Reflections on Indigenous Peoples' Day

Muriel Tillinghast @ BSEC

I recently visited (October 8) the Sunday meeting of the Brooklyn Society for Ethical Culture. The speaker was a dear friend, Muriel Tillinghast, whose topic was the Indigenous Peoples' Day holiday. We talk about Native Americans little enough in Ethical Culture, though some of Societies do ritually include a land acknowledgement in their meeting programs, that I felt a need to attend the BSEC meeting as much to support Muriel as to hear what she had to say on the topic.

What Muriel had to say was quite powerful.  She talked about history (real history, not the mythology that we were taught in school), language, population (and population decimation through disease, violence, and the genocidal destruction of a primary resource for survival), the very real contributions of Native Americans to this nation.  Muriel also emphasized the existence--and neglect (or worse)--of indigenous people throughout the world.

In the discussion that followed, BSEC members talked about what they had done in the past--and could do in the future--to support Native Americans and learn more about reparations.  One suggestion related to supporting higher education by donating to the American Indian College Fund.  It happens that I agree with that strategy; it's an easy, arm-chair Ethical Action and is one way to work toward achieving the recommendations of UN Sustainable Development Goal #4:  Quality Education.  SDG 4 targets 4.3 and 4.5 are also served by this action.

Several members left the in-person BSEC meeting as soon as it ended to go to a local PowWow.  The Sacred Springs PowWow was held here in my city this weekend.  I didn't attend, but my family did (and came back with multiple tee shirts).  These events are ways to experience elements of the culture of indigenous peoples and learn a little bit about beliefs and crafting practices.  The entrance fees and the purchase of products and foods can contribute to the community.  I was pleased to see that multiple powwows are held around Texas at various times of the year.  Check in with this site to see when and where powwows will be held near you.  (And don't forget to follow the local protocol for visitors.)  I think my family will want to go to more of these events because, yet again, here is an opportunity to show and teach my great-granddaughter about the present as well as the past of our diverse nation.  

There are other ways to be supportive of the indigenous peoples' of our country.  It would, however, be more respectful of those communities to reach out to the various organizations that represent Native Americans in your area to see how you can connect with the programs that they offer and be supportive.  What do they need allies to do?  Would they be interested in speaking to your Society?  Are there issues on which you can jointly participate in advocacy?  Can you begin calling out (and calling in) those in your community who speak ill or falsely about history and living people?  Get started with a simple search:  "Native American community near me."  It's way past time to make up for Columbus!

The Supremacy of Skin

The Sepia Rainbow

I've been thinking about skin.  It started when my great granddaughter discovered the skin on my arm.  It was wrinkled and loose--and made her laugh.  

Old lady skin is not really all that funny, but it is odd.  As we get older, our skin may get stretched and, eventually, lose its elasticity.  So it wrinkles.  Rapid weight loss, inactivity, deconditioning are among the factors that can contribute to the amount of wrinkles and general looseness, and I seem to have a lot of those contributions.

Another thing that happens with old skin is that it gets more spots.  Age spots.  Liver spots.  The barnacles of age (including skin tags).  A little sun can emphasize those spots, darkening them, but also highlighting the spaces where no pigment is present.  All those little scars now show up in bright contrast to any skin that begins to show its melanin levels.

Thinking about skin and all these changes, I also had to wonder why my skin--white skin--is so privileged in our American Society.  Globally, white skin is pretty uncommon.  There are only small areas of the planet where white skin naturally occurs, and, while the population that has white skin is quite numerous today, white-skinned humans are--today--still a minority of human inhabitants of Earth.  

The image I posted above should be credited to Gail McCormick, the artist who made this cut-paper illustration from a map by Nina Jablonski and George Chaplin.  The map shows the distribution of skin color that comes from the production of melanin.  Melanin is produced in response to ultraviolet rays, blocking the harmful effects of those rays.  We might think that the obvious reason for so much melanin in the tropical areas of the planet has to do with the effects of UV rays on the skin (think skin cancer).  Jablonski's research, however, shows a deeper (than skin) reason for the need for more protection from UV:  the production of folate, which is needed for human reproduction.  Too much UV, not so much folate.  A reversal of sorts occurred later, as humans migrated out of Africa and arrived in the colder, less sunny regions of the planet.  Too little UV, too little Vitamin D, lots of rickets and other bone density issues.  

Interestingly, high levels of melanin also tracks with lactose intolerance.  At the same time populations were evolving to get more benefit from UV (skin cancers tend to show up later, after the reproductive years) they also evolved the capacity to consume milk from herd animals to increase the Vitamin D in their diet.  (See Marvin Harris, Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture.)

I recently had a conversation with a dear friend about skin color and colorism.  He opined that eventually there would be enough intermarriage and mingling of populations that humans would all be a nice cafe-au-lait shade of brown and we could just be done with racism.  I agreed.  Populations meet, populations mingle, reproduction occurs.  The global majority is not white, so the chances are that, over time, there could be a leveling out of this skin color issue.  After all race and racism are both human constructs that contribute to violence and war, and we need less of both.  

Still, I couldn't help but think about what is happening on the planet right now.  We are seeing significant levels of migration away from the tropics.  The effects of global warming are real and intolerable.  As climate changes, more humans will seek to move to more tolerable spaces, farther north or south toward the poles, and right into those temperate bands where too much melanin becomes a health problem.  How will humans adjust?  Will we evolve toward less melanin?  That would really be an ugly outcome--the populations that are doing the most to destroy the habitat of melanin-rich populations occupy the habitat that is most inhospitable to melanin-rich skin.  

Jablonski is working to bring more public awareness and understanding of the issues that arise from skin color.  It's just skin, after all.  The surface.  Not the heart.  Not the mind.  Not the person.  We have so many, much bigger issues to deal with than how much melanin our ancestors gave us.  My great granddaughter's interest in the changes that age has brought to my skin makes me realize that now is the time to talk to her about the colors in my skin and where they come from.  Evolution might be a tough concept for a second grader, but human worth, regardless of skin color is an age-appropriate topic for discussion any time.  The sooner the better.

On Adler's "Religion" (Part III)

 (Continuing commentary on quotations taken from Felix Adler, Life and Destiny, "Religion", 1908)

Part III

¶ It is the moral element contained in it that alone gives value and dignity to a religion, and only in so far as its teachings serve to stimulate and purify our moral aspirations does it deserve to retain its ascendency over mankind.

 “There is a time to act for the Lord by breaking his commandments” was a saying current among the ancient Hebrews. This means there is a time to act for religion by protesting against what passes for religion; there is a time to prepare the way for a larger morality by shattering the narrow forms of dogma whereby the progress of morality is hindered.

I disagree with the first statement in this section.  Functionally, religion is a form of social control.  Moral schmoral.  In any society, the system of religious belief buttresses the status quo by motivating conformity to norms of behavior within the system.  Law, when it exists outside of religion, is also a form of social control.  In contemporary industrialized societies, we often recognize law as the greater and more direct form of social control, but religion supports that law by providing the ethical and moral basis for its tenets and by supporting behavior that conforms to its general trend.  Gossip is another form of social control (“What would the neighbors think?”).  “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is not about medicine; it’s about behavior.  Religion does have other functions to perform--see the earlier discussion of hope--but its essential function is to make sure that people act in ways that support the dominant social structure and institutions of political and economic power. 

On the other hand, I see the final statement in this section as central to Adler’s purpose:  To aim for what he saw as a higher morality, better ethics, by breaking free of dogmas and strictures that had become ineffective in his time.  In my mind, this is another way of saying that religion cannot be static because society is not static.  As knowledge grows, as social practices change, religious explanations for knowledge and behavior need to accommodate the new information, the new norms that grow out of that new information.

Adler died before World War II, but that global cataclysm brought two new sets of demands on American society at war’s end.  Black Americans who had served their country in the military returned home with new skills and knowledge and also with a new understanding of their rightful position in society.  American women who had served their country by taking on many jobs formerly (and normally) held by men saw the return of the nation’s military men as a force returning them to their former inferior and disadvantaged position in society.  They, too, had a new understanding of their rightful position in society.  In both cases, however, Adler’s vision was accurate in predicting that new knowledge would demand changes in old beliefs.

A religion that justifies slavery, as Christianity once did, does not function positively as a matter of course for those who are held in slavery.  When that religion shifts, however begrudgingly, to disavow slavery, but still supports segregation and discrimination and inequality, it still does not function positively for the whole community.  Either version might have sufficed for a society that was homogeneous in “race” (a human construct), but it was doomed to fail its practitioners once the society became mixed (by whatever means).  Black Americans returned to a post war America with new insight and new determination to claim the rights of citizenship and humanity.  Their religious beliefs had already shifted to include them in the larger society.  Today’s religious communities become less and less relevant to the people they wish to serve because people have moved on while their religious institutions have not.  Science discounts the old beliefs in “race,” racial “inferiority,” racial traits, and so on.  History shows the bias of Western “civilizations” when ancient remains show cities and trade routes and scientific advances in places far away from the northern climates once believed to foster innovation and progress.  Racism has no place in modern society—nor, I would argue, in the religious thought that supports such a society.  Racist beliefs, even those wrapped in religious justifications, are relics of the past unsuited to support contemporary social and economic institutions.

A religion that justifies sexism, as Christianity still seems to do, does not function positively as a matter of course for those who are relegated to socially inferior positions.  When that religion shifts, however begrudgingly, to allow for more physical safety for women, but still discounts the value of their work, bars them from meaningful roles in their community, and subjugates them to male domination, it still does not function positively for half of the planet’s adult population.  To be fair, many of the older religions hold similar views of women and their value to society, so Christianity must be considered an example, noting, nonetheless, that it is still the dominant religion in America.  American women left the factories and offices and schools in which they had served during the war, returning to their homes to serve, as their mothers had done, as homemakers and participants in producing the postwar baby boom.  However, they did not forget the independence and satisfaction of their work during the war; many became determined to claim their rights of citizenship and humanity, and they taught their daughters to do the same.  Today’s religious communities become less and less relevant to the people they wish to serve--even though women still participate more than men in religious activities--because women have moved on while their religious institutions have not.  Science and history have both shown that women can perform anywhere they are physically capable of serving--and they are more physically capable than social prejudices permit.  Still American women earn less than men for doing the same work.  Still American women are denied, in the old religions, equal access to positions of leadership and authority.  Sexism has no place in modern society—nor, I would argue, in the religious thought that supports such a society.  Sexist beliefs, even those wrapped in religious justifications, are relics of the past unsuited to support contemporary social and economic institutions.

Ethical Culture has its own checkered past to reckon with.  There have been some periods and some Leaders who have treated the matters of racism with no more than “benign neglect.”  Men, as one lay leader commented not too long ago, still “take up a lot of space” in Ethical Culture.  The diversity of our community demands more openness to a “progress of morality” that grants dignity, recognition, equality, respect, space for people of all colors, nations of origin, sexual orientation and gender identity, talents, interests, and personalities.

The good news for Ethical Culture and its participants is that Adler laid an excellent foundation when he insisted that religion itself must progress with the society that it serves.  Good, that is, for those of us who feel that we do not have to be bound by the errors of our past, that we can change and grow and be better today than we were before. Whether Adler or any other individual within the Movement changed enough or fast enough or in any particularly desirable direction is irrelevant in the broader context of a Movement which can honestly evaluate its flaws and weaknesses and also honestly seek to become more Ethical, more capable of meeting the needs of the contemporary society in which it exists, not that of some mythical past.

Boycott Coca-Cola?

 In a fit of pique, those who decry cancel culture now want to cancel Coca-Cola for taking a public stance against voter suppression in Georgia.  Other business entities have done the same for Georgia (all after the suppressive laws were passed), but others are taking a similar stand against similar laws still in the consideration stage for Texas.  It's an odd situation for Republicans who ordinarily rant against such practices when coming from the Left (while hypocritically practicing them right along themselves), is it not?  As for the media, it's almost as if a news reporter hears someone say "cancel" and thinks that that's actually news.

I don't buy Coca-Cola products and haven't for some time.  Well, there was that one six pack a couple of weeks ago, but more on that in a moment.  I don't buy Coca-Cola because the sugar content in their soft drinks is lethal for me.  Sugared soft drinks are driving an obesity epidemic in the US (and, increasingly, overseas, wherever they have penetrated the market).  Once obesity and diabetes are achieved, one Coke is an invitation to a diabetic coma.  

My family history with Coke is long and loving.  Daddy was a Coke drinker.  Mama was a sipper.  Daddy would get a Co'Cola (as we sometimes called it) in one of those small green glass bottles and Mama would take "just a sip."  We kept Cokes in the refrigerator when I was a kid, and I was strictly limited to one per day.  That was not for my health.  It was to make sure there were Cokes in the fridge when Daddy came in from work and wanted one.  Woe betide the beloved only daughter who drank the last Coke.

We drank Coke in the small bottles.  We drank it in the tall bottles.  We drank it in cans.  We went through some hard times when the Coca-Cola Company introduced New Coke and took Coke Classic (as it was later called) off the market.  When Coke Classic was (re)introduced, we drank even more Coke.

I did eventually switch to Diet Coke on my dentist's advice.  (Dental decay and destruction would be one more strike against drinking Coke.)  I drank that in cans and then in plastic bottles.  As diabetes was diagnosed, my thirst was increasing.  I loved it when Coca-Cola introduced Diet Coke in 1.5 liter bottles.  I carried them around and chugged away.  And kept gaining weight.  Eventually I learned that artificially sweetened beverages (not just Coke) tend to cause drinkers to consume more calories.  There is something about the body's expectation of calories being thwarted by the diet beverages and a need to get those calories elsewhere--about 30% more calories than non-drinkers of diet beverages.  

The weight gain didn't stop me from drinking Diet Coke, but the plastic bottle finally did.  My recycling bin was filling with all those 1.5 liter bottles.  I was drinking more than one a day.  Indeed, it was difficult to push my grocery cart when it was lined with all those bottles and exhausting to carry into the house to store away.  Recognizing, however, that the US was doing a poor job of recycling plastics and that I was part of the problem, I had a choice--drink my Diet Coke from the cans which had become inadequate for my thirst or switch to iced tea.  

It was a struggle, but I made it.  I did miss the carbonation, so I now have a SodaStream for sparkling water (no flavors!).  

So that six-pack.  When I got my second COVID vaccination, I wanted to celebrate.  I decided that potato chips and Diet Coke--a long time celebration treat--would be just the thing.  I hadn't had either in quite a long time.  To reduce my footprint for the celebration, I bought the tiny little cans that Coca-Cola is now selling--for the sippers, I guess.  Mama would have loved them.  What a shock to find out that I no longer liked the taste!

My ethical dilemma now is whether to continue not drinking Coca-Cola products for health reasons or to show my support for the Coco-Cola Company's stance on voter suppression by buying their products.  This, however, is not really about marketing, and I don't think that self-destruction is the way to show my support.  So I'm saying here:

Thank you, Coca-Cola!

Thank you, Delta Airlines!

Thank you, Dell Computers!

Thank you, American Airlines!

Thank you, AT&T (I never expected to say that)!

I hope other companies join you.  I hope that those who insist on anti-democratic, anti-American practices of voter suppression can learn that what they are doing is wrong.  

In the meantime, freedom isn't free, is it?  Welcome to the fight.