European

Two Kinds Of Black

Standard

Identity is fluid, a physical characteristic is not.  I had identified as being “Mennonite” for many years of my life.  It was not much of a choice for me.  Raised in a Mennonite home, participated in a Mennonite church, and had internalized the values, the belief system, etc.  Mennonite was simply what I was and it still remains by ethnic/cultural background.  Leaving the community does not mean I’ll escape the genetic realities of my birth tribe.  

Is an identity surface level or deeper?

There was many of these labels that have to do with our social status, some we pick and others are picked for us.  In school if you’re into sports, hang out with other athletes, it is going to get you a “jock” designation and likely also stereotype applied with that.  Likewise, if were to wear a particular wardrobe to conform with a group of self-described non-conformists then you’re Goth or Emo.  People tend to coagulate into identity group—they find others who are like them and also become more like those whom they identify with.

But there’s a huge difference between these identities built around how we dress or who we associate with and those like eye color, bone structure or genitalia.  Sure, someone can dye their hair purple and claim that they are an astronaut, but that does not change what they were born with nor does it make them qualified to fly a space shuttle.  There are those ‘assigned’ categories that need to be objective facts rather than some kind of self-identity or cosplay act.  Science needs to have clear definitions or the endeavor is impossible.  And society simply can’t let you be a medical doctor because you feel like you should be a Porsche owner while you’re stuck driving a Kia.

Anyhow, getting to the point, a big problem with these conversations is that people are using the same words to mean something different.  For example, Rachel Dolezal, the woman who identified as ‘black’ despite her being born a daughter of European parents and having their biological characteristics, yet she could be ‘black’ for many years.  In my mind she can be both black or not black depending on what the term is describing—is it the genetic inheritance or the adopted culture?

I mean, think of Eminem’s lyrics: “I am the worst thing since Elvis Presley, to do Black music so selfishly and use it to get myself wealthy.”

Technically, if it is a ‘white’ artist doing the writing and performing, what is so ‘black’ about it?  He’s performing in English.  He’s doing naval gazing more common with the self-loathing European culture and his lyrics were about being some weird trailer trash hybrid rather than the themes common with the gangsta rap I knew growing up where it was at least presented as being something to take seriously.  How is a genre of music a skin color?  Asians are quite good at playing instruments and music first developed by the West—is that appropriation?

In many cases ‘black’ is not referring to something truly immutable.  No, rather it is about a lifestyle, a set of values, a certain way of behaving and, by this definition, it is perfectly legitimate for someone to identify as black without African genetics.  In other words, it is more like belonging to political party or religion than something someone is born.  And this is how suddenly the far left can claim work ethic or nuclear families are ‘white’ despite the Africans I know being as hard working and loyal to their spouses as any other person.

It is grotesque, horrendously racist, when a political candidate tells a whole segment of the population that if they don’t vote for him then, “You ain’t black.“

Of course that was to intentionally confuse actual skin color and everything associated with it, with a ideology and perspective.  It is to rob the targets (black people who think differently than him) of their identity and is a form of gaslighting.  An outsider doesn’t get to decide what people should or should not belong.  It is inappropriate and bullying behavior, this truly is the worst kind of manipulation, it reinforces stereotypes and denies the true diversity within a category of color.

So identity is fluid.  We can change our own idea of what we are.  Still, there are also the fixed points determined by birth, a physical characteristic, that even if the surface level manifestations are surgically changed and hormones artificially employed, cannot be chosen or changed.  A man can behave in a feminine way, a woman in a masculine way, yet he doesn’t lose a Y chromosome simply for declaring himself a woman.  Sure, he can have his male anatomy reconstructed to resemble the female sex.  But there is more to being a woman.

Due to chromosomal abnormalities, there may not be a binary of male and female, but there most certainly is between female and not female.  It is one thing for the man once known as Bruce Jenner to reject the typical male role and change his name.  But that does not change the fact that he fathered his children and lacks the real hardware to be a woman.  Again, Rachel Dolezal can act in a manner that is associated with those of African origins, even fool the NAACP with her outward appearance, but she is not truly African American.

We do not need to recognize every claim as being valid.  I can’t just thrash around in the pool, march up to the podium and demand to be recognized as the winner of a swim meet without the necessary qualifications or actual achievement.  Why then is it ever okay for someone with male genitals and body to dominate in a female category for simply changing his name and having the powers that be join him in his psychosis?  

Changing your name and official category doesn’t change the physical reality.

It is a serious threat to civilization to attack the common language in this manner and it cannot be taken lightly.  One person with a delusion is not a problem.  However, when it is a significant portion of society going off the rails together then very quickly becomes dangerous.  Matters of our preference and culture are subjective, what is feminine or masculine is not set in stone, but science and reason must be built on something that is objective.  There must be a wall between identity that is merely social construct and that which is grounded in substance.

The Token Converts

Standard

Years ago I had a nemesis. My counterpart positioned himself as a white knight type of character and was basically there to harass anyone too fond of the religious tribe I was born into. He knew the group, he had been a convert and was now an ex-member, who classified us as “an ethnic church” dismissing what we said about our conversion experience.

Now that I’ve left the group there is no reason to continue to guard the ideas left behind and that includes the notion that my own participation had been completely a choice. There are doctrinal reasons for this denial of the obvious. I mean, if you believe that conversion is a personal choice, a rational and unbiased conclusion, then it really gets under your skin when someone says that you’re more or less a product of a religious culture.

We were, in our own eyes, a sort of remnant church. And then also had to deal with the awkward reality that many, like us, were so inbred that they had distinct genetic disorders. And, unlike our radical forbearers, we had no cultural relevance besides being the quaint old fashioned people who dressed like it was the 1800s and called this non-conformity to the world. So, obviously, the fact that everyone who shared our views happened to be genetically related was the source of cognitive dissonance.

It is for this reason that converts, the more exotic the better, were clung to and even given special treatment. We would say it was out of Christian love and yet some of this had to do with our own insecurities. They were our validation. They were the proof that we were more than just an ethnic cloister, more than a bunch of cousins of a particular European heritage claiming that our own brand of religion represented something universal and relevant to the times.

Those who come into this group, visibly from the outside, are often treated both with mistrust and also with a special adoration as well. They can never be fully accepted, they’re always both more and less than equal, coddled or spared normal rebuke from some to keep them from leaving, and yet also can sense that they’re just the tokens being used to prove a point rather than being treated as people. Sure, they may form real friendships with some, but they themselves are often misfits from whence they came and still remain stuck in no man’s land.

Now that I’m in a church that both spans continents and is mostly converts locally, I don’t have as strong an urge to collect tokens or evidence that I’m not just a product of my ethnocultural roots. I mean, sure, I still want to be right. But the pressure to bring the Gospel to all people is off my shoulders. The Church didn’t take long to spread into Asia or Africa, early Christians didn’t dress like Europeans from a generation ago either, there may be some times to chase down Ethiopian eunuchs in their chariots, and yet there’s also a time to acknowledge that the fullness of the faith has never left Africa.

Evangelicals, of all stripes, have this desperation for relevance. They think that they will win more converts by being more cosmopolitan, and by painting a picture of superficial diversity and inclusion, but Jesus said that his message would make the world hate us and even divide families. If we have the truth, if we know the truth, we are no longer bound to ethnic quotas and, instead, simply love people, especially of the household of faith, as we are commanded. Jesus preached to his own tribe first, his converts were mostly other Jews, like him, and that was perfectly fine.