by Roxanne -

Myth of Objective Reporting

The post Truth or Consequences talked about the fact that the way we speak about something determines how we understand it. It’s not the other way around.

In a previous post I discussed how our untruthful speech keeps us from seeing reality as it really is. Here’s another example: the idea that there is such a thing as an “objective” or “unbiased” point of view, or reporting.

Why? Because the reality is that all reporting is biased. It can not help but be biased. This is because we each come to a situation with our own experiences, background understanding, education and cultural lenses. We have no way to write or speak about anything that doesn’t incorporate these aspects of ourselves.

For example, I can’t have the perspective of a man of color from the global south. I can only understand and speak about the world from the perspective of a woman of northern European descent, living in North America, benefiting from white privilege with access to far more than my fair share of resources compared to most human beings on the planet.

Rather than trying to make reporting “unbiased” which is impossible, we should try to learn what the bias actually is.

In other words – there is ALWAYS a bias. The question to ask is “What is the bias?” and “Is the reporter or speaker open and transparent about their bias?”

Every newspaper, book, magazine and TV show edits the material they have. Some facts are reported. Some pictures are chosen. Some quotes are used. Others are not. Everything we see has been selected and edited using a particular lens. What is the lens? Who pays? Which corporations sponsor? Who benefits?

As a Catholic theologian, my bias is for the common good. This does not mean “to compromise” like in a real estate deal. I don’t give up something, others give up something and we wash out somewhere in the middle. No. Rather, we each listen to every one’s needs. Then we use imagination and creativity to come up with something that meets the needs of all.

In striving for the bias of the common good I use my lens described above. It is a limited lens, which is why it is important that I listen to many points of view. This requires on-going reading, conversation and education.

This is not fast. It is not easy. But that is not to say that it is impossible. It does take time, effort and perseverance. It does take listening to one’s self and to others. But this is the task of caring for our human family.

You may also like Truth of Consequences, What is Your Story?,

by Roxanne -

A New Kind of Vigil

For Easter this year I experienced a new kind of Easter vigil: helping to prepare and serve dinner to about thirty homeless people. It was not the Easter vigil I was expecting — but it was exactly the vigil I needed.

Also, feeding those who are homeless, struggling or hungry always begs the question – what are the underlying causes of homelessness and hunger?

People are not simply poor, homeless or hungry. There is enough to go around. Rather, they are made poor or hungry by others. Who are the others? Those of us who have enough and benefit from systems and laws that treat groups differently.

I’m always amazed that even books like Half the Sky or Portfolios of the Poor, while able to describe in detail all the ways in which women or other groups struggle with survival, consistently fail to explain the underlying local, federal and international laws that benefit males and certain races, nations and classes.

Charity will not fix this problem or the resulting hunger and poverty. Only systemic change will work. Laws must be changed in a way that everyone benefits, not just some individuals, groups or corporations.

If we can not see how this is true — it is because we are walking around with “blinders of privilege” on, refusing to educate ourselves. Those of us who benefit the most, often resist seeing the truth.

I must continuously make an effort to take off my blinders.

DH – I’m thinking of you this day!

by Roxanne -

Art Reveals History’s Blind Spots

Gentleman with Negro Attendant, ca. 1785-88. Ralph Earl (1751-1801). Oil on Canvas. New Britain Museum of American Art. Harriet Russell Stanley Fund, 1948.06.

Do you know that racism, classism and sexism is inherent in art and the way it is displayed? Take another look. How are women portrayed in historical art, family portraiture or other paintings? How are servants portrayed? What about children? What about indigenous peoples or other ethnicities?

History is told from a particular lens or perspective. This is true whether it is art, literature, music or dance. This particular perspective limits what we see, what we remember and how we understand our past.

Read in full this article at the New Britain Museum of American Art blog, July 5, 2011 by curatorialintern. Here’s an excerpt:

Titus Kaphar uses art to confront history. Sometimes, he also stages interventions. Such is the case in Jaavon and the Unknown Gentleman.  The painting is Kaphar’s response to Gentleman with Negro Attendant, a portrait by Ralph Earl from ca. 1785-88.  (The two paintings hang side by side in the Colonial Gallery.)

Earl’s portrait depicts a large, well-dressed white man waited on by a young black boy.  This kind of portrait – where a servant is portrayed only as a sign of the wealth of his master – was common in Colonial America.

As Kaphar elaborates, “In the original painting, Gentleman with Negro Attendant the black child is stripped of all identity.  He has no name, grotesquely articulated features and is bereft of human dignity.

In Jaavon and the Unknown Gentleman the black figure is replaced with a living and particular child – my young neighbor.” In repainting Earl’s original work, Kaphar returns specificity to the figure of the black boy. The “gentleman”, however, becomes “unknown”, as Kaphar cuts holes in the canvas where the head and hands of the “gentleman” were once rendered. By changing the original title, Kaphar further shifts the underlying power structure in Earl’s portrait.

This reminds me that I need to start seeing, not simply looking. This is true for art, but also for novels and films too. It’s important to ask how are women and others portrayed? Who are designated as leaders? Who are active agents in the plot? Who causes actions to happen? Who merely reacts or responds?

Too much of what we view, read, or hear is loaded with sexist, classist and racist assumptions. So much so that we don’t even notice it – as the painting example above demonstrates. Unless we educate ourselves otherwise – and even then it’s difficult – we are blind to it all.

You may also like Power of Reframing and Prisons For Profit.

by Roxanne -

Make Your $$ Do More – Use Cash

Photo USMint.gov

We vote with our dollars everytime we buy something. Use your hard earned money to do more. Buy strategically by looking for fair trade and sustainable items. Use cash when you can.

Recently a commenter on Naked Capitalism made some points worth considering about why it’s better to pay with cash.

“Paying cash to the small merchants in your community helps them in many ways. It avoids the skimming off of percentages from the credit card companies, it avoids the imposition of debit card swipe fees on merchants or you, and it gives them an alternate to begging for credit to make payroll.

If you are scared of carrying much cash, write checks.

. . . Plastic is for proliferate pushover pansies pretending that convenience trumps all.”

I think she or he makes a good point. From now on, I will use cash when I can – like at the grocery store or a local restaurant.

You may also like Buy Local – Support Your Community,

by Roxanne -

“It Takes a Pillage” Part 2

We in the United States wage economic terrorism, along with other rich countries and our multi-nationals who have carte-blanche to do whatever they want. This is what is meant by systemic injustice.

Most Americans are very concerned with personal immorality, but we rarely want to learn or understand about the poverty, death and violence we create through our unfair trade and tax laws.

However, as moral persons we are responsible for both personal morality and the morality, or immorality, of our trade laws and economic systems.

Our country holds both the purse and the purse strings and still we want more! We can’t hope to end terrorism against us when we continue to wage economic terrorism against others around the world.

This article from the Guardian describes a good example of the systemic evil perpetrated by rich countries – including the U.S. You won’t find this in the U.S. media. The article explains how we want the rules for global taxation to remain in our favor and in the favor of rich countries and mult-national corporations, rather than be FAIR. Here’s an excerpt:

On one side of this fight sit Britain, the US, the EU and other rich countries, which want to maintain the pre-eminence of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), a club of rich countries, as the body that dominates the setting of global tax rules. On the other side, along with South Africa, sit Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and other developing countries, which want developing countries to have a bigger voice.

When a multinational from one country invests in another, these global rules form the framework for deciding which country gets to tax which bits of the resulting income, and to what degree. Current OECD-dominated rules tend to skew taxing rights towards richer countries, and do a poor job of stopping multinational corporations (typically from rich countries) setting up schemes to avoid tax, often via tax havens.

The developing countries are seeking to strengthen the UN’s own tax committee – the committee of experts on international co-operation in tax matters – which could potentially represent and advance the interests of developing countries far better than the OECD ever can. And, as Chile’s permanent mission to the UN noted recently, the UN tax committee “is the only body with global membership in which these issues can be discussed“.

More than a quarter of G20 member states – including Mexico, its next chair – are on record in favour of a stronger committee, and now, after years of relative quiescence on this crucial issue, developing countries seem to be finding their voice.

The world doesn’t need Free Trade – we need FAIR Trade. This is the way to peace and sustainability.

When I asked my friend L, “Why do we think we have the right to loot and pillage other countries?” she didn’t hesitate one second responding sarcastically, “Because we think we’re ‘blessed.'”

What about you? Do you think what we have in the United States is the result of being “blessed”? Think again.

This article is just one more reminder that our U.S. economy and lifestyles are carried on the backs of others in poor countries – and we make it that way. To refuse to learn more is to collude with and be culpable for systemic evil.

You may also like It Takes a Pillage,  Are We So Different?, How Much is Enough? and What is White Privilege?