I hope you all have enjoyed your Thanksgiving to the fullest! I had a lovely time. We here at CVV celebrated with a huge meal on Monday, hosting about 50 people in our house. We each made a different dish (my contribution was pumpkin roll) and overall, it was simply delectable.
Then on Thursday, I hopped on the Greyhound and spent my Thanksgiving heading east to Lincoln, Nebraska, to visit my dear friend Megan Kelley, her fiancee Raj, and Megan's family. I spent a lovely long weekend there. How strange and sweet it is to be with old friends! It was a luxury to reminisce with someone who has known me longer than three months, but we also looked ahead - Megan is getting married in July, and so I spent a lot of time cavorting with her and her mom, looking for wedding cakes, photographers, catering, and wedding dresses. I am sworn to secrecy about everything! So no prying!
I took the nine-hour trip back west on Sunday, was treated to a magnificent sunset and a glad reunion with my housemates. And now, back at work! It was good to go, and it was good to return.
Monday, November 26, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
The fate of the grasshopper
As an Americorps volunteer with an agency that serves three predominantly Mexican neighborhoods in north Denver, I have followed with vested interest the latest developments of immigration policy. In doing so, I have noticed that underlying understandings of culture have great potency to affect how we treat immigrants and legislate their fate.
It seems that one main assumption about culture is that it is both static and vulnerable. Once solidified in its particular values and rituals, a culture is in constant danger of disintegration. More specifically, many seem to regard American culture as fixed and threatened, while Mexican culture (or that of any entering immigrant group) is insidious and clever enough to deteriorate the host culture, tugging with sharpened nails this or that cultural vulnerability until the whole tapestry is a pile of thread on the floor.
Adherents to such an understanding of culture would understandably retreat into a protective mode, barricading themselves from potentially corrosive foreign cultural influences. Hence the heated rhetoric about education and societal affairs conducted in two languages, a sure sign that (English-speaking) American culture is one adios away from vanishing from world history to a chorus of trilled ‘r’s.
At the same time, in a fascinating burst of exploitative schizophrenia, Mexican imports such as burritos and tamales are hotter than the frontera sun for non-Mexican consumers. A recent Qdoba ad features ecstatic Mexican food lovers, with nary an accent nor Hispanic face among them.
Or take the example of a student in my English class. Electrician by day and bartender on weekends, he told me of a patron who, once sufficiently drunk on tequila, would lambaste in slurred expletives any Mexican within earshot. “Go back to your own country!” he would scream. I presume he hoped the deportees would leave the tequila behind.
Perhaps culture is neither as static nor as vulnerable as we presume; rather, perhaps it is a dynamic entity, constantly but subtly transforming in response to both internal (i.e. native) and external (i.e. foreign) influences. Historically speaking, this principle seems obvious to the point of absurdity; how can one speak of any culture without reference to the leaders, inventions, and events that shaped its identity?
But also historically speaking, it is clear that the development of culture is not desirable in and of itself, such as the development of slavery as an institution in the South. The question du jour, then, is how does a culture develop well, to be more worthy of human beings, to take care of its little ones, and to provide opportunities for all persons to flourish? It is in response to this question that an encounter between two cultures can be beneficial for both. Every culture, even (gasp!) our own, has blind spots and malformed organs that are often better diagnosed by outsiders than by those who bear the deformity.
Hence, a great challenge and opportunity arrives with every new immigrant: to reexamine our own culture in the presence of someone foreign, to be honest about our shortcomings, and to humbly share our successes that can improve another culture’s deficiency. Such an approach to immigration, an embrace, is admittedly messier than the alternative, a barricade. But then again, love is more complicated than isolation. And in the long run, if we aim to preserve our culture with fences and threats, we’ll find that it indeed keeps well, as well as a grasshopper that a child loves so much that he seals tight in a glass jar, and finds it marvelously unchanged come the next morning.
It seems that one main assumption about culture is that it is both static and vulnerable. Once solidified in its particular values and rituals, a culture is in constant danger of disintegration. More specifically, many seem to regard American culture as fixed and threatened, while Mexican culture (or that of any entering immigrant group) is insidious and clever enough to deteriorate the host culture, tugging with sharpened nails this or that cultural vulnerability until the whole tapestry is a pile of thread on the floor.
Adherents to such an understanding of culture would understandably retreat into a protective mode, barricading themselves from potentially corrosive foreign cultural influences. Hence the heated rhetoric about education and societal affairs conducted in two languages, a sure sign that (English-speaking) American culture is one adios away from vanishing from world history to a chorus of trilled ‘r’s.
At the same time, in a fascinating burst of exploitative schizophrenia, Mexican imports such as burritos and tamales are hotter than the frontera sun for non-Mexican consumers. A recent Qdoba ad features ecstatic Mexican food lovers, with nary an accent nor Hispanic face among them.
Or take the example of a student in my English class. Electrician by day and bartender on weekends, he told me of a patron who, once sufficiently drunk on tequila, would lambaste in slurred expletives any Mexican within earshot. “Go back to your own country!” he would scream. I presume he hoped the deportees would leave the tequila behind.
Perhaps culture is neither as static nor as vulnerable as we presume; rather, perhaps it is a dynamic entity, constantly but subtly transforming in response to both internal (i.e. native) and external (i.e. foreign) influences. Historically speaking, this principle seems obvious to the point of absurdity; how can one speak of any culture without reference to the leaders, inventions, and events that shaped its identity?
But also historically speaking, it is clear that the development of culture is not desirable in and of itself, such as the development of slavery as an institution in the South. The question du jour, then, is how does a culture develop well, to be more worthy of human beings, to take care of its little ones, and to provide opportunities for all persons to flourish? It is in response to this question that an encounter between two cultures can be beneficial for both. Every culture, even (gasp!) our own, has blind spots and malformed organs that are often better diagnosed by outsiders than by those who bear the deformity.
Hence, a great challenge and opportunity arrives with every new immigrant: to reexamine our own culture in the presence of someone foreign, to be honest about our shortcomings, and to humbly share our successes that can improve another culture’s deficiency. Such an approach to immigration, an embrace, is admittedly messier than the alternative, a barricade. But then again, love is more complicated than isolation. And in the long run, if we aim to preserve our culture with fences and threats, we’ll find that it indeed keeps well, as well as a grasshopper that a child loves so much that he seals tight in a glass jar, and finds it marvelously unchanged come the next morning.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Some alphabet soup: GSN and NFP
Wednesday: 7:45 PM. Time for GSN, or "Gender Separation Night" Once a month, we gals buddy up with Mary Frances, while the menfolk join Bill and Tom and we each talk about issues particularly pertaining to our gender. Tonight we're deep into a discussion about contraception, led by Maura, a former volunteer and mother of six-month-old H'nora.
We talk a lot about the benefits of NFP (Natural Family Planning), and Maura adds thoughtful insights from her training as a nurse and her current vocation as a wife and mother. For those of you unfamiliar with NFP, it is, narrowly speaking, a method of recognizing the woman's fertility at various parts of her menstrual cycle, based on body temperature and cervical mucus. It is known secularly as 'fertility awareness' and when practiced faithfully, is highly effective in both avoiding and acheiving pregnancy, depending on the couples' aim.
Speaking more broadly, and from a theological perspective, NFP is a way for a couple to approach their sexual relationship that is in harmony with the Christian vision of marriage and sexuality. Marriage as a sacrament is meant to embody the relationship of Christ with his Church, a relationship that is total, faithful, free, and fruitful. In not artificially curtailing the potential of their fertility, couples are able to freely give themselves to each other, not just emotionally but physically as well.
I confess that I'm a pretty big fan of NFP =) (Look at Couple to Couple League for more info) From what I know about it and from what I've heard from those who practice it, I find it appealing and beautiful, and such an amazing antidote to our fallen tendency to split body and spirit, or to objectify one another. One fascinating aspect that came up in our GSN discussion, unsurprisingly for CVV, was that of the social ethics of contraception, and ways they tend to foster disharmony between the genders. I offer 3 examples:
1. When scientists were developing the Pill in England in the 1950s, they pioneered a form of hormonal contraception for men and for women. One man from the study group suffered an abnormality in a testicle; one woman from the study group died. Hence, the male form of hormonal contraception was definitely stopped, while the woman's dose was merely lowered.
2. In arenas where the Pill is promoted as the most effective and practical form of contraception, the burden of preventing pregnancy falls squarely on the woman's shoulders. Not only does she ingest powerful hormones, it could be argued that if it is the woman's responsibility not to conceive, then it is also her culpability if she does. Can men, who hear constantly that women's bodies are their own to control, be blamed if they don't stick around to provide for that woman's body's mistake?
3. Hormonal contraceptives are powerful stuff. According to an article in the National Catholic Register, the Pill is a known carcinogenic, i.e. it can cause cancer and has been shown to elevate chances of breast cancer in women. Less fatally but as significant, hormones can alter your personality, your appetite, and even your libido. How ironic that a pill to let you have 'safe sex' can lower the woman's desire for any sex! What cost do women take on their own bodies by using hormonal contraception? Steriods for men, especially young men, are soundly derided. Why is the same treatment not given to contraceptives for women, especially young women?
Enough soap-boxing =) The last thing I want to say is that I am so grateful for the 7 women that I live with. We undoubtably have our disagreements, but as the eight of us girls talked about our questions, confusions, and opinions regarding such a potentially important topic as contraception, I was struck by both our candor and our vigor, a fresh honesty grounded in affection for one another that has been steeping over these past few months. It seems that to live in a harmony that is truthful, I have to be able to disagree with someone, yet next morning get up, talk about the shopping list, and eat breakfast together without our disagreement bubbling up as snappiness or any type of ill-will. In other words, community life denies me the luxury of speaking your mind to someone whom you'll never see again. Instead, it challenges me to speak the truth in love, and gives me plenty of practice for both.
We talk a lot about the benefits of NFP (Natural Family Planning), and Maura adds thoughtful insights from her training as a nurse and her current vocation as a wife and mother. For those of you unfamiliar with NFP, it is, narrowly speaking, a method of recognizing the woman's fertility at various parts of her menstrual cycle, based on body temperature and cervical mucus. It is known secularly as 'fertility awareness' and when practiced faithfully, is highly effective in both avoiding and acheiving pregnancy, depending on the couples' aim.
Speaking more broadly, and from a theological perspective, NFP is a way for a couple to approach their sexual relationship that is in harmony with the Christian vision of marriage and sexuality. Marriage as a sacrament is meant to embody the relationship of Christ with his Church, a relationship that is total, faithful, free, and fruitful. In not artificially curtailing the potential of their fertility, couples are able to freely give themselves to each other, not just emotionally but physically as well.
I confess that I'm a pretty big fan of NFP =) (Look at Couple to Couple League for more info) From what I know about it and from what I've heard from those who practice it, I find it appealing and beautiful, and such an amazing antidote to our fallen tendency to split body and spirit, or to objectify one another. One fascinating aspect that came up in our GSN discussion, unsurprisingly for CVV, was that of the social ethics of contraception, and ways they tend to foster disharmony between the genders. I offer 3 examples:
1. When scientists were developing the Pill in England in the 1950s, they pioneered a form of hormonal contraception for men and for women. One man from the study group suffered an abnormality in a testicle; one woman from the study group died. Hence, the male form of hormonal contraception was definitely stopped, while the woman's dose was merely lowered.
2. In arenas where the Pill is promoted as the most effective and practical form of contraception, the burden of preventing pregnancy falls squarely on the woman's shoulders. Not only does she ingest powerful hormones, it could be argued that if it is the woman's responsibility not to conceive, then it is also her culpability if she does. Can men, who hear constantly that women's bodies are their own to control, be blamed if they don't stick around to provide for that woman's body's mistake?
3. Hormonal contraceptives are powerful stuff. According to an article in the National Catholic Register, the Pill is a known carcinogenic, i.e. it can cause cancer and has been shown to elevate chances of breast cancer in women. Less fatally but as significant, hormones can alter your personality, your appetite, and even your libido. How ironic that a pill to let you have 'safe sex' can lower the woman's desire for any sex! What cost do women take on their own bodies by using hormonal contraception? Steriods for men, especially young men, are soundly derided. Why is the same treatment not given to contraceptives for women, especially young women?
Enough soap-boxing =) The last thing I want to say is that I am so grateful for the 7 women that I live with. We undoubtably have our disagreements, but as the eight of us girls talked about our questions, confusions, and opinions regarding such a potentially important topic as contraception, I was struck by both our candor and our vigor, a fresh honesty grounded in affection for one another that has been steeping over these past few months. It seems that to live in a harmony that is truthful, I have to be able to disagree with someone, yet next morning get up, talk about the shopping list, and eat breakfast together without our disagreement bubbling up as snappiness or any type of ill-will. In other words, community life denies me the luxury of speaking your mind to someone whom you'll never see again. Instead, it challenges me to speak the truth in love, and gives me plenty of practice for both.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Gleaning
What is gleaning? you may ask. Good question! If you are familiar with the Old Testament, gleaning is mentioned a number of times. At harvest time, farmers would deliberately leave part of their field unpicked, or not hassle about collecting every last head of grain. Therefore, the poor and hungry could follow behind the harvesters and 'glean' a portion of the crop.
Gleaning for us at CVV is a bit different, seeing how the number of grain fields in downtown Denver is slim =) However, we do gain a sizeable portion of our monthly food by gleaning from local supermarkets and coffee shops. Several establishments, including Spinelli's Markets and It's A Grind, gladly give us almost-overripe produce, dented cans, and pastries that would otherwise be pitched due to stringent food safety regulations. Every week our gleaning dividends vary, depending on the current foods in season and/or almost out of season. Tuesday is like Christmas, a new surprise every week!
Early in our year, one of my housemates posed a question - "Isn't gleaning like stealing from the poor? Aren't there other people who need this food more than we do, for example non-college graduates, without a food stipend?" A reply was posed, along with a modern definition of gleaning - "Gleaning is living off the excess of others." Think about your own pantry and trash can. Even with the best intentions, how often does food, particularly perishable items, travel from the store to the trash can, bypassing the table due to lack of time or mere overabundance? This scenario on a commerical scale translates into boxes upon boxes of food thrown away, willingly or not, by food markets and cafes.
On Fridays, I see gleaning up-close. I spend the morning sorting fruits and vegetables for Broadway Assistance Center, a downtown food pantry. BAC receives superfluous food from local markets and gives it away to folks in need. Every Friday, I estimate about 80 people make their way through the line, requesting semi-fresh produce and slightly-stale pastries. But even after the dust settles and everyone has received their desired amount, there still remain several dozen crates of food, destined to either a subsequent food pantry or, more likely at this bottom-rung stage of the food distribution system, the dumpster.
It makes me wonder - how is it that anyone goes hungry? Is it lack of accessibility? Not being in the right place at the right time? Lack of knowledge that such legal avenues such as gleaning exist to get fine food for free? I for one have become a enthusiastic fan of gleaning - despite the lack of choice in what Spinelli's gifts us with, the price is right, and, arguably more important, we gleaners are transforming the refuge of a saturated society into our daily bread.
Gleaning for us at CVV is a bit different, seeing how the number of grain fields in downtown Denver is slim =) However, we do gain a sizeable portion of our monthly food by gleaning from local supermarkets and coffee shops. Several establishments, including Spinelli's Markets and It's A Grind, gladly give us almost-overripe produce, dented cans, and pastries that would otherwise be pitched due to stringent food safety regulations. Every week our gleaning dividends vary, depending on the current foods in season and/or almost out of season. Tuesday is like Christmas, a new surprise every week!
Early in our year, one of my housemates posed a question - "Isn't gleaning like stealing from the poor? Aren't there other people who need this food more than we do, for example non-college graduates, without a food stipend?" A reply was posed, along with a modern definition of gleaning - "Gleaning is living off the excess of others." Think about your own pantry and trash can. Even with the best intentions, how often does food, particularly perishable items, travel from the store to the trash can, bypassing the table due to lack of time or mere overabundance? This scenario on a commerical scale translates into boxes upon boxes of food thrown away, willingly or not, by food markets and cafes.
On Fridays, I see gleaning up-close. I spend the morning sorting fruits and vegetables for Broadway Assistance Center, a downtown food pantry. BAC receives superfluous food from local markets and gives it away to folks in need. Every Friday, I estimate about 80 people make their way through the line, requesting semi-fresh produce and slightly-stale pastries. But even after the dust settles and everyone has received their desired amount, there still remain several dozen crates of food, destined to either a subsequent food pantry or, more likely at this bottom-rung stage of the food distribution system, the dumpster.
It makes me wonder - how is it that anyone goes hungry? Is it lack of accessibility? Not being in the right place at the right time? Lack of knowledge that such legal avenues such as gleaning exist to get fine food for free? I for one have become a enthusiastic fan of gleaning - despite the lack of choice in what Spinelli's gifts us with, the price is right, and, arguably more important, we gleaners are transforming the refuge of a saturated society into our daily bread.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)