Is the U.S. Friend or Foe to Haiti?
Unfortunately, the U.S. has been and still is, in my opinion, more foe than friend. Historically, we were allies with the evil French in our fierce opposition to Haiti. For those who want detailed documentation, I recommend three books: Paul Farmer, the Uses of Haiti; Killing with Kindness and an Unbroken Agony by Randall Robinson, 2007.
Politically and economically, the U.S. has treated Haiti either as an enemy state or as a puppet state, never as a democratic equal. We have done far more harm than good, sometimes using the CIA to achieve our purposes. Often even well-meaning attempts by missionaries and NGOs to fix the pervasive poverty problem plaguing Haiti have been misguided, created dependency, and have not addressed the fundamental problems of oppression and justice.
Overall, U.S. efforts are flawed because of our ethnocentric arrogance and our economic greed which overwhelm any goodwill and justice.
Randall Robinson is an African American with the courage and wisdom of a Martin Luther King; his wife is from the Caribbean island of St. Kitts. The following quotations are from his book An Unbroken Agony. The U.S. has often participated and perpetuated in preserving this endless oppression, this unbroken agony. Haiti's oppression began in 1492 with Columbus who initiated Spanish genocide which wiped out the original Native American population. Then the nasty French took over and implemented 200 years of slavery and neoslavery (debt slavery).
The Haitian slaves began their revolt against Napoleon's armies in 1791 and completed their bloody revolution in 1804, losing one-third of their population in the process---lost 150,000 of 465,000; a much higher percentage than in the U.S. Civil War.
From Randall Robinson:
"Even before France leveraged the weak new state [Haiti] with crushing financial reparations in 1825, the United States and Western Europe---including the Vatican---moved on the heels of the French army's departure in 1804 to cripple the fledging nation socially, politically, and economically, just as France was fashioning new policies to favor Haiti's minority community of French white ex-colonist and mulattoes, the people in Haiti who needed French help the least.
"Unsurprisingly, the black peasant community---impoverished by centuries of French slavery and devastated by the war that ended it---found itself in a state of perilous disrepair. Unlike the fair-skinned Haitians who always had a monopoly on education, education by the early 1800s was a privilege rarely enjoyed by the blacks."
The U.S. attitude toward Haiti is reflected by this statement by a U.S. senator (1824): "Our policy with regard to Haiti is plain We can never acknowledge her independence. . . . The peace and safety of a large portion of the union forbids us to ever discuss it."
"For the next two hundred years, Haiti would be faced with active hostility from the world's most powerful community of nations. The new country endured a variety of attacks, some imposed concurrently, other consecutively, including military invasions, economic embargoes, gunboat blockades, reparation demands, trade barriers, diplomatic quarantines, subsidized armed subversions, media distortions, and a string of twentieth-century U.S.-armed black dictators, beginning with Francois (Papa Doc) Duvalier, who rose to power in 1957, . . . "
"American economic sanctions against Haiti would not end until . . . 1863, nearly sixty years after the founding of the free Haitian republic."
In regard to the reparations France forced Haiti to pay (debt slavery): "the government of Haiti was required to make thirty annual payments of 2 million francs in order to pay off the 60 million franc balance. Haiti had to make these payments in addition to payments it had been making to a succession of private banks from which it had to borrow at onerous interest rates in order to meet the terms of its original unjust obligation to France. . . . Haiti was left virtually bankrupt, its workforce in desperate straits. THE HAITIAN ECONOMY HAS NEVER RECOVERED FROM THE FINANCIAL HAVOC FRANCE (AND AMERICA) WREAKED UPON IT, DURING AND AFTER SLAVERY." (Emphasis added).
In 2004, "Slavery had long since ended, but the country's wealth remained concentrated in the closed fists of the very few whose families and descendants had seized and held onto it since the early 1700s."
In January 2003, Denis Paradis, Canada's secretary of state, no friend of Haiti, "was dumbstruck on first witnessing the wealth of Haiti's . . . upper class: 'the rich are so rich there, . . . . I've never seen anything like that . . . but the poor is unbelievable."
My conclusion: The U.S. rich and powerful elite ally themselves with the Haitian rich in order to maintain the oppressive status quo.
U.S. Senator Dodd stated: "He [Aristide] wasn't going to be beholden to the United States, and so he was going to be in trouble. We had interests and ties with some of the very strong financial interests [the rich] in the country, and Aristide was threatening them."
In 2014, the U.S. democracy is not working well; since the rich and powerful now control much of the political process, our democracy has become a plutocracy. From 1945-1970, the U.S. political and economic process produced a thriving middle class. Now that middle class is shrinking and the gap between the rich and poor is widening. The criminal justice system has become an oppressive law and order system targeting and oppressing poor ethnic communities.
While there are important differences between Haiti and the U.S.---the poor in Haiti are a much larger part of the population with no safety net---the similarities are frightening. In both countries, rich whites are in control and poor blacks are oppressed. The rich whites in both countries are in cohoots. Rereading both An Unbroken Agony and The New Jim Crow at the same time, it is glaringly obvious that whites in the U.S. treat poor blacks, especially "criminalblackmen" much the same as Haitian blacks; both are treated as second-class, as inherently inferior.
Monday, November 17, 2014
Wednesday, November 12, 2014
Has American Voodoo Spirituality Replaced Haitian Voodoo?
Has American Voodoo Spirituality Replaced Haitian Voodoo?
Many American Christians/missionaries believe that a pact made with the devil (Haitian voodoo) is responsible for the curse of pervasive poverty plaguing Haiti. According to Jean Thomas, this is questionable history; it conveniently ignores the brutal historical truth of 500 years of oppression first by the Spanish, then by the French, and recently by the U.S.
Some well meaning Americans are trying to 'help Haiti', but replacing Haitian voodoo with American voodoo spirituality may do more harm than good. What does American voodoo spirituality look like: a spirituality without justice, addressing only poverty but not oppression, building orphanages, but not rebuilding poor communities, charity without justice, love without justice, faith without works of justice. (Read Isaiah 1, and 58; also James 2).
To avoid making stupid mistakes, mistakes made again and again in the past in Haiti by Americans, I recommend reading the following four books: When Helping Hurts, Killing With Kindness, Blaming the Victim and Equality. Of these four books, only Killing with Kindness has a Haitian context. But if you can recognize pseudo spirituality in the U.S., it will help you avoid the same mistakes in Haiti.
William Ryan, author of both Blaming the Victim and Equality, is both a scholar (psychologist) and an activist; he participated in the civil rights movement so he was sensitized to oppression and justice issues and understood the enormous damage that oppression did to individuals, families and communities. Ryan is familiar with the Old Testament Jubilee and I suspect Catholic social teaching. So he is keenly aware of the half truths behind the American ideology of inequality and what a just, sharing society might look like.
In his book, Equality, Ryan notes that this is a nation that highlights individual responsibility and individual effort, but minimizes social evil/oppression and the need for social justice. To correct this imbalance, Ryan emphasizes that whole human beings "are the consequence of collective [social], rather than [just] individual effort." His first chapter which is entitled "The Equality Dilemma: Fair Play or Fair Shares," sets the tone for the whole book.
Fair Play is characterized by: freedom, opportunity, individual rights, individual ownership; if a person works hard, she/he can succeed. This American ideology is aggressively expressed by the atheistic and materialistic Ayn Rand; strangely this Rand ideology has been blended with some of white, evangelical Christianity and has produced the Religious Right. This combination has legitimated and fueled the enormous income and wealth gap. Alone, Fair Play is a half truth posing as the whole truth.
Fair Share would add to freedom, justice; it would recognize that opportunity is far too often thwarted by systems of oppression, that rights need to be balanced by responsibilities, that ownership must be combined with sharing.
Many American Christians/missionaries believe that a pact made with the devil (Haitian voodoo) is responsible for the curse of pervasive poverty plaguing Haiti. According to Jean Thomas, this is questionable history; it conveniently ignores the brutal historical truth of 500 years of oppression first by the Spanish, then by the French, and recently by the U.S.
Some well meaning Americans are trying to 'help Haiti', but replacing Haitian voodoo with American voodoo spirituality may do more harm than good. What does American voodoo spirituality look like: a spirituality without justice, addressing only poverty but not oppression, building orphanages, but not rebuilding poor communities, charity without justice, love without justice, faith without works of justice. (Read Isaiah 1, and 58; also James 2).
To avoid making stupid mistakes, mistakes made again and again in the past in Haiti by Americans, I recommend reading the following four books: When Helping Hurts, Killing With Kindness, Blaming the Victim and Equality. Of these four books, only Killing with Kindness has a Haitian context. But if you can recognize pseudo spirituality in the U.S., it will help you avoid the same mistakes in Haiti.
William Ryan, author of both Blaming the Victim and Equality, is both a scholar (psychologist) and an activist; he participated in the civil rights movement so he was sensitized to oppression and justice issues and understood the enormous damage that oppression did to individuals, families and communities. Ryan is familiar with the Old Testament Jubilee and I suspect Catholic social teaching. So he is keenly aware of the half truths behind the American ideology of inequality and what a just, sharing society might look like.
In his book, Equality, Ryan notes that this is a nation that highlights individual responsibility and individual effort, but minimizes social evil/oppression and the need for social justice. To correct this imbalance, Ryan emphasizes that whole human beings "are the consequence of collective [social], rather than [just] individual effort." His first chapter which is entitled "The Equality Dilemma: Fair Play or Fair Shares," sets the tone for the whole book.
Fair Play is characterized by: freedom, opportunity, individual rights, individual ownership; if a person works hard, she/he can succeed. This American ideology is aggressively expressed by the atheistic and materialistic Ayn Rand; strangely this Rand ideology has been blended with some of white, evangelical Christianity and has produced the Religious Right. This combination has legitimated and fueled the enormous income and wealth gap. Alone, Fair Play is a half truth posing as the whole truth.
Fair Share would add to freedom, justice; it would recognize that opportunity is far too often thwarted by systems of oppression, that rights need to be balanced by responsibilities, that ownership must be combined with sharing.
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Principles from the Sabbath/Jubilee Years
Summary statement: On behalf of the poor, release the oppressed by doing justice---Sabbath year justice, Jubilee justice.
These are principles that can and should be lived out daily, not just every seven years, by individuals and churches; nations will also benefit if they also release their oppressed and implement kingdom of God justice. See Oxfam and their new book, Even It Up, for how to do a modern application of these ideas.
God promises blessings upon those who implement Sabbath Year justice; God promises judgment upon those disobey these biblical principles.
Positive Biblical Examples:
1. Individuals: Zacchaeus, Luke 19; from oppression to justice, repentance and restitution.
2. Churches: Jerusalem church, Acts 4:32-35; rich sold surplus houses and lands; result: no poor/needy in the church, a socioeconomic miracle; in my opinion, the greatest miracle in the book of Acts.
3. Nations: Judah/Jerusalem, Nehemiah 5; the rich were oppressing the poor, the rich repented, released the opppressed by canceling debts and restoring land.
Negative Biblical Examples:
1. Individuals: The rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16; ignored the poor, no repentance so the final judgment was hell.
2. Church/Temple: Luke 19, John 2, Jeremiah 7 and Luke 11; the holy Temple became a den of robbers; God using the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 AD. Why? Because the religious leaders were neglecting justice and the love of God.
3. Nations: Isaiah 1, 58:1-5, and Amos 5; a spirituality without justice; result: the Babylonian exile.
These are principles that can and should be lived out daily, not just every seven years, by individuals and churches; nations will also benefit if they also release their oppressed and implement kingdom of God justice. See Oxfam and their new book, Even It Up, for how to do a modern application of these ideas.
God promises blessings upon those who implement Sabbath Year justice; God promises judgment upon those disobey these biblical principles.
Positive Biblical Examples:
1. Individuals: Zacchaeus, Luke 19; from oppression to justice, repentance and restitution.
2. Churches: Jerusalem church, Acts 4:32-35; rich sold surplus houses and lands; result: no poor/needy in the church, a socioeconomic miracle; in my opinion, the greatest miracle in the book of Acts.
3. Nations: Judah/Jerusalem, Nehemiah 5; the rich were oppressing the poor, the rich repented, released the opppressed by canceling debts and restoring land.
Negative Biblical Examples:
1. Individuals: The rich man and Lazarus, Luke 16; ignored the poor, no repentance so the final judgment was hell.
2. Church/Temple: Luke 19, John 2, Jeremiah 7 and Luke 11; the holy Temple became a den of robbers; God using the Romans destroyed the Temple in 70 AD. Why? Because the religious leaders were neglecting justice and the love of God.
3. Nations: Isaiah 1, 58:1-5, and Amos 5; a spirituality without justice; result: the Babylonian exile.
Friday, November 7, 2014
The Double Burden: Whose Carrying it?
This article, The Double Burden, was originally written around 1990.
A question: Is ethnocentrism/oppression a form of idolatry that defaces the image of God in persons?
"Racism" (really ethnocentrism) pervaded Jewish society at the time of Jesus Christ. Jews thought they were superior to Gentiles and Samaritans and often oppressed them. Jesus and Paul aggressively opposed this social evil, this sin, this dehumanization of people created in the image of God. They did not leave it up to the Gentiles and Samaritans to fight for their own human rights. Christian Jews took upon themselves the responsibility of exposing the "racism" of their own people.
By contrast, today, few white American evangelical Christians take the responsibility for exposing and changing white racist attitudes and segregation against blacks and other minorities. By and large, white evangelicals leave this responsibility to change white racism up to minority leaders such as Martin Luther King and John Perkins. Why do we fail to follow the New Testament pattern and instead leave a heavy double burden on the shoulders of minorities, some of whom are fellow Christians. Do we lack biblical understanding, courage, integrity?
Usually racism is a topic raised by blacks or other minorities. Usually blacks are expected to carry a double burden: 1) they suffer from the personal and social damage done to their people by white racism, and 2) they are expected to also carry the burden of exposing racism to whites, as if they, the victims, are the only ones who understand ethnocentrism.
It is long past time that whites, especially Christian whites, start acting like mature, responsible, informed people. We should become heavily involved as individuals, citizens and churches in ministries to repair the personal and social damage done to blacks. We must be committed to changing the following horrible facts: that blacks suffer from a doubled infant mortality rate, a doubled unemployment rate, a tripled poverty rate. And worst of all the average black household has 12 times fewer assets (wealth, land, houses, stock) than the typical white household.
We as white evangelicals must move beyond feeble excuses for our racism, beyond ignorance of the real nature of racism, to acknowledging our sin of racism, repenting of our sin of racism and repairing the damage done by racism.
We must understand that our ethnocentrism is much more than personal prejudice. We must understand that our insistence that our society be based primarily on white culture, white values, ends up teaching that whites are superior, right, better and the black culture and heritage is second class. We must understand that white racism is a system of oppression incarnated in the social institutions of society; this benefits whites with a higher standard of living. We must understand that our very definition of who is black and who is white is racist because whites are defined as "pure" white while a person who is 10 percent black and 90 percent white is defined as black.
Whether we fully realize it or not, our sin, especially for adult, mature, Christian whites is enormous. For our own good and for the good of oppressed minorities, we need to acknowledge our sin and act to repair the personal and social damage done. We have crushed, humiliated, animalized, enslaved and killed. Now is the time to repair, uplift, humanize and liberate in the name of Jesus Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit. Lord, forgive us our sin, our ignorance, our indifference and enable us to rebuild our relationships and our society on the basis of peace and justice.
Ethnocentrism and Oppression
White evangelicals in America do not have a good record in understanding and changing white racism in this country. There are numerous reasons for this state of affairs. One, white evangelicals, like all whites, benefit from past and present racist exploitations. Two, white evangelicals do not understand social evil and social justice, and therefore, the do not fully understand the social nature of racism. Three, there are no current concepts used to describe racism, such as prejudice, discrimination and racism itself, which have biblical roots. White evangelicals want biblical grounds for their beliefs and actions.
Therefore, I propose the introduction of two new biblical concepts, ethnocentrism and oppression, to sensitize white evangelicals to the nature of and the horrors of white racism. When I say new biblical concepts, I mean new in the sense of not now being widely used as central concepts to explain racism.
Ethnocentrism, while not found directly in the Bible, does come from a Greek word that is widely used in the Bible---"ethnos" meaning people of nation, or in modern terminology, ethnic group. Its disadvantage is that ethnocentrism will be a new word to many. This may also be an advantage since it will be fresh and we can dismiss the now somewhat stale word racism.
Oppression is a widely used (555 times in Hebrew) biblical concept whose Hebrew roots mean crush, humiliate, animalize, enslave and kill. Once white evangelicals fully realize that their participation in or tolerance of racism crushes people and displease God, they may become motivated to change their ways.
Ethnocentrism will highlight the evil values behind racism, and oppression will vividly describe the damaging impact on minorities. Ethnocentrism and oppression are exceedingly serious because they can become expressions of idolatry. When humans created in the image of God are dehumanized by ethnocentrism and oppression something else is taking priority over the image of God in people. When one ethnic group or people claims to be superior to another group of people and dominates them,, they are 'playing God' with their lives. The commandment "You shall have no other Gods before me" means that neither creation nor my people, my ethnic group, my nation, should be elevated to priority status over God. Hendrick Hart, in a powerful critique of racism in his own Reformed denomination, identifies racism with idolatry in this way:
"Calvinists with world reformative concepts of justice have tended to concentrate on telling those in power to change the structures of society, calling the powerful to find forms of obedience that would cease the injustice. But they have frequently neglected two things. One neglect is that they have not seen injustice as a form of idolatry, that is, as a consequence of living out of a counter gospel, of trusting a wrong God, of walking ways that are destined to produce injustice and other forms of destruction [of defacing the image of God]. Injustice is fundamentally a question that goes deeper than laws and rights. And the Calvinist will not likely be truly interested unless injustice is seen as sin, unless racism is seen as sin, unless combating racism is seen as the redemption of our very souls."
The Bible: Ethnocentrism and Oppression
The existing sociological concepts of prejudice, discrimination and institutional racism are not adequate to express fully what racism is and what racism does to people. I discovered this as I listened to two fine presentations given to my 1987 Racial and Cultural Minorities class. A black and white team presented a lecture on racism in the United States; another American white person, who had lived in South Africa for six years and had contacts with all races, discussed racism in South Africa. Something was missing from these quality presentations; something was missing from my previous discussions of racism in earlier class periods. The enormity of the human tragedy involved was missing. I lacked the concepts to express this horror.
After some reflection, I realized that I needed to add two more concepts to explain the phenomenon of racism: ethnocentrism and oppression. Ethnocentrism is a broader concept than racism. Racism, sexism, nationalism, ageism, and, if I may coin a word, religionism, are subpoints under ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism comes from "ethnos"---ethnic, people, nation, culture; it means own-culture-centered. It is a judgment that my people, my culture are superior to your people, your culture, your values. John Conklin defined ethnocentrism as "the judgment of culture as inferior, underdeveloped, barbaric, backward, or immoral in comparison to the culture of the person making the judgment."
In life there are natural social factors such as age, sex, race, ethnic group and nation. These human differences should be value neutral or positive. However, the pervasive presence of sin easily turns these natural social factors into ageism, sexism, racism, ethnocentrism and nationalism. Then these differences become value negative. It is proper to be positive about one's ethnic identity. But when a person begins to talk and act like one's ethnic group is better than another ethnic group, then ethnocentrism has raised its ugly head.
Ethnocentrism is widespread, possibly universal. Racism in the sense of biological superiority is much more limited, created in the West at the time of colonialism. Therefore, I believe that ethnocentrism is the better term to use. The concept of ethnocentrism is present in the Bible though the word is not present. But the idea of racism is not in the Bible. Therefore, for Christians, ethnocentrism is the better and broader concept. Race is not a valid concept either scientifically or biblically. Ideally, neither race nor racism should be used.
In the Bible the Jews turned the idea that they were God's chosen people into a belief that they were God's superior people. If superior, then others, specifically Gentiles and Samaritans, were inferior people. The differences were religio-cultural, not racial. The Jews as a people were not a separate race. Biologically, they had much in common with other eastern Mediterranean peoples.
Ethnocentrism in the New Testament
Both Jesus and Paul attacked Jewish ethnocentrism, even though they themselves were Jews. Why? Because ethnocentrism denigrated other people equally created in the image of God, equally in need of access to God's grace. In the gospel of Luke, the first social evil Jesus addressed was oppression; the second was ethnocentrism---the religious ethnocentrism of the Nazareth Jews. The Nazareth Jews actually tried to kill Jesus when he used Old Testament examples to show that God's grace was equally available to the Gentiles, a starving Gentile widow and a Gentile leper (Luke 4:25-30). Ethnocentrism must be very deep-seated if a people are willing to kill in order to protect it.
What was behind this intense negative reaction of the Jews? The Gentiles represented all non-Jews, all the other peoples, nations of the world. Since Gentiles were pagans and idolaters, Jews set up strict patterns of segregation to prevent contact with the sinful Gentiles. A good Jew would not associate with or eat with an inferior Gentile. To call a person a dog was a great insult; Jews called Gentiles dogs. Gentiles were supposedly unclean and incapable of appreciating what was high and holy.
Why were Samaritans despised by the Jews? Samaria, at one time, was referred to as the northern kingdom, but at the time of Christ, it was a district located between Judea and Galilee. When Sargon captured Samaria in 722 B.C., he introduced colonists from Babylon to mix with the Jews in order to reduce their rebellious spirit. Their cultures and religions were mixed. Idolatry corrupted Jewish religion; intermarriage contaminated them socially. Pure Jews refused to associate with Samaritans socially or religiously. This attitude had developed into an intense antipathy by the time of Christ. Samaritans were more despised than Gentiles because they held to a rival religion right in the middle of Palestine. Samaritans and Jews hated each other. Strict segregation patterns prevailed. Galilean Jews on religious pilgrimages to Jerusalem were sometimes attacked by Samaritans as they walked through Samaria.
From the above description, it is obvious that the Jews held some very deep-seated ethnocentric attitudes toward Gentiles and Samaritans. The ethnocentric attitude, religiously supported, led to systematic oppression. A hint of the depth of this ethnocentrism can be found in John 8:48. The Jewish religious leaders and Jesus were engaged in an intense debate. Jesus had just told the Jews that their father was the devil, not Abraham. The Jews returned the insult by calling Jesus the worst possible names: "You are a Samaritan and demon-possessed!"
Jesus' own disciples were plagued with this ethnocentric attitude against the Samaritans. In Luke 9:1, Jesus gave his disciples power and authority to heal the sick and cast out demons. Later in the chapter, the disciples wanted to use this same power and authority to destroy a Samaritan village that did not welcome Jesus because he was on his way to Jerusalem; they wanted to call down fire from heaven and totally wipe out this village. Jesus rebuked his disciples for this attitude towards the Samaritans using the same word that he used in rebuking evil spirits (Luke 9:51-55 and 9:42).
Every time Jesus associated with Samaritans, he made them the good guys in the story. In John 4, Jesus violated every Jewish ethnocentric rule in the book when he associated with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well. Also Luke goes out of his way to mention that the only one of the ten lepers who were healed by Jesus and returned to thank Jesus was a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19). The well-known story of the Samaritan who aided the man beaten and robbed makes the Samaritan into the good guy and the supposedly superior Jewish priest and Levite into the unloving ones (Luke 10:25-37). Chronologically, this story of the good Samaritan occurs shortly after Jesus' disciples wanted to destroy a Samaritan village. Was the Master Teacher taking this opportunity to drive home a very important point?
God had to give Peter a very specific vision, a personal one (the previous instructions of Acts 1:8 were not good enough) in order to get him to go to the house of the Gentile Cornelius. All of Acts 10 and the first 18 verses of chapter 11 are devoted to a detailed description of this important event and its meaning, thereby highlighting its importance in the life of the church.
In Acts 1:8, Jesus specifically targets Samaria as one of the areas the disciples are specifically assigned to evangelize. Yet they did nothing to implement this assignment until they were forced to by a massive persecution. Philip was one of those who was scattered by the persecution, so he "went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed Christ there" (Acts 8:5). Even though the Jew Philip was preaching to the Samaritans, there was a great positive response. Soon Peter and John came down from Jerusalem and joined Philip. After the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews had on the day of Pentecost and as the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius were about to. Peter and John on their way back to Jerusalem preached the gospel in many Samaritan villages.
Back in Jerusalem, God showed Peter a vision of unclean creatures. A voice told Peter to "kill and eat." Peter refused based on his Old Testament understanding of clean and unclean. The voice pointedly retorted, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Peter then went to the house of Cornelius and said, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
After this brief introductory comment, Peter continues to interpret the meaning and application of his vision: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism [is not ethnocentric], but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right [just]." As Peter more fully explained the gospel of Jesus Christ, "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers [Jewish Christians] who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles."
What happened when Peter returned to the Jerusalem church? "the circumcised believers criticized him and said, 'You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them'" Peter had to explain in great detail exactly what had happened before these ethnocentric Jewish Christians were convinced that "God has even granted the Gentiles repentance unto life."
This witnessing to the Gentiles was still the rare exception. The very next verses record that "those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoencia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews." Fortunately a few non-ethnocentric persons came to Antioch and "began to speak to the Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus." Soon the Antioch church became an interethnic church. This was the church God chose to send Paul and Barnabas out on their first missionary journey to both Jew and Gentile, not the Jerusalem church.
There was strong and continuing ethnocentric resistance to preaching the gospel to the Gentiles and fully accepting them as equals by many (my educated guess is the majority) Jewish Christians. This Jewish resistance to include Gentiles on an equal basis continues on in Acts 15. Paul, who had earlier been called by God to witness to the Gentiles, finds himself hasseled by ethnocentric Jewish Christians. Some of them came down to the Antioch church and taught: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Paul and Barnabas vigorously opposed adding Jewish works to Christian grace.
Finally, it was decided to go up to the Jerusalem church and obtain a definitive opinion from them. After extensive discussion, with the aid of Peter and James, Paul's position on the Gentiles prevailed. Officially, equality before God replaced ethnocentrism before humans in the New Testament though I believe ethnocentrism continued to be a problem.
This whole incident or a similar one is recounted in Galatians 2. Certain ethnocentric Jewish Christians came down to Antioch and put strong pressure on the other Jewish Christians to separate themselves from the Gentile believers, not even to eat with them. Peter and Barabas yielded to this intense social pressure and segregated themselves from Gentile Christians.
Paul exploded when he saw this behavior. Paul opposed Peter "to his face, because he was in the wrong." They were "hypocrites." They were "not acting in line with the truth of the gospel." Paul argues that they are reintroducing the works of the law by their actions. This contradicts the heart of the gospel---justification by faith. After a lengthy discussion showing the superior nature of faith and grace, Paul eloquently declares: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
This oneness in Christ is not only a spiritual oneness by grace, but it also must be demonstrated at the human level by works of grace. Social divisions, barriers or segregation have no place in the body of Christ. The power of God is able to make peace between Jew and Gentile---"in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility" (Ephesians 2:16).
Oppression in the Bible
Ethnocentrism implemented in action is oppression. Oppression is the cruel and unjust exercise of power and authority which crushes, humiliates, animalizes, impoverishes, enslaves and kills persons created in the image of God. The word oppression is widely used in the Old Testament (around 125 times in the NIV, but 555 times in the 20 Hebrew roots, according to Thomas Hanks) and the concept is present in the New Testament, recognizable if a person is sensitized to ethnocentrism and the rich exploiting the poor theme.
As a person examines the context of oppression in the Old Testament, one finds power misused to crush the poor, weak, needy, stranger and widow. The powerless are easy victims for the ruthless powerful oppressor. The oppressor tries to gain control of the social institutions of society to legitimate systematic patterns of oppression. Oppression is much more than one person oppressing another person. Oppression is most effective if it can appear to be legitimated by religion or if religious leaders become participants in using religious institutions to oppress people.
Not only social institutions but cultural values need to be enlisted on the side of the oppressor. This is why ethnocentrism is such a key concept in the Bible and why Jesus hated it and exposed it.
Here is a sampling of verses on oppression from the NIV Bible:
"So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor." Ex. 1:11).
"for the Lord had compassion on them as they groaned under those who oppressed and afflicted them." (Judges 2:18).
"Men cry out under a load of oppression; they plead for relief from the arm of the powerful." (Job 35:9).
"He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed." (Ps. 9: 8-9).
"Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy." (Ps. 12:5).
"Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed---and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors." (Eccl. 4:1).
"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." (Prov. 14:31).
"Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain. . . . The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying the justice." (Eze. 22:27-29).
"They sell . . . the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor . . . and deny justice to the oppressed." (Amos 2:6-7).
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. . . . to release the oppressed." (Luke 4:18).
"But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting [oppressing, RSV] you?" (James 2:6).
"widows and orphans in their affliction" might be translated "oppressed widows and orphans" (James 1:27).
Principles Drawn from the New Testament
1. Ethnocentrism is a serious and deeply ingrained evil social value which becomes incarnated in the social institutions of society. Ethnocentrism is sin, personal and social in nature.
2. Ethnocentrism is difficult to eliminate because it becomes legitimated and normal practice in society. People grow up just assuming their superiority over other peoples.
3. The impact of ethnocentrism upon the "inferior" people is devastating and dehumanizing because it open the door to life long systematic oppression which crushes people created in God's image.
4. The worst type of ethnocentrism is that which is religiously based. Because "God approves," it is held with greater intensity and zeal.
5. Being converted and filled with the Holy Spirit does not always free persons from their bondage to ethnocentrism; Peter, for example, needed additional revelations and teaching.
6. The primary responsibility for dealing with ethnocentrism fell upon Christian leaders from the "superior" group---Jewish Christians. Gentiles and Samaritans were not expected to carry the double burden---dealing with the damage caused by their oppressed status and exposing the ethnocentrism of some Jewish Christians.
7. Jesus and Paul did not regard the intense debate over ethnocentrism as just an honest difference of opinion;it was sin that must be exposed.
8. The church was expected to model equality of all peoples within its congregations. Eating and associating with other peoples is expected as well as joint worship.
Modern American Society: Ethnocentrism, Nationalism and Racism
The Need for New Concepts
I assert that ethnocentrism, nationalism and racism are related terms and, at times, in real life they overlap and blend together so much that it is difficult to know which term is a more accurate descriptor of reality.
To state that "I am white," or "I am a citizen of the United States of America," or "I an White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant," is to state some social facts about my identity. Of the above, I may be legitimately proud, loyal and patriotic. However, if I take the next step and assert that "White is better," or "America is best," or "WASP is superior," I have moved beyond legitimate pride to excessive loyalty or an ideological commitment to my race, my nation and my culture.
Referring primarily to the American scene, I will endeavor to show that Puritan ethnocentrism became the basis for U.S. nationalism and that it also carried with it overtones of racism. Any one of these terms alone is bad enough, but when all three concepts reinforce each other, they become a deadly trinity, especially when endorsed by religionism and enforced by militarism. What a terrible combination of ideology, religion and power!
Nationalism
How should one define distinguish between patriotism and nationalism? Patriotism is a love for and loyalty to one's country. How does one distinguish between a legitimate patriotism and an excessive, blind allegiance to one's country bordering on idolatry? This excessive patriotism I would call nationalism.
Nationalism is an overemphasis on national security, national self-righteousness and possibly national expansion. Nationalism is : "My country---right and wrong." When combined with religionism, nationalism claims to be a chosen nation, God's country. Such a nation could easily engage in an imperialistic expansion of territory of territory and feel completely justified in doing so no matter what the nation did to other nations, other peoples. From a biblical perspective, such nationalism would be idolatry.
If a specific racial group within the nation is identified as superior, and the racial group leads the nation, then nationalism could easily be combined with racism. In these United States, WASPs often blended racism with nationalism.
To call nationalism idolatry is a serious charge. Are there any biblical grounds for such a claim? Robert McAfee Brown claims biblical justification is found in the Old Testament prophetic books. In an article discussing the modern state of Israel ("Speaking About Israel," Christian Century), Brown states:
"Early in my theological work I learned from extended exposure to Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah that the worst sin is that of idolatry---giving uncritical allegiance to human constructs that can never be worthy of uncritical allegiance. And the greatest candidate is always the nation. I learned from the Hebrew prophets that no nation---Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Persia or Judah---is entitled to uncritical allegiance. I learned in the Hebrew Scriptures that the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," is not only numerically first but first because the other nine flow from it. That belief has been an axiom throughout both my theological life and my political life (two entities that I am unable to separate). One reason I am sometimes perceived as overly critical of my own nation is the perennial temptation in the United States to assume that our nation enjoys God's special favor, and that any criticism of it is unworthy and unpatriotic. . . .
"If from the stance of Hebraic prophetism I have seen and continue to see idolatry in my own nation, I have seen it also in the Germany of the 1930s and 40s, and I see it today in South Africa. . . ."
The Puritan Problem
It is in the spirit of Brown's understanding of the prophetic tradition that I begin a needed but difficult discussion of ethnocentrism, nationalism and racism in these United States often, as I stated earlier, endorsed by religionism and enforced by militarism resulting in massive oppression for multiplied millions of people.
Allen Carden, an evangelical Christian American historian with expertise on the Puritans, gave a 1987 address at Spring Arbor College in which he highlighted the positive contributions of the Puritans to American life. But he also briefly mentioned one profoundly disturbing aspect of Puritanism:
"Relations between the Puritans of seventeenth-century England and the Indian inhabitants of the land were especially significant in that an attitude was established which served as a precedent for later colonists and pioneers. Seeing themselves as a 'New Israel' in the wilderness, called to the work of saving Christianity from the corruptions of England and the rest of the world, the Puritans professed a desire to preach the gospel to the heathen. But their actions demonstrated that they carried their view of themselves as a New Israel to the point of viewing the native Americans as 'Canaanites' in the Promised Land. [The reader may remember that the Canaanites were to be destroyed]. Most Puritans had little use for the Indians and saw them as pagan interlopers in the way of God's program in the New World. Few Puritans would consider social or marital intermingling. There were notable exceptions to this low view of the Indians demonstrated by such men as John Eliot and later David Brainerd who poured out their lives in Indian evangelization. . . . But in general the Puritans established the unsavory precedent that the native Americans were essentially undesirable because they were non-white, heathen, and a hindrance to white expansion and prosperity."
For documentation, Carden referred me to an article in the New England Qvarterly entitled "Puritans, Indians, and the Concept of Race." From my perspective ethnocentrism would be a more accurate term; religious support of these views is blatant. G. E. Thomas states that "The record of Puritan attitudes, goals and behavior in every major area of interaction with Indians reveals a continued harshness, brutality and ethnocentric bias, which, if not 'racial' in the modern sense of the word, had fatal consequences for the Indians as a race."
Oppression was clearly evident in the Puritan approach to Indian land: "The Puritan's approach to land acquistion demonstrates even more clearly the degree of their ethnocentric bias and their failure to treat Indians on an equal basis even when the Indians were willing to deal on the Puritans' own terms. The New Englanders had proclaimed their 'right' to take up Indian lands even before leaving old England."
One also smells the odor of a future American nationalism in this attitude; shades of Manifest Destiny. Note the Puritan attitude toward killing Indians:
"The Indians felt that an enemy sometimes deserved to be killed, but always as a man and as an equal. The Puritans' attitude was diametrically opposite. The slaughter and enslavement of women and children in the 1637 Pequot Village inferno did not bother the Puritan conscience. . . . Starting in 1694, . . . the Massachusetts General Court offered bounties for the killing of hostile Indians, with scalps accepted as the best and most convenient proof."
With Brown's perspective on nationalism as idolatry and Thomas' perspective on Puritan ethnocentrism/racism and budding nationalism, now we can, with greater insight, delve further into the religious support of the American trinity of ethnocentrism, nationalism and racism implemented when necessary by militarism. A deadly and demonic system of oppression!
Negative Values behind American Wars
The true values of a nation often surface during a war. I draw the following comments from The Wars of America: Christian Views; this book was written by eight professional Christian historians, each an expert on one of America's wars. Why did we fight our wars? Most Americans believe that our Revolutionary war was justified. Many evangelical Christians believe that the hand of God brought our nation into being, that we are a special people. What are the historical facts?
An expert on the American Revolutionary war period, George Marsden, declares that British tyranny and oppression was not bad enough to justify a violent revolution; this judgment is based on the principles of just war theory: "The rebelling colonists nonetheless appear to have been dead wrong in concluding that without armed rebellion absolute tyranny was inevitable."
A person might think that religious people would possess a saner view of the realities of the situation, that they would have warned against a hasty decision to fight a war. Marsden claims that the majority of Christians did not see through the rhetoric, but instead their "enthusiasm for the war often surpassed that found among their compatriots . . . their religious orientation raised their perceptions of the American cause to the level of a crusade."
This sounds like the Puritan mentality all over again. A self-centered, self-righteous view of life enlists the endorsement of religion and that endorsement is willingly given. Is the Puritan pattern and the American Revolution example establishing a precedent for American history? Marsden thinks so:
"Christians in such countries have not usually been exceptions to this rule, but rather have characteristically been in the forefront in turning their 'just wars' into such crusades. These modern crusades, however, have not been ones in which the church dominates the world; rather the nation has set the agenda and the Christians have supplied the flags and crosses. The American Revolution is a pivotal instance for understanding how modern nations have transformed supposed 'just wars' into secular crusades. It is pivotal for considering other wars of America, since the patterns of nationalism and civil religion established at the time of the Revolution became important elements of the mythology that determined America's behavior in subsequent wars."
Given the ruthless Puritan oppression of native Americans and the questionable rationale of our violent revolution against England, the Mexican-American war should come as no surprise. This was probably the least justified of all our wars. Here we find ethnocentrism, nationalism and racism hiding behind Manifest Destiny as a rationale for the imperialistic land grab of nearly one half of Mexico's territory. Ronald Wells concludes "if one views the ideology of Manifest Destiny as a major example of arrogant American ethnocentrism, and if one's historical consciousness is set by Christian ideology rather than the nation-state, one cannot approve of the Mexican War."
So ends this disturbing analysis of American history.
What can/should be done? Our historical past haunts our sociological present. Unconfessed, unrepented of sin/social evil hangs like a curse over our communities, cities, states and nation. John Dawson, author of Healing America's Wounds: A National Focus, calls upon Christians to lead by engaging in identificational repentance as Daniel did (9:4-19). Dawson states:
"The greatest wounds in human history, the greatest injustices, have not happened through the acts of some individual perpetrator, rather through the institutions, systems, philosophies, cultures, religions and governments of mankind. Because of this, we, as individuals, are tempted to absolve ourselves of all individual responsibility. . . . Unless somebody [or some group] identifies themselves with corporate entities, such as the nation of our citizenship, or the subculture of our ancestors, the act of honest confession will never take place. . . . reconciliation never begins and old hatreds deepen. The followers of Jesus are to step into this impasse as agents of healing. . . . that opens the floodgates of revival and brings healing to the nations."
A question: Is ethnocentrism/oppression a form of idolatry that defaces the image of God in persons?
"Racism" (really ethnocentrism) pervaded Jewish society at the time of Jesus Christ. Jews thought they were superior to Gentiles and Samaritans and often oppressed them. Jesus and Paul aggressively opposed this social evil, this sin, this dehumanization of people created in the image of God. They did not leave it up to the Gentiles and Samaritans to fight for their own human rights. Christian Jews took upon themselves the responsibility of exposing the "racism" of their own people.
By contrast, today, few white American evangelical Christians take the responsibility for exposing and changing white racist attitudes and segregation against blacks and other minorities. By and large, white evangelicals leave this responsibility to change white racism up to minority leaders such as Martin Luther King and John Perkins. Why do we fail to follow the New Testament pattern and instead leave a heavy double burden on the shoulders of minorities, some of whom are fellow Christians. Do we lack biblical understanding, courage, integrity?
Usually racism is a topic raised by blacks or other minorities. Usually blacks are expected to carry a double burden: 1) they suffer from the personal and social damage done to their people by white racism, and 2) they are expected to also carry the burden of exposing racism to whites, as if they, the victims, are the only ones who understand ethnocentrism.
It is long past time that whites, especially Christian whites, start acting like mature, responsible, informed people. We should become heavily involved as individuals, citizens and churches in ministries to repair the personal and social damage done to blacks. We must be committed to changing the following horrible facts: that blacks suffer from a doubled infant mortality rate, a doubled unemployment rate, a tripled poverty rate. And worst of all the average black household has 12 times fewer assets (wealth, land, houses, stock) than the typical white household.
We as white evangelicals must move beyond feeble excuses for our racism, beyond ignorance of the real nature of racism, to acknowledging our sin of racism, repenting of our sin of racism and repairing the damage done by racism.
We must understand that our ethnocentrism is much more than personal prejudice. We must understand that our insistence that our society be based primarily on white culture, white values, ends up teaching that whites are superior, right, better and the black culture and heritage is second class. We must understand that white racism is a system of oppression incarnated in the social institutions of society; this benefits whites with a higher standard of living. We must understand that our very definition of who is black and who is white is racist because whites are defined as "pure" white while a person who is 10 percent black and 90 percent white is defined as black.
Whether we fully realize it or not, our sin, especially for adult, mature, Christian whites is enormous. For our own good and for the good of oppressed minorities, we need to acknowledge our sin and act to repair the personal and social damage done. We have crushed, humiliated, animalized, enslaved and killed. Now is the time to repair, uplift, humanize and liberate in the name of Jesus Christ and through the power of the Holy Spirit. Lord, forgive us our sin, our ignorance, our indifference and enable us to rebuild our relationships and our society on the basis of peace and justice.
Ethnocentrism and Oppression
White evangelicals in America do not have a good record in understanding and changing white racism in this country. There are numerous reasons for this state of affairs. One, white evangelicals, like all whites, benefit from past and present racist exploitations. Two, white evangelicals do not understand social evil and social justice, and therefore, the do not fully understand the social nature of racism. Three, there are no current concepts used to describe racism, such as prejudice, discrimination and racism itself, which have biblical roots. White evangelicals want biblical grounds for their beliefs and actions.
Therefore, I propose the introduction of two new biblical concepts, ethnocentrism and oppression, to sensitize white evangelicals to the nature of and the horrors of white racism. When I say new biblical concepts, I mean new in the sense of not now being widely used as central concepts to explain racism.
Ethnocentrism, while not found directly in the Bible, does come from a Greek word that is widely used in the Bible---"ethnos" meaning people of nation, or in modern terminology, ethnic group. Its disadvantage is that ethnocentrism will be a new word to many. This may also be an advantage since it will be fresh and we can dismiss the now somewhat stale word racism.
Oppression is a widely used (555 times in Hebrew) biblical concept whose Hebrew roots mean crush, humiliate, animalize, enslave and kill. Once white evangelicals fully realize that their participation in or tolerance of racism crushes people and displease God, they may become motivated to change their ways.
Ethnocentrism will highlight the evil values behind racism, and oppression will vividly describe the damaging impact on minorities. Ethnocentrism and oppression are exceedingly serious because they can become expressions of idolatry. When humans created in the image of God are dehumanized by ethnocentrism and oppression something else is taking priority over the image of God in people. When one ethnic group or people claims to be superior to another group of people and dominates them,, they are 'playing God' with their lives. The commandment "You shall have no other Gods before me" means that neither creation nor my people, my ethnic group, my nation, should be elevated to priority status over God. Hendrick Hart, in a powerful critique of racism in his own Reformed denomination, identifies racism with idolatry in this way:
"Calvinists with world reformative concepts of justice have tended to concentrate on telling those in power to change the structures of society, calling the powerful to find forms of obedience that would cease the injustice. But they have frequently neglected two things. One neglect is that they have not seen injustice as a form of idolatry, that is, as a consequence of living out of a counter gospel, of trusting a wrong God, of walking ways that are destined to produce injustice and other forms of destruction [of defacing the image of God]. Injustice is fundamentally a question that goes deeper than laws and rights. And the Calvinist will not likely be truly interested unless injustice is seen as sin, unless racism is seen as sin, unless combating racism is seen as the redemption of our very souls."
The Bible: Ethnocentrism and Oppression
The existing sociological concepts of prejudice, discrimination and institutional racism are not adequate to express fully what racism is and what racism does to people. I discovered this as I listened to two fine presentations given to my 1987 Racial and Cultural Minorities class. A black and white team presented a lecture on racism in the United States; another American white person, who had lived in South Africa for six years and had contacts with all races, discussed racism in South Africa. Something was missing from these quality presentations; something was missing from my previous discussions of racism in earlier class periods. The enormity of the human tragedy involved was missing. I lacked the concepts to express this horror.
After some reflection, I realized that I needed to add two more concepts to explain the phenomenon of racism: ethnocentrism and oppression. Ethnocentrism is a broader concept than racism. Racism, sexism, nationalism, ageism, and, if I may coin a word, religionism, are subpoints under ethnocentrism. Ethnocentrism comes from "ethnos"---ethnic, people, nation, culture; it means own-culture-centered. It is a judgment that my people, my culture are superior to your people, your culture, your values. John Conklin defined ethnocentrism as "the judgment of culture as inferior, underdeveloped, barbaric, backward, or immoral in comparison to the culture of the person making the judgment."
In life there are natural social factors such as age, sex, race, ethnic group and nation. These human differences should be value neutral or positive. However, the pervasive presence of sin easily turns these natural social factors into ageism, sexism, racism, ethnocentrism and nationalism. Then these differences become value negative. It is proper to be positive about one's ethnic identity. But when a person begins to talk and act like one's ethnic group is better than another ethnic group, then ethnocentrism has raised its ugly head.
Ethnocentrism is widespread, possibly universal. Racism in the sense of biological superiority is much more limited, created in the West at the time of colonialism. Therefore, I believe that ethnocentrism is the better term to use. The concept of ethnocentrism is present in the Bible though the word is not present. But the idea of racism is not in the Bible. Therefore, for Christians, ethnocentrism is the better and broader concept. Race is not a valid concept either scientifically or biblically. Ideally, neither race nor racism should be used.
In the Bible the Jews turned the idea that they were God's chosen people into a belief that they were God's superior people. If superior, then others, specifically Gentiles and Samaritans, were inferior people. The differences were religio-cultural, not racial. The Jews as a people were not a separate race. Biologically, they had much in common with other eastern Mediterranean peoples.
Ethnocentrism in the New Testament
Both Jesus and Paul attacked Jewish ethnocentrism, even though they themselves were Jews. Why? Because ethnocentrism denigrated other people equally created in the image of God, equally in need of access to God's grace. In the gospel of Luke, the first social evil Jesus addressed was oppression; the second was ethnocentrism---the religious ethnocentrism of the Nazareth Jews. The Nazareth Jews actually tried to kill Jesus when he used Old Testament examples to show that God's grace was equally available to the Gentiles, a starving Gentile widow and a Gentile leper (Luke 4:25-30). Ethnocentrism must be very deep-seated if a people are willing to kill in order to protect it.
What was behind this intense negative reaction of the Jews? The Gentiles represented all non-Jews, all the other peoples, nations of the world. Since Gentiles were pagans and idolaters, Jews set up strict patterns of segregation to prevent contact with the sinful Gentiles. A good Jew would not associate with or eat with an inferior Gentile. To call a person a dog was a great insult; Jews called Gentiles dogs. Gentiles were supposedly unclean and incapable of appreciating what was high and holy.
Why were Samaritans despised by the Jews? Samaria, at one time, was referred to as the northern kingdom, but at the time of Christ, it was a district located between Judea and Galilee. When Sargon captured Samaria in 722 B.C., he introduced colonists from Babylon to mix with the Jews in order to reduce their rebellious spirit. Their cultures and religions were mixed. Idolatry corrupted Jewish religion; intermarriage contaminated them socially. Pure Jews refused to associate with Samaritans socially or religiously. This attitude had developed into an intense antipathy by the time of Christ. Samaritans were more despised than Gentiles because they held to a rival religion right in the middle of Palestine. Samaritans and Jews hated each other. Strict segregation patterns prevailed. Galilean Jews on religious pilgrimages to Jerusalem were sometimes attacked by Samaritans as they walked through Samaria.
From the above description, it is obvious that the Jews held some very deep-seated ethnocentric attitudes toward Gentiles and Samaritans. The ethnocentric attitude, religiously supported, led to systematic oppression. A hint of the depth of this ethnocentrism can be found in John 8:48. The Jewish religious leaders and Jesus were engaged in an intense debate. Jesus had just told the Jews that their father was the devil, not Abraham. The Jews returned the insult by calling Jesus the worst possible names: "You are a Samaritan and demon-possessed!"
Jesus' own disciples were plagued with this ethnocentric attitude against the Samaritans. In Luke 9:1, Jesus gave his disciples power and authority to heal the sick and cast out demons. Later in the chapter, the disciples wanted to use this same power and authority to destroy a Samaritan village that did not welcome Jesus because he was on his way to Jerusalem; they wanted to call down fire from heaven and totally wipe out this village. Jesus rebuked his disciples for this attitude towards the Samaritans using the same word that he used in rebuking evil spirits (Luke 9:51-55 and 9:42).
Every time Jesus associated with Samaritans, he made them the good guys in the story. In John 4, Jesus violated every Jewish ethnocentric rule in the book when he associated with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well. Also Luke goes out of his way to mention that the only one of the ten lepers who were healed by Jesus and returned to thank Jesus was a Samaritan (Luke 17:11-19). The well-known story of the Samaritan who aided the man beaten and robbed makes the Samaritan into the good guy and the supposedly superior Jewish priest and Levite into the unloving ones (Luke 10:25-37). Chronologically, this story of the good Samaritan occurs shortly after Jesus' disciples wanted to destroy a Samaritan village. Was the Master Teacher taking this opportunity to drive home a very important point?
God had to give Peter a very specific vision, a personal one (the previous instructions of Acts 1:8 were not good enough) in order to get him to go to the house of the Gentile Cornelius. All of Acts 10 and the first 18 verses of chapter 11 are devoted to a detailed description of this important event and its meaning, thereby highlighting its importance in the life of the church.
In Acts 1:8, Jesus specifically targets Samaria as one of the areas the disciples are specifically assigned to evangelize. Yet they did nothing to implement this assignment until they were forced to by a massive persecution. Philip was one of those who was scattered by the persecution, so he "went down to a city in Samaria and proclaimed Christ there" (Acts 8:5). Even though the Jew Philip was preaching to the Samaritans, there was a great positive response. Soon Peter and John came down from Jerusalem and joined Philip. After the Samaritans received the Holy Spirit, just as the Jews had on the day of Pentecost and as the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius were about to. Peter and John on their way back to Jerusalem preached the gospel in many Samaritan villages.
Back in Jerusalem, God showed Peter a vision of unclean creatures. A voice told Peter to "kill and eat." Peter refused based on his Old Testament understanding of clean and unclean. The voice pointedly retorted, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." Peter then went to the house of Cornelius and said, "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
After this brief introductory comment, Peter continues to interpret the meaning and application of his vision: "I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism [is not ethnocentric], but accepts men from every nation who fear him and do what is right [just]." As Peter more fully explained the gospel of Jesus Christ, "the Holy Spirit came on all who heard the message. The circumcised believers [Jewish Christians] who had come with Peter were astonished that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles."
What happened when Peter returned to the Jerusalem church? "the circumcised believers criticized him and said, 'You went into the house of uncircumcised men and ate with them'" Peter had to explain in great detail exactly what had happened before these ethnocentric Jewish Christians were convinced that "God has even granted the Gentiles repentance unto life."
This witnessing to the Gentiles was still the rare exception. The very next verses record that "those who had been scattered by the persecution in connection with Stephen traveled as far as Phoencia, Cyprus and Antioch, telling the message only to Jews." Fortunately a few non-ethnocentric persons came to Antioch and "began to speak to the Greeks also, telling them the good news about the Lord Jesus." Soon the Antioch church became an interethnic church. This was the church God chose to send Paul and Barnabas out on their first missionary journey to both Jew and Gentile, not the Jerusalem church.
There was strong and continuing ethnocentric resistance to preaching the gospel to the Gentiles and fully accepting them as equals by many (my educated guess is the majority) Jewish Christians. This Jewish resistance to include Gentiles on an equal basis continues on in Acts 15. Paul, who had earlier been called by God to witness to the Gentiles, finds himself hasseled by ethnocentric Jewish Christians. Some of them came down to the Antioch church and taught: "Unless you are circumcised according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved." Paul and Barnabas vigorously opposed adding Jewish works to Christian grace.
Finally, it was decided to go up to the Jerusalem church and obtain a definitive opinion from them. After extensive discussion, with the aid of Peter and James, Paul's position on the Gentiles prevailed. Officially, equality before God replaced ethnocentrism before humans in the New Testament though I believe ethnocentrism continued to be a problem.
This whole incident or a similar one is recounted in Galatians 2. Certain ethnocentric Jewish Christians came down to Antioch and put strong pressure on the other Jewish Christians to separate themselves from the Gentile believers, not even to eat with them. Peter and Barabas yielded to this intense social pressure and segregated themselves from Gentile Christians.
Paul exploded when he saw this behavior. Paul opposed Peter "to his face, because he was in the wrong." They were "hypocrites." They were "not acting in line with the truth of the gospel." Paul argues that they are reintroducing the works of the law by their actions. This contradicts the heart of the gospel---justification by faith. After a lengthy discussion showing the superior nature of faith and grace, Paul eloquently declares: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28).
This oneness in Christ is not only a spiritual oneness by grace, but it also must be demonstrated at the human level by works of grace. Social divisions, barriers or segregation have no place in the body of Christ. The power of God is able to make peace between Jew and Gentile---"in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility" (Ephesians 2:16).
Oppression in the Bible
Ethnocentrism implemented in action is oppression. Oppression is the cruel and unjust exercise of power and authority which crushes, humiliates, animalizes, impoverishes, enslaves and kills persons created in the image of God. The word oppression is widely used in the Old Testament (around 125 times in the NIV, but 555 times in the 20 Hebrew roots, according to Thomas Hanks) and the concept is present in the New Testament, recognizable if a person is sensitized to ethnocentrism and the rich exploiting the poor theme.
As a person examines the context of oppression in the Old Testament, one finds power misused to crush the poor, weak, needy, stranger and widow. The powerless are easy victims for the ruthless powerful oppressor. The oppressor tries to gain control of the social institutions of society to legitimate systematic patterns of oppression. Oppression is much more than one person oppressing another person. Oppression is most effective if it can appear to be legitimated by religion or if religious leaders become participants in using religious institutions to oppress people.
Not only social institutions but cultural values need to be enlisted on the side of the oppressor. This is why ethnocentrism is such a key concept in the Bible and why Jesus hated it and exposed it.
Here is a sampling of verses on oppression from the NIV Bible:
"So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor." Ex. 1:11).
"for the Lord had compassion on them as they groaned under those who oppressed and afflicted them." (Judges 2:18).
"Men cry out under a load of oppression; they plead for relief from the arm of the powerful." (Job 35:9).
"He will judge the world in righteousness; he will govern the peoples with justice. The Lord is a refuge for the oppressed." (Ps. 9: 8-9).
"Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy." (Ps. 12:5).
"Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed---and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors." (Eccl. 4:1).
"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God." (Prov. 14:31).
"Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain. . . . The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying the justice." (Eze. 22:27-29).
"They sell . . . the needy for a pair of sandals. They trample on the heads of the poor . . . and deny justice to the oppressed." (Amos 2:6-7).
"The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. . . . to release the oppressed." (Luke 4:18).
"But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting [oppressing, RSV] you?" (James 2:6).
"widows and orphans in their affliction" might be translated "oppressed widows and orphans" (James 1:27).
Principles Drawn from the New Testament
1. Ethnocentrism is a serious and deeply ingrained evil social value which becomes incarnated in the social institutions of society. Ethnocentrism is sin, personal and social in nature.
2. Ethnocentrism is difficult to eliminate because it becomes legitimated and normal practice in society. People grow up just assuming their superiority over other peoples.
3. The impact of ethnocentrism upon the "inferior" people is devastating and dehumanizing because it open the door to life long systematic oppression which crushes people created in God's image.
4. The worst type of ethnocentrism is that which is religiously based. Because "God approves," it is held with greater intensity and zeal.
5. Being converted and filled with the Holy Spirit does not always free persons from their bondage to ethnocentrism; Peter, for example, needed additional revelations and teaching.
6. The primary responsibility for dealing with ethnocentrism fell upon Christian leaders from the "superior" group---Jewish Christians. Gentiles and Samaritans were not expected to carry the double burden---dealing with the damage caused by their oppressed status and exposing the ethnocentrism of some Jewish Christians.
7. Jesus and Paul did not regard the intense debate over ethnocentrism as just an honest difference of opinion;it was sin that must be exposed.
8. The church was expected to model equality of all peoples within its congregations. Eating and associating with other peoples is expected as well as joint worship.
Modern American Society: Ethnocentrism, Nationalism and Racism
The Need for New Concepts
I assert that ethnocentrism, nationalism and racism are related terms and, at times, in real life they overlap and blend together so much that it is difficult to know which term is a more accurate descriptor of reality.
To state that "I am white," or "I am a citizen of the United States of America," or "I an White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant," is to state some social facts about my identity. Of the above, I may be legitimately proud, loyal and patriotic. However, if I take the next step and assert that "White is better," or "America is best," or "WASP is superior," I have moved beyond legitimate pride to excessive loyalty or an ideological commitment to my race, my nation and my culture.
Referring primarily to the American scene, I will endeavor to show that Puritan ethnocentrism became the basis for U.S. nationalism and that it also carried with it overtones of racism. Any one of these terms alone is bad enough, but when all three concepts reinforce each other, they become a deadly trinity, especially when endorsed by religionism and enforced by militarism. What a terrible combination of ideology, religion and power!
Nationalism
How should one define distinguish between patriotism and nationalism? Patriotism is a love for and loyalty to one's country. How does one distinguish between a legitimate patriotism and an excessive, blind allegiance to one's country bordering on idolatry? This excessive patriotism I would call nationalism.
Nationalism is an overemphasis on national security, national self-righteousness and possibly national expansion. Nationalism is : "My country---right and wrong." When combined with religionism, nationalism claims to be a chosen nation, God's country. Such a nation could easily engage in an imperialistic expansion of territory of territory and feel completely justified in doing so no matter what the nation did to other nations, other peoples. From a biblical perspective, such nationalism would be idolatry.
If a specific racial group within the nation is identified as superior, and the racial group leads the nation, then nationalism could easily be combined with racism. In these United States, WASPs often blended racism with nationalism.
To call nationalism idolatry is a serious charge. Are there any biblical grounds for such a claim? Robert McAfee Brown claims biblical justification is found in the Old Testament prophetic books. In an article discussing the modern state of Israel ("Speaking About Israel," Christian Century), Brown states:
"Early in my theological work I learned from extended exposure to Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah that the worst sin is that of idolatry---giving uncritical allegiance to human constructs that can never be worthy of uncritical allegiance. And the greatest candidate is always the nation. I learned from the Hebrew prophets that no nation---Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Persia or Judah---is entitled to uncritical allegiance. I learned in the Hebrew Scriptures that the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," is not only numerically first but first because the other nine flow from it. That belief has been an axiom throughout both my theological life and my political life (two entities that I am unable to separate). One reason I am sometimes perceived as overly critical of my own nation is the perennial temptation in the United States to assume that our nation enjoys God's special favor, and that any criticism of it is unworthy and unpatriotic. . . .
"If from the stance of Hebraic prophetism I have seen and continue to see idolatry in my own nation, I have seen it also in the Germany of the 1930s and 40s, and I see it today in South Africa. . . ."
The Puritan Problem
It is in the spirit of Brown's understanding of the prophetic tradition that I begin a needed but difficult discussion of ethnocentrism, nationalism and racism in these United States often, as I stated earlier, endorsed by religionism and enforced by militarism resulting in massive oppression for multiplied millions of people.
Allen Carden, an evangelical Christian American historian with expertise on the Puritans, gave a 1987 address at Spring Arbor College in which he highlighted the positive contributions of the Puritans to American life. But he also briefly mentioned one profoundly disturbing aspect of Puritanism:
"Relations between the Puritans of seventeenth-century England and the Indian inhabitants of the land were especially significant in that an attitude was established which served as a precedent for later colonists and pioneers. Seeing themselves as a 'New Israel' in the wilderness, called to the work of saving Christianity from the corruptions of England and the rest of the world, the Puritans professed a desire to preach the gospel to the heathen. But their actions demonstrated that they carried their view of themselves as a New Israel to the point of viewing the native Americans as 'Canaanites' in the Promised Land. [The reader may remember that the Canaanites were to be destroyed]. Most Puritans had little use for the Indians and saw them as pagan interlopers in the way of God's program in the New World. Few Puritans would consider social or marital intermingling. There were notable exceptions to this low view of the Indians demonstrated by such men as John Eliot and later David Brainerd who poured out their lives in Indian evangelization. . . . But in general the Puritans established the unsavory precedent that the native Americans were essentially undesirable because they were non-white, heathen, and a hindrance to white expansion and prosperity."
For documentation, Carden referred me to an article in the New England Qvarterly entitled "Puritans, Indians, and the Concept of Race." From my perspective ethnocentrism would be a more accurate term; religious support of these views is blatant. G. E. Thomas states that "The record of Puritan attitudes, goals and behavior in every major area of interaction with Indians reveals a continued harshness, brutality and ethnocentric bias, which, if not 'racial' in the modern sense of the word, had fatal consequences for the Indians as a race."
Oppression was clearly evident in the Puritan approach to Indian land: "The Puritan's approach to land acquistion demonstrates even more clearly the degree of their ethnocentric bias and their failure to treat Indians on an equal basis even when the Indians were willing to deal on the Puritans' own terms. The New Englanders had proclaimed their 'right' to take up Indian lands even before leaving old England."
One also smells the odor of a future American nationalism in this attitude; shades of Manifest Destiny. Note the Puritan attitude toward killing Indians:
"The Indians felt that an enemy sometimes deserved to be killed, but always as a man and as an equal. The Puritans' attitude was diametrically opposite. The slaughter and enslavement of women and children in the 1637 Pequot Village inferno did not bother the Puritan conscience. . . . Starting in 1694, . . . the Massachusetts General Court offered bounties for the killing of hostile Indians, with scalps accepted as the best and most convenient proof."
With Brown's perspective on nationalism as idolatry and Thomas' perspective on Puritan ethnocentrism/racism and budding nationalism, now we can, with greater insight, delve further into the religious support of the American trinity of ethnocentrism, nationalism and racism implemented when necessary by militarism. A deadly and demonic system of oppression!
Negative Values behind American Wars
The true values of a nation often surface during a war. I draw the following comments from The Wars of America: Christian Views; this book was written by eight professional Christian historians, each an expert on one of America's wars. Why did we fight our wars? Most Americans believe that our Revolutionary war was justified. Many evangelical Christians believe that the hand of God brought our nation into being, that we are a special people. What are the historical facts?
An expert on the American Revolutionary war period, George Marsden, declares that British tyranny and oppression was not bad enough to justify a violent revolution; this judgment is based on the principles of just war theory: "The rebelling colonists nonetheless appear to have been dead wrong in concluding that without armed rebellion absolute tyranny was inevitable."
A person might think that religious people would possess a saner view of the realities of the situation, that they would have warned against a hasty decision to fight a war. Marsden claims that the majority of Christians did not see through the rhetoric, but instead their "enthusiasm for the war often surpassed that found among their compatriots . . . their religious orientation raised their perceptions of the American cause to the level of a crusade."
This sounds like the Puritan mentality all over again. A self-centered, self-righteous view of life enlists the endorsement of religion and that endorsement is willingly given. Is the Puritan pattern and the American Revolution example establishing a precedent for American history? Marsden thinks so:
"Christians in such countries have not usually been exceptions to this rule, but rather have characteristically been in the forefront in turning their 'just wars' into such crusades. These modern crusades, however, have not been ones in which the church dominates the world; rather the nation has set the agenda and the Christians have supplied the flags and crosses. The American Revolution is a pivotal instance for understanding how modern nations have transformed supposed 'just wars' into secular crusades. It is pivotal for considering other wars of America, since the patterns of nationalism and civil religion established at the time of the Revolution became important elements of the mythology that determined America's behavior in subsequent wars."
Given the ruthless Puritan oppression of native Americans and the questionable rationale of our violent revolution against England, the Mexican-American war should come as no surprise. This was probably the least justified of all our wars. Here we find ethnocentrism, nationalism and racism hiding behind Manifest Destiny as a rationale for the imperialistic land grab of nearly one half of Mexico's territory. Ronald Wells concludes "if one views the ideology of Manifest Destiny as a major example of arrogant American ethnocentrism, and if one's historical consciousness is set by Christian ideology rather than the nation-state, one cannot approve of the Mexican War."
So ends this disturbing analysis of American history.
What can/should be done? Our historical past haunts our sociological present. Unconfessed, unrepented of sin/social evil hangs like a curse over our communities, cities, states and nation. John Dawson, author of Healing America's Wounds: A National Focus, calls upon Christians to lead by engaging in identificational repentance as Daniel did (9:4-19). Dawson states:
"The greatest wounds in human history, the greatest injustices, have not happened through the acts of some individual perpetrator, rather through the institutions, systems, philosophies, cultures, religions and governments of mankind. Because of this, we, as individuals, are tempted to absolve ourselves of all individual responsibility. . . . Unless somebody [or some group] identifies themselves with corporate entities, such as the nation of our citizenship, or the subculture of our ancestors, the act of honest confession will never take place. . . . reconciliation never begins and old hatreds deepen. The followers of Jesus are to step into this impasse as agents of healing. . . . that opens the floodgates of revival and brings healing to the nations."
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Superior Whites or a Christian Nation???
My last blog "Superior Whites???" was a satire; this blog is my interpretation of American history.
Was America founded on Christian principles? Yes and no. The Christian religion has provided some of our nation's highest ideals such as "All persons are created equal." But religion has legitimated Anglo-Saxon (English) ethnocentrism and oppression that over the years has been increasingly racialized producing WASP's (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants). See Race and Manifest Destiny.
Our founding fathers blended Christian principles, Enlightenment (human reason) principles, and the widely-held Anglo-Saxon idea of superior culture. So the best and worst of theism, deism, secular humanism and Anglo-Saxonism were blended into a syncretistic mix. Therefore, by selective proof texting, one can 'prove' your own favorite ideological point of view. What would a balanced analysis look like?
I am English (Anglo). The English shaped these United States more than any other people. The first and dominant colonists were English; colonists conquer and then permanently occupy to the detriment of the previous owners. Or to put it in modern day terms, English colonists were the first illegal aliens---the illegals who never went back home.
Today Americans speak the English language, not Indian languages. We draw heavily on English law as we shaped our own system of law. Like all peoples, the Anglos were a mixture of good and bad; I am both proud and deeply ashamed of my English heritage.
One of the good things that the English brought to America was Methodism. In my opinion, John and Charles Wesley led the greatest spiritual/social movement since New Testament times; Methodism was very strong on love but weak on justice, its worst weakness. The zeal and dedication of Methodists contributed significantly to both the spiritual and social climate of America.
One of the worst flaws of the English people was their arrogant ethnocentrism; they thought they were superior to all other peoples, a negative trait that Americans generously copied. The Anglos 'practiced' their ethnocentrism and oppression against the Irish before they brought it to these shores. Unfortunately, by the time they settled these shores, the English were experts at ethnocentrism. Since this side of British culture is not widely known, I shall document it in some detail.
But first more evidence on our Christian fiundations. In a Christianity Today article on James Dobson (March 1, 1999), an article by Michael Kazin, a self-described atheist (The Nation, "The Politics of Devotion," April 6, 1988) is quoted:
"The Book [Bible] has been an indispensable source of wisdom and rhetoric for many of the most effective and influential exponents of social change in American history. One cannot imagine the narrative of reform in the United States without the abolitionists, the temperance movement, the People's Party, the civil rights insurgency, the United Farm Workers or the movement against the Vietnam War. . . . America has from the beginning, been a nation bent on redemption. That, after all, is what John Winthrop was getting at in 1630 when he famously predicted "We shall be a city upon a hill." . . . And it continues today, in what Nobel laureate Robert Ford recently called our "Fourth Great Awakening . . . a new religious revival fueled by revulsion with the corruptions of a contemporary society."
Forrest Wood, raised in a conservative Protestant family, but now a devastating critic of the church because of its racism, also notes the pervasive impact of Christianity on American culture (from The Arrogance of Faith, 1990, p. xviii):
"What really surprised me was how far Christianity's influence had reached beyond the sanctuary. Biblical maxims, the Puritan work ethic, Pauline moral preachments, Old Testament conception of the Elect, and scriptural admonitions like the Ten Commandments . . . permeate every fiber of secular life. The exalted American commitments to individualism, free enterprise, and the diffusion of democratic principles are, I came to believe, nothing more than secular extensions of the Christian precepts of a personal relationship with Christ, man's dominion over the earth, and the bringing of the Good News to all peoples."
Both Kazin and Wood who are not friends of the current American Christian church have documented the extensive Christian influence in this nation.
Now, the rest of the story---the negative side of our history, including our Christian history. First, a brief look at the way the British treated the Irish is in order; From the pen of Ronald Takaki, an ethnic historian, from his 1993 book, A Different Mirror, chapter 6:
"During the 12th century the English conquered Ireland and confiscated their land. By 1700 English landlords owned 86 percent of Irish land [expert colonizers]. To generate more income, English landlords converted most of the tillable land to pasture so that beef cattle could be exported to England. Progress, meaning more income for the landlords, meant pauperization for the peasants because they were not allowed to share in the increased income. Instead, the peasants 'toiled and starved like slaves'.
"The Irish poor lived mostly on potatoes. Most of the grain and cattle were exported as required by the English landlords. When the potato blight struck, the landlords still required the peasants to export the grain and cattle. This meant many of the peasants starved; possibly a million died from hunger and disease. To escape oppression and starvation, millions of Irish moved to America.
"The Atlantic crossing was often traumatic---reminiscent of the Africa slave trade. One description: 'a noisome dungeon, airless and lightless, in which several hundred persons of both sexes and all ages are stowed away on shelves two feet one inch above the other, still reeking from the ineradicable stench left by the emigrants of the last voyage.' One year, 20 percent of the emigrants died during the passage or immediately after arrival.
"The Irish immigrants provided the labor for coal mines and for construction of roads, railroads and canals. They were often assigned the most dangerous jobs.
"The Irish were stereotyped as 'apelike,' 'a race of savages,' or 'at the same level of intelligence as blacks'. They were seen as an inferior people and classified with Negroes, Indians and Mexicans. In the South at times the Irish were assigned 'hazardous jobs that masters did not want to assign to their slaves'.
"This Irish stereotype began back in Ireland when the English colonizers treated the Irish as second-class citizens. As the occasion demanded, the English would burn Irish villages and slaughter men, women and children. Since the Irish were 'naturally lazy' and 'lived like beasts,' they could be treated like beasts. As the English colonized America and contacted Native Americans, they compared the Indians to the Irish. Both were seen as savages and savages did not deserve much respect.
"WHAT THE ENGLISH DID TO THE IRISH---STOLE THEIR LAND, DEHUMANIZED AND KILLED THEM---THEY REPEATED IN ALMOST IDENTICAL FASHION WITH THE AMERICAN INDIANS." Emphasis added.
The Puritans were English; along with their precious Bibles, they brought generous portions of Anglo ethnocentrism and oppression. At the same time they were attempting to purify the church by returning directly to the Bible for truth, one area of their lives escaped biblical scrutiny---their British ethnocentrism and oppression. Neither the Methodist revival nor the Puritan renewal dealt with the sin of ethnocentrism and the oppression it spawned.
At first, when their numbers were small, the Puritan's relationships with Native Americans were reasonably harmonious. But soon the Puritan numbers multiplied and they needed more land. Inevitably, serious conflicts over land developed. Soon the Puritans were labeling Native Americans 'Canaanites'; in the Old Testament, the Canaanites were destroyed because they were evil and they stood in the way of the development of the Hebrew nation.
When necessary, Puritans destroyed Indian villages, killing men, women and children. At times, they even paid money for the scalps of Indians. The Puritans---a supposedly biblical people. The Puritans---a profoundly ethnocentric and oppressive people. The Puritans---a doubleminded people who combined the American trinity of individualism, materialism and ethnocentrism with the Christian trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, the Puritan pattern has been repeated again and again throughout American history and still exists in 2014.
Was America founded on Christian principles? Yes and no. The Christian religion has provided some of our nation's highest ideals such as "All persons are created equal." But religion has legitimated Anglo-Saxon (English) ethnocentrism and oppression that over the years has been increasingly racialized producing WASP's (White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants). See Race and Manifest Destiny.
Our founding fathers blended Christian principles, Enlightenment (human reason) principles, and the widely-held Anglo-Saxon idea of superior culture. So the best and worst of theism, deism, secular humanism and Anglo-Saxonism were blended into a syncretistic mix. Therefore, by selective proof texting, one can 'prove' your own favorite ideological point of view. What would a balanced analysis look like?
I am English (Anglo). The English shaped these United States more than any other people. The first and dominant colonists were English; colonists conquer and then permanently occupy to the detriment of the previous owners. Or to put it in modern day terms, English colonists were the first illegal aliens---the illegals who never went back home.
Today Americans speak the English language, not Indian languages. We draw heavily on English law as we shaped our own system of law. Like all peoples, the Anglos were a mixture of good and bad; I am both proud and deeply ashamed of my English heritage.
One of the good things that the English brought to America was Methodism. In my opinion, John and Charles Wesley led the greatest spiritual/social movement since New Testament times; Methodism was very strong on love but weak on justice, its worst weakness. The zeal and dedication of Methodists contributed significantly to both the spiritual and social climate of America.
One of the worst flaws of the English people was their arrogant ethnocentrism; they thought they were superior to all other peoples, a negative trait that Americans generously copied. The Anglos 'practiced' their ethnocentrism and oppression against the Irish before they brought it to these shores. Unfortunately, by the time they settled these shores, the English were experts at ethnocentrism. Since this side of British culture is not widely known, I shall document it in some detail.
But first more evidence on our Christian fiundations. In a Christianity Today article on James Dobson (March 1, 1999), an article by Michael Kazin, a self-described atheist (The Nation, "The Politics of Devotion," April 6, 1988) is quoted:
"The Book [Bible] has been an indispensable source of wisdom and rhetoric for many of the most effective and influential exponents of social change in American history. One cannot imagine the narrative of reform in the United States without the abolitionists, the temperance movement, the People's Party, the civil rights insurgency, the United Farm Workers or the movement against the Vietnam War. . . . America has from the beginning, been a nation bent on redemption. That, after all, is what John Winthrop was getting at in 1630 when he famously predicted "We shall be a city upon a hill." . . . And it continues today, in what Nobel laureate Robert Ford recently called our "Fourth Great Awakening . . . a new religious revival fueled by revulsion with the corruptions of a contemporary society."
Forrest Wood, raised in a conservative Protestant family, but now a devastating critic of the church because of its racism, also notes the pervasive impact of Christianity on American culture (from The Arrogance of Faith, 1990, p. xviii):
"What really surprised me was how far Christianity's influence had reached beyond the sanctuary. Biblical maxims, the Puritan work ethic, Pauline moral preachments, Old Testament conception of the Elect, and scriptural admonitions like the Ten Commandments . . . permeate every fiber of secular life. The exalted American commitments to individualism, free enterprise, and the diffusion of democratic principles are, I came to believe, nothing more than secular extensions of the Christian precepts of a personal relationship with Christ, man's dominion over the earth, and the bringing of the Good News to all peoples."
Both Kazin and Wood who are not friends of the current American Christian church have documented the extensive Christian influence in this nation.
Now, the rest of the story---the negative side of our history, including our Christian history. First, a brief look at the way the British treated the Irish is in order; From the pen of Ronald Takaki, an ethnic historian, from his 1993 book, A Different Mirror, chapter 6:
"During the 12th century the English conquered Ireland and confiscated their land. By 1700 English landlords owned 86 percent of Irish land [expert colonizers]. To generate more income, English landlords converted most of the tillable land to pasture so that beef cattle could be exported to England. Progress, meaning more income for the landlords, meant pauperization for the peasants because they were not allowed to share in the increased income. Instead, the peasants 'toiled and starved like slaves'.
"The Irish poor lived mostly on potatoes. Most of the grain and cattle were exported as required by the English landlords. When the potato blight struck, the landlords still required the peasants to export the grain and cattle. This meant many of the peasants starved; possibly a million died from hunger and disease. To escape oppression and starvation, millions of Irish moved to America.
"The Atlantic crossing was often traumatic---reminiscent of the Africa slave trade. One description: 'a noisome dungeon, airless and lightless, in which several hundred persons of both sexes and all ages are stowed away on shelves two feet one inch above the other, still reeking from the ineradicable stench left by the emigrants of the last voyage.' One year, 20 percent of the emigrants died during the passage or immediately after arrival.
"The Irish immigrants provided the labor for coal mines and for construction of roads, railroads and canals. They were often assigned the most dangerous jobs.
"The Irish were stereotyped as 'apelike,' 'a race of savages,' or 'at the same level of intelligence as blacks'. They were seen as an inferior people and classified with Negroes, Indians and Mexicans. In the South at times the Irish were assigned 'hazardous jobs that masters did not want to assign to their slaves'.
"This Irish stereotype began back in Ireland when the English colonizers treated the Irish as second-class citizens. As the occasion demanded, the English would burn Irish villages and slaughter men, women and children. Since the Irish were 'naturally lazy' and 'lived like beasts,' they could be treated like beasts. As the English colonized America and contacted Native Americans, they compared the Indians to the Irish. Both were seen as savages and savages did not deserve much respect.
"WHAT THE ENGLISH DID TO THE IRISH---STOLE THEIR LAND, DEHUMANIZED AND KILLED THEM---THEY REPEATED IN ALMOST IDENTICAL FASHION WITH THE AMERICAN INDIANS." Emphasis added.
The Puritans were English; along with their precious Bibles, they brought generous portions of Anglo ethnocentrism and oppression. At the same time they were attempting to purify the church by returning directly to the Bible for truth, one area of their lives escaped biblical scrutiny---their British ethnocentrism and oppression. Neither the Methodist revival nor the Puritan renewal dealt with the sin of ethnocentrism and the oppression it spawned.
At first, when their numbers were small, the Puritan's relationships with Native Americans were reasonably harmonious. But soon the Puritan numbers multiplied and they needed more land. Inevitably, serious conflicts over land developed. Soon the Puritans were labeling Native Americans 'Canaanites'; in the Old Testament, the Canaanites were destroyed because they were evil and they stood in the way of the development of the Hebrew nation.
When necessary, Puritans destroyed Indian villages, killing men, women and children. At times, they even paid money for the scalps of Indians. The Puritans---a supposedly biblical people. The Puritans---a profoundly ethnocentric and oppressive people. The Puritans---a doubleminded people who combined the American trinity of individualism, materialism and ethnocentrism with the Christian trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
Unfortunately, the Puritan pattern has been repeated again and again throughout American history and still exists in 2014.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)