I spent two weeks backpacking around Tibet at the end of 2001. I stayed in low-cost hostels, camped out in a tent on a glacier river for three days, and even laid my head to rest in a number of Buddhist monasteries. While in Tibet, I went to over 20 monasteries (the major ones and the small ones) and hiked to the base camp of Mt. Everest. Through my travels, I got an intimate glimpse of the people, culture, and the history of Tibet.

I’ve never seen a more beautiful place in all of my travels. Hands down. But it was not aesthetically beautiful in a sense that everything was pristine and perfect….it was breathtaking because the people courageously wore pain and triumph as a minority group in China on their shoulders and were surviving despite all the persecution of the Chinese government.

The controversy over the past few weeks about the Olympic torch has brought to the world’s attention the tense situation in Tibet. While I have tried to push away the troubling aspects about Tibet since I have returned from my visit (watchful police, scared Tibetans, hidden pictures of Dali Lama, amount of fear that pervades Tibetan’s daily lives, destroyed Tibetan monasteries by the Chinese government)—the past few weeks have highlighted important humanitarian issues in world politics that cannot be ignored any longer.

I still remember waking up over the past few weeks and seeing the violence escalate in Tibet (which, by the way, is the most peaceful and non-violent country I have ever visited) on the cover of the New York Times and on CNN.com.

My heart sank.

Most do not understand why people are so enraged about the Chinese governments handling of Tibet. It goes back many years to the persecution that occurred during the Cultural Revolution in China and continues to have an impact today. I’ll provide a brief history (meant to be supplanted by further inquiry). The Cultural Revolution (1966-1976), was a political campaign in China, launched in 1966 by Chinese Communist Party chairman Mao Zedong to eliminate his political rivals and revolutionize Chinese society. In the social chaos and political persecution that followed, thousands died and millions were imprisoned or exiled. Based on something Mao called the ‘four olds’: old ideas, old culture, old customs, and old habits, Mao sought to eliminate anything and everything that existed before his reign and shed the old chains of imperial rule. As a result, a lot of architecture, artwork, books, and anything associated with traditional or foreign cultures was destroyed. In Tibet, monasteries were burned to the ground, ransacked, and the Dali Lami was deemed the number one enemy of the Chinese Socialist Party.

In this context, a state of fear paralyzed Tibet. In 1980 monasteries were again reopened. It must be said that Tibetans have now been granted back many of their religious freedoms. There are now 200 functioning monasteries in Tibet. However, monks and nuns are still treated with great suspicion, and are regularly beaten or detained. And many Tibetans continue to live in fear from the Chinese government.

Today, the situation is of one where the Chinese government is trying to assert control over Tibet. Monks and nuns are constantly under suspicion and frequently brought in to be questioned or beaten. As the Tibetan political and spiritual leader, of course the Dalai Lama campaigned for Tibet’s freedom, despite himself being Chinese born. Currently, the Dalai Lama continues to campaign, but now campaigns for increased human rights, religious and democratic freedom for Tibetans, along with protection of Tibetan national heritage, natural environment (especially pointing out that China are dumping hazardous nuclear and toxic waste in his country). However, in 1988, the Dalai Lama admitted defeat to an extent, and dropped his calls for an independent Tibet, instead asking for the aforementioned rights.

Over the past few weeks, the Olympic torch has been in movement across the world but the protests against China’s human rights violations of Tibet have not ceased.

I think this is a good thing.

On a larger level, the contemporary situation makes me wonder about government over-reaching and when we as citizens push back and demand our rights to humanity. Not only in the United States but across the world. When do we see the struggles of someone outside of our racial, ethnic, and socio-economic class as our own? When does the plight of those in Darfur, Haiti, Tibet, Panama, and Rwanda become our own? What struggles do we take up? And ultimately, how do we promote a world in which ALL people are able to live healthy, productive, and free lives?

I really don’t know the answers to any of these…but I thought I would use Tibet as window to talk about questions that are important to my soul.

Ignorance of Black religious traditions annoys me.

Most scholars of the Black experience in America know this: religion has been central to the African American experience. The prominence of the Black church arose as a necessary institution to counterbalance the everyday existence of the debilitating white power structure in America. The Black church became the only sphere of the Black experience that was free of white power and provided a place where African Americans could reaffirm their humanity. More than any institution in the lives of African Americans, the Black church has become the cornerstone in the fight for freedom. Thus, it should be no surprise that the Black church is viewed as the cultural, social, and political ‘womb’ of the Black community

The above paragraph is simply to make the point that because of a specific racial history in America, the Black church has considerable prominence in the lives of many (certainly not all) Black Americans. And this is important because I need us to understand that the Black church experience in America is historically and contemporarily unique in its mission and purpose.

If we understand the Black church as being critical in slavery, the civil rights movement, and post-civil rights movement attempts at gaining equality—then we can begin to understand the necessity and importance of Black Liberation Theology.

Lets talk about liberation theology for a little bit…just to gain a little bit of clarification and for me to vent about the nonsense that has erupted over Senator Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright from Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago—a church which is based on Black Liberation Theology.

To be clear, I am not defending Rev. Wright’s statements…I will not get into an argument about the legitimacy of the Youtube videos of what he said. What I do want to make clear is that there is a lot being missed in this moment about Rev. Wrights theology that is worth focusing on.

Has it just been me or am I the only one that yelled/sucked teeth (as we Caribbean folk do to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with something)/flipped channels/eventually turned off said TV or radio when realization set in that every news network was reporting on the same nonsense about Obama’s so-called racist/anti-American Black nationalist pastor?

Whewwww… NPR…CNN…FOX…MSNBC…ABC…say word? Enough already…

Between the nonsense that was Geraldine Ferrarro’s offensive remarks and the negative media framing of Rev. Wright’s sermons…I didn’t get my usual fill of news last week…and I’m mad.

I’m mad that in 2008….we still don’t get it.

We don’t get that you cannot extract a few lines from a sermon and use them to characterize the legacy of man and in the same breath condemn him. We don’t get that though Rev. Wrights theology is not based on mainstream (read: white) ideas of Christianity (accepting and enduring your current predicament to reap awards later in heaven)—it articulates and speaks to the needs and frustrations of a significant population of Americans. We do not get that Black Liberation Theology cannot be dismissed as crazy racist rhetoric.

On the contrary: Black Liberation Theology and the theological foundations of this specific inquiry are valuable.

Black liberation theology emerged both as a critique of white conservative theology’s rejection of the role of the Black church in the civil rights movement and as a critique of white liberal theology’s denial of the relation between Black religion and Black power. It was a way to make Christianity relevant to the Black experience.

The first stage of Black Liberation Theology in America began in the mid-1960’s, propelled in large part by James Cone’s book: Black Theology and Black Power which attempted to reconcile Martin Luther King Jr.’s demand for the church to be a radical institution for individual and social change with Malcolm X’s call for Black people to love their blackness. Cone determined that the quest for Black people to overcome the white power structures was not opposite from being a ‘good Christian’. Cone argued that if the gospel is liberation and Jesus Christ is always in the midst of a liberation struggle then the liberation movement of Black power was the gospel message of the 20th century.

In writing about Black Liberation Theology, Hopkins writes, “Black theology of liberation believes in a relationship between God’s freeing activity in the African American community and that same liberating activity documented in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures…black theology sees and experiences the sprit of freedom clearly on the side of the African American poor.” Thus, liberation theology argues that if God is concerned with ‘the least of these’… then he must have been talking about African Americans because they are the most oppressed people in America.

Over time, Black Liberation Theology in many Black churches has helped African Americans cope with the harsh realities of race in American society. It has provided a source of power and a resource for African Americans to make sense of their current reality. The church in the Black community is not simply a place to go and spend one hour on Sunday. It is an experience, a place of strength, center of the community, and a political institution.

Obama attempted to turn this into a teaching moment, in his speech on March 18, 2008 when he explained,

“That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety – the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.”

I talk about the Black church for a reason: to establish that all churches are not the same. And just because they are not does not undermine their legitimacy as a significant religious institution. As a result of the different realties and the racist history of America, a religious theology developed which spoke directly to African Americans attempting to navigate the complicated contours of race and survival in America.

Bottom line: I have realized over the past week that people are scared about what is different and that in 2008 we still don’t get it. We much rather advance negative caricatures of a respected pastor then take five minutes to delve deeper and understand that they could be part of a larger project based on a serious religious/political/social inquiry about how to reconcile Christianity and the everyday realities of African Americans.

~Megan

For further reading: Dwight Hopkins, Black Theology of Religion; James Cone: Black Power and Black Theology; Linda Thomas (Ed), Living Stones in the Household of God: the Legacy and Future of Black Theology.

Two weeks ago, I was convinced that Texas would ‘Barack the Vote’. I was in the Toyota Center in Houston, TX at the ‘Stand for Change’ rally for Senator Barack Obama and I definitely felt like I had received the Obama holy ghost (hands were raised, chants of ‘Yes We Can’ rang out in unison all around me, my body was rocking back and forth). And it was not just me—the huge arena was packed with people doing the same thing: hoping and believing in the amount of change Obama was talking about.

I still remained confident that Obama would win Texas until the wee hours of this morning. However, when I awoke from which I admit was a difficult slumber—I was slammed with the reality that Clinton had won Texas in a closely contested race.

My initial reaction was to scream and roll back into bed.

And I did…loudly while pulling the covers over my eyes as if this was all a bad dream.

But as I thought about it more, I had to smile: This is really good politics!

Two dynamic candidates both passionate about their jobs and in their desire to bring change in American society are courageously dueling it out in front of our eyes for the Democratic presidential nominee. What more could a nerdy political scientist like myself ask for?

To be clear, I am an Obama supporter…unabashedly… no shame… no apologies; however, I am not blinded into believing that someone like Obama can save America. Obama is only one man with an elegant speaking style, quality experience, and a God-given ability to inspire ordinary Americans. No one can argue with this. But his mysticism has reached almost super-hero status and unfortunately Obama cannot be the Superman we need to swoop down and save America from the havoc of the past. I write this to make the point that I think it is dangerous to put so much responsibility and belief into someone that is human.

Which is why I value Senator Hillary Clinton—as much as I hate to admit it—the woman is fighting back and questioning him on every front. Sometimes it’s nasty campaign ads and other times it is educated back-and-forth debating. This is valuable not only because her presence represents the views of a significant number of Americans but also because Obama’s positions and policy agenda is being challenged.

I have a problem when political leaders get too comfortable. Often, when individuals are not constantly challenged, a numbing sense of relief sets in. This, I feel, is dangerous and has led to the demise of many great world leaders. I wholeheartedly believe individuals become stronger in their actions, initiatives, and goals when they are constantly challenged and forced to stand and lead in times of discomfort and controversy.

Consequently, I think this fight to be the Democratic presidential nominee is good for democratic politics as a whole: there should be no heir to the throne that we call the American presidency, it should be contested and the people on the ground should be the most important variable in this process. The equation to the nomination is simple: Obama and Clinton must connect with voters. Power lies in the people and the more Clinton and Obama reach out—the more votes they earn. It’s some crazy form of populist politics in the 21st century that is quite refreshing.

For this reason, I enjoy watching Clinton and Obama dueling it out. I am not mad at Clinton’s steelo (now given…I would be upset if she won the Democrat nominee) but I think she serves a very important purpose. I came to understand this as I watched the debates in Texas and Ohio. I saw Obama being unsettled and I saw Clinton trying to connect with voters in a way that she has not in the past.

In a weird but very real way: I think they both make each other better. Obama needs Clinton’s roughness and policy prowess to keep him on his toes and Clinton needs Obama’s knack at connecting with voters to push her to be more personable and honest about her policy positions. To put it quite simply: they hold each other accountable.

It’s a weird kind of marriage that will not last forever. However, for the time being, I am happy to see Clinton stay in the race. If that meant her winning Ohio and Texas on March 4, 2008—then so be it. We have a nation that has not been this connected and excited about the national political arena in a very very long time—and I do not want to see it end anytime soon.

Pennsylvania here we come!