Posts Tagged ‘culture’

food chains

Thursday, May 6th, 2010

Last year, I experimented with a vegetarian diet for six weeks, just to try it. I have no ethical problem with eating animals; my foray was inspired by a desire to eat more healthily as much as by a curiosity of how difficult it would be. I abstained from beef, poultry, pork, eggs, fish, and even foods containing animal broth — I wanted to make sure no animals died as a direct result of my diet. It was not nearly so difficult as I anticipated, since there are plenty of tasty substitutes for animal meat available these days.

An unexpected side effect was that I started paying attention (for awhile, anyway) to the fact that I was taking an animal’s life when I ate meat. This is not intuitive for Americans. Our food is highly processed, and we are psychologically removed from that fact by the very design of our advertising. Not all cultures suffer this indifference, though. For instance, before eating a meal in Japan, one usually says “Itadakimasu” (いただきます for Hiragana readers). Literally, it means “I will receive,” but it is understood that what will be received is two-fold: On the one hand, you are receiving a meal from a host who has prepared it. On the other, you are receiving nourishment from an animal that has given its life, or spirit.

I was reminded of this on Saturday night, when I had the opportunity to see Disney’s new nature documentary, Oceans. Several scenes feature our oceans’ complex food chains. Gargantuan Blue Whales swallow tiny Krill by the thousands. Bigger fish eat smaller fish, and smaller fish eat plants or even smaller fish.

Watching a Dolphin chase down a Tuna was not particularly disturbing to me. I noticed something, though: witnessing a Great White Shark hunt a Sea Lion was uncomfortable… and eating popcorn as baby sea turtles were carried off and eaten by seagulls just felt wrong. What’s the reason for this disparity?

Maybe seeing lots of animals die at one time keeps me from viewing them as individuals and making a connection. Perhaps it’s more difficult to identify with a fish than with a mammal. Definitely, it seems unfair that baby Turtles don’t even make it to the water before they’re subjected to the maw of a hungry sky rat Seagull.

It seems that I pick favorites (unconsciously) among animals based solely on how I can identify with them, and that thought is disturbing. However, it is symptomatic of a much more serious problem if it also describes how I relate to my fellow humans.

A close friend of mine shared with me recently that she looks at how humans value one another in terms of fractions. For instance, I might look at the guy who sells me a burrito at Taco Bell as 1/4 of a person. He is only valuable to me insofar as he will hand me the food that I request. I might feel superior to him if I think I am paid more for my job or if I think it requires more expertise to perform. Maybe I wouldn’t take much effort in being polite to him or considering how his day has been. On the other hand, I might treat a good looking celebrity as 7/4 of a person if she needed something from me. Perhaps I would listen carefully to everything she said in hopes of making her happy.

If we don’t automatically identify with someone because they are like us or because they can fill some need of ours, we have a tendency to treat them as less of a person and to be less concerned with their needs.

As it is in the ocean, so it is in life. Everyone suffers and is subject to the merciless nature of this world. Young children, the old and sick, the good looking and the undesirable will experience pain, loss, and death. Some go before they ever have a chance to build up their defenses, and parents are not there to provide protection. Some are hunted down in the prime of their lives by a calculated and merciless enemy. Some find themselves dying alone and friendless when age has taken a toll on their bodies.

It’s easy for me to have more sympathy for children, or good-looking people, or those who it seems are making some sort of contribution to society. That thought worries me, and more so because I don’t feel like it’s one I have consciously developed. Perhaps if I notice this in myself, others may be in that situation, too.

For those of us who follow Jesus of Nazareth, we are called to a different Way:

As Jesus was approaching Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging. Now hearing a crowd going by, he began to inquire what this was. They told him that Jesus of Nazareth was passing by. And he called out, saying, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Those who led the way were sternly telling him to be quiet; but he kept crying out all the more, “Son of David, have mercy on me!” And Jesus stopped and commanded that he be brought to Him; and when he came near, He questioned him, “What do you want Me to do for you?” And he said, “Lord, I want to regain my sight!” And Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has made you well.” Immediately he regained his sight and began following Him, glorifying God; and when all the people saw it, they gave praise to God.

My friend who talked about fractions said she thought Jesus never viewed people that way. Everyone else tells the blind and the hurting and the forgotten to be quiet and to leave Jesus alone, but He looks at things differently. As His followers, should we not try and do the same?

In the end, we still live in a dog-eat-dog world. People are going to suffer and get knocked down by the world… but if every follower of Jesus tries a little more to love the unloved and to treat them like Jesus would, the ocean will become a little less scary.

what christians can learn from vampires: an essay

Saturday, October 24th, 2009

I watched a lot of Buffy the Vampire Slayer during my last semester in college. I wanted to decompress after classes, and I deemed it to be the best thing on television one afternoon around 2 o’clock. That was it. I used to make fun of people who watched that show, too. It just so happens that Joss Whedon is a very good storyteller.

Buffy is not the only vampire story I’ve liked, though. I was enmeshed in the Twilight series earlier this year; I read all four books in about three weeks. On the one hand, I like a good plot. On the other, I eschew pretty much all things scary. I’ve decided that I can stomach vampires because they have super powers and are surrounded in mystery. It’s the same reason I enjoy comics so much: Supernatural powers + mythological saga = Lloyd is hooked.

Given my Buffy and Twilight affinity, it’s not surprising that this article, written by self-described feminist Latoya Peterson, grabbed my attention. If I am understanding correctly, her premise is that recent vampire lore fails to exhibit feminist values and actually retards the liberation of women, as it were. She sees a trend in which women are relegated to a weak position: they are the object of violence and in need of protection. She believes that, compared to newer implementations, Buffy is more faithful to true feminist ideals. I’m not going to spend any time criticizing Ms. Peterson’s understanding of Buffy or Twilight (it seems a good number of people have already done so in the comments), nor am I going to try to judge this application of feminism (I’m unqualified to do so). What I will do is contend that followers of Jesus can learn something from the argument presented in her column.

In case you haven’t read the article, let me present a few quotes (links have been removed):

The latest wave of novels and series … reflect our culture’s deep ambivalence about women’s sexuality and our obsession with glorifying chastity and sexual violence.

Stephanie Meyer … has been criticized for emphasizing chastity in the story arc between Bella Swan and Edward Cullen. Quite often, their scenes together felt like an extended tease … Alan Ball, the creator of True Blood, may have more progressive politics than Meyer … But, from a feminist perspective, he is still transmitting the same idea: To be desired, a woman should be beautiful, virginal, and submissive.

In Buffy, there is also a slight whiff of the virginity good/sex bad dynamic. … Buffy’s approach to sex is remarkably third wave. After a relatively celibate Season Three, Buffy proceeds to sleep with three more men (two human, one vampire) before the series closes. … This attitude toward sex also extends to the rest of the cast … most of the characters, after the initial awkwardness of adolescence, go on to have healthy and varied sex lives with a variety of other partners.

When I first read this, my initial response was heavily critical. Peterson’s view presupposes that extra-marital sex is not a moral problem; she vilifies media she perceives as “glorifying chastity.” From a christian perspective, chastity is an asset to be desired — an ideal to be encouraged. The concept that celibacy results from awkward feelings or that it hinders a “healthy” lifestyle is clearly contrary to the assertions of scripture. It’s very easy to focus on these warring philosophies and miss the common ground. If we look closer, however, we will see that both camps act from a thirst for what is just and a disdain for what is counterfeit.

A Double Standard

We have to remember that Peterson writes from a feminist perspective; she is concerned about how media and literature influence social perceptions and expectations of women. She specifically complains that the modern vampire sagas promote a notion that women should be chaste and subject to a man’s protection (or lack thereof). Inherent in that complaint is the recognition that men are not subject to the same expectations. Can anyone claim that such a double standard does not exist? It is an ancient injustice that continues to find traction today. Followers of Jesus should deplore this double standard more than anyone.

I’d like to examine the Hebrew narrative of Tamar and Amnon. Even though it was forbidden for kings, David had many wives. Tamar and Amnon were half sister and brother, both children of David by different mothers. Amnon actually fell in love with his sister, but because of the familial relation, he could do nothing about it. He became so obsessed that he was nigh physically ill. On the advice of an evil friend, Amnon tricked Tamar into being alone with him. Then, he made his sexual intentions clear. Tamar begged for him to reconsider, and even suggested that he ask David to let them marry. It’s hard to tell if she honestly thought they might marry, or if she was just desperate for a way out of the immediate situation. Either way, Amnon did not listen; he raped her. Of course, this is plenty of injustice for one story, but it actually gets worse. After the rape, the scripture says, “Then Amnon hated her with intense hatred. In fact, he hated her more than he had loved her. Amnon said to her, ‘Get up and get out!’ “ In the end, Tamar goes to live with her full brother, Absalom, as “a desolate woman.” That is the last we hear of her.

If there is a more apt display of this double standard that includes both sexual violence and the degradation of a woman due to her sexual status, I don’t know what it is. The point I want to make abundantly clear is this: Scripture never condones any part of this situation. Clearly, the reader is intended to react with disgust at Amnon’s actions and to mourn the travesty to which Tamar is subjected. We are told that David is made aware of the rape and is angry, but apparently he does not punish Amnon. Amnon is eventually killed by Absalom, but it appears that Absalom’s actions are politically motivated. Worse still, Absalom may have even helped plan Tamar’s rape in the first place. In the end, Tamar is never afforded true justice, and all parties involved (including David) suffer. Scripture does not condone Amnon’s actions, nor Absalom’s, nor David’s. Instead, we are shown exactly what can happen when God’s laws are subverted: there is only disaster.

The sexual double standard survives in our own culture, despite advances in feminist thinking. A number of comedic movie plots revolve around a young man’s quest to lose his virginity. Virginal men are viewed as weak, inept, and unattractive to the opposite sex. After all, why else would they choose to remain celibate? On the other hand, men who engage in sex with multiple partners are viewed as desirable, adventurous, and more masculine in general. Conversely, women who have sex with multiple partners are viewed as immoral, self-debasing, and undesirable as a mate. In a perversion of logic, women who are chaste find themselves equally accosted as prudish or non-affectionate. In this scenario, men are encouraged to pursue sexual pleasure while women are relegated to the untenable station of being judged no matter what they do. It is no wonder, then, that feminists (and anyone else who cares for justice) would reject these terms.

Unfortunately, this is not the only sexual double standard that exists. Some followers of Jesus have allowed an even less equitable arrangement to survive over the years. What else can we call it when homosexual practices are attacked as immoral, but a blind eye is turned to premarital heterosexual activity? Surely it is unethical to apply God’s standards to one group of people while failing to do so with another. If that injustice is allowed to continue, we can be sure that very few among those who do not follow Jesus will ever be persuaded to start.

In both cases, we would do well to follow consider the thoughts of Jesus: Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

Let us not miss the main point here; Jesus is not saying that we should all walk around with sawdust and planks in our eyes. That would be ill-advised. So what, exactly, is He saying?

It isn’t really rocket science; both sawdust and planks make it impossible to see clearly. We need to cleanse our eyes. It is not wrong to help a fellow believer clear their vision if they are stumbling (sexually, or otherwise); we simply need to make sure our own is clear before we get out the tweezers.

The truth about sex is that God designed it for our benefit. Whether one believes in God or not, and irrespective of gender, the plan attributed to Him in scripture still works best. It was devised to be shared between a husband and wife, exclusively. When we engage in it any other way, we miss out on the full benefit that God intends.

An Impossible Battle

Nonetheless, even those who submit fully to scriptural teaching about sex find it difficult to wait. Remember Peterson’s Twilight observation? “Quite often, their scenes together felt like an extended tease.” I have to agree with her… that can’t be right. Surely God is not interested in seeing us suffer while we fight against the desires He established in our bodies? Yet, almost every christian dating couple I know struggles with maintaining chastity before marriage. Is God just setting us up for failure? I don’t think so.

Secular thought tells us that the solution is for everyone to satiate their sexual desires as they please. However, followers of Jesus are not free to pursue that course; it is incompatible with biblical teaching. So how can we date and have limited physical contact without wanting to consummate the relationship?

Part of the difficulty arises from facets of our contemporary culture. Humans usually reach sexual maturity around our early to mid teen years. Despite this fact, in most states we are not even allowed to marry on our own cognizance until age 18. Even then, the average age of first marriage for men in the U.S. is 27.7, with women marrying slightly earlier at 25.6. That means most followers of Jesus in the U.S. are dealing with a decade of sexual maturity before they are able to consummate in a chaste way.

Christians have also taken secular dating norms and attempted to merge them with a christian lifestyle. Simply put, it is nearly impossible to abstain from sexual activity if one is constantly engaging in what is normally considered foreplay.

The solution is not to adopt unscriptural sexual values, but rather to effect practical standards by which we can live out true chastity. First, we may need to consider whether we want to discourage marriage at a relatively young age. As Paul said, it is better to marry than to burn with passion. I think many concerned parents have opted to encourage later marrying ages to ensure financial and emotional stability, with the tacit understanding that chastity is difficult or impossible. Perhaps we need to reconsider our priorities as we raise new generations of believers. Second, we need to assess why we’ve embraced our culture’s dating standards. The simple fact is that foreplay without consummation amounts to an “extended tease.” We should be able to agree that this is not good.

A Look in the Mirror

One characteristic of the newer vampire series is a habitual deviation from traditional vampire lore. For instance, vampires in Twilight and True Blood cast reflections in mirrors, but those in the Buffyverse do not. In yet another unlikely convergence with Ms. Peterson, I like Buffy’s world the best. I like the idea that soulless, parasitic creatures cannot see their own reflection. If that is true, then creatures with souls who spread life, rather than take it, must surely see a reflection when they look in the mirror.

As followers of Christ, it is high time we take a look, ourselves. If the mirror we need comes in the form of someone with whom we do not fully agree, then all the better. We cannot refuse to learn from what is reflected back at us. Perhaps by making the necessary adjustments and cleaning up our act, we will better match the image God desires for us in the first place. Perhaps that image will be more appealing than the counterfeit version that some non-christian thinkers have seen.

We can refuse to look at the mirror at all, or choose to see nothing when we do. If that is our choice, we may have more in common with the vampires than we think.

pollice verso

Wednesday, October 14th, 2009

I still remember my first experience with a horror movie. I think I was six, and we had a vhs claymation movie about prehistoric times. Triceratops and a T-Rex got into it with one another. T-Rex took a chomp out of Triceratops, but Triceratops came back by goring T-Rex’s stomach. There was clay blood. It was scary.

I never really liked watching that movie, and I always closed my eyes at the scary part. It wasn’t graphic at all by today’s standards, but at the time it was terrifying for me. I don’t think the death itself really bothered me, though. It’s just that it was so calculated, so protracted, and so inevitable. Even though T-Rex started the fight, I still felt badly for him as he was disemboweled. Of course, this type of thing happens among animals every day, from insects in my backyard to lions and antelope on the Serengeti. You gotta eat, and in the animal world, for many species that entails chasing something down and defeating it in battle. I always identified with Wilbur from Charlotte’s web. He understood cruel reality, but he never quite got over the fact that Charlotte had to kill her trapped insects. If he could change things, he would.

He couldn’t, though.

Charlotte still sucked the blood of her victims. Bambi’s mom still caught a bullet. Even king Mufasa was run down by a stampede of wildebeest.

So when I think about the harsh reality of death in the animal kingdom, I’m supremely glad to be a human. In most scenarios, I won’t have to face off against a predator. It’s very unlikely that I will be hunted down for food. In fact, I do not have to hunt my own food either. I don’t have to kill if I would rather not. I can even choose to be a vegetarian if the idea of animals dying for my sustenance bothers me.

Cartoons aside, real animals do not have the ability to plot out a murder in malice. Most certainly, they do not have the wherewithal to torture a victim. Of course, some animals have it worse than others. Cats play with their food all the time, and sometimes the prey dies slowly. However, no animal inflicts pain or distress on another for the purpose of seeing it suffer.

This is where I’m not quite as glad to be a human… because while we don’t have so much to worry about from the animal kingdom, we have a lot to be concerned about from one another.

I was reminded of this recently when I saw a trailer for the new Saw movie. I’ve never watched the series, but from what I understand, the antagonist traps victims and puts them in scenarios where they must gore, maim, or otherwise torture themselves to live. While it’s true that I have a particularly weak stomach, I’ve never been able to understand how anyone who values human life could enjoy watching torture. It is so abhorrent to me that I refuse to watch anything to do with it. The thought of a person causing fear and pain like that on purpose angers me. Last year, I went to see a movie with some friends. Within the first two minutes, it was evident that it would be focusing on torture. I asked the girls I was with if we could leave and watch something else, and they were kind enough to agree (I don’t think it bothered them like it did me).

I’ve asked friends what they enjoy about this type of entertainment in the past. I’ve never been able to understand how someone who values human life could enjoy watching torture. Some have defended the Saw series by explaining that it actually extolls the value of human life. Apparently, it teaches us how far we should be willing to go to protect it.

Seriously?

I cannot see how watching multiple gruesome scenes does anything but lower the value of human life in our eyes. Of course, I am not saying that everyone who watches these movies is in support of torturing and maiming people. In fact, many people who seem to enjoy watching Saw movies are the same ones who call for swift justice upon hearing news stories where someone is kidnapped and tortured. So apparently, while a situation is horrid and vile in reality, it is… entertaining when posed as fiction?

Politically, I hold libertarian views, so I’m not calling for government censorship of these types of movies. What I am asking is for those of us who are Christians to think about what we consume. Some will tell me to get off my high horse and recognize that there is a difference between fiction and reality. Truly, there is. Why not use that argument with pornography? Sexually immoral behavior in real life: sinful. As entertainment? OK. I think we have bought into too much of our culture’s assertions about fantasy. Namely, that what occurs in the heart is not as important as what occurs through our bodies. Jesus taught that what comes out of the mouth reflects what is in the heart, and that what is in the heart makes someone “unclean”. “For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.” Similarly, when it comes to physical sins like murder or adultery, Jesus taught that entertaining the act in one’s heart amounts to the same thing as committing it.

I believe our culture is beginning to face the consequences of that truth now. We have continued to expand the outer limits of what is considered acceptable in terms of violence and sexual deviance. Of course, we are not the only culture to have done this. Toward the very end of Rome’s existence as a Republic, gladiatorial games came into mainstream use as a form of entertainment. POWs, slaves, and sometimes volunteers fought to the death for the entertainment of the populace and at the behest of political leaders. It is telling that only animals and second or third class citizens acted in this capacity. Legally speaking, citizens were forbidden from acting as gladiators because it would endanger their lives (this was not always enforced). In other words, the Romans respected life for some groups, but not others.

The patron of the games (or the crowd, in many instances) could determine whether an obviously defeated gladiator would live. The preference would be indicated by pollice verso, or “with a turned thumb”. It’s not clear whether this gesture is the same “thumbs up” (or down) with which we’re familiar today, but either way, the defeated gladiator was at the mercy of the audience. Now, we’re talking about people who were entertained by watching a fight to the death. Unless the defeated was popular, he had a very good chance of dying for his loss.

When I look at my culture, I see a people who is increasingly bloodthirsty. I see a people who requires more and more suffering to be satiated. I see the beginnings of barbarism creeping into mainstream acceptance.

I can think of no time in our country’s history in which we have more closely identified with the Romans. For many decades now, our legislature has eschewed the values of a republic and moved towards the perceived virtues of empire. If we are to repeat history, this change will continue to our own demise. Whether the decline of the state instigates the moral failure of the people, or whether the reverse is true, we would do well not to ignore the symptoms of this move. The devaluing of human life combined with the thirst for suffering can only lead to disaster.

An early Christian writer, Tertullian, commented on his culture’s ambivalence toward the gladiators:

On the one and the same account they glorify them and they degrade and diminish them; yes, further, they openly condemn them to disgrace and civil degradation; they keep them religiously excluded from council chamber, rostrum, senate, knighthood, and every other kind of office and a good many distinctions. The perversity of it! They love whom they lower; they despise whom they approve; the art they glorify, the artist they disgrace.

Could we not say the same of ourselves? If we patronize faithfully an art that glorifies torture, how can we condemn those who practice it in earnest? We have already done this in the sexual arena. If, in private, we are sexually immoral or consume pornography to no end, how do we then look down on prostitutes and use words like slut in our vitriol? Indeed we have fallen prey to the same attitude Tertullian condemned, and we are accelerating down that path even still.

The Roman empire which provided such excesses of cruelty in entertainment did not avoid it in public practice. It adopted the form of execution, which, even by its own standards was excessively cruel. This “ultimate penalty” is what Jesus of Nazareth suffered under the orders of Pontius Pilate.

I do not write this to condemn those who have chosen to patronize movies like Saw, most particularly if they do not consider themselves followers of Jesus. Certainly, it is not the place of Christians to judge those who do not believe. I do, however, want those of us who are Christians to consider what we are approving. Perhaps more importantly, we should ask ourselves where we are headed. After all, the cruelty of the arena was ultimately extended to Christians under Nero, Domitian, and even the relatively benign Marcus Aurelius.

It would be a shame to find ourselves giving the thumbs up to our own demise.

Pigs ‘deserve to be hurt’?

Wednesday, September 17th, 2008

This kind of nonsense really makes me angry. I have no problem with killing animals for food. However, torturing and abusing an animal is completely unacceptable.

Could God, who would not suffer an ox to be muzzled while treading grain, be pleased with this? I think not.

the problem with poo

Tuesday, June 24th, 2008

Recently my good friend and blogging compatriot, Philip, posted about what he has judged to be an instance of subversive racism. Here are a couple of key quotes:

I’ve always wondered about a couple of crude phrases often used among men to announce the need to go to the bathroom. One is, “Well, I need to go drop the Browns off at the Super Bowl.” Tame enough, I guess. But when this phrase is mentioned, a similar phrase usually has to be mentioned in turn: “Need to go drop the Cosby kids off at the pool.”

Is this racist?

I’ve never used the phrase because I thought it to be sort of crude. And now I’m glad I didn’t, because I’m now convinced that it’s racist. And I’m going to discourage my friends from using it.

I appreciate Philip’s comments and will henceforth think twice before choosing from my vast repertoire of poo jokes. Particularly, I’d like to thank Philip for having the courage to write about it publicly. This is obviously a sensitive topic, but ignoring it is not the answer.

I think, somewhere back in the recesses of my mind, I recall having that same knee-jerk reaction when I first heard the “Cosby kids” joke. Since that time, I’ve done some thinking, and I’d like to share those thoughts here. I also welcome any constructive criticism. I’d be interested to know how such a joke is perceived by my black friends, and where the following concepts fit in to that framework.

A common brand of humor constructs the element of comedy by infusing the punchline with somehow shocking or ironic elements. In this case, the irony is that the color “brown” is being used for something other than its literal intention. A less specific euphemism limits the phrase to “I’m going to drop the kids off at the pool.” Either version can evoke the image of little children leaping from someone’s digestive tract and falling into a toilet, which is so shocking as to elicit humor.

Usually, the statement, “I need to defecate” or some other literal approach does not solicit wild laughter. (NB, in some circles this is more than enough to do so.)

The problem we encounter is that sometimes, a punchline may be associated with a history in which the element designed to be appalling turns out to be real. Let’s go ahead and continue with the Cosby version. This joke would be perfectly acceptable in all circles IF we did not have a history of black people having been oppressed or disenfranchised in this country. However, due to that history, we now have to deal with repercussions, including both the perpetuation of racism by unimaginative types, and the paranoia of racism by the over-imaginative ones. Unfortunately, the latter tends to spawn the former, which then generates more of the latter. Vicious cycle, and all that — you know the drill.

The larger issue here is that racism has effectively experienced a redefinition. Merriam Webster currently states racism is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race”. At this point in time, nearly any mention of racial distinctions leads us to assume that racial discrimination has occurred. May we be honest, and admit that races are called races because they have distinctive traits? On a macro level, these traits are described by elements related to pigmentation or geography. On a micro level, there are other distinctive features, including bone structure, height, and even consistency of ear wax.

Let us, for a moment, pretend that we live in a world where racism has never been an issue. In this world, we could use the Cosby joke and it would be genuinely funny. In that world, we could try and say “I’m dropping the Simpson kids off at the pool.”, but it would not be funny. The reason is that human feces are not (naturally) yellow, and they rarely come out shaped like Bart. So the Simpsons have no similarity specific to them from which the joke may draw its analogy. We might use the version that does not mention a specific family, but then the analogy is less defined. The toilet may still resemble a pool, but some explanation is needed. If we are to have the additional similarity of color, only a family whose pigmentation resembled the color of poo would work, because otherwise the color does not lead us to the shocking punchline where we imagine tiny children being dropped into a toilet. In our imaginary, racism-free world, a hostile interpretation would not be open to us because racism would not exist.

Our plight is that the world’s history does contain many examples of racism. Therefore, if a joke may be interpreted to either include or exclude a punchline inspired by racism, we often assume the former. Thus, racism has killed off some of our humor, and also denies us full access to our own language. We have to go out of our way to avoid usage that could be interpreted as racist, and so we lose many analogies and sometimes an entire end of the light spectrum.

Frankly, I’m losing patience with our tired obsession with racism. I can certainly handle the loss of a mediocre poo joke, but our victims extend far beyond that casualty. Now we are trained to look for color differences and see them where they were not likely to be intentional. I believe that we will not see a country where racism is truly extinct until we begin to act like we already live in one. This includes ceasing our ridiculous notion that “we are all the same”. We are decidedly not all the same, and I’m the happier for it. I love seeing God’s artistry in the human palette. We need not assume that any mention of our pigment must carry with it centuries of discrimination, or the notion that our external differences imply unequal inherent worth. By doing so, we cede victory to that sad tradition.

Whether the Cosby joke found its birth in racism or only in irony, I do not know. I would like to give it the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter (perhaps this is naive). In this vein, we’d better be careful about taking the Browns to the Superbowl as well. After all, they were originally intended to be the Brown Bombers, in honor of boxer Joe Louis.

Nonetheless, I take comfort in the fact that I may still build a log cabin, dispense some soft-serve, drop a deuce, have some alone time, lose a few pounds, and make a sacrifice to the porcelain god. If I happen to be at Harding, I might even take a trip to the Bible building. Best toilets on campus.