Little Brown Americans

Reclining on a dental chair, waiting for my oral health to be assessed, a tiny lady shuffled in. You're not my dentist I thought. You must be the hygienist. I also figured out, though two thirds of her face was concealed by a surgical mask, she was a kababayan, a fellow Filipino expatriate. I reckoned by her hair, skin tone and eyes; by her body and movement; by that distinct accent - she could very well be a tita, an aunt.

After outing myself as Filipino, she became chattier. She had noticed that I knew the receptionist and was curious how I knew him. Church connections, I explained. Which church do you go to? When I said All Souls Woodley Park, she gave a puzzled look. It's Episcopal. Oh. Her disappointment was apparent.

We managed a conversation between rinses and she eventually, invariably, inquired which presidential candidate I favored. Obama, though I had been an ardent Hillary supporter. She nodded, adding she too had been for Hillary. But now I will vote for McCain, she declared. Why, considering the Bush regime had crippled our economy and McCain would not help it any? Moreover, as immigrants, how could we support a party that is not exactly known for its hospitality towards people of color?

She had no beef with Republicans since Reagan welcomed her to the United States. Daniel T. Griswold of Cato Institute writes:

Reagan's vision of an America open to commerce and peaceful, hardworking immigrants contradicts the anti-trade and anti-immigration views espoused by Lou Dobbs, Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, and many others who claim to speak for the conservative causes Reagan largely defined ...

Reagan's words and deeds regarding immigration were equally expansive. At a ceremony at Ellis Island in 1982, he spoke movingly of immigrants who "possessed a determination that with hard work and freedom, they would live a better life and their children even more so." As with trade, Reagan's record on immigration was mixed. He signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which included stepped up border enforcement and sanctions against employers who knowingly hire illegal workers. But that legislation also legalized 2.8 million undocumented workers. More immigrants entered the United States legally under President Reagan's watch than under any previous U.S. president since Teddy Roosevelt.

I was about to deliver my speech about the need for people of color and other marginalized and oppressed groups to stick together and vote for change when I realized it was futile. She has already been assimilated.

Aside from being grateful for Reagan's immigration policies, my kababayan is socially and economically secure. As a Filipino Roman Catholic, her conservative social values align with Republican "traditional" values. As an older female voter, she is more comfortable with McCain.

However, I can't help but think that race has something to do with it.

We both come from a culture that places a premium on fair and mestizo features, a by-product of Spanish and American colonization. We had laughed at the looks and antics of Elizabeth Ramsey, daughter of a Filipina and African American G.I. We shopped at department stores that touted skin whitening products and displayed clothes on Caucasian mannequins. We applauded celebrities and beauty queens who were lighter hued and had prominent nose bridges. We devoured Hollywood, PX goods and everything state-side. We avoided the sun.

I can still see me and my brother making fun of our nanny, singing "Negritoes of the mountain, what do you eat ..." likening our caretaker to the aborigines that once inhabited most of Southeast Asia. Yaya Estring might not have been from the mountains but she was darker skinned and from the provinces. I am still familiar with the insecure little boy who felt ugly, constantly reminded how he was not as tall or as mestizo as his kuya, his big brother. I can still hear my mom pointing out my flared nose, inherited from her father, and assuring me that one day we can have it fixed.

After Barack Obama won the Democratic primaries, I asked a high school buddy and kababayan in New York if he was ready for a Black president. I don't think so, he courageously admitted.

It looks like Little Brown Americans might not be ready for a Black American president.

Photo from Kapisanan Philippine Centre.

Conflict Resolution

Last Sunday, I heard some pretty sound advice on how to deal with a recalcitrant colleague. First, pull the person aside and in private, talk about your issues. Don't lambast, criticize or embarrass the person in front of others. Don't default to gossiping or bad mouthing either. If she listens and you are able to hash out your differences, great! You might even win her respect and future cooperation. If not, then bring in your immediate supervisor and have the three of you discuss the situation. If that still does not work, then go straight to HR or the boss.

Come to think of it, this methodology works as well with families, among friends and neighbors, possibly even co-op boards. Good stuff.

This nugget did not come from a $150 an hour consultant or life coach, but from a former bureaucrat named Levi, who lived a couple millennia ago. He is better known as Saint Matthew or Matthew the Evangelist, credited as author of the eponymous Gospel. The book is believed to have been written sometime between the first and second centuries C.E.

It had been some time since Jesus of Nazareth died and the Christian community had expanded to include non-Jews. Moreover, Jesus had made it very clear that all were welcome including the poor, prostitutes, tax collectors, lepers, outcasts - all manner of riff raff and flotsam. What had began as a loyal band of women and men grew into an established church, a large organization. As with any burgeoning group or system, conflicts arose and Matthew, through his gospel, had Jesus saying:

If another member of the church sins against you, go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one. But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you a Gentile and tax collector.

Living in community always presents challenges. Knowing how to treat each other fairly and respectfully helps.

Photo source: Montage.

Whose Choice?

All the drama around Sarah Palin and her brood led to a discussion about Choice. A buddy asked me where I stood on abortion. Readily I responded women have the right to choose. However I paused, then admitted I am not comfortable with late term abortions.

It is commonly held that a fetus is viable sometime during the last trimester, when it might be capable of surviving outside the uterus. At that point, it is a human being to me. After all, I was born two months premature.

But viability is open to debate. As an article in Slate reminds us "viability" has been a focus of the abortion debate for some time now. When is a fetus viable?

Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 case legalizing abortion, made fetal viability an important legal concept. The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot put the interests of a fetus ahead of the interests of the pregnant woman until the fetus is "viable." The court defined viable to mean capable of prolonged life outside the mother's womb ...

Because the point of viability varies, the court ruled, it could only be determined case by case and by the woman's own doctor...

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argued in a 1983 decision that Roe was on a "collision course with itself." She said that improvements in technology would continually push the point of fetal viability closer to the beginning of the pregnancy, allowing states greater opportunity to regulate the right to an abortion ...

Some medical ethicists and constitutional scholars say that the Supreme Court was wrong to create the pre-viability/post-viability distinction in the first place. Why, they ask, does the fact that a fetus can survive outside the womb with the help of vast medical technology change either of the interests at war in the abortion debate: the fetus's own claim to "human-ness" and a woman's right to control her body? Even if viability is an important moral line, is it drawn in the right place?

When does life begin? When a sperm penetrates an egg? During the first trimester? The second?

My friend, allowing for the sake of argument my opinion that life begins at viability, asked what about the case in which the mother's life in is danger? Case by case was my easy answer.

But who gets to play Solomon? Who decides to cut a baby in half or in this case favor one person's life over another? The mother? Male religious leaders? Politicians and judges?

I can still remember the pain and anguish of a young woman very dear to me, who confided that she had an abortion. She was alone in a big city and could not tell her staunch Roman Catholic family about the choice she felt was her only option. She now has another child but continues to mourn the one she lost.

The debate over abortion is fraught with emotion, understandably so. However, at issue is a woman's right to her own body - not her father's, not her brother's, not her pastor's, not society's right to her body. This is not simply about abortion. It is also about female genital mutilation and honor killings and the treatment of human beings as chattel.

Responses to Happy Unniversary!

A straight female friend emailed:

I enjoyed reading your blog on marriage, but it always makes me sad and guilty to know that Tom and I can be married while other couples, just as committed, are being excluded due to bigotry.

You are right on about church/state. I believe that marriage is a civil liberty and the government cannot limit that civil liberty to straight couples. Everyone should be allowed a civil marriage. What the churches want to endorse privately is another matter. If we had a system of civil marriage and church marriage, personally I would not get a church marriage in a church that did not permit gays to marry. How Christian is that to arbitrarily excluding a segment of the congregation from receiving a sacrament? I digress...

The really sad part is explaining this to the kids. I always tell them that your are Fr John's* husband and vice versa. I do this, not to hide the injustice of the situation, but so that they don't grow up thinking that "straight" people are more committed than gay people are. Sooner or later I guess I will have to explain the legal facts, although I wish this nation would quickly stop the hypocrisy and institute civil marriage so I don't have to.

Another straight friend emailed:

And there are so many of us who don't see what harm allowing people who love each to marry can bring. What amazes me is the "family values" excuse: Two people love each other and want to be a family, maybe even to bring children into that family -- and a group of clueless people say this is a harm to family values ... Family values are what people who want to get married have. Family values are what people who want to bring children into their lives have. Family values are not a gay or straight prerogative; they have to do with families. WHY this is so threatening to some people is amazing.

*John is an Episcopal priest.

The Funnies

For some reason, this Washington Post strip reminds me of those who actually want four more years of McCain-Bush even though it will cost many, many more military & civilian lives, jobs, homes and burden the next generation with gargantuan debt; be a continued source of embarrassment and alienation from the rest of the world; and be ugly in its promotion of inequity, divisiveness, and partisanship.

But as Cheney once said with a smirk, so?

And Prickly City points out that McCain ain't the unwavering straight talking maverick he insists he is ...

... then again it looks like some good folk are buying into vintage Rove propaganda ordered by Johnny McCain and spewed by Sarah Barracuda.

Happy Unniversary!

While a boy can marry, or be forced to marry, a pregnant girl from a powerful family, my partner and I cannot. While straight people can marry without much thought or deliberation, my partner and I cannot, even though we had thought, talked and prayed seriously before moving in together ten years ago. While heterosexuals can marry for convenience and expedience, for power, money or a green card, for whatever reason or none at all, my partner and I cannot, much as we love each other and look forward to growing old together. While the majority can wed then divorce, we do not have the option.

John and I are celebrating what we consider our tenth anniversary. Someone recently asked what exactly we mark - good question. We met ten years ago, registered as domestic partners in New York City five years ago, and are now planning to do the same in Washington, DC. I jokingly remarked that our "wedding" bands should be engraved with all these and future dates. But really, it is not funny.

You can call it what you please - marriage, union - but we want and deserve our right to be together and recognized as a couple. We want the 1,138 federal benefits, rights and privileges heterosexual married people take for granted.

We want to know that should one of us end up in an emergency room, the other would not be turned away. We want to rest assured that if decisions over life and death had to be made, it would be one of us making hard choices. We want the guarantee that when one of us dies, the other would inherit property, valuables and memories we had worked hard for. We want to be eligible for social security, medicare and other benefits which we both have and will continue to pay for. Not just in New York or Washington, but anywhere we might be in the United States.

We want equality and justice.

It is argued that allowing gays to marry will destabilize society. How? On the contrary, millions of gay women and men in stable and mature relationships bolster their communities. John and I are in a committed and loving relationship that brings together our families and people we serve. In our imperfect way we give an alternative to young gays just as we have been deemed a good example by some straight cousins.

It is also disputed that same-sex marriage is against God's law. Really? What limited, imperfect, contingent mortal can truly say that they know God's mind? Nonetheless, fine. Then leave churches to elect who they'd like to marry and proclaim a family, but within their own walls. The principle of separation of church and state still stands and is foundational for a real democracy. As citizens, we fall under and follow secular laws we create.

I simply do not see what harm allowing two people to marry or form a union could bring. Sadly, what is clear is ignorance, hate and fear. Cheers.

Progressive Primer

Through The Power of Progress, former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta invokes the progressive spirit that made America great under the aegis of Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, and Lyndon B. Johnson. Podesta believes that rediscovering progressive ideals and policies will help get us back on track. In the process, we also save our communal soul by doing what is right by all citizens, not just a favored few.

The book starts with the core beliefs of the progressive movement, describes how its values were woven into the Clinton administration, and ends with policy solutions to daunting problems that face us and the next generation. At times it reads like a think-tank policy paper and leaves one wanting more, considering the stories Podesta could tell. This comes as no surprise. Podesta is the president and chief executive officer of the Center of American Progress, a neophyte research and educational institution that has managed, within five years, to gain a voice in current discourse. The Center's senior fellows can be seen offering analysis and opinion on cable news shows and debating their more conservative counterparts in DC panel discussions.

The Power of Progress' chapter titles sum up the progressive credo: (1) Progressives Stand with People, not Privilege; (2) Progressives Believe in the Common Good, and a Government That Offers a Hand Up; (3) Progressives Hold That All People Are Equal in the Eyes of God and Under the Law; (4) Progressives Stand for Universal Human Rights and Cooperative Global Security. While Podesta considers progressivism and liberalism complementary, he points out that "they are not exactly the same in substance, emphasis, or origin." He is also candid about progressivism being a less developed political theory. It is more pragmatic.

A conversation with someone from the progressive movement admits that the debate about what progressivism is continues. Wikipedia lists as its most common tenets democracy; efficiency; regulation of large corporations and monopolies; social justice; and conservationism.

Podesta pens some lines that stand out and is worth highlighting as we listen to Democrats and Republicans plead their cases this election year. As operatives foment discord, we are reminded that:

If the heroism of King and others during the civil rights movement teaches us anything, it is that we must fight and stand up for our beliefs no matter how hard our opponents might hit back. We must fight efforts to divide Americans along lines of race, gender, or sexual orientation, and instead find common ground and engage in a unified struggle to improve lives across all boundaries. It is incumbent upon all of us to make Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream of full economic and political equality a reality for all, rich and poor, black and white, gay and straight (p.83).

As we consider the party platforms and policy imperatives, it is worth emphasizing that:

We now live in a country where almost everyone is working harder but where tax cuts go almost exclusively to the very wealthiest. We live in a nation where forty years of efforts to protect the natural environment now have been shredded like trees into wood chips. Where the oil companies write the energy policy. Where the pharmaceutical companies determine which of their products are safe. Where the line between lobbyists and legislators has disappeared. Where the lessons of creationism are taught alongside those of evolution while the health insurance system becomes more Darwinian every day. And all this is presented to the American people live on Rupert Murdoch TV (pp. 104-5).

Yes, we are at another defining moment in history. Will Americans move forward or fester?