@RevLev It is helpful, thanks, but I guess I am asking, I can get the first sentence being a dealbreaker for you, now that I think I understand more fully (as I did from Patrick McLaughlin’s explanation about dismantle racism), why it best expresses the tragedy of the colonial depredations, the Doctrine of Discovery mindset that resulted in genocide, appropriation, theft, and slavery.
But I don’t get this from “live into,” because they are just words, and “help us to live into our values” is seven, “specialized” sounding words, while “nurture” is one, commonly understood word. And to me, “live into” are words that people 15 years from now, or let’s say 40 years from now if we do a good enough job, may not at all experience in the same way many of us (but not all of us) do today.
I prefer plain language where possible, because to me, it’s harder to guess what may happen with language “of the moment.” Maybe to some people, “idolatries of the mind” still best expresses why using reason is important, but to me, it is so dated as to almost sound like saying “a golden calf” here.
I guess I’m less worried about losing some people than I am about living our values. If, as our definition of that changes over time, we lose some people for whom it no longer resonates, I’m ok with that. And I hope they find a community that better represents them. It’s possible that by trying to appeal through compromise to a small group of UUs we could make ourselves a tradition that doesn’t speak to a much larger group of people who resonate with who we are and where we are heading. Or perhaps it makes us smaller. I don’t know, or believe any of us can know this with any certainty.
So I guess my hope is that this process best expresses who we are and who we are becoming in some kind of essential way (which I’ll acknowledge is problematic, because who gets to define “our essence,” though this process is kind of about that and has engaged more UUs than have ever been engaged in a process like this and will be decided by a democratic vote of delegates selected to represent their members), but my hope is that this process best expresses who we are and who we are becoming in some kind of essential way for present UUs as well as for the sake of those who haven’t joined us yet and for the generations to come who will continue to evolve our living tradition.
@RevLev , I don’t disagree with much of this, except to add that the people we may lose are not only the ones you may be thinking of. The people who have issues with losing language that is important to them is a much wider group, in my observation, than those who oppose the direction that I believe this Article II revision and the grassroots adoption of the 8th Principle are trying to take us. For example, I support the 8th Principle. Our congregation used a good method of discernment that started with studying diverse sources and only then publishing our own reflections, and only after that process was finished, having a final discussion and taking a vote. I also support the direction I believe the covenantal language is trying to take us here. But I am not willing to leave behind other language that is important to me and also represents my and others’ values and reasons for being UU.
If addressing cultural appropriation is so important, why don’t we just spell that out and use the term “cultural appropriation.” At least this way, if people don’t understand what “cultural appropriation” is they could ask/read around and inform themselves. In other words, they will at the very least be aware that they are confused, instead of unware that they are confused and very upset that because they took things the wrong way.
In general, I am against using buzz words and for using plain language, but in this case we may need to make an exception, because the original phrasing is simply not acceptable. It is too insider.
@Revlev, would you sign on to something that explictly warned against “cultural appropriation?”
@Janet , I hear what you are saying about maybe needing to just spell things out, and then people can ask, but here, my initial reaction is I think if we can find a way to cast the cultural appropriation concern both positively and with some detail that makes things clearer, that is a better all-around choice than just sort of lobbing the words “cultural appropriation” in there.
This may be especially the case because any real compromise of the Values/Principles selection is going to have to do heavy lifting with may similarly conflicting words and ideas, but I also think it may be true for this section standing on its own, as an amendment must.
“Cultural appropriation” will instantly mean at least two different things to people reacting positively or negatively to the term. Something that tries to lay out, albeit concisely, both the positive and the negative I think is ultimately more understandable and more consistent with a values statement, which this section also really is, as well as a listing of sources.
Also, @RevLev, you are correct in noticing that “depth and breadth” (which I had added in my first draft, when I completely eliminated the sentences you want restored) may now be redundant and/or fall into the same problem of implying full acceptance. Still thinking about this one. . .
Maybe something like this? Bolding means added, and brackets means deleted.
As Unitarian Universalists, we are inspired by the wisdom [full depth and breadth] of sacred and secular human knowledge. We respect the histories, contexts, and cultures in which it [the wisdom we draw upon] was created and is currently practiced. With care and compassion for every person’s individual path, we discern and build upon the sources of Unitarian Universalism as we move forward.”
Kerry, I agree with you. I really like your language, particularly in the last draft. It seems though that you want to get RevLev and others in his camp on board and RevLev seems to be strongly attached to the specific wording of the A2SC’s original, which is unacceptable for many. So, my suggestion of simply using the term “cultural appropriation,” was a way of moving towards at least some form of compromise.
Yes, you are right. It is a loaded term, but if the only two options are 1) the orignal wording and 2) expicitly stating “cultural appropriation” I think we should go for the latter. It is the least bad option. It is also the honest option. That is what they are about. They should just own it and say it.
Again, I really like your workaround language. But what I like is kind of beside the point right now … it seems to me since I am already on board and others are not.
@janet, I actually just answered your email that you sent when you were temporarily paused from responding due to three replies in a row. Can you take a look at that please?
I am not thinking of it as @RevLev and his camp, although I am waiting to see what his response is to my last suggestion. I am acknowledging that I now understand the reason for this language better and see why some specific wording should be retained, not just for him or his congregation, but for the many congregants in different congregations this is important to. I visit a lot of congregations’ websites as I like to listen to different sermons, and a quick, informal survey shows that land acknowledgement, one recognition of cultural appropriation, is a common feature at many congregations and is important to many of us.
I personally don’t think it has to be the exact wording and will be happy to go with a compromise that seems to most of the people pitching in to meet the main concerns. My latest suggestion does include most of the same language, but with a few changes.
And again, I will just reiterate, with words, there are never only two options.
I apologize for misquoting you, But again, no one person gets to say what things mean.
BlockquoteWhat I said before is about grammar and language structure. Those who interpret ““We respect the histories, contexts and cultures in which they were created and are currently practiced” as referring to the negative aspects contained in every tradition are missing that the qualifier, the referent for that statement, is the preceding statement, “As Unitarian Universalists, we use, and are inspired by, sacred and secular understandings that help us to live into our values.” That’s what I was calling “wrong,” as in grammatically unsound. This is true whether you are familiar with the concepts informing these statements or not. It clearly expresses that the “histories, contexts, and cultures” being referred to are those of the “sacred and secular understandings” that align with our values. It clearly excludes those traditions or parts of traditions that go against our values."
I understand what you are saying about the grammar and the antecendant creating context. I don’t think the problem is a grammatical or logical one. It is that the antecedant is too broad and is easily interpreted as including religions (like Christianity) which have lots of problematic historical and cultural elements attached to it.
You may say, Oh but we would never respect the elements of Christianity that don’t deserve respect (tautological). But really how can you neatly separate things like that? There are some UUs who are very Christian and see most of Christianity as positive (with some problematic bits in there). But there are some UUs who have had a very negative experience.
If you include Christianity as one possible source (which we have chosen not to do explicilty, but is still clearly there in the background of our religion), then people who have had different experiences with this religions are free to use or not use this source. But if you insist in a generalized manner that the histories, contexts and cultures of our sources (of which Christianity is clearly one even if it is not clearly expressed) should be respected, it as if you are getting in the face of those who do not respect much of the religions they grew up in but have left. You are not giving them the space to distance themselves.
@Janet Posted a long draft by mistake, but here’s the gist you responded to: Will you do me a favor for the next roughly 75 minutes? Pull back a little bit on the thread and see what others do now. For verbal, articulate people who like to engage in that reasoning process we both cherish and who have facility with words (and type fast), it is very easy to get into an answering every response mode. If you are like me, this tendency is especially increased when there is some time pressure to reach a resolution, which we are both very aware of.
But it is also important to let the pot simmer. Let’s wait a little bit now and let other delegates and people who might want to weigh in and/or sign on read everything–there’s a lot of words there already–and see what they say.
PS: @CSTownsend 's reflections about “rational” have gotten me thinking about unintended negative contrasts, and I realize that my description of “verbal, articulate” etc. might sound condescending, as I included me in, so another way to say this could be “verbose and argumentative,” LOL.
@KLusignan
This is going to be my last post on this thread.
As Unitarian Universalists, we are inspired by the full depth and breadth of sacred and secular human knowledge. We respect the histories, contexts, and cultures in which the wisdom we draw upon was created and is currently practiced. With care and compassion for every person’s individual path, we discern and build upon the sources of Unitarian Universalism as we move forward.”
I like this version. I actually like “depth and breadth” and for me the “which the wisdom we draw upon” clarifies what we’re respecting for me. I also wouldn’t oppose this amendment if you chose to use “sustain” or “nurture” solely based on that even though I prefer “help us live into our value.” I think I still don’t like it as much as the commission’s wording but with this version I can give the rest of your proposed amendment it’s due and consider supporting it in order to incorporate what it adds to the Inspiration section without losing the part that I find most important. Others who share my perspective would, I think, be more likely now to support your amendment.
To me, explicitly naming “cultural appropriation” would be using coded language. Not everyone is familiar with it or agrees with their understanding of it or has the same definition for it. Yes they could look it up but they would find multiple definitions and perspectives. It’s asking a lot. And with so many definitions floating around it’s much more vague, much less clear. In contrast, “we respect the histories, contexts, and cultures … was created and is currently practiced” serves as a concise definition of how we relate to our sources in order to not be culturally appropriative. Or one could leave out that contested terminology altogether and say, “we respect the histories, contexts, and cultures … was created and is currently practiced” clearly and concisely names how to relate to our sources. You don’t need to be familiar with cultural appropriation to understand what is meant and, as you point out, it’s put in the positive, what we do rather than what we don’t do. I’m not opposed to stating things in the negative but in this case I like that a lot better.
I haven’t contribute wording ideas here mostly because I wrote and submitted edits several times to the commission’s draft along its many months development process, and I like the commission’s draft. I have been following this particular amendment discussion because of my interest in the wording if the sources are to be more explicit.
In my previous comments here I meant much more than cultural appropriation-though that is a legit type of harm.
I feel like folks have a long way to go to see how we live in a settler state (on the literal bodies of millions of Indigenous People and millions of enslaved people and profits because of) whose descendants are still here. How UUism in the US benefited/benefits from colonialism and colonialism is always extractive, as discussed in the on-demand webinar on the whova app in the colonialism webinar. When I read the amendment what I’m think about is: do we have a theology that allows us to deeply think about the harm done by extraction when I look at the sources? Do we have a theology that allows us to think non-extractively and more relationally?
Thank you Kerry L for getting what I’ve been saying and working on the wording.
ABSOLUTELY No on rational inquiry! It singles out Humanist teachings as the ONLY rational inquiry, you believe that but it’s not true and it is not UUism. we don’`t have a creed.
@CSTownsend Cynthia, that is my suggested compromise, which I can see you don’t like, but I have to say that to me, at this point, it feels like you are trying to hobble this source not to say what it is about.
Here is what the Source previously said:
Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries of the mind and spirit;"
To me, the old language sounds much more like it elevates this source over others (it even seems like “idolatries of the mind and spirit” might be a dig).
I disagree that this singles out humanist teachings as the ONY rational inquiry, any more than the source about the Arts singles the Arts out as the only source of solace and joy, or the religious traditions source implies that they are the only source of wisdom.
The only other suggestion I have is to substitute “reasoned” for rational as noted elsewhere. This might put more of an emphasis on the process (which I believe @Janet and I like) and less on a quality of mind. Both words are adjectives, but “reasoned” is also the past tense of its active verb.
If you have different language you would propose, I’d be interested in hearing it. But if the goal is to remove this source from this amendment, for me, that is a dealbreaker and I would not sign onto this as a co-author with this source removed.
I do not plan to engage more here. I look forward to seeing the final amendment At this point, it’s up to the delegates. Thank you Janet & Kerry for all your work.
There are a lot of interesting and important points here, and even though we’re taking enough time working mainly on just two areas of wording now, this reminds me that in various sections of the proposed Article II draft, I’ve felt that the wording against exploitive, extractive, inequitable use and using up of people, animals, the environment, etc., could be stronger. Past and ongoing inequitable practices have created a lot of misery and death (even extinction) for humans and animals and put our whole interrelated web at risk.
I am now thinking about how/where/what a little more wording might be added to reflect this, as well as the cultural appropriation aspect . . .
I’m not going to tag Rev Lev as he indicated he is done commenting, but he explained much better and more knowledgeably than me why the “respect the histories, contexts, and cultures” language is much better than “cultural appropriation.”
