to show the evil that is out there and that, unfortunately, some Christians believe.

I can point to a long list of people of color, starting in my own church, who do not contribute "nothing but violence and crime".  In fact, people of color have too often been the victims of that "violence and crime".

I can point to Columbus Day, Presidents' Day, and Fourth of July as days when the achievements of "European Americans" have been celebrated.

And I wonder if by "European Americans" this poster means, "White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant", because Italians, Irish, Slavics, and Catholics have routinely been targets of scorn and prejudice.  (Look up the acronym Nina.  And who remembers Polish jokes?)

Are these the words that we want to have "usually associated with the Bible Belt"?  Words that denigrate people of color and people who are not Christian?  Words that hate and attack?

I worry about being racist, because I'm white, and I don't understand what people of color have and do face in this country.  While I can say I'm not a blatant racist (I am not a Klan member and I abhor our history of slavery and Jim Crow) I worry about being a subtle, unknowing racist.  

This is not what I want associated with the Bible Belt.

But apparently, according to some, the Bible Belt stands for exactly that.

I fear for our country.  I fear that the polarization has become so extreme that there is no way to bridge it.  

Are these words words that we want associated with the Bible Belt?

Think about it.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Oh, who made the hairbrush?

Apparently, asking the question, "Who invented the hairbrush?" is now considered racist.

I recently posted a meme listing the names of black inventors, what they invented, and the date they invented it.  One of the names on that list is a Lydia O. Newman, who allegedly invented the hairbrush in 1898.

The first comment that followed came from Person A, who said, "The hairbrush as we know it was 'invented' (or modernized) in 1777, in England."

I thought, Hmm, I wonder if she invented a particular type of hairbrush.

Another item on the list was the door stop, allegedly invented by Osbourn Dorsey in 1878.

Person A commented, "Door stops also go back to the 1770's, so what is the door stop on this list?"

The next comment came from Person B:  "Wow, do you have any reason to be so dismissive of the achievements of African-American inventors other than racism?"

I was floored.  I happen to be acquainted with Person A.  Person A is white.  He is also Jewish.  If he's racist, he's hidden it well from me.  Person B is a white female I'm only acquainted with through FB, and who does not know Person A. 

I said, "Um, this person is a friend of mine.  I'd be careful before you accuse him of being racist."

Person B:  "His comment was racist."

Person B went on to say, "He can find by Googling that patents were issued for the items on the list.  Attempting to dismiss them as not being inventions in racist."

I told Person B that Person A was a friend of mine; she didn't know him, I did.

And then I told her, "STOP. NOW.   I don't appreciate your name calling."

Person C, an African-American male who I'm also acquainted with, and who Person A is also acquainted with, then joined the conversation with:  "The comment did come off dismissive.  I can't speak to intent although I can't see [Person A] intentionally meaning it that way."

In response to Person A's question of "how did it come off as dismissive?", Person C explained:  "When the first comment that follows a post about African American achievements is a statement about how they didn't do what was posted, it leaves the impression that the achievement didn't really happen and that it's giving credit for something that African Americans didn't actually do.  I don't think you [meaning Person A] meant it in that way, but that is the taste left in the mouth.  It follows the history in this country of demeaning and dismissing achievements by anyone who has dark skin . .. to say we've not contributed anything to the success of this country."

Person D, a white woman who isn't acquainted with Person A, B, or C, added,  "Take a deep breath and maybe get a glass of wine . . . step away from deep thinking . . . NOT everything is racist or meant to be racist."

Person D added a few comments later:  "Then carry on with the baragge [sic] of keeping racism alive and well and to the forefront . . . MLK will be turning over in his grave because we have stepped waaay back since the civil rights movement . . . meanwhile no one seems to have a problem with murdering babies . . . But since it's black history month . . . lets [sic] drum up racism instead of celebrating the amazing things that people actually contributed . . ."

Person C responded with:  "You are deflecting.  Murdered babies aren't apart [sic] of this discussion.  You need to focus."

I responded to Person D with:  "I happen to know [Person C].  He's African-American, a friend of mine I know from college, and I happen to think he's raised a good point that we need to think about."

Later, I told Person D, "STOP.  These are friends of mine who have differing perspectives and I think they need to be heard."'

All of this over the question of "who invented the hairbrush?"! 

(At this point, I'm stifling the urge to break into, "Oh, Where Is My Hairbrush?" from VeggieTales!)

I can appreciate Person A's comments about "who invented what".  It's important, when we pass around stuff, to know whether or not we're passing around accurate information.  I will need to check if there's inaccurate stuff on that original list I posted.

I can also appreciate Person C's comments.  I don't know what it's like to constantly have my achievements dismissed and denigrated.  I don't know what it's like to have achievements of my race, my culture, my group of people constantly dismissed or mocked or made fun of.  I can't speak from that perspective.  Person C can.

I also have "history" (borrowing a quote from Person C) with Person A and Person C.  That helped in the conversation.  I could listen a lot better to Person C because I have a "history" with him.  Person C also didn't come in automatically assuming and accusing someone of "racism".

I can handle a discussion.  What I resent are the automatic accusations of racism AND the automatic accusation of "you think everything is racist".

Person B has unfriended me on Facebook.  There's a sense in which I'm sorry, because I genuinely like her. On the other hand, that was her choice, and I'm not sorry for standing up for my friends.

And oh, to answer the question of "who invented the hairbrush?"

I did a quick Wikipedia search and found this article about Lyda D. Newman.  While she didn't invent the hairbrush, as in, she was the first person to create it; she did invent a hairbrush that could be taken apart and easily cleaned.  She was awarded US Patent No. 614,335 on November 15, 1898.

So I was right.  It was a specific type of hairbrush that she invented.

Now that I've settled that, I may go to work on the doorstop.

In the meantime, if you want to have a conversation about African-American history, achievements, etc. go right ahead.

But if you call me or any of my friends racist, you had better be prepared to back that accusation up with some serious proof.  Otherwise, I will call you out on it.

Because "who made the hairbrush?" shouldn't necessarily devolve into an accusation of "you're racist."

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.

Where's the instruction manual?

Lately, I feel like I'm trying to operate in a world without an instruction manual.

I feel like I have been sent to war without weapons or ammunition, and the rules of engagement say that I'm not allowed to fight back.

Everybody is offended by everything, and I don't know anymore what to say or what not to say, what to do or not to do, what to think or what not to think.

As an example:  In the last few years, there's been a movement towards "person-first" language, especially when referring to people with disabilities.  For example, it's "person with autism", not "autistic", or "person with diabetes", not "diabetic", or "person who uses a wheelchair", not "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair".

As I understand "person-first language", it's an attempt to not define the person by their disability, or illness, or condition.

Recently, in discussing my son, I said, "my son, who has high-functioning autism".  I say, "he has autism" rather than "he's autistic".  In the autism community, there are people who do wish to be called "autistic".  If that's their preference, I'll respect that.

One response I got to my post was, "I must ask that you use person-first language."

Here's the thing:

In referring to my son as "having high-functioning autism," I THOUGHT I WAS USING PERSON-FIRST LANGUAGE!!

I was also chastised by the same person for using the term "high-functioning autism".

For God's sake, what terminology am I supposed to use??  I don't know!

This week, I've seen a post about someone being offended over Hobby Lobby selling cotton stalks as decorations in their stores.  It was a reminder of slavery to that person.  In the same week, the president of Lipscomb University was criticized for using cotton stalks as decorations for a dinner he'd invited black students to, and also for serving collard greens.  Several of the students were disturbed by his choice of food and decoration.  To his credit, the president issued an apology.

I am not going to say that people shouldn't be offended by this or that or the other thing.  If someone is offended, they are offended.

Here's where my frustration comes in:

I don't know anymore what offends people and what doesn't.

I don't know anymore what is considered racist and what isn't.

I don't know how to refer to people in ways that are not offensive.

Is there some sort of handbook I'm supposed to read?  Classes I'm supposed to take?  An instruction manual I'm supposed to consult?

And sometimes I feel like all the understanding has to come from me.  I have to make all of the effort.

I don't want to be deliberately offensive.  If I offend someone, I'd like to be taken aside and told, "I don't think you realize this, but this was offensive, and here's why . . ."

But it seems like everything I think, say, and/or do is some sort of target these days, and I really feel angry and frustrated about it.

And I can't find the instruction manual I'm supposed to use.

Just my .04, adjusted for inflation.