Author Archive for Emilia Liz



31
Jan

Suharto

Monday’s front page of the Toronto Star featured a black-and-white photograph of a man in a military cap. Underneath were the words “Suharto: 1921-2008.” The former Indonesian president died on Sunday at the age of 86 from multiple organ failure. As his health had been deteriorating for some time, there was talk of discontinuing his life support – a kidney dialysis machine and a ventilator – before he fell into a coma from which he never awoke. The “pull or not to pull” debate, however, paled in comparison to the controversies during his more than three decade-long rule of Indonesia and the following ten-year period.

SuhartoA general in the Indonesian army, Suharto (like many Indonesians he used only one name) took power in 1965 after conducting an anti-Communist purge and deposing then-president Sukarno. During his thirty-two-year leadership Suharto greatly industrialized the country and reduced its poverty. He gained the support of the United States, who saw his “New Order” administration as a bulwark against the spread of Communism in Southeast Asia. On the other hand, his regime was known for its corruption and brutality. Hundreds of thousands of people, mainly real or suspected Communists, were tortured by the police, kept in prison for long periods without trial, made to “disappear,” or killed outright. The Suharto administration’s invasion and annexation of West Papua (Irian Jaya) and East Timor (now an independent nation) and repression of the independence movement in the province of Aceh drew condemnation from international human rights organizations. Though Indonesia was the recipient of aid from the US and other Western countries, much of it went into the pockets of Suharto himself and his family members. There were discussions after his resignation in 1998 about prosecuting him for embezzlement, but he was never formally charged in a court of law.

Suharto was sometimes compared to a leader in a neighbouring country: Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Both were backed by the US government as anti-Communist fighters. The two men were famous as well for siphoning off foreign money destined for the public purse to their own personal coffers - even if Suharto’s wife lacked Imelda’s extensive footwear collection. Yet Suharto and Marcos differed in their ethnic policies. Both Indonesia and the Philippines have Chinese populations who are wealthier than average and who frequently raise the resentment of the native majority as a result. But whereas Marcos favoured the Philippine Chinese minority, Suharto launched an aggressive anti-Chinese program, even forbidding print material with Chinese characters (in his book Guns, Germs, and Steel, anthropologist Jared Diamond tells of going to a Chinese-run store in West Papua and seeing the owner quickly put away a Chinese newspaper at the sight of an Indonesian government agent entering the shop).

SuhartoSuharto’s treatment of different ethnic groups challenges the simplistic notion of a world made up of Whites on one hand and “people of colour” on the other. Ironically, this vision is shared by two factions who otherwise appear to have nothing in common: White Supremacists and leftists of all racial backgrounds. The latter tend to see non-Whites as victims of European colonialism - or American imperialism - and expect them to band together against the White oppressor. But this was hardly the case in East Timor, even if both that country and Indonesia at one time fell under European powers (Portugal and the Netherlands respectively). Though the West was rightly accused of turning a blind eye to Indonesia’s persecution of the Timorese people, the fact is that most of the human rights violations in Timor were committed not by Europeans or Americans but by Indonesians. East Timorese freedom fighter Constancio Pinto writes in his book East Timor’s Unfinished Struggle: Inside the Timorese Resistance that while not perfect, Timor’s former Portuguese overlords were far more humane than the Indonesians who came after them. And contrary to White racists’ idea of a vast anti-White conspiracy by “hordes of colour,” Timorese activist Xanana Gusmao has actually expressed solidarity with the people of Poland and the Baltics – at whose struggles for independence White “progressives” have often scoffed. Nor within Indonesia itself did Suharto love his Chinese subjects as fellow Asians.

Suharto remains a controversial figure in death as in life. At his funeral humble farmers and housekeepers sang his praises. East Timorese president Jose Ramos-Horta urged his countrymen to let bygones be bygones. Yet one of Suharto’s own daughters asked God to forgive her father for any mistakes he had made. Searching under “Suharto” on the Internet one can find articles calling him a brutal dictator and others describing him as the man who revolutionized Indonesia. Perhaps there is truth to both.

22
Jan

Black-Focused Schools: Are they the Answer?

The subject of Black-focused schools has once again come into the limelight. The Toronto District School Board is presently debating the issue, with some individuals arguing for the idea and others against it. The purpose of these schools, say the former, is to help lower the high dropout rate among Black youths by providing them with an educational environment that emphasizes the history and culture of African and African-descended peoples, like the majority of inhabitants of the Caribbean region. Because the mainstream school system does not affirm Black students’ heritage, many of them feel alienated from and eventually abandon formal education. Opponents on the other hand call Black-focused schools a return to the “separate but equal” days of segregation. Others, such as the National Post, openly state that the causes of African-Canadian adolescents’ high dropout rate lie not in the school but in the home: fatherless families, teen pregnancy, and welfare dependency among other things.

Personally I find some of the arguments of both parties a little extreme. Case in point: the charge of “segregation.” Surely no African-Canadian student would be forced to go to a Black-focused school, and non-Blacks would be welcome to attend too, although it’s hard to imagine many White or Asian families choosing to send their children to a Black-focused school. Nonetheless, as much as the “con” side’s statements strike me as overly alarmist, those of the pros appear even more dubious in some respects. For example, while Canadian public schools are hardly “Asian-focused,” Chinese, Koreans and East Indians are along with Jews the highest-achieving students in them. So the lack of emphasis on their heritage cannot be the only reason for Black teens’ elevated rate of school abandonment.

Some say that Black-focused schools will give the impression that African-Canadian students can’t “make it” in the mainstream academic world. Again, this fear appears rather exaggerated. On the other hand, with celebrities like James Watson and Philippe Rushton claiming that Blacks are genetically inferior to Whites, perhaps the establishment of such schools might in the minds of some people reinforce the notion that Blacks need “special” classes the way children with Down syndrome do. I admit it would bother me if my sister enrolled her two sons – who are biracial; their father is African-American – in a Black-focused school. It might lead me to think she did not consider them “good enough” for the mainstream system (my nephews are A students, by the way).

With all my ambivalence about Black-focused schools, though, I do believe they may be worth a try if African-Canadian parents really want them. They might help at least some students improve their grades and stay in school. I also feel that mainstream schools should teach children of all ethnic backgrounds, including Whites, about non-European histories and cultures. But in the end Black-focused schools are not the most effective solution to African-Canadians’ high dropout rate.

18
Jan

The Hijab: What does it Mean for Women?

The hijab (headscarf worn by Muslim women) has been getting a great deal of attention lately. A father in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada killed his teenage daughter for allegedly refusing to wear the scarf. Halfway across the world, fifteen students at an all-female school in Saudi Arabia burned to death in a fire after the country’s religious police did not let them leave the building because their heads were uncovered. However, the hijab has its proponents. A Muslim-American (female) writer wonders why many Americans see the veil as a sign of oppression when their own countrywomen are starving their bodies for the sake of “looking good.” One Western woman who converted to Islam and started covering her hair enjoyed the fact that construction workers no longer catcalled at her. So is the hijab a tool of women’s oppression or an instrument of their liberation? The answer, in my view, is more complicated than both the veil’s defenders and opponents are willing to admit.

What some Muslim women claim the hijab makes them feel free – free from sexual harassment, free from pressure to be “beautiful” in the eyes of others, free, in a sense, from being objectified as women by society in general and by men in particular. For example, a former “all-American girl” who converted to Islam wrote some years ago in the now-defunct Sassy Magazine that the veil led people to see her as a full human being rather than a sexual plaything. And most of these women emphasize that the hijab is a choice. One such woman is Faten Hijazi, a computer engineering student and former president of the Muslim Student Association at San Jose State University. She explains that the veil cannot be forced on an individual and that Islam prescribes modesty for both men and women. In her opinion, the hijab also protects women from obsessing over their appearance to the point of, in some cases, falling victim to eating disorders.

The stories in the first paragraph of this essay have forced me to look at the issue of the hijab from the perspective of a non-Muslim woman. On one hand, as a fairly modest dresser myself I identify to some extent with the above-mentioned women. At present my active wardrobe consists of several pairs of long loose pants and a few calf-length skirts. My even remotely sexy dresses, which in any event come down just to the knee, have been collecting dust at the back of my closet because wearing them would make it awkward for me to breastfeed my eight-month-old daughter. And forget Britney Spears-type outfits, which would be a little unseemly due to my visible caesarean scar. I also understand the wish to avoid catcalls from men. I remember agonizing almost weekly as an eleven-year-old undergoing early puberty when the boys in my class teased me about posing for Playboy. While looking back now my primary school travails seem almost humorous, I have to wonder whether the boys would have subjected me to their needling had I been wearing a veil.

Nonetheless, I have a few problems with some of the arguments put forth by hijab defenders. I think first of the woman who said once she started covering her hair men stopped whistling at her. In my view a woman who dresses like Madonna shouldn’t be too shocked if men catcall at and/or make suggestive comments to her (though of course no actual touching should be tolerated). But is it necessary to wear the hijab, or in some cases the niqab (a veil that leaves only the eyes uncovered) or full-body burqa, to prevent harassment? Some men will catcall at women no matter how the latter dress. It furthermore seems somewhat disconcerting to imply that women should expect to be sexually harassed if they don’t conform to Islamic standards of modesty. One Arab website, for instance, suggests that one reason for the rape of Filipina domestics in the Gulf States is the women’s attire. On the site is a picture of two Filipinas in short-sleeved blouses and skirts cut just below the knee. These women struck me as no more immodestly dressed than most out-of-habit Catholic nuns and as much more modestly attired than the average Western woman today. In addition, one has to wonder, judging by that particular website, whether the concern for women’s welfare Muslim commentators frequently attribute to Islam applies to all women or just to those deemed “virtuous” enough.

I now want to address the hijab from the perspective of a practising Christian. Christianity, at least in its mainstream version, does not possess any dress codes for women, or men for that matter. Of course most people would agree that going into a church in a microskirt is both socially inappropriate and disrespectful to the religion itself. However, I have to question the concept that one, particularly a woman, has to dress in a certain manner in order to be considered a faithful member of a religion (note: some Muslims say that the Koran does not specifically require women to veil themselves; I don’t know enough about Islam to provide an expert opinion on this). I tend to see faith as more of an internal than external matter. I’m not saying that women who do wear the hijab are trying to broadcast to the world “Look at what a good Muslim I am!” But as one Muslim woman – actually, Sara Balabagan, the Filipina domestic worker who was acquitted of murdering her employer after he tried to rape her – put it, what use is it to wear a veil if one does not follow Islam’s teachings.

The biggest problem I have with hijab defenders is their implication that to veil or not to veil is always a free decision on the part of the woman in question. For women in some Islamic countries, like Saudi Arabia, it is not: they are required to cover their heads when out in public. One might argue that the students burned at the above-mentioned school in that country died from a lack of choice.

This brings me to another matter: should Muslim girls be allowed to wear the hijab in public secular schools? The issue became the subject of an intense debate in France. The authorities there answered the question in the negative. While this decision was applauded by French conservatives and endorsed by some Canadian conservatives, like National Post columnist Barbara Kay, the left’s reaction was more ambiguous. The Nation columnist Katha Pollitt spoke of an acquaintance of hers, a forward-thinking (female) academic who at first supported the French Muslim girls’ “right” to wear the veil to class as an expression of their religion and culture. Pollitt’s friend changed her mind, however, upon hearing some of the girls themselves say they appreciated the French authorities’ ban on the hijab because otherwise their parents would have forced them to wear it. I on one hand don’t necessarily share Barbara Kay’s view that a similar ban in Canadian schools would have saved the life of Aqsa Parvez, the Mississauga girl killed by her father for supposedly refusing to put on the veil. On the other hand, Kay is right to state that the hijab can’t be equated to a Christian cross worn by a female high school student (I also suspect some schoolgirls wear a cross not to show their faith but to emulate their idol Madonna, who uses the crucifix in her stage acts).

The hijab is a complex issue, for which there are no easy answers. But to regard it as a sure sign of either women’s oppression or liberation appears somewhat extreme in both cases.

07
Jan

Mixed-Race Scandinavians

One day last December I was shopping at Toronto’s Kensington Market and saw a car with a sticker of the Danish flag on the back. As I stopped to look more closely, a young mulatto girl came up to me and asked, “Can I help you?”

Curious to know what her connection to Denmark might be, I said, “I noticed you have a sticker of the Danish flag on the back of your car.”

“My mom’s Danish,” she replied.

“Oh, I’m of Norwegian descent. Our flag is just like yours except that it has a blue cross.” (Denmark’s flag is red with a white cross, Norway’s red with a blue cross outlined in white.)

Just then an older White woman who had apparently been listening to the conversation walked over, smiled, and started talking to me in what must have been Danish (Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are so similar they’re often called the dialects of the Scandinavian language). I apologized and told her I didn’t speak Norwegian.

I wished a Merry Christmas to the mother and daughter, and we parted ways. I felt somewhat ashamed of myself for automatically presuming that the girl was NOT Danish. After all, thanks to some Italian and Irish ancestry I’m hardly the typical blond-haired blue-eyed Scandinavian. But as I pondered the matter further, I realized there were a number of mixed-race Scandinavians in my midst. A children’s group to which I once brought my daughter included a small and very pretty mulatto girl with a Swedish mother. My best friend on a summer exchange program to Quebec was a young woman whose mother was from Sweden and father from Egypt (for the purpose of this essay, I’ll go by the Canadian government’s current classification of Arabs as non-White, even if some of them are physically indistinguishable from Greeks or Southern Italians). My family is no stranger to interracial relationships either. A cousin of mine married a Black American man and has two biracial sons. My own daughter is part Native American on her Nicaraguan father’s side, though like most Latin Americans he has Spanish ancestry as well.

Scandinavia boasts several well-known individuals of mixed heritage in its ranks. Among them are singer Neneh Cherry (Swedish mother, African father), Kersti Bowser (a Black-Swedish model who joked she went to tanning salons to “keep her Swedish side in check”); and Rikke Roenholt (Danish mother, Ghanaian father), a runner who will be representing Denmark in the 2008 Olympics. Famous White Scandinavians who have been involved in interracial unions include Icelandic singer Bjork (had a relationship with a Black man named Goldie which caused an anti-miscegenation fan of hers to commit suicide on videotape), Swedish actress May Britt (wife of musician Sammy Davis Jr.), Swedish actor Dolph Lundgren (ex-lover of Grace Jones), and Denmark’s Prince Joachim (formerly married to a woman of Austrian and Chinese descent).

Any discussion on mixed-race Scandinavians would be incomplete without a mention of Greenland. An overseas territory of Denmark, Greenland was colonized by that nation in the 1700s. Most Greenlanders are of mixed Danish and Inuit descent. Recent genetic studies have shown that as with Latin America, Greenland’s present population resulted from unions of European men with native women. However, while colonization in Latin America led to an almost complete Westernization of that region (most Latin American mestizos, like my daughter’s father, speak Spanish as their first language and don’t identify at all as Indian), Greenlanders have kept much more of their original culture. For example, Greenlandic, an Inuit language, is the mother tongue of most Greenlanders, though many know Danish too. On the other hand, the bulk of Greenland’s population belongs to the Lutheran Church, as does Denmark’s.

At an individual level, the degree to which mixed-race Scandinavians retain their culture varies. My above-mentioned friend in Quebec, for instance, spent long periods of time as a child in Sweden and spoke fluent Swedish. In contrast, my grandmother, whose family came from Norway, married a non-Scandinavian man and didn’t teach Norwegian to my mother, so I am unfortunately unable to pass the language on to my daughter and any other children I may have in future.

One “marker” of Scandinavian heritage is Lutheranism, even if not all Scandinavians are Lutheran and many of those who are are not particularly religious. Here again, families differ. Though her father was Muslim, my Swedish-Egyptian friend was raised Lutheran. However, a Finnish-Canadian colleague married to a Filipino woman was bringing up his children in his wife’s Catholic faith. I myself have had my daughter baptized in the Lutheran Church. While the principal reason for doing so is to share my personal faith with her, an added bonus is the “link” it provides to her Scandinavian ancestors.

On my kitchen wall is a picture of a girl in traditional Norwegian dress. My mother remarked that she might make a similar costume so that my daughter could be a “little Norwegian girl” for Halloween.

“But she’s already a little Norwegian girl!” I protested.

“With those big brown eyes [courtesy of her father]?” my mom responded, and we both laughed. Speaking of whom, here is the most recent picture of my “little Norwegian girl.”

egirl.jpg

Now I would like to include an interview with a real-life mixed-race Scandinavian – writer Heidi Durrow, author of the book Light-skinned-ed Girl. Check out her website at www.heidiwdurrow.com – and read her answers to my questions.

Q: From what I understand, your mother is Danish and your father African-American. How and where did your parents meet?
A: My parents (my mother is from Herning, Denmark and my father was originally from Texas) met on an American Air Force base in Germany. My mom was working as a nanny to an American family – she wanted to practice her English while she earned some money to go back to school.
Q: Where were you born?
A: I was born in Seattle, WA at the Swedish Hospital . Both my brothers (one older and one younger) were born in Herning. I am jealous of this to this day – but tease them that they cannot ever be President of the US because they were born on foreign soil. Silly, right?
Q: Do you speak Danish fluently? If so, is it your first language (meaning the first language you learned as a child)?
A: Yes, I would say I’m fluent in Danish – though each time I’ve gone back as an adult I hear more of an accent developing –an unintelligible one at that—a strange mixture of American and ???? Also, my language is kind of dated and I sound like my mother from forty years ago – I haven’t updated my slang-and I haven’t updated my accent to go with the Copenhageners –but they are kind to me when I go and don’t make fun of me –heee hee.
Q: Have you spent long periods of time in Denmark?
A: As a child we spent long summers and holidays there. Recently, I received a grant from the American Scandinavian Foundation to do research for a book I’m writing. I spent a month in Copenhagen in a little apartment I rented. I spent time at the libraries and doing interviews and also with my family. It was an amazing experience to be part of Danish life for so long as an adult on my own terms.
Q: Would you say that when growing up your father’s or your mother’s background had the greatest influence in your home?
A: My mother’s background was the most important. We spoke only Danish with my mother until I was about 11 or 12. When my dad would come home from work, we would speak English around him but if he wasn’t in the room it was Danish again. We ate Danish food, celebrated holidays the Danish way – and I think were raised with a Danish sensibility – the bad part: Janteloven – but also something more intangible that I think people here would say is European but to me seems specifically Danish.
Q: Were you raised in the Church of Denmark (the Lutheran Church, that is)?
A: I was christened Lutheran, but did not have a confirmation. It was a great wish to have one as a child, but by the time I was 14, we were in the US and it would be another several years before we could AFFORD for me to travel to Denmark again.
Q: How do you identify ethnically now?
A: My ethnic identification has gone through many changes. For the last long while, I have embraced saying that I am biracial and bicultural – African-American and Danish. I think this specificity annoys some people – some who think, get over it you’re black since you don’t look white and also those who think: but you’re American and that whole Danish thing is just quaint. I am tired of thinking what they are thinking and just say what is the truth now.
Q: Do you find that racism is widespread in Denmark? Have you ever encountered racism in that country?
A: I feel lucky not have experienced racism in Denmark. I was either too ignorant to recognize it or I have been shielded from it. That is not to say that I haven’t been privy to people making comments about me. Comments like “there are more and more of THOSE people coming” – an overhead remark when I had lunch with a cousin – I assume they thought I was Arab? Turkish? A foreigner who was now living in Denmark? There is a lot of discrimination against them. It’s disturbing. My brothers have experienced racism, I think – but those are their own stories. I think ignorance about racial difference is widespread in Denmark, unfortunately. It’s a small land and for a long time they haven’t had contact with “others” - but I think it is changing. There are more and more mixed-race Danes who are in the media and I think that makes it all less strange.
Q: In the past few years the Danish government made news because it tightened its immigration laws, making it more difficult to obtain political asylum and bring foreign-born spouses to that country. As a person of part non-European ancestry, what did you think of these new laws?
A: The new anti-immigrant laws are disturbing and not at all Danish – Danes have always been and I believe will again be free-spirited and forward-thinking in regards to race. That’s my belief.

31
Dec

Immigration - The Lib/Con Switch

Immigration Minister Diane Finley has just announced a new law that will make it easier for adoptive parents to obtain Canadian citizenship for their foreign-born children.  Children adopted abroad can now become Canadian citizens as soon as the adoption is finalized rather than having to be sponsored and given permanent residence as was the case until recently. They will basically go through the same legal procedures as children born overseas to Canadian parents. In Finley’s own words, “Canadian families welcome foreign-born children into their homes and we want to welcome them into the country.”

My opinion: a good move on Immigration Canada’s part. Adopted children are entitled to the same rights as their biological counterparts, so anything that eases their transition not only into their new family but into their new country as well is a step in the right direction. Something to keep in mind if I ever decide to give my daughter an adopted brother or sister…

In other immigration news, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said in a speech that he believes most immigrants, including Muslim ones, are integrating successfully into Canadian society. This despite the recent murder of a young Muslim woman by her father for allegedly refusing to wear the hijab (veil) and pronouncements by communities like Herouxville, Quebec that newcomers are welcome but have to leave some of their customs from back home at the doorstep.

An apparent contradiction, the “scarily” right-wing Harper downplaying fears about immigration and the supposedly “socialist” province of Quebec playing them up? Maybe, but I view this less as a left-right issue than a French versus Anglo-Saxon debate. In the past both France and Britain had huge overseas empires. They took different approaches to the peoples over whom they ruled, however. While the French sought to assimilate their subjects, whether to the former’s religion, language, or culture (ex. Black Frenchmen of Africa), the English generally didn’t try to change the habits of the natives they conquered. Hence Harper’s contentment with the status quo compared to the Quebecois leaders’ more urgent desire to ensure that immigrants fit into the host society.

I tend to concur more with Stephen Harper than with the councillors of Herouxville on this one. Most immigrants are integrating well into their new home. On the other hand, I understand how sometimes it might be necessary to remind some newcomers to keep their old ways in check. For example, if Aqsa Parvez’s father really did kill her because she wouldn’t wear a hijab, perhaps a warning that in Canada women aren’t obliged to cover their head in public or even that hair doesn’t constitute a sexual provocation (I can barely imagine mine being an enticement to any man when I’ve just stepped out of the local $10 a cut salon) might be appropriate. Still, I see most newcomers, Muslims among them, adapting fairly satisfactorily to Canadian life.

21
Dec

Names

About two decades or so ago the Black community in the United States became embroiled in a debate over what to call themselves. Some suggested that the term “African American” replace “Black,” which itself had succeeded “Negro” (now considered somewhat offensive by some Blacks, even though talk show host Oprah Winfrey once used it in the 1980s). Others objected on the grounds that their connection to Africa was rather tenuous since most American Black families had lived in the United States for generations. In a letter to the magazine Ebony, one reader pointed out as well that many American Blacks traced their ancestry to other places in addition to Africa. A Black in the US could be of mixed African, Irish, and Italian heritage (real-life example: singer Alicia Keys). The matter remains as yet unresolved; the media tends to use “Black” and “African American” interchangeably.

The business of naming – whether of a baby, a place or an institution – is more often than not fraught with difficulty, conflict and self-doubt. Perhaps no decision is more controversial, though, than what to name a community of people; i.e. an ethnic group. The “Black/African American” dilemma is just one example. While the White community has not experienced as intense a debate, terms like “European-American” (or “Euro-American”) and “Anglo” have of late become virtually synonymous with White in many circles. I have reservations about both, albeit for different reasons. With regard to the first, as with American Blacks and Africa, most US Whites’ links to Europe are fairly remote. For instance, I would have a hard time describing my mother, whose family has been in North America for up to four generations and who only visited Europe for the first time in her thirties, as “European.” Anglo on the other hand seems to exclude the many US Whites (like my mom) with no Anglo-Saxon ancestry whatsoever. And if one argues that these Whites are nonetheless culturally Anglo-Saxon by dint of living in the US, would not the same be true of nearly all American Blacks?

A less heated exchange has taken place in the Latino/Hispanic community. Some members believe that the former designation should be employed instead of the latter because many Latin Americans, being of Native American and/or African descent, lack any ancestral ties to Spain (the Latin word for which, Hispania, gave rise to “Hispanic”). In contrast, the name “Latino” ties them to “Latin” America – though ultimately the word “Latin” derives from another place in Europe, the Italian region of Latium (present-day Lazio) where the Latin language first emerged. Meanwhile some Hispanic/Latino groups have adopted names to describe their particular community. Mexican Americans, for instance, use the word “Chicano,” a contraction of “Mexicano.” Perhaps less familiar is Puerto Ricans’ description of themselves as “Boricuas” from “Boriquen” (“land of the great and valiant lord”), the name the island’s original inhabitants the Taino Indians gave it.

In other cases groups have sought to replace a name imposed on them by outsiders with one of their own choosing. For example, the reindeer-herding people of Northern Scandinavia reject the term “Lapp” in favour of “Sami.” Most inhabitants of the Canadian and American Far North similarly prefer to be called “Inuit” (“the people”) to “Eskimo,” a Cree word meaning “eaters of raw meat” on account of their habit of not fully cooking some of their food in order to preserve the nutrients. But not all: the Yupiks of Alaska still insist on the name “Eskimo.”

Some groups have gone a step further and deliberately taken on a formerly derogatory name as a sign of empowerment, just as some gays and lesbians have reclaimed the terms “queer” and “dyke.” For instance, the people of East Timor adopted the word “Maubere” which their Portuguese colonizers used to express scorn for them, as a term of pride.

Of course not all name changes are politically driven. A “Filipino,” for example, once referred to a descendent of Spaniards who was born in the Philippines, a former Spanish colony, in contrast to the natives of the islands, who were known as “indios” (Indians), like those of the New World. Eventually however “Filipino” came to designate a native inhabitant of the Philippines. In the naming of ethnic groups, we see how race, politics and history intertwine.

19
Dec

Infant Baptism

On August 26 2007 my three-month-old daughter Gabriella Michelle was baptized into the Lutheran Church. It was quite an event: my brother, who served as one of the godparents, noted that Gabriella screamed extra loudly when the priest asked whether she would renounce Satan – to which I responded that she was such a little devil herself that she couldn’t possibly renounce one of her own. More seriously, though, the ceremony started me thinking about the subject of infant baptism.

Infant baptism is a contentious issue in the Christian community as a whole. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and traditional Protestants (Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists and so on) practise it. An acquaintance of mine from a fundamentalist background who was raised in a predominantly Catholic country - France - was teased by her classmates that she would not go to heaven because she had not been baptized (the current Pope seems to have retracted this position). Other denominations, like most fundamentalists – Baptists, Pentecostals, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etcetera - and Mennonites, only baptize adults and in certain cases children above the “age of reason” (around seven). Some of them hold dedication ceremonies for newborns in which the child is “dedicated” to the Lord. They frequently require converts who were christened as babies to be re-baptized. However, even some members of the former group of churches have questioned the validity of infant baptism. For example, a Lutheran former colleague told me he did not consider it Scriptural.

According to Lutherans, other traditional Protestants, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, baptism welcomes a baby into the family of God and into the earthly community of the church. It also creates faiths in the infant’s heart. On the other hand, denominations that restrict baptism to adults or older children state that baptism requires a profession of faith by the individual him- or herself. As a baby is incapable of making such a profession, infant baptism is thus invalid. A “believer’s baptism” is the only valid one. They furthermore claim that christening infants gives them a “false sense of security” because it leads them to believe that baptism alone will open the door to heaven for them.

Meanwhile both sides of the divide cite the Scriptures in support of their respective positions. Opponents of infant christening point out that Jesus himself was baptized as an adult. Infant baptism is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, they add, so that means there is no Scriptural basis for the practice. They provide examples of people like the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8: 26-39) who were baptized after they understood that Jesus was the Messiah, a concept a baby or young child can obviously not be expected to grasp.

At the other end of the spectrum, infant-christening churches look to Jesus’ exhortation to his Apostles to “teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19). “All” means exactly what it says, according to this logic, and Jesus did not place any restrictions on the age of people to be baptized. In addition, when Christianity was first spreading, very often entire households, like that of the saleswoman and convert Lydia (Acts 16:15), were baptized. Given that contraception at the time was very inefficient and, anyway, large families were prized (Psalm 127, for instance, reads “children are an heritage of the Lord… Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them”), in all probability those households included babies. A quote from St. Peter further alludes to the place of infant baptism in the early church. In Acts 2: 38, 29 he tells his followers, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ… For the promise is unto you, and to your children;” again, no mention of the ages of the children in question.

Admittedly, certain arguments in favour of infant baptism do not strike me as particularly convincing. For instance, some people claim that baptism was instituted as a replacement for circumcision, which was performed on newborn boys. The major problem with this explanation is that it would not apply (thankfully) to girls. Moreover, Jesus himself and presumably all the male members of the early Jewish Christian community had been circumcised as babies, but they did not forego baptism. Others use Jesus’ words “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God” as a justification for infant baptism. This passage, though, does not refer to Jesus baptizing children but laying his hands on them. Scripture aside, I understand the reasoning why churches that do not christen infants and even some parents in denominations that do feel that the children should decide for themselves whether or not they want to be baptized. Nonetheless, my reading of the Bible leads me to the conclusion that infant baptism is at best advocated and at worst merely permitted by Scripture, not forbidden or deemed inappropriate.

It should be fairly obvious from the first sentence of this essay that I personally believe in infant baptism. However, in my opinion it is important to examine the opposing viewpoint as well. I have chosen to raise my daughter in the Lutheran Church to give her a foundation on which to live her life. I hope she continues in the faith as an adult (I have even set aside her christening gown so that she can use it for her own future children), although I know there are no guarantees she will do so. But baptism seems like a good place to start.




Further Research