A post-election maelstrom of despair pulled in many of my Republican friends last night as the final numbers were announced. I get that you are bummed out, and I get that you are worried. I know how you feel. I remember what it's like to lose an election when I felt the stakes were dangerously high. So please don't think I'm being dismissive or insensitive. But there is one sentiment I'm seeing that I find really disturbing.
I just don't understand how anybody could vote for him!
Guys, this is stuff we should have taken care of before yesterday. Understanding the motivations on the other side of any debate is a critical part of knowing how and why you disagree.
Darlings, if you don't understand why people voted for the other side, that one's on you. You have had months -- years, actually -- to figure that out. You have access to a stunning breadth of information. The Internet lives in your phone and your iPad and your laptop and your PC, and news magazines and newspapers sit in every grocery store. Oh, yeah, and there's TV.
But chances are, you looked at all these things, you saw the issues laid out, and you still didn't see why anyone would view them differently than you do.
In that case, why didn't you just ask? If we're friends -- even acquaintances -- you should have known I was in the other camp. I made no secret of it, and I'm generally happy to talk about it. But if I'm the only one you know who disagrees with you, we all have a much bigger problem to deal with.
We think sharing our opinions on Facebook is the same as having
meaningful discourse. It isn't.
There is no substitute for sitting
across from a real, live human being with a soul -- especially someone you know, have worked with, laughed with, worshiped with, drunk with -- and saying,
"Dude, what the hell? I don't get it!" And then actually listening to
their response rather than watching their mouths move while you mentally build your defense and then vomiting rhetoric all over them.
It's also a lot harder to tell a breathing, feeling person with a history who is standing right in front of you that you know they only voted like they did because they are ignorant, or they are racist, or they are stupid, or they are sheep, or they hate God, or they hate women, or they just all-around suck. Usually, civil conversation has a much better chance of survival when we are forced to look into someone's eyes and into our own hearts to decide whether we mean those things and whether we should say them.
Before the next election cycle starts (which is sure to be at least 10 days away), let's make a commitment to surround ourselves with flesh and blood individuals who disagree with us. When we learn to listen to them, to love them, and to respect them, then when the results come down, at least we will all be able to say we understand.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Friday, June 1, 2012
Aaaaaaand a month later ...
Finally I update. Here's what I've been up to:
Haven't missed a week yet. We've done lots of fun stuff -- the top pic is stuffed squash with homemade (by a couple at the farmer's market) challah, beets and greens, and roasted purple potatoes. The bottom pic is "Hey look, we have lots of stuff in the fridge so let's put it in a pan!" Lentils, roasted tomatoes, cheddar cauliflower, potatoes, and onions. This week we've had panzanella and balsamic-marinated, grilled cue ball squash with chickpeas on couscous. And our just plan veggie dinner nights have been awesome. Squash casserole, fresh steamed green beans, beets and greens, swiss chard, steamed cauliflower, mashed potatoes. We're learning what different kinds of cucumber taste like. It's already a really good season. But it's been crazy busy so I haven't been updating as I planned. I will try to do better!!! :)
Friday, May 4, 2012
It's Only a Day Away!
Our farmer's market opens again tomorrow. (!!!!!! :) :) :) !!!!!!!)
Anticipation, excitement, giddiness -- yes, giddiness! For me, this is the start of football season, the last day of school, the midnight showing of the movie version of the book that changed your life ...
I'm excited.
Since October my poor four-year-old has been slowly re-learning how to pick out vegetables and fruit from a grocery produce section, after the first several weeks of protesting, "But mommy, we don't buy veggies at the store!" We've rolled backward on a few things in the last few months. More frozen food, more eating out, less cooking love.
I can't wait to see the season's early risers laid out on the tables tomorrow morning. I can't wait to challenge my brain to make something awesome with what I have rather than what I want. I can't wait to hear my little girl ooo'ing and aaah'ing over the gorgeous color of a fresh beet or cucumber and begging to try some before she even gets it home.
Squee!!!
Anticipation, excitement, giddiness -- yes, giddiness! For me, this is the start of football season, the last day of school, the midnight showing of the movie version of the book that changed your life ...
I'm excited.
Since October my poor four-year-old has been slowly re-learning how to pick out vegetables and fruit from a grocery produce section, after the first several weeks of protesting, "But mommy, we don't buy veggies at the store!" We've rolled backward on a few things in the last few months. More frozen food, more eating out, less cooking love.
I can't wait to see the season's early risers laid out on the tables tomorrow morning. I can't wait to challenge my brain to make something awesome with what I have rather than what I want. I can't wait to hear my little girl ooo'ing and aaah'ing over the gorgeous color of a fresh beet or cucumber and begging to try some before she even gets it home.
Squee!!!
Saturday, March 10, 2012
What’s Wrong with Kony 2012 and Why It Matters Anyway
I watched the Kony 2012 video on Monday night, not because I heard about it from a friend or the news or a celebrity, but because I sit up at night doing Google searches on issues relevant to the Democratic Republic of Congo. My heart has been heavy for the DRC for three years, and in the last six months it’s gotten heavier. I am doing something. So just to be clear, I’m not a bandwagon jumper. I had no idea there was a bandwagon. I simply abhor the LRA because of its attacks in Eastern DRC, and I was glad to see that there was an effort being made to raise awareness about the group. So I shared the video on Facebook the next morning.
Today is Saturday, and in six days Kony 2012 has attracted so much attention that it’s hard to check social media or read or listen to the news without hearing something about it. There has been a lot of criticism, and a lot of it is valid. But I stand by my decision to post the video, and I’m glad my friends and family shared it.
This article from Time offers the best summary I’ve found of the main arguments against the film.
I agree with several of the points the writer makes. But I want to address some of the arguments I think are missing the mark, from this article and others.
1) Kony isn’t in Uganda. I agree that the film’s biggest mistake is focusing its narrative solely on the LRA’s activities in Uganda, which as most critics have pointed out, are in the past. The imagery and interviews all appear to be from Uganda, and the names of the surrounding countries where the LRA is active now are not mentioned, which could easily lead viewers to the assumption that Uganda remains in the crosshairs for Kony. (I think this is because the filmmaker’s personal story here is based in Uganda, and that was his focus.) However, the film does not actually state that the LRA is still active in Uganda; in fact, it explicitly says otherwise in the narration about the efforts of LRA survivors to raise awareness in talking tours: “Even though Uganda was relatively safe, they felt compelled to tell the world that Kony was still out there and had to be stopped.” In addition, some of the criticism related to this problem goes way over the top. To say, for instance, that the film implies there are still thousands of children sleeping in shelters in Uganda to hide from the LRA ignores the fact that the shots of those shelters are very clearly identified as having been taken during the filmmaker’s first trip to Uganda years ago.
2) The film oversimplifies the problems of Uganda. This argument neglects to consider the demographic the film targets. It’s absolutely true that film doesn’t provide the whole history and context of the political and regional landscape, and this understanding is very important to making a difference in the region. But as the film says, “It's hard to look back on some parts of human history because when we heard about injustice, we cared but we didn't know what to do... if we're going to change that, we have to start somewhere. So we're starting here, with Joseph Kony.” Kony 2012 was built to raise awareness about a single issue among young people who know nothing about Central Africa, and it was designed for distribution through social media. This requires it to be short and simple. Saying this film should have covered the breadth of Ugandan governance and corruption is like saying kindergarten teachers should skip “Dick and Jane” and just tackle the dictionary.
3) There are bigger problems in Uganda and Central Africa than the LRA. I totally agree. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to focus on one of those many problems. If you have five significant health problems, do you rant and rave against your doctor for curing one of the lesser ones first? Plus, the awareness that has already been raised by this campaign has brought attention to all those other problems, and I believe that is partly by design. Last week, most of the demographic targeted by this project hadn’t heard of Kony, nodding disease, or Yoweri Museveni. Now they have.
4) Even outside of Uganda the LRA is on the run and only has about 200 core followers remaining. I find this one infuriating. Since the beginning of 2012 there have been 20 attacks in Orientale province in the DRC. Thousands of people continue to flee the LRA in DRC, according to the UN’s refugee agency. So there are only 200 core followers left? That’s 200 people turning baby girls into sex slaves, abducting boys to fight, and raiding villages and killing the people living in them. If it were our kids, our towns, our families being affected, the fact that there are “only” 200 people doing it would be cold comfort. We would have an entire country mobilized to stop those 200. If we believe human beings have the same value in Central Africa as they have here, we should feel the same urgency to act regardless of geography. Which leads into the next criticism …
4) The video endorses and encourages action that will hurt Uganda rather than help it. What the U.S. policy should be in Uganda is always going to be worth debate, with strong opinions on every side. Critics argue that the current U.S. response is inadequate, inappropriate, or overreaching--depending on which critic you’re reading. But they all seem intent on painting Invisible Children as a front for neo-colonialism and dramatically expanded U.S. military action. Here’s what the video actually advocates: “In order for the American advisors to be [in Uganda], the U.S. government has to deploy them. They've done that, but if the government doesn't believe the people care about arresting Kony, the mission will be canceled. In order for the people to care, they have to know... That's our objective, is to just shine a light on it.” And later: “We're going after policymakers, the ones that have the authority to see Kony captured. They decide if the advisors stay or leave, so we need to remind them that in this election year of fighting and name-calling, no matter what side you're on, this is something we can all agree on.”
Kony 2012’s main goal is to make sure people know about the atrocities of the LRA. All it asks U.S. citizens to do is to consider these atrocities, to care, and to ask U.S. officials to continue to support the action that is already being undertaken. Not to deploy active troops, or to take the responsibility away from the Ugandan military, but to continue supporting the 100 advisors we currently have in place. The video also carries a strong undercurrent requesting personal action, to become engaged in what’s going on across the globe, and to take whatever action they feel is appropriate to help.
5) Invisible Children is a scam. It’s widely quoted that only a little over 30% of Invisible Children’s funds go to on-the-ground programs to help in Central Africa. That’s because the organization is one big PR machine--an awareness program on steroids that also uses its resources to help where it can. The group has funded on-the-ground education initiatives and early warning technology, but it’s always been perfectly candid about its core goal, which is to raise awareness of issues. It is not responsible for tricking people into donating by claiming it is something it isn’t. Invisible Children doesn’t claim that; its critics do.
6) The “white man’s burden” or “white guilt” argument. Of course it is critical to be careful about issues of perceived racial inferiority anywhere, and especially in areas that have suffered under white colonial rule. But the film doesn’t advocate that we rush in as the saviors of a black nation and take over to accomplish a mission. It advocates our multi-cultural nation continuing to support local troops in their mission, which we support and share. And it advocates that the probably mostly white, young Americans who watch the film think about what they should do. They shouldn’t be discouraged from acting because they’re white. Americans should act not because of our race but because of our resources: We are a rich nation. We have the means to assist those who have less. Some would argue that our wealth gives us a moral obligation to help all people who suffer, hunger or thirst, regardless of their location or skin color.
People who would have posted the video and done nothing more have done something worthwhile, because our wealthy nation cannot, for these few days, remain ignorant of the suffering that has been and continues to be caused by a horrible man and the organization he leads. Those few people who find themselves burdened with what they’ve learned and truly want to do more are now offered this remarkable controversy through which to gain more knowledge about Central Africa’s problems. It’s suddenly easier to find references on groups who are working to help the people there fight disease, corruption, and violence. It’s easier to find a way to help. I’m glad I’m a part of that.
Today is Saturday, and in six days Kony 2012 has attracted so much attention that it’s hard to check social media or read or listen to the news without hearing something about it. There has been a lot of criticism, and a lot of it is valid. But I stand by my decision to post the video, and I’m glad my friends and family shared it.
This article from Time offers the best summary I’ve found of the main arguments against the film.
I agree with several of the points the writer makes. But I want to address some of the arguments I think are missing the mark, from this article and others.
1) Kony isn’t in Uganda. I agree that the film’s biggest mistake is focusing its narrative solely on the LRA’s activities in Uganda, which as most critics have pointed out, are in the past. The imagery and interviews all appear to be from Uganda, and the names of the surrounding countries where the LRA is active now are not mentioned, which could easily lead viewers to the assumption that Uganda remains in the crosshairs for Kony. (I think this is because the filmmaker’s personal story here is based in Uganda, and that was his focus.) However, the film does not actually state that the LRA is still active in Uganda; in fact, it explicitly says otherwise in the narration about the efforts of LRA survivors to raise awareness in talking tours: “Even though Uganda was relatively safe, they felt compelled to tell the world that Kony was still out there and had to be stopped.” In addition, some of the criticism related to this problem goes way over the top. To say, for instance, that the film implies there are still thousands of children sleeping in shelters in Uganda to hide from the LRA ignores the fact that the shots of those shelters are very clearly identified as having been taken during the filmmaker’s first trip to Uganda years ago.
2) The film oversimplifies the problems of Uganda. This argument neglects to consider the demographic the film targets. It’s absolutely true that film doesn’t provide the whole history and context of the political and regional landscape, and this understanding is very important to making a difference in the region. But as the film says, “It's hard to look back on some parts of human history because when we heard about injustice, we cared but we didn't know what to do... if we're going to change that, we have to start somewhere. So we're starting here, with Joseph Kony.” Kony 2012 was built to raise awareness about a single issue among young people who know nothing about Central Africa, and it was designed for distribution through social media. This requires it to be short and simple. Saying this film should have covered the breadth of Ugandan governance and corruption is like saying kindergarten teachers should skip “Dick and Jane” and just tackle the dictionary.
3) There are bigger problems in Uganda and Central Africa than the LRA. I totally agree. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong to focus on one of those many problems. If you have five significant health problems, do you rant and rave against your doctor for curing one of the lesser ones first? Plus, the awareness that has already been raised by this campaign has brought attention to all those other problems, and I believe that is partly by design. Last week, most of the demographic targeted by this project hadn’t heard of Kony, nodding disease, or Yoweri Museveni. Now they have.
4) Even outside of Uganda the LRA is on the run and only has about 200 core followers remaining. I find this one infuriating. Since the beginning of 2012 there have been 20 attacks in Orientale province in the DRC. Thousands of people continue to flee the LRA in DRC, according to the UN’s refugee agency. So there are only 200 core followers left? That’s 200 people turning baby girls into sex slaves, abducting boys to fight, and raiding villages and killing the people living in them. If it were our kids, our towns, our families being affected, the fact that there are “only” 200 people doing it would be cold comfort. We would have an entire country mobilized to stop those 200. If we believe human beings have the same value in Central Africa as they have here, we should feel the same urgency to act regardless of geography. Which leads into the next criticism …
4) The video endorses and encourages action that will hurt Uganda rather than help it. What the U.S. policy should be in Uganda is always going to be worth debate, with strong opinions on every side. Critics argue that the current U.S. response is inadequate, inappropriate, or overreaching--depending on which critic you’re reading. But they all seem intent on painting Invisible Children as a front for neo-colonialism and dramatically expanded U.S. military action. Here’s what the video actually advocates: “In order for the American advisors to be [in Uganda], the U.S. government has to deploy them. They've done that, but if the government doesn't believe the people care about arresting Kony, the mission will be canceled. In order for the people to care, they have to know... That's our objective, is to just shine a light on it.” And later: “We're going after policymakers, the ones that have the authority to see Kony captured. They decide if the advisors stay or leave, so we need to remind them that in this election year of fighting and name-calling, no matter what side you're on, this is something we can all agree on.”
Kony 2012’s main goal is to make sure people know about the atrocities of the LRA. All it asks U.S. citizens to do is to consider these atrocities, to care, and to ask U.S. officials to continue to support the action that is already being undertaken. Not to deploy active troops, or to take the responsibility away from the Ugandan military, but to continue supporting the 100 advisors we currently have in place. The video also carries a strong undercurrent requesting personal action, to become engaged in what’s going on across the globe, and to take whatever action they feel is appropriate to help.
5) Invisible Children is a scam. It’s widely quoted that only a little over 30% of Invisible Children’s funds go to on-the-ground programs to help in Central Africa. That’s because the organization is one big PR machine--an awareness program on steroids that also uses its resources to help where it can. The group has funded on-the-ground education initiatives and early warning technology, but it’s always been perfectly candid about its core goal, which is to raise awareness of issues. It is not responsible for tricking people into donating by claiming it is something it isn’t. Invisible Children doesn’t claim that; its critics do.
6) The “white man’s burden” or “white guilt” argument. Of course it is critical to be careful about issues of perceived racial inferiority anywhere, and especially in areas that have suffered under white colonial rule. But the film doesn’t advocate that we rush in as the saviors of a black nation and take over to accomplish a mission. It advocates our multi-cultural nation continuing to support local troops in their mission, which we support and share. And it advocates that the probably mostly white, young Americans who watch the film think about what they should do. They shouldn’t be discouraged from acting because they’re white. Americans should act not because of our race but because of our resources: We are a rich nation. We have the means to assist those who have less. Some would argue that our wealth gives us a moral obligation to help all people who suffer, hunger or thirst, regardless of their location or skin color.
People who would have posted the video and done nothing more have done something worthwhile, because our wealthy nation cannot, for these few days, remain ignorant of the suffering that has been and continues to be caused by a horrible man and the organization he leads. Those few people who find themselves burdened with what they’ve learned and truly want to do more are now offered this remarkable controversy through which to gain more knowledge about Central Africa’s problems. It’s suddenly easier to find references on groups who are working to help the people there fight disease, corruption, and violence. It’s easier to find a way to help. I’m glad I’m a part of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)