Maybe they should call them the Fighting Words

Earlier this week, I did something that I haven't done for a long time. Look at your blog? Haha. Nice one, wise guy. Fortunately I anticipated your little quip and...hey now, my arm doesn't bend that way...what are yo....OOOOWWWWWWWW!!!!

(Go to Emergency Broadcast screen)

Okay, okay, I get it, I get it. You've been hitting refresh every day, like 30 times an hour, waiting for like three weeks for a new blog post. I didn't realize I was that popular. I'm so sorry- it'll never (but probably will) happen again. So while you're popping my shoulder back into place, can you remind me where I waOW OW OW OW OW!!!!!

(Go to commercial break)

Aaaaaaaand we're back.

So I was reading the newspaper the other day- like I said, not something I do very often. Mostly because I get my news straight from HCRealms.com and Stephen Colbert. Partly because I don't read the local paper. They cover the Packers like they were a local team and they once did a story on the front page of the sports section about the new scoreboard at Marquette Senior High School. I can't be bothered with that noise.

But I did read a little bit of the paper earlier this week, and tucked away there on the bottom of page 2 of the sports section was this little piece of information (not linked from the Mining Journal site- it's not even on there. They must have had to delete it to make room for their feature piece on the Flying Pick-Axe man).

So Dave- can I call you Dave? I just LOVE your yellow pants. Tell me more about those bright yellow pants.

A little backstory here- in 2005, the NCAA contacted somewhere between 18 and 20 schools with Native American mascots/logos were told that they had to get rid of the hostile/offensive nicknames or else risk sanctions (such as being unable to host conference tournaments). Some schools, such as the Florida State Seminoles and the CMU Chippewas, got permission from their local tribes to carry on business as usual. Others, like the University of Louisiana-Monroe, changed their mascot to comply with the NCAA.

And then there's the University of North Dakota Fighting Sioux.

Now, I'm not going to get into a big history here- suffice it to say that the gist of what I've found is that the Fighting Sioux asked the state's two Sioux tribes for permission to continue to use the mascot/logo. The Spirit Lake Sioux tribe gave their permission. The Standing Rock Sioux tribe did not. So the University complied with the NCAA and changed the mascot, and the world became a place of equality and peace. The end.

Of course, that's not how it really ended- there is so much more behind the scenes than we realize, eh? For starters, I have to be honest- it wasn't a slam dunk that the Standing Rock tribe denied permission (to be equally fair, I didn't look into Spirit Lake at all, so their decision might have been equally polarizing). There were a number of members of the tribe that wanted UND to continue to retain the Fighting Sioux moniker. In the end, though, the tribal council voted against the name (in essence), and a petition to take the matter to a tribe-wide vote was denied by Chief Judge William Zuger. So now, the issue is decided. The university complies, peace, equality, flowers, the end.

Except no.

Apparently the lawmakers of the state of North Dakota (with nothing better to do?) decided in their infinite wisdom that they should pass a law so that the University of North Dakota would be legally obligated to keep the name 'Fighting Sioux'. So despite a ruling by the NCAA that was confirmed by the State Board of Higher Education and in keeping with the wishes of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, the system of checks and balances decided it would be better for everyone if they just went ahead and made House Bill 1263.

Here's the thing, folks. I don't want to pretend that I know why this bill was passed (money). I just know that this thing reeks of traditional Caucasian know-better-than-you. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a white person. And I know better than you.

Here's some quotes from the article that highlight why I think this resolution is preposterous. Quotes are in italics and sarcastic commentary is in this color.
-"North Dakota lawmakers say hundreds of constituent emails substantiate tremendous public support for the current nickname". And I'm sure that none of those e-mails were sent from wealreadytoldyouno@standingrocksiouxtribe.sovereignnation.gov

-"Some legislators have said they resent the nickname being characterized as hostile and abusive because they believe the name and logo are treated with respect." Of course, these legislators know all about how to treat Indians with respect, and are the resident experts about what should be considered hostile and abusive to people who had their whole way of life ripped away from them by an invasion of the faux friendlies.

-"Others have said the change is being rammed down their throats by the NCAA and think the higher education board should have done more to adhere to residents’ wishes." Ah, right. Residents wishes. You mean like the residents of the Sioux Tribe that voted to get rid of the name?

Aside from shooting the university in the foot (UND would not be allowed to use the nickname/logo in postseason tournaments and could possible lose out on getting into the Big Sky conference which could "lead to a broad decline in athletics"), this seems to be getting back to the old days, when the US Government paid lip service to the idea that Indian nations were sovereign. "Oh sure, sign this treaty, give us your land, we'll give you some blankets and trinkets. That should tide you over until the next time we decide we want more land". Sure, why not? And hey, while we're at it, let's just introduce alcoholism and smallpox too?

We have quite a history of justifying mistreatment of others in the name of our laws. Maybe this Fighting Sioux thing is 'just a nickname'...but the deeper issue I see is that, once again, we are marginalizing the wishes and desires of an outlying group for the sake the majority. It's like Dooh Nibor- feed the rich with what you steal from the poor.

Who are we as white people to say if the logo is being treated with respect? How can we know that it isn't hostile or abusive? And sure, it doesn't really come off as all that believable for me to tell you that they are. But unfortunately, we haven't really done a good job of listening to the Native American population. We tend to talk loud and long and just minimalize their issues and concerns.

Again, in full disclosure, I have to admit that I am largely ignorant of a lot of this. By and large, I've been content to sit in my own little corner of my own little bubble. It's only because my wife is taking a Native American experience class that I even really read the article. So the finger I point is also at myself (actually, I'll point two fingers- one at everyone else, and one at me. You have to trust me, it looks pretty sweet).

Think about how marginalized that the First Peoples are in our country. When was the last time you heard a Native American song on the radio. Or saw a Native American in a movie that wasn't about Native Americans? Shoot, we just watched Last of the Mohicans the other day, and the main character isn't even an Indian. We watched another movie about the Code Talking Navajo in WWII, and the main guy was Nicholas Cage. Nicholas Cage. If I wanted to see a movie with Nicholas Cage, I'd watch Valley Girl.

You don't think that Native American mascots, even if they do have the best of intentions, play in to that? Even a little bit? Seriously, what better way to call into the question the legitimacy of an existence than by making that existence into a cartoon- a caricature of what it really is. To us, Redskins, Chiefs, and Fighting Sioux are just different names in a mascot sea of full of Lions, Tigers, and Bears. So of course we think they're being handled with dignity and respect- because they're mascots!

Super Bowl XXVI was the first time I heard about the mascot controversy, and back then I thought it was stupid. But that was back when I was stupid. Now I'm less stupid, and I do believe that these mascots, when not supported and backed by the Native population, are harmful and abusive.

I can't (and usually try not to) tell someone what they should or shouldn't find offensive, and Lord knows I've offended my share of light-weights. I also acknowledge that this story has more facets than a blood diamond. I don't know why some Indians are for it and some against it. I don't know the money side- who will make the money, who will lose the money. And who knows the mind of the NCAA?

I just believe that the people who make the laws of the state of North Dakota have overstepped their bounds. I believe that they are acting not in the best interests of the people who are being represented as picture on the front of a jersey. I believe that their actions demonstrate a severe overestimation of the worth of a mascot at the expense of the lives of a race of human beings.

And no sports team is worth that.

Pic- http://lschockey.com/images/Negaunee.jpg

Action Jackson

Yesterday, Fourth of July's Eve, I had one of those moments where I was able to take words that I had 'known' before and connect them like a virtual puzzle in my mind and have one of those light bulb moments, where you really understand something- not just on a cognitive "I can dictionarily define all of those words" but on a "Oh. OH. I get it!" type of scale.

And as is my custom in these here parts, I am going to bring my moment of brilliance to the web. So now it becomes your brilliance. See? Isn't sharing a good thing? Just make sure I get all the royalties.

Let me start this party off with a verse. It's a verse that the Lord gave to me while we were praying before service yesterday. Actually, it wasn't an entire verse. And quite honestly, it could have just been an amalgam of some teaching stuff we were listening to on Saturday night and the awesome t-shirt idea that my worship team comrades have. Regardless, here it is:

Isaiah 61:10- I delight greatly in the LORD; my soul rejoices in my God. For he has clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a robe of his righteousness, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.

The idea here is that if we are clothed with God's righteousness (Galations 3:27), then God doesn't see us when he looks at us- He sees Christ. It's like when Frodo and Sam donned the Orc garb when they were walking through Mordor, except it doesn't look like our parents mated with the guys from Spy vs. Spy

Anyways, that's the backdrop. So fast forward a tiny bit. Charlie starts talking about grace. Not the grace that we flash when the morality officer asks us if we have a license to sin, but the grace that gives us power over sin.

And that's when it hit me- what we do doesn't really matter!

That's right folks- throw out everything you've learned about how to be bad and good- it's all rubbish. Actually...don't throw it all away. We'll probably use some of it later. That was a rash statement on my part. Let's just set it aside for now and pretend like I didn't say that.

Now I expound.

There's a doctrine that is fundamental to some, which states that humanity is inherently sinful. That people are born evil, wretched beings. I don't subscribe wholly to that- I do believe that there is good in all of us as well as evil. But let's face it- most of us are not John Lennon- or even Paul McCartney. Most of us are more like Ringo.

For the sake of argument, we're going to just go with the idea of humanity having an inherently sinful core (I'll explain why later). So whether we follow all the rules to a 't' or break them all with our fists of fury, then we still have the same internal processor- and it's churning out sin at lots of gigahertz (sorry- I know just enough about computer terms to totally use them poorly). Sin, then, is not something that we do- it's who we are.

'Great. That's it then. Throw in the towel'

That doesn't completely render the system of morality obsolete. There are reasons to do the right thing. The series of 'rights' and 'wrongs' help us to make sense of the world. It helps us to navigate the myriad of situations we encounter. All of us have animalistic instincts and needs- the need to feed, the need to procreate, the need to exert our dominance and protect what is ours- the need to survive. But as humans, we have the ability to exist with each other in a way that transcends those needs. We can grocery shop with other people without having to bring a club to beat off the others. We can walk along the beach without mating with every gorgeous blond in a two piece that we see. And we can survive without having to kill others to make sure that happens. Morality makes that possible.

By and large, each culture has a moral structure that determines what sorts of things are 'right' and what sorts of things are 'wrong'. Those ideas are hopefully passed on from generation to generation, and if they're not then there are systems set in place (such as the legal system) to make sure that people toe the line.

What is my point? Well, my point is that we all have a sense of right and wrong that is handed down to us from external sources. Along with this is the implication that there are benefits to behaving well, and consequences for behaving poorly. So as children, we are subtly taught that life is a game. To win the game, you play by the rules. Do more 'right' than wrong' and you're gold.

The problem with this system is clear- if our goodness is truly determined by the weight of our actions against each other, then Christ's sacrifice was pointless. There would be no need for God to clothe us in His righteousness, because on our own we could just do something to overcome or blot out our bad actions. If our sinful actions could cause us to be unrighteous, then couldn't we earn righteousness when we do good?

Am I right? Or am I crazy. Answer- both.

But if the issue of righteousness and sin is not one of external behavior, but of internal composition- well then, that's something completely different. The things we do have no real significance in relation to our spirituality- it doesn't matter what I do and what I don't do. I'm still a sinful man. Killing goats doesn't change that. Helping old ladies cross the street doesn't change that. And cheating on my taxes doesn't change that. Sin is encased in my genetic code.

That's why Christ came. He didn't just come so our sins could be forgiven. He came so our sinful essence could be completely wiped out and replaced with His righteousness.

See, when Christ comes into us, there is a fundamental shift in our being. We become a new person. 2 Corinthians 5:17. Look it up. BAM. Now just because the hardware is all new, that doesn't mean that we upload a completely new operating system- the Christian life is all about learning how to walk in that newness. It's one of the disadvantages of not being robots- our old programming is not just rebooted. It gradually gets weeded out as we keep learning and keep growing. It may not make for efficient computers, but it makes for fascinating television.

This is why I believe that Paul talked about Christ like He is oxygen and not like a behavior checklist. Jesus didn't come to change our actions. He came to change us. Completely. So that's why he needed so badly to know Christ. Not so he could behave better as a human being, but so that He could live as Christ did. It may seem like semantics, but it's an entirely different ball game.

It's not about what movies I watch, or whether or not I play video games or take my kids out Trick-or-treating on Halloween. It's about two things:
1) Will I love God with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength?
2) Will I love my neighbor like I love myself? (Matthew 22:37-40)

Now we don't just disregard the teachings of right and wrong. I'm not promoting anarchy. I'm not saying 'if it feels good, do it'. Usually there is a decent reason for the morality that we are taught, and none of us live in vacuums. Our behaviors, right and wrong, have consequences not only for us but for those around us. But on a whole, my actions don't matter. I don't need to go to church to have someone tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing. If I'm going to church, then I should be learning how to know Christ and be a blessing to other people. Life is not some sort of quantitative exercise, where we evaluate our existence based on some formula that determines our rating. We do the best we can. We live, we love, we hurt others. We're not perfect. We fall short. It's beautiful.

So teach the children what is right and what is wrong. Tell them how to live in this life. But more importantly, teach them to love God- and to love other people as they love themselves. Do that, and they'll be gold.

Pics- Frodo and Sam- http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v327/ShirelingUK/JOURNEY/CH%2017%20MT%20DOOM/limitededitionrotk185.jpg
Ringo- http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsS/16419-3123.gif