What's in a Name?

There is a family in northeast Pennsylvania who wanted the bakery at their local ShopRite supermarket to make a cake for their son and they were upset that the store refused to put their child's name in the frosting. They went public thinking that they would get some sympathy--all they wanted, after all, was for their son to celebrate his birthday as other children do--but the compassion wasn't forthcoming. Clearly this is one of those stories that necessitates an understanding of ALL of the facts. So here they are:  the child's name is Adolph Hitler Campbell. (Pictured in the photo is JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell, Adolph's younger sister, and the father.)  Keep in mind that "Adolph Hitler" is just a name; nothing more than a unique vocalization that creates a sound that others can recognize as descriptor for, in this case, another person. But most of us don't look at it like this particular name because attached to the sound of Adolph Hitler are some very dark associations.

This reminds me that Adolph is one of those names that has been pretty much stricken from the list of options in all but white supremacist communities. It used to be a pretty common German name, and a nice one at that.  But the actions of one man ruined it for all of the future Adolphs of the world.  Osama is another, unless you run with certain crowds. And while many Hispanics name their boys Jesus, how many English speakers refer to their son by the same name as the being who Christians consider to be the "Son of God"?  "Come up here Jesus and clean your room like I told you." That sounds like the start of a good joke.  Why does that somehow work in one culture but not another?  Nobody thinks twice about Jesus the Mexican taxi driver or Krishna the Indian waiter.

Like the fish that can't comprehend the water that is all around it, most of us miss the chance to see the funny and ironic connections between names and meanings in our own culture.  If I said that Bulgarians are prone to naming one another after trees and that Oak, Maple, Hickory, and Pine were particularly popular, most of us would think this odd since we don't do it in our culture.  But 19th and 20th century English speakers in both North America and Great Britain commonly named their children after flowers such as Rose, Violet, Daisy, Lily, Iris, and Hyacinth.  And along with old school names like Hazel and Hannah and Emma, little girls are once again receiving such flowery monikers.

So below is an article on the unique names that many Zimbabweans give their children.  Their creativity is reminiscent of Native Americans and names such as Huata (which means Carrying Seeds in a Basket) or Kaliska (which means Coyote Chasing Deer).  Both are from the Miwok Tribe -- who appear to be particularly creative as compared to people who name their children Bob and Bill and Sue.

I guess I'm struck by how many names have some deeper meaning that has been lost along the way, and how often do we find things of other cultures funny and strange when we could see the same phenomenon in our own way of life -- if we were interested enough to look.  Check out the article and then reflect on how often you find the names of others odd.

"In a Land of Homemade Names, Tiffany Doesn't Cut It"

Samuel, by the way, means "one who is heard by God."

What "Bringing Everyone to the Table" Really Means

Rick Warren and Barack Obama appear to have a strained relationship. Apparently they first met a couple of years ago when Warren invited the then Senator to speak at his church in southern California. I guess it went well enough that Obama was invited back during the presidential campaign--but was then summarily shown the door by questions (from Warren) that he was not prepared to answer. Seems it was the singular moment in an eighteen month run where the masterful politico slipped and fell.

And now, suddenly, the jeans wearing minister is back on the national scene after being invited to deliver the opening prayer at the Presidential Inauguration. The problem is that this man with a modest wardrobe but an enormous influence embraces a number of views that many Obama supporters do not accept. And more than a few of the Warren critics think that choosing him for this role in the day's ceremony is a slap in the face to thousands of LGBT people and their supporters who worked long and hard to elect this 44th President.

Here, for example, are some of the minister's comments about same-sex marriage that were pulled from a December 2008 interview with Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet:

Waldman: Do you support civil unions or domestic partnerships?

Warren: I don't know if I'd use the term there. But I support full equal rights for everybody in America. I don't believe we should have unequal rights depending on particular lifestyles, or whatever stuff like that. So I fully support equal rights.

Waldman: What about partnership benefits in terms of insurance or hospital visitation?

Warren: Not a problem with me...I'm not opposed to that as much as I'm opposed to the redefinition of a 5,000 year old definition of marriage. I'm opposed to having a brother and sister together and call that marriage. I'm opposed to an older guy marrying a child and calling that marriage. I'm opposed to one guy having multiple wives and calling that marriage.

Waldman: Do you think those are equivalent to gays getting married?

Warren: Oh, I do. For 5,000 years marriage has been defined by every single ulture and every single religion...as a man and a woman.

My somewhat imperious nature emerges when it comes to religious belief systems, and so I feel the urge to say something about the "5,000 years" comment. Here goes.

Most people have a idyllic vision of marriage and families when they look to our past--which they characterize as guided by a noble moral order and cultural practices that were inspired by and acceptable to their creator. But in fact, families, sex, and marriage were rarely characterized by behavior that current moralists would endorse. So, for example, even as recent as the late 19th century, the age of consent (for marriage) for young girls was ten years of age in over half of the U.S. states and territories--and very often ten year olds were married off to men two and three times their age. This is just one small factoid from a past that most Christians would not want to recognize for their "Christian nation"--but it's enough for me to raise an eyebrow in any moralistic reference to our "glorious past."

And now to bringing people to the table, the issue at hand...

Given my distaste for anything that even remotely smacks of heterosexism or homophobia, I can understand the annoyance of Warren's detractors. However, I have to give Obama credit for sticking to his word about bringing everyone to the table. The "table" he is referring to, after all, is (or should be) the one where important decisions are made and "everyone" includes the very people with whom he disagrees most vehemently. Anyone can pretend to involve the other side in their decision-making conversations by pretending to listen to their ideas--much like a savvy parent learns feign interest in the protestations of a teenager. But Obama's critics are off the mark if they think that a man should be left off the guest list when his views about same-sex marriage are in line with 52 percent of his state's (California) residents. Warren is the spokesperson for other side and his people, regardless of how distasteful their ideas to some, would take up over half the seats of that table if they all received invitations to come dialogue.

Somewhere in here is a lesson for most of us. How often do we share a table with the very people with whom we so stridently disagree--and then attempt to see the world from their eyes? How often do we see ourselves as they do -- as crazy and out of touch, or as too intransigent in our strident opinions. More often than not, I would venture to guess, it's considerably easier for most of us to simply lob derision grenades in the direction of our enemies.

Bush failed at being a uniter. Clinton wasn't serious when he claimed that he would surely listen to all perspectives. Bush, Sr., Reagan, Carter, et. al. -- they all claimed that they would work to build alliances but then fell short of this estimable goal. Obama, by contrast, a man who is turning out to be the consummate politician, might surprise us all; he might actually mean what he says.

The Grief of War Comes Full Circle: The Essence of Race Relations

Sometimes one person can change the tide. A single life. A single story. A single face. Someone to whom we can relate, someone who we can imagine as a friend. Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish may now, to his own horror, fit the profile of one who can help change the course of the violence in some small measure in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dr. Abuelaish is an unusual man, a Palestinian doctor who reports for Israeli television. Though he lives in Gaza, he was educated in Israel, speaks Hebrew, and works in an Israeli hospital. Dr. Abuelaish has been giving Israelis daily reports on the military campaign in Gaza, and he is a man who works for peace, who builds bridges between worlds. This past Friday, he witnessed three of his daughters and a niece killed by Israeli bombs (and another daughter seriously wounded). His first panicked moments of terror were broadcast live on Israeli television.

WATCH a three minute video of this television segment.

As we all know, there is often little compassion between warring people, little willingness to recognize the humanity in one another. After all, how would it be possible to kill others if we didn't see them as less human than us? How would Palestinians find justification for launching rockets into Jewish civilian neighborhoods? How do Jews justify bombing Palestinian civilian homes in their search for their enemy?

But ironically, Dr. Abuelaish is the face of a friend to Israelis. That very simple fact is what has the power to make a difference, to crack open hearts so that enemies begin to see one another as human, as suffering, as wanting the same things for themselves and their families.

So what if we apply this to our own wars? What if we knew the faces and the stories and the pain of hundreds of thousands of grieving Iraqis as well as we are coming to know the faces of the passengers on U.S. Air Flight 1549 (the plane that landed in the Hudson River)? What if, just as we saw ourselves in the cracking composure of the father who could return home to kiss his five year old daughter after surviving a plane crash, we could see ourselves in each relationship and family that is lost and torn and broken by war? How would "our" Iraq war be different? How would we be different?

And what if we step back and apply this to the way we war with one another figuratively? How differently would we treat people who we hate from a distance if we could see ourselves in them, and if we could actually see the shared pain we all carry within?

So this story is not simply about Israelis and Palestinians; it's about all of us.

WATCH another video that includes reactions from Dr. Abuelaish's Jewish colleagues.

Did Hell Just Freeze Over?

Really. That's the question that I'm asking myself right now.

Why? Because I just read that a CNN poll from last week found that 69 percent of blacks in America currently believe that MLK's vision "has been fulfilled." This is quantum levels of optimism beyond a mere majority. Say what? Black people? You mean the very people who for as long as we've been doing opinion polls have been the quintessential pessimists? Yes...those people.

I know you're thinking that if black people are so effusive, then white people must practically unanimously agree that we have reached the promise land. And in this case, you would be wrong...because only 46 percent of them do.

Yes, we have suddenly turned the world upside down.

Let me give you some context. When asked if this country had fulfilled Martin Luther King's vision in March 2008, the poll numbers were as unnewsworthy as they were predictable: 34 percent of black respondents said "yes," compared with 35 percent of white respondents. If we go back several years, before Barack Obama entered the public limelight, those numbers were more like 20 percent for blacks and 40 percent for whites.

This just might be the first time ever in our history that African Americans are more optimistic than white Americans with respect to the position of black people in the United States racial hierarchy.

OK, so what's going on? That's what I want to know. What's this mean?

I have a few thoughts. Black people are riding a spiritual high that crescendoed right after the election when, for the first time ever, a majority said that we would eventually find a solution to our race conundrum. And now on the eve of a (half) black president, the glee is too much to contain. Sure, the enthusiasm will wane, but for the moment how can the world not look rosy and cheerful -- as long as people with brown skin refrain from riding the subway in Oakland. (OK, I'm being cynical here; I'll return to that story in a future posting.)

The white celebrations, by contrast, do not have the momentum of 400 years of mistreatment and second (or third) class citizenship. Maybe white people are feeling a bit nervous about having their racial universe turned on its head. Sure, there are positives to the transformation -- like the prospect of being able to have normalized relationships and straightforward conversations with black and brown people. But on the negative side, there is a visible crack in the foundation of white privilege and I can only imagine that it's weakening the support beams holding up the house of normal -- and white people are feeling the stress.

But really, I feel like I'm shooting plastic ducks floating past at one of those midway stands at a carnival -- and it's highly unlikely that I've tagged the one with the star on the bottom. In other words, I'm at a loss on this one. Someone tell me what these poll numbers mean.

Identity: Do we choose it or does it choose us?

Soon, the first African American president will be sworn into office. Let’s leave aside the historical nature of this event and analyze what makes Barack Obama “African American.” Clearly, he has African roots; his father was Kenyan. But his mother was a white woman from Kansas and one of her parents claimed to have some Native American ancestry. And his stepfather, the man who helped shape his personal moral and ethical sense of the world, was Indonesian. But while he hardly knew his African father, having spent only a couple of weeks in his presence as a young boy, he was well acquainted with his stepfather. And while his mother is the person about whom he says “the best parts of me are because of her,” he also spent considerable time with his white grandparents. So how is it that any of us would think to simply call this man "African American"?

It is possible to imagine how these relationships could develop in Barack Obama a global, multi-ethnic identity. But they do not. For in spite of the fact that he is the quintessential "multicultural, multiracial human being," at some point in his post teen years he chose to identify himself as African American.

But did he really choose?

Consider this: If identity grows out of culture (the people and environment in which we grow up as opposed to the blood that flows through our veins), one would think that Obama might consider himself white—or maybe even Indonesian. In fact, technically he has as much claim to being a "white American" as to being a "black" or an "African American," and clearly he is more personally connected to white culture than he is to black or African culture. But he nonetheless refers to himself as "black" and "African American."

We know that he was seen by others as “black,” and those of us who have up close and personal experience with multiracial people know that they are generally labeled by their dominant features. But people who are multiracial do not have to accept those labels...right? So could Obama have chosen to identify himself as white? What about refusing to choose one or the other and instead claim his biracial status? Was this possible?

Here's the question for the moment: What is it that makes Obama feel most connected to (i.e., identified with) black people? And what is it that allows most of us to accept this identification with little dissonance?

And what about the identities of each one of us? Why do we select the racial, ethnic, and ancestry labels that are applied to us? Think about it: Why do we respond in the way that we do when someone asks us, "What are you?" What aspects of our culture/biological ancestry/physical appearance are we including and excluding in our identifications? Are we merely mimicking our parents and grandparents?

Check out this map of the "Obama extended family" from the New York Times.