Monday, January 1, 2024

In This New Year, Let’s Respect the Humanity of Everyone

In December, I finished (slightly) revising and updating the 2020 book I wrote primarily for my children and grandchildren, the subtitle of which now is The Story of My Life from My Birth to My 85th Birthday (1938~2023). My daughter Kathy (who lives nearby) helped in several ways, including doing some proofreading. 

A few times in my book, I used the word Black(s) to refer to African American people. Kathy, who is a teacher of gifted students in the local public school system, said that that terminology should be changed, and referred to the current recommendations of the APA in that regard.

In their style guide for writing, the American Psychological Association (APA) lists some “general principles for reducing bias,” one of which is “be sensitive to labels.” In that regard is this directive: “Acknowledge people’s humanity.” They went on to say,

Choose labels with sensitivity, ensuring that the individuality and humanity of people are respected. Avoid using adjectives as nouns to label people…or labels that equate people with their condition.

Although there are some descendants of enslaved people in this country who reportedly prefer to term Black to African American, I soon agreed with the APA’s guidelines, and with my insightful daughter.

This insight is something I heard more than 60 years ago from Wayne Oates, the professor of my seminary course in Pastoral Counseling.* I have not, though, sufficiently or consistently put that perspective into practice.

I still remember Dr. Oates telling us “preacher boys” (and I don’t remember even one female student in that course I took in 1961 or ’62) that in our work as pastors, we shouldn’t say things like we’re going to visit the sick or the elderly. Rather, we should always refer to them as sick or elderly people.

Oates, who had a Ph.D. in religious psychology, was emphasizing then what the APA is still stressing now: adjectives should not be used as nouns to label people. The humanity of all people should always be recognized.

Even the humanity of our enemies must be affirmed. That is one thing that impressed me when I read the Sojourners article that introduced and included an interview with Ali Abu Awwad, the Palestinian pacifist I wrote about in my previous blog post.** That article begins with these words:

A core principle of nonviolence is recognizing the humanity of your opponent.

Considerable progress has been made in this regard in recent years. In the public media, “slaves” are now usually referred to as enslaved people. Such language choice separates people's identity from their circumstance.

And just the other day, I was surprised to hear a newscaster on the radio refer to “people experiencing homelessness” rather than “the homeless.” That was another example of people’s humanity being emphasized over their current condition.

But what about Awwad’s emphasis on recognizing the humanity of one’s opponents or enemies? It is certainly commendable that as a Palestinian man he can see the humanity of the Israelis who incarcerated him.

Can Israelis or even us in this in country, though, recognize the humanity of Palestinians affiliated with Hamas? It is certainly easier to demonize such people—and the enemy in every war is demonized. That makes it much easier to kill them.

As an advocate of nonviolence, I agree with Awwad’s recognition of the humanity of all people, including enemies. After all, Jesus said to his followers, “…love your enemies and pray for those who harass you” (Matt. 5:44, CEB).

The Hamas fighters are usually called terrorists, and not without reason. But if we follow the guidelines given above, perhaps they should be called “desperate people engaging in terrorism [=the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims].”

I do not in any way condone the 10/7 violent attacks on Israel. But I do want to affirm their humanity, and that affirmation comes partly from recognizing their legitimate grievances at the way Palestinians have been treated since 1948.  

There is no telling what may happen, in the Levant or the world as a whole, in this new year of 2024. But among other things, let us always endeavor to respect the humanity of all people.

_____

  * In my 10/20/14 blog post I wrote that Wayne Oates was “probably the wisest teacher I ever sat under.”

** Only after making my previous blog post did I learn that Awwad was one of two men awarded this year’s Indira Gandhi Prize for Peace, Disarmament and Development in December. That award was bestowed on Awwad for his “efforts towards a non-violent resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict.” That prestigious Peace Prize has been awarded annually since its establishment in 1986. Jimmy Carter was the recipient of it in 1997.

26 comments:

  1. Forgive our enemies, and be very careful about whom we designate as enemies. Maybe, "people who have goals contrary to ours." I'm undertaking an intensive study of Genesis 1 - 11, and discovering new stuff. Not particularly new that God forgave Cain, but YHWH put a protective mark on Cain, and promised a seven fold protection by that mark. Peter asked if he should forgiv seven t someone who sinned against him. Jesus responded seven times seven, or maybe seventy seven. Complete forgiveness untold times. BTW, I share your veneration of Wayne Oates. We were blessed with some wonderful Professors at SBTS of old. And diligence is required to forgive those who destroyed SBTS as we knew it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comments, Charles. I think you have made a good point regarding enemies. Both in speaking about enemies with reference to YHWH or to us God-believers, perhaps we need to recognize that while there are those who feel enmity toward God, there are no people toward whom God harbors enmity. And as for us, there may people who feel enmity toward us, but that doesn't mean that we should have enmity toward them and a desire to harm them. That, surely, is part of what of what Jesus meant by telling us to love our enemies, that is, the people who have enmity for us.

      Delete
  2. The comments received so far today, other than Charles's above, have been quite short, but I didn't expect there would be lengthy ones on New Year's Day. The first comments received this morning were from Thinking Friend Glenn Hinson in Kentucky:

    "A very commendable proposal, Leroy. You will force me to do some serious thinking about the way I speak about persons."

    ReplyDelete
  3. Then a little later, Thinking Friend Frank Shope in New Mexico wrote,

    "Well said; there little that I can add, other than to say Amen."

    ReplyDelete
  4. There were somewhat longer comments from local Thinking Friend Marilyn Peot:

    "Once again, I am aware of your wonderful expression of 'what is better than'; you challenge and teach--and it is always "good stuff." Your own study and writings bring new thinking...thank you!

    "I am grateful for your messages. Today's blog settles those questions many folks have.

    "May you and June have a very special New Year--filled with peace, joy, and hope."

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thinking Friend Michael Willett Newheart in Maryland commented,

    "Thanks, Leroy. I wholeheartedly affirm this principle of the humanity of all persons. I wonder if the next step would be affirming the creatureliness of all beings?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael, I'm not sure what you imply by referring to the creatureliness of all beings. Do you mean that we ought to extend our love not just to other humans but also to (other) animals and other non-human beings? Tolstoy, whom I was reading again this past year, has strong words in opposition to eating meat and not treating animals with compassion.

      In contrast, based on what Genesis says about human beings being created in the image of God, I wonder about the need to recognize not just the humanity of all persons but also the divinity in all humans, Of course, that goes against what some of us at Southern Seminary heard from Dr. Moody, who spoke critically of "sparkology," the idea that there is a spark of divinity in everyone,

      Delete
  6. Another Thinking Friend in Maryland wrote,

    "Good post. Also, taught me 'Levant.'"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was glad to get this comment, for that gives me the opportunity to tell many other readers of this blog about the meaning of that term. I first learned it back with Obama was President, for he was the main one that I heard referring to ISIL rather than ISIS. The latter was used to refer to the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. But Pres. Obama realized the problem was broader, so he referred to ISIL, which meant the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, the territory that, according to Britannica, "spans the countries of Cyprus, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine, Syria, and Turkey."

      Delete
    2. I also meant to say that I chose to use Levant rather than Middle East (or Near East) since it is a term from the people living in the area rather than one from a European/Western standpoint.

      Delete
  7. And then Ken Grenz, another Thinking Friend in the Kansas City area, commented,

    "I generally say that those with the ID should say what it is, but as you say, not all share the preferred identity name. African American presumes that persons unknown are Americans! It’s a complicated issue. "

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken, I fully agree that "those with the ID should say what it is"--and I also agree that it is a complicated issue. I long referred to indigenous people in this country as American Indians and then became convinced that they should be called Native Americans instead. And then I talked with an articulate man with that ID--and he said his preference was to be called an American Indian.

      One reference to a Black person in my book was with regard to a fellow seminary student from Kenya who I invited to the church of which I was a pastor. I couldn't call him an African American, of course, so I made reference to him as a Black--and then was convinced by my daughter that a different way of referring to him should be used.

      Delete
  8. Finally, for now, just a few minutes ago Thinking Friend Truett Baker in Arizona wrote,

    "Thanks for a needed reminder that we need to be more thoughtful in our address of others."

    ReplyDelete
  9. I have a lot of sympathy for the goal of this blog, but we cannot call for, to borrow from Charles, replacing "enemies" with "people who have goals contrary to ours" without realizing we are having a head on collision with pronoun logic. Pronouns replace long names with short substitutes. Now, sometimes this creates problems, such using wrong pronouns. Are God's pronouns He/Him, She/Her, or They/Them? Then there is poetry logic, where various carefully crafted allusions often substitute for direct references. So how do we separate disdain from pronouns and hate from poetry? Surely we do not want to be backed into a corner where we have to admit that "a rose by any other name would NOT smell just as sweet." Further, saying "you people" is hardly affirming humanity. Indeed, following Jesus logic, there are times to say, "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you cross sea and land to make a single convert, and you make the new convert twice as much a child of hell as yourselves." (Matthew 23:16)

    What I make of this is that words are tools of great power. Used correctly they can deliver a message with precision and strength. Used carelessly, they can do great harm. Prophets teach us there are times to punch up, to deliver truth to power. Punching down, heaping scorn on the powerless, is cruel, even at times evil. Mostly, we should try to speak the language of love, or at least diplomacy. When we do decide to put our words on the line, we need to be sure we are ready for them to live a long time. Like that time Jimmy Carter to Jerry Falwell to "go to hell." It was nearly 40 years ago, but it is not forgotten: https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/09/12/Jimmy-Carter-to-Jerry-Falwell-Go-to-hell/4594526881600/

    Free Palestine!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Craig, we frequently encounter head on collisions with pronoun logic. I think sometimes there is no suitable pronoun. And I certainly would not wish to substitute "those who have goals contrary to ours" for "enemies." For people who write or speak, awkwardness may be a greater barrier to effective communication than using a noun or proper noun to designate a person or group of people. And just talking or writing like I did in the immediately preceding sentence is awkward. Sometimes the best way to say it is just to say it.

      Delete
    2. Craig, I am always happy to have your comments, which are usually longer and more thoughtful than most. But in today's post I was writing about the problem of using adjectives as nouns to label people. Your first paragraph, however, is about pronouns, which is also a problem but somewhat different.

      Calling people "people" may not be a particularly praiseworthy thing to do, but if all humans are people and all people are humans, that is some definite, non-prejudicial recognition of their humanity, much more so than using an adjective which refers to a characteristic of their current condition rather than acknowledging their basic personhood. As for Jesus' words, he addressed people in the verse you quoted by the nouns (not adjectives) by which they were identified: scribes, Pharisees. That may not have embraced their full humanity, but generally at that time those were terms which elicited admiration and praise rather than something negative.

      Delete
  10. Another local Thinking Friend makes this pungent comment:

    "Language does tend to shape our 'reality,' an effect a former President demonstrates when he calls others 'vermin.'"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And Trump said what he wanted to say!

      Delete
    2. Replying to myself, "Sometimes it better not to say what we want to say." Better to "speak the truth in love" than to express the unlove we may be feeling at the moment.

      Delete
  11. I try to leave my personal politics out of my comments, but I would suggest if we include Trump's disgusting language here, then we need to include the narrow-minded and prejudicial comments from political candidates representing other parties.

    I fully agree with your blog, Bro. Leroy. Too often our casual use of terminology comes across as a Freudian slip revealing deeply buried and perhaps ignored bigotry and prejudices. Your comment on every human being created in the image of God is a concept I try to remember in dealing with all people, but then I have to ask for God's forgiveness for the prejudicial thoughts that sometimes arise unwanted.

    To help myself in this effort, I once asked the group in my Monday morning Bible study I lead at our county senior enrichment center what terminology they preferred since over 50 % of them were 'Black'. I rattled off the terms 'colored people', 'negro', 'African American', and 'Black'. At the time 'people of color' was not a phrase I was used to using. Unanimously the members of that group said they preferred "Black". I said fine with me. I learned from the people who knew best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Tom, for your comments. Let me respond briefly to your first and last paragraphs.

      I am not sure there is an equivalent match of "Trump's disgusting language" on the other side of the aisle, but I do agree that demeaning language should not be used on either side. And I do object to those who strongly disagree with Trump's political views and dislike him as a person calling him derogatory names or writing his name in a demeaning way (for example, tRump). Everyone deserves to be treated respectfully.

      Concerning terminology: preferences change. Back when "people of color" was not commonly used, "Black" was the name of choice for many people of African ancestry. But with the passing of time, it seems that that term as a noun came to be considered disrespectful to many.

      Delete
  12. Thinking Friend Kerry Fleming in Chicago posted the following comments on Facebook (where I posted a link to this blog article yesterday):

    "I love this post, Leroy, and the entire noun vs adjective perspective makes a great deal of sense to me.

    "Finding the humanity in all, especially our enemies, can be a tall order. But it’s also an invitation to dig deeper and, in so doing, discover things we didn’t understand about folks in different circumstances than ours, but it also allows us to look within our own hearts and souls as well. We can find similarities and common ground in places we never dreamed possible.

    "Thanks for this, Leroy."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Kerry, thanks much for reading and responding to my blog article in such a positive way!

      Delete
  13. On Saturday evening I received the following thoughtful comments from Thinking Friend Virginia Belk in New Mexico:

    "Thanks for this exposé on noun labels for human persons. I had not heard the term Levant previously, so was glad for the definition that you gave.

    "Among the descendants of the first people on this hemisphere, with whom I am acquainted, there are various preferences for the identity label: American Indian, and Native American both leave me in a quandary. The former implies that the person is of the same ethnic heritage as those living in India (where there is a multiplicity of ethnicities not at all related to those in this country or hemisphere). The latter is equally mystifying; if 'native' means one was born in this country/hemisphere, then I, too am Native American, although the majority of my ancestors emigrated from western and northern Europe. 'Native Indigenous' seems to me the most accurate descriptive general noun for the original citizens of this hemisphere and continent.

    "A more specific noun is to name one with one's own native name for the group or the individual member of that group, such as 'Navajo' (which was what the Spanish conquerors named them but by which they have until recently been identified) or Diné, which is their own name for themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Virginia, for grappling with the terminology for those people long called Indians in this country. I think your final suggestion is the best one: call people by the name they call themselves (such as Diné). That is what we should do whenever possible. But the problem is what to call several or many of similar people groups who each go by a different name for themselves.

      You saw a problem with "native," but according to the online Merriam-Webster dictionary, "Native," when it is capitalized means "relating to, or being a member of an indigenous people of North or South America." Accordingly, I think that Native American is generally a good term to use to the indigenous people of this country.

      And it seems to me that your suggestion of "Native Indigenous" is redundant since, again, citing Merriam-Webster, "Indigenous" means "of or relating to the earliest known inhabitants of a place and especially of a place that was colonized by a now-dominant group."

      Delete