Ser y Tener

“Cuidado con aquél que compra cosas que no necesita con dinero que no tiene para complacer a aquellos que no valen la pena

“Mientras menos pienso necesitar, menos deseo y más rico soy...”

Estas frases las escuché ayer con una amiga. Estuvimos durante una hora sin hablar porque estábamos muy ocupadas escuchando una producción llamada “América canta”. Esta producción, más que un DC es la poesía capturada en canción. De hecho, es más que poesía, es la poesía danzando con la Verdad. Mientras escuchaba las canciones y las reflexiones a las que invitan, pensaba en todas las cosas con las que he sido bendecida y recordé que tengo más de lo que merezco y de lo que necesitaría para subsistir. Fue entonces que saltó en mi mente una frase de Freire, quien dice en 'Pedagogía del oprimido' que en la realidad que hemos creado como sociedad desarrollada “ser es tener casi siempre a cuesta de los que no tienen”.

Tal vez por eso vemos titulares en las noticias de empresarios que se suicidan porque cae la bolsa de valores, que terminan con su vida en un BMW por que el negocio parecía terminar. Para esas personas, como para muchas de nosotras en una medida u otra, tener era ser, y si no tenían no eran, no tenían razón de ser, todo perdió sentido porque no eran nadie sin sus chequeras, sin la capacidad de adquirir propiedades con una etiqueta que las identifique como “de marca”. ¿Qué hemos querido llegar a ser si no somos nadie sin las cosas que nosotros mismos hemos creado y que se podrirán algún día en un vertedero? Nada. Porque nuestro cascarón algún día también se podrirá, pero al menos estos respiraron vida un día, caminaron un día sobre el suelo que otras tantas personas caminaron antes.

Tal vez por algo similar algunas mujeres se matan a sí mismas de hambre y hombres introducen en sus cuerpos sustancias dañinas en su afán, ambos, por lograr llenar la sombra de una silueta construida con líneas imaginarias, como las de los mapas pero carentes de utilidad, en el fondo del espejo dibujadas por algun@s cuantos idiotas que se llenan los bolsillos gracias a la creación de esas macabras imágenes de mujeres que parecen replicas de cadáveres egipcios momificados y hombres que se asemejan a inhumanos robots de acero.

Pero eso es otro asunto... Realmente lo que necesito exorcizar hoy es la tristeza que me causa el hecho de que no nos damos cuenta de lo privilegiad@s que somos, de que seamos capaces de crear necesidades que se convierten en las detonadoras de las angustias de nuestros días, angustias que consumen nuestras energías y que no nos permiten disfrutas de los simples placeres de la vida, ni de luchar por aquello que realmente es esencial, ni para servir a los demás, una de los más enriquecedores placeres existentes. De hecho está fisiológicamente comprobado que cuando las personas servimos nuestro cuerpo libera sustancias que proveen un sentido de bienestar natural, algo parecido a lo que sucede cuando sabemos que nuestras vidas tienen un propósito y trabajamos en ello.

Pero cuando nos sucede como al niño del anuncio del Regreso a la Escuela de Walgreens nos angustiamos, preocupamos, estresamos, afanamos en fin, SUFRIMOS sino tenemos lo que vemos que otros tienen, precisamente porque tienen el mismo vacío que nosotros nos estamos creando. Este chico del anuncio, de imagen estereotipada, caminando con los hombros tensos en señal de inseguridad social y con espejuelos mira con miedo y envidia a otro niño que anda repleto de accesorios y, muy estereotipadamente también, camina rítmica y exageradamente mientras otros estudiantes, algunos de ellas chicas, lo miran admirados simplemente porque TIENE esas cosas. El niño de los espejuelos ve que al otro se le cae el recibo de compras (como si él las hubiese comprado, como no...) del lugar donde adquirió esas cosas que ahora le hacen digno de admiración. El pobrecito probablemente le rogó a sus padres que inviertieran su dinero en esas cosas, ¿por qué? Por que cree, como el otro niño, que las necesita para tener lo que todos realmente queremos tener: plenitud y paz.

... escriba usted el resto...

OBEDECER

En este experimento se prueba la capacidad de la mayoría de las personas de librarse de la responsabilidad de sus actos, al adjudicarsela a la autoridad, a quien obedece aun si requiere hacerle daño a alguien más.

Obedecer a la autoridad es "portarse bien" pero, ¿es realmente bueno? ¿Cuán adoctrinad@s hemos sido para obedecer a ciegas? ¿Será por eso que preferimos hecharle la culpa al "sistema" de todo de modo que nos libramos de nuestras responsabilidades como ciudadan@s y seres humanos? ¿Obramos cruelmente con indiferencia con esta excusa? ... ¿nos volvemos así una gran masa sin pensamiento crítico? ...

Y en este vemos como es posible dejar a un lado nuestras convicciones con tal de estar con los demás, como a veces confiamos más en la percepción de la mayoría que en la nuestra.

Recuerda "clikear"

Diariamente "clikeamos" durante horas, muchas personas poseen espacios sociales en la Red, o estos las poseen a ellas, sin embargo, la mayoría no sacamos el provecho que debemos a este recurso inagotable. Por eso, creo que Click to give es una de las maneras menos esforzadas que tenemos para ayudar al resto de la población sin siquiera afectar la rutina diaria de entrar a la Red. En esta página puede cooperar con causas de: alfabetización, protección de bosques, batallas contra el hambre, salud para niñ@s, lucha contra el cancer de seno y protección de animales. El enlace es: http://shop.theliteracysite.com/store/site.do?siteId=2001

Puerto Rico y la pedagogía para la libertad

Comparto estas citas del libro Pedagogía del oprimido de Paulo Freire (autor de La educación como práctica de la libertad) porque mientras lo leía pensaba en algunas situaciones que he visto y vivido en mi tierra del Edén; no solo pensé en estas situaciones sino que mi mente no paraba de hacer vínculos entre la filosofía educativa de Freire y sus posibles aplicaciones en Puerto Rico. Y soñaba, mejor dicho sueño, conque estas palabras no ses queden como vanas uniones de letras sino que se conviertan en diálogo, en educación, en transformaciones políticas y antropológicas en nuestro País.

...buen método pedagógico, no pretende ser un método de enseñanza sino de aprendizaje; con él, el hombre (las personas) no crea su posibilidad de ser libre sino aprende a hacerla efectiva y a ejercerla. (p.22)

La palabra, instaura el mundo... La palabra, como comportamiento humano, significante del mundo no solo designa las cosas, las transforma; no es solo pensamiento, es “praxis”... la palabra viva se plenifica en el trabajo. (p.23)

En lo que se refiere al sectario de derecha, cerrándose en “su” verdad, no hace sino lo que le es propio. Por el contrario el hombre de izquierda que se sectariza y encierra es la negación de sí mismo y pierde su razón de ser.
...
El hombre radical, comprometido con la libertad de los hombres, no se deja prender en círculos de seguridad en los cuales aprisiona también la realidad. Por el contrario, es tanto más radical cuanto más se inserta en esa realidad para, a fin de conocerla mejor, transformarla mejor. (p31)
...La sectaruzación es lo propio del reaccionario, la radicalización es lo propio del revolucionario. (p32)

“Quien instaura la tiranía no son los tiranizados sino los tiranos... Quien instaura la negación de los hombres no son aquellos que fueron despojados de su humanidad sino aquellos que fueron despojados de su humanidad sino aquellas que se la negaron, negando también la suya” (p51)

Un revolucionario se reconoce más por su creencia en el pueblo que lo compromete que por mil acciones llevadas a cabo sin él (57)

(en el mundo en que se objetiviza a las personas) ...ser es tener casi siempre a costa de los que no tienen. (62)

Para las elites dominadoras (los grupos con poder), esta rebeldía que las amenaza tiene solución en una mayor dominación, en la represión hecha, incluso, en nombre de l libertad y del establecimiento del orden y de la paz social. Paz social que, en el fondo, no es otra sino la paz privada de los dominadores. (82)

NINGUN “ORDEN” OPRESOR SOPORTARIA EL QUE LOS OPRIMIDOS EMPEZASEN A DECIR: ¿ POR QUE? (93)

Información bibliográfica: Paulo Freire. Pedagogía del oprimido. Buenos Aires: Siglo veintiuno editores. 2008.

Un paso adelante del DE en Puerto Rico!!!

Este es un fragento de una Carta Circular que ha generado grandes controversias en Puerto Rico. Una vez más me ha sido confirmada la realidad de muchas personas en el país: que no leen para entender, sino que oyen a cualquiera, le creen y luego se manifiestan violentamente porque se emocionan precisamente porque no razonaron la situación.

Se han llevado a cabo manifestaciones frente al Departamento de Educación como si esto se tratase de una amenaza a la integridad de las personas cuando realmente se trata presisamente de dignificarlas. Los librros y materiales utilizados en las escuelas son muchas veces sumamente sexistas además, a los educacores y educadoras hay que capacitarlos para que no prolonguen el sexismo con frases como "necesito un varón para mover este pupitre" o "las nenas escriben más bonito". El sexismo NO es positivo. Darle a entender,ya sea abierta o implícitamente, a una niña que no puede ser mecánica o a un niño que no puede ser enfermero NO está bien. El sexismo, como todo tipo de discrimen, baja el autoestima de las personas, define su autoconcepto individual y colectivo y limita así sus posibilidades en la vida. Es por el sexismo que los niños y las niñas tienen las mismas puntuaciones en español y matemáticas en la escuela elemental y para cuando llegan a la escuela superior el desempeño de las chicas en las matemáticas baja y el de redacción en los chicos también. Es momento de ofrecerles a los niños y niñas una visión de sí mismos y mismas que no obstaculice el desarrollo de sus capacidades.

¿Por qué les molesta esto a algunos religiosos de iglesias "cristianas"? La verdad es que no lo comprendo. Vi algunas fotos de la manifestación y me dio mucha tristeza porque había pancartas con escenas de homosexuales con frases hacían alusiones a que los "demonios" estaba asechando a Puerto Rico a través de las medidas que esta Carta propone. Supongo que se debe a que están muy confundidos estos grupos. No comprendieron la Carta Circular y muy probablmente solo sus pastores la leyeron e interpretaron a su modo, después de todo de eso se trata la adoctrinación.

Es comprensible, cada vez que e la historia la sociedad progresa y los cambios son inminenetes y estos van contra a las interpretaciones religiosas de las iglesias cristianas tradicionales, estas pierden membresía y sus líderes se envuelven en un apasionamiento defensivo para volver a cobrar sus diezmos y tratar de recuperar su poder sobre las mentes y las vidas de las personas. No me sorprende porque sucedió a finales de la Edad Media cuando la separación de Iglesia y Estado comenzaba a dar sus primeros pasos, sucedió en la Ilustración cuando se promovió la educación de las personas, sucedió cuando la Igleisa Católica comenzó a perder su monopolio religioso al surgir la Reforma Evangélica, sucedió cuando el razonamiento comenzó a considerar a las personas no blancas como iguales, sucedió en la década del 60 y el movimiento por los derechos civiles... En fin, sucede cada vez que la sociedad se hace más justa y equitativa. ¿Por qué?

Porque estos grupos obtienen su poder sembrando miedo, anunciando crisis y proclamándose como salvadores para justificar la discriminación sobre los demás, y la igualdad NO convive con eso.He aquí la carta, para aquellas personas que deseen leerla, juzguen por sí mismas y verán que esto no es NINGUN atentado contra las creencias de nadie (a menos que sea usted machista) y mucho menos una amenaza. No tiene nada que ver con lo que los líderes de estos grupos irresponsablemente han confundido.

Puede tener acceso al documento a través de: http://www.noticiasonline.com/pdf/cartacircularde.pdf

Una entrada sin titulo

Porque no sé si esto tiene nombre...

Youth for Human Rights

La declaración UNIVERSAL de Derechos

Los derechos UNIVERSALES: Es un derecho conocerlos, un deber defenderlos...



Como Martin Luther King insinua en su "I have a Dream": La libertad de un grupo, esta ligada a la libertad de todas las personas.

Perla Negra

For dreams to come: 3rd part

For dreams to come: application to the “gay issue”

The individual’s freedom in a democracy is also a duty. It is a duty to recognize when our prejudices become obstacles to the fulfillment of a more perfect State, a more complete democracy and equality. That is why, to understand the role of democracy is the first step towards a more perfect one. The fight for freedom and justice started centuries ago and it is not over. There are some basic and essential similarities between the fight for justice and equality of the colored in the United States in the 60’s and the homosexual community civil rights situation in some countries today, like Puerto Rico.

In the “I have a dream” speech, King expresses that the United Sates belongs to colored too and they belong to it, but they are living as exiles in their own land. How have they come to this conclusion? Because they are not being treated equally by the law that was meant to protect freedom and justice of all the civilians, and that is one of the most important similarities between the black and whites segregation and discrimination and the denial of certain civil rights to homosexual people. The manifestation of the unfairness committed against both groups is: segregation and discrimination. Sometimes publicly accepted and manifested trough public polices, and other times, expressed in unofficial social relations.

Discrimination against the homosexual community is manifested in public policies. Firstly, the Government has not yet recognized that discrimination toward this minority exists. The Government has not yet included discrimination for sexual orientation and gender identity in the Bill of Rights. Both legislative and the Senate braches have not met their duty to act upon facts and not upon personal believes. Most of the Legislators and Senators have failed then to represent the people, because they have been to busy representing their own believes. Even though many evidence has been presented that discrimination towards the LGTB community is real and is affecting the lives of many persons, an Amendment has not been made, yet.
Another way that discrimination is effectively and cruelly affecting the lives a many persons in Puerto Rico is that sexual orientation is not yet considered to be a cause for hate crimes. Even though that in places like United Kingdom the Government, that has a Home Office through the Web, considers that:

“A hate crime is: Any incident, which constitutes a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.Hate crime is any criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender's hatred of someone because of their: race, colour, ethnic origin, nationality or national origins, religion, gender or gender identity, sexual orientation or disability.
Hate crime can take many forms including:
physical attacks – such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
threat of attack – including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded, malicious complaints
verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace”

And even tought that Puerto Rico Ángel Colón Maldonado, know in the eighties as the “Singles Angel”, was related to 27 murders and convicted for three, even though he admited six, accepted having commited the crimes because the individuals were homosexuals, homicide because of sex orientation or gender identity is still not considered a hate crime. It is as if the Government of Puerto Rico rather prefers to acts as if there is no discrimination against hmosexual in the country, further more, the Government acts as if homosexual citizens not existed at all.

Something similar happened with the colored at Kings time, when segregation and discriminatory public policies were considered convinient, right and that with and black populations were “separated but equal”, but if we are all equal, why should we be separated?
As it happened with discrimination for race, discrimination for sexual orientation or gender identity is often justified with religious arguments and doctrines. As with colored, gays and transsexuals are considered to be unnatural and not worthy of the treatment that other human beings deserve. Such groups tend to believe that it is their mission to stop civil rights legislation for homosexuals, lesbians, bisexual and transsexual people. But such an argument is obviously unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because the Constitution of Puerto Rico states that:

Section 1 of the Bill of Rights:
…All men are equal before the law….
Section 3
…There will be total and complete separation between Church (religion) and State…

This proves that it is unconstitutional to expect for the Government to meet the doctrinal requirements of a religion, while on the other hand, it is so to deny a number of civil rights to a population of citizens.

Others believe that to approve such legislations would be a denial to tradition and Puerto Rican culture. This is an irrational thought because cultural change s known to be a necessary and normal process in society. The educator José Cáceres says that culture is a result of socialization, its function is to satisfy the physical and social needs of society and since needs change, so does culture. He also states that on democratic societies such changes are faster because decisions are to be taken on a rational basis and the Government is expected to meet the people needs because it’s power comes from them.

Other ways of discrimination are not contained on public policies but they are not punished or prohibited by them either. The homosexual community is frequently segregated from the rest of the population, its is accepted to make jokes about them, for comedians to make people laugh about the clichés they create through the media and television, it is accepted that Puerto Rican television is filled with homosexual characters called “locas”, “patos”, which is the Spanish word for duck, “maricas”, words as insulting as fag or queer and to deny them of job opportunities.

Martin Luther King dreamt for the moment to come that people would not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. King’s dream is contagious, I also dream, I dream for the day to come when people are not judge by their sexual preference, but by whom they are. I dream for the day to come when, we the people, accept that sexual orientation is a part of a persons personality, not it’s definition. I dream with the day when we get so close to de ideal of democracy that, we the people, consider toleration our most precious value and finally see that history teaches us that the reason of existence of democracy is diversity itself.

To understand the role of democracy is the first step towards a more perfect one. According to the Merriam Webster Dictionary a democracy is: a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections; the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority; the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges. A simple dictionary definition might not be enough to really understand the historical events an processes that lead to the birth of democracy, but it is our duty as citizens with the freedom of speech to do so. I will give the reader a clue on this search for a better democracy: separation of State and Church proved to be more than convenient, but necessary and indispensable for a democracy to exist.

To fulfill that duty as citizens and to recognize others as human beings, Martin Luther King methods are more than crucial. In his “I have a dream” speech he pointed out some basic statutes. When he said:

“We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.”

He is telling us that the answer is not gradualism, that this goal of freedom is not to be achieved by gradual steps, but by drastic change. First of all, we must accept that the LGTB community discontent is legitimate, because they all have the same dignity and are made of the same material as any other Puerto Rican. They should not accept to be told to fly somewhere else where they can be ‘accepted’, where their rights for jobs, equality, marriage, and other economical, institutional and civil activities are recognized. They have the exact same right to be recognized as human beings, as citizens of the land that gave birth to all of us, and for which we all are willing to fight for it to become a more democratic nation. Drastic change is the response to the urgency of many Puerto Ricans that live a life filled with a discrimination that attempts to take their dignity away from them and steal their right to pursuit happiness away. It is urgent, indeed, for those who have to live beneath the powerful foot of rejection on their necks, a rejection that sometimes even takes their lives away, we must not tolerate untoleration, we must not allow for our compatriots, brothers and sisters, to live as anything less than what they are: human beings and as citizens as heterosexuals.

In order to promote drastic change, Martin Luther King leaded pacific manifestations and marches. It may not make sense to promote drastic change with such a strategy, but if we are fighting for justice, freedom and equality, there is nothing more efficient than to prove the discriminators wrong about us. Martin Luther King expressed:

… there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force."

Mother Teresa once said that there is no sense in fighting violence wit more violence. And because discrimination is certainly very aggressive and violent we must not join it’s destructive fire. That is why ‘pacific but firm’ is the perfect recipe for freedom soldiers. We shall remember our purpose while fighting for freedom and equality, this will allow us to fight with the dignity of the high value for which we are fighting, and it will also prevent us from segregating ourselves by thinking about the LGTB community as an alienated society, we must at all times remember that precisely because we are part of society, an humans like all others, is that we are fighting and calling for equality. About this, King said:

“The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. And they have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.
We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall always march ahead. We cannot turn back.”

This fragment manifests the essence of the perfection of democracy: we all are “the people”, the recognition of LGTB civil rights is every citizens business, and homosexuals, transsexuals, heterosexuals, bisexuals and transsexuals all are part of a whole. In a democracy, if a minority is not treated with equality, then the majorities are guilty of destroying it’s nation democracy.
Martin Luther King also gives us an answer for those who believe that democracy is just fine the way it is, and that enough rights have been guaranteed. He said:

“There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is the victim of the unspeakable horrors of police brutality. We can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as our children are stripped of their self-hood and robbed of their dignity by a sign stating: "For Whites Only." We cannot be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until "justice rolls down like waters, and righteousness like a mighty stream."¹

I ask for those who are satisfied, to take a moment to imagine this nation if women, workers, non-whites and people with disabilities would have satisfied with their life conditions hundreds of years ago. No, we are not to be satisfied, we must glorify our duty as free citizens to assure a better democracy for generations to come. That is why must understand and study the history of democracy and that will enable us to accept that personal prejudices are not to be taken in consideration when creating public policies that will affect a whole nation. Every time we face a new situation of discrimination, and we discover ourselves as the discriminators, we must look back and wonder, where would we be as a nation if we would have satisfied with inequality? What would happen if we destroy democracy by considering personal believes as universal laws? We need to understand that “their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom”. And if we discover ourselves as the oppressed or as citizens responsible enough to fight along with the oppressed for a better democracy, then we must: fight for drastic change, act like brothers and sisters pacifically but firmly for a democracy that exists because of DIVERSITY.

For dreams to come: 2nd part

Reasons for dreaming

Martin Luther King Jr.’s heart did not only beat for dreams, but lived for them. As a leader of the activities of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Atlanta he demonstrated his passion for a collective’s dream. The Southern Christian Leadership Conference played a major part in the civil rights march on Washington, D.C., in 1963 and in notable antidiscrimination and voter-registration efforts in Albany, Georgia, and Birmingham and Selma, Alabama, in the early 1960s—campaigns that spurred passage of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Encyclopedia Britannica). On 28 August 1963, the march gathered 200,000 demonstrators fighting for the jobs and freedom to which their nation’s Constitution entitled them. The Stanford’s King encyclopedia says that “It demonstrated to the entire nation the gap between the tenets of American democracy and the everyday experience of black Americans, was successful in pressuring the Kennedy administration to commit to passing federal civil rights legislation.” It was during this event that Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his "I Have a Dream" speech. This speech reflects in many ways the philosophy and methods of Martin Luther King Jr. in the process of achieving a closer step towards a more just and free nation.
A brief study of Martin Luther King’s vision and mission in the “I have a Dream” speech may allow us to link King’s fight with contemporary battles for equality. Such as the homosexual, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual community’s reality in many countries where their civil rights are not recognized, so they are not treated as equal members to the society to which they belong because of discrimination.

Discrimination is the act of treating someone differently because of a prejudice. A prejudice is the mental conception of an individual or a group towards a determinate group of persons and its individuals. The word itself “pre-judice”, expresses that discrimination requires the discriminator to judge the discriminated one before having evidence to prove his judgment, to discriminate is to act based on determinations and conceptions made previous to knowledge. That is why discrimination involves treating someone with a negative attitude because of a generalization of certain characteristics of a group and implying that every member of the group has those characteristics and has to be treated a certain way because of them. The construction of that conception and the adjudication of general characteristics to the group is itself a way a discrimination, and is the seed to the unfair treatment that discrimination generates. I believe that the description of discrimination as “unfair treatment” by many dictionaries is adequate and right because generalization is not only unfair but also biased, irrational and a contradiction in a democracy.

Daniel Goleman and Anita Wolfolk both have written about discrimination, how it works and its devastating emotional results. The neurological evidence presented by Goleman, and the psychological point of view of Wolfolk, are the building blocks of my argument about discrimination’s biased and false nature. Also, the Constitution of the United States and its historical purpose makes more than clear how anti-democratical discrimination is when reflected, accepted and enforced by public policies. Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” speech completes the essence of this essay because after understanding with the evidence presented that discrimination must not be accepted, we must search for ways to fight it, and King’s way is more than amazing, it revealed to be effective.

Firstly, the fight for justice itself was a reclamation of the promises contained on the nation’s Constitution and was protected by the United States Bill of Rights. The third article of the Bill of Rights (1791) states that:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
The eleventh article says:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

I think that the authors of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights redacted both documents in such an open and simple way because their experience with tyranny an inequality as colonies enabled them to understand that freedom and equality is a never ending process in which a society gets closer to its founding ideals with time and changes.

Martin Luther King begins his speech referring to another important document in the history of the United States of America: the Emancipation Proclamation. The Emancipation Proclamation was signed by the president Abraham Lincoln as a military strategy to end the Civil War. Initially this war was about preventing and stopping secession between North and South States and preserving the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation stated that slaves in those states or parts of states still in rebellion as of January 1, 1863, would be declared free. The Our Documents initiative states that: “with this Proclamation he hoped to inspire all blacks and slaves in the Confederacy in particular, to support the Union cause and to keep England and France from giving political recognition and military aid to the Confederacy.” But most importantly the Emancipation Proclamation turned the Civil War into a fight for freedom. That is why by the end of the war almost 200,000 black soldiers and sailors had fought for the Union and freedom.

This document is considered a “beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves” by King. A fragment of this document makes clear King’s reasons to believe so. This document did not only declared the freedom of millions of slaves in some states, it also: expresses that this people deserved reasonable wages, that their freedom is Constitutional and, in some way, makes reference to those people citizenship as Americans because they would now be accepted in the military forces. On Lincoln’s words:

“And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.”

Martin Luther King also makes reference to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence in order to justify the fight for freedom. The Constitution stated ideals that were still not completely fulfilled. People and change brought and are to bring those ideals to fulfillment if they truly believe in them. King is basing his movement in the words of the founding fathers, he understands that it is the citizens responsibility to cash that check promised to them, even when not initially given to them. This action is not unconstitutional; the Constitution is celebrated by acting upon its ideals, not by enforcing our personal and biased believes and turning them into public policies. Further more, the Constitution is about the ideals that created a nation, no even about the personal opinions of the man that wrote it, and is those ideals, what we are responsible to attach importance to developing.

For dreams to come: 1st part

I. What dreams left us

Martin Luther King Jr. was raised in a very Christian family, his father and maternal grandparents were Baptist Church Pastors. He was a dedicated student, he did: a B.A. on Sociology, and a B.A. on Divinity while attending University of Pennsylvania. He completed his doctoral studies in Systematic Theology at Boston University. He was also elected President of the Montgomery Improvement Association, which was responsible for the Montgomery Bus Boycott from 1655 to 1656 after Rosa Park’s decision to sit where she was prohibited to do so. On 1959, after serving as Pastor in a few churches, King directed the activities of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in Atlanta. The Conference served as a base of operation thought the south, it was a result of the ideas that were developing and growing from the Montgomery Bus Boycott. It was a nonsectarian organization and its purpose was to coordinate and assist local organizations working for the full equality of African Americans in all aspects of American life. In the first reunion of this organization Martin Luther King expressed the motivation of his future actions and the reasons that moved their feet towards the road of justice:
“We have no alternative but to protest. For many years we have shown an amazing patience. We have sometimes given our white brothers the feeling that we liked the way we were being treated. But we come here tonight to be saved from that patience that makes us patient with anything less than freedom and justice.”

These words point to one of the enemies in the liberation of the oppressed and discriminated populations and individuals: conformism. The Webster dictionary defines conformism as: to be similar or identical …2 a: to be obedient or compliant … b: to act in accordance with prevailing standards or customs … A conformist, according to the Heinle dictionary is: a person who acts in the same way that most others do. The word “adapt” is a synonym to conformism, it is, according to the Webster Dictionary: to make fit (as for a specific or new use or situation) often by modification. A related word is conform, which definition is: applies to bringing into accordance with a pattern, example, or principle.

When a discriminated group or minority is oppressed it often conforms to its reality and adapts to it. The group does this because it starts to believe that the statu quo is the right status, that nothing should be done about it, or that there’s nothing that they can do to change it even if they do come to think that it is wrong and should be changed. When an oppressed group conforms to oppression and discrimination it becomes its own tyrant and oppressor. That is why Luther King says that there is no other option but to protest, because otherwise, the victims become the executioners, to tolerate discrimination is conforming to injustice and perpetuating it. When public policies establishes the ‘game rules’ of society, and individuals are born in that reality, they often learn those rules without questioning them, and that is how they conform and adapt to them. That is how we learn our society’s culture and our place in it. The concept that we have of our group is what the educator Anita Woolfolk calls collective concept, and it is a great determinant in the development of the individual’s self-concept; which influences the person’s aspirations and social relations. Martin Luther King makes a call for us to question our reality in order to stop adapting to it and finally change it. Above all, King is asking for society to conform with nothing less than its nation’s foundations “justice and freedom”, it may seem as a group of people disturbing the established order, but what they really are doing is the opposite, more than that, they are creating a closer order to the nation’s founding thoughts, what could be considered a more patriotic act than that?

Dr. King did not only fight for the rights of the black population but also for the civil rights of workers. As a fact, he was killed standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel in Memphis Tennessee on April 4, 1968, where he was to help lead sanitation workers in a protest for the right of decent working conditions. Martin Luther King Jr. violent dead, and his brother and mother afterward, does not blow off the fire of truth of his work and words, it does the opposite: ensures the need of that work. His father understood that, and after loosing so much due to hate, he said: “I cannot hate any man.” Martin Luther King, Sr., his father, manifests with this words that the quest for freedom is a quest for equality and for peace. Peace that cannot commute with hate, fear and violence. The Argentine educator Paulo Freire says, that if on the quest for freedom the oppressed becomes like the oppressor, then freedom is not to become a reality. That is why I believe that Martin Luther King Sr. gave value to the death of his sons and spouse with this words, because he did not perpetuated the hate that stopped their hearts from beating.

Elecciones XXX en Puerto Rico

No me ha dado tiempo de hacer un buen escrito sobre la inconstitucionalidad de los ideales de Fortuño anteriormente publicados en este blog, estoy super ajoradita en la Universidad, y esta entreda no sera una de mis mejores pq escribo con prisa, sin acentos y con abreviaturas. Lo hago así pq no podré hacerlo de otro modo y tengo demasiadas ganas de escribir esto.

Las propagandas de el PNP y el PPD son iguales porque sus métodos de gobierno también los son. En las elecciones pasadas el pueblo demostró estar preparado para votar inteligentemente: por candidatura y no a ciegas por un color. Desgraciadamente los Partidos electos NO demostraron lo mismo: el pueblo estaba listo para votar inteligentemente pero los candidatos no estaban listos para servir al pueblo.

"Vota íntegro" : porque nosotros no estamos dispuest@s a trabajar en equipo.
Vota a la antigua, sin pensarlo, bajo la palma o bajo la pava, olvidate de si nuestros candidatos son buenos o unos mediocres,
"Vota íntegro":NO integramente.

QUE TRISTE, ME DAN ASCO.

Cuatro razones para NO votar por Fortuño

En esta entrega:

1. Emplazan a Fortuño a ser claro en torno a derechos LGBT
2. Opuesto Fortuño al aborto, los matrimonios gay y la eutanasia
3. Fortuño pide mayor rol de la iglesia
4. Para el proyecto feminista Matria, el pueblo no debe dar paso a candidatos políticos que se expresan abiertamente en contra de la separación entre Iglesia y Estado.

---1.COMUNICADO DE PRENSAContacto: Pedro Julio Serrano/Teléfono: 787.602.5954
Emplazan a Fortuño a ser claro en torno a derechos LGBT...
El activista de derechos humanos Pedro Julio Serrano emplazó al candidato a la gobernación por el Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP), Luis Fortuño, a ser claro en su posición en torno a los derechos para las comunidades lésbica, gay, bisexual y transgénero (LGBT), luego de que ayer se reafirmara en su posición de limitar el derecho al matrimonio únicamente entre un hombre y una mujer. "No se puede estar con Dios y con el diablo. Expresar que no se puede discriminar contra las parejas del mismo sexo y heterosexuales que conviven sin casarse, pero dejando la puerta abierta a la Resolución 99 es una contradicción de grandes proporciones. Basta ya de jugar con el bienestar, la salud y la seguridad de nuestras familias. Fortuño tiene que aclarar si intentará perpetuar la discriminación en la Constitución o si por el contrario protegerá los derechos de todos los puertorriqueños como debe ser. No hay términos medios, Fortuño tiene que decidir si somos parte de su visión para Puerto Rico o si sólo nos utilizará como chivos expiatorios para una cuestionable ganancia política suya", expresó Serrano.
Tan confusa es su posición que la plataforma del PNP contiene una promesa de prohibir la discriminación por orientación sexual en el empleo. Sin embargo, ésta sería nula pues se perpetuaría la discriminación de aprobarse la 99. La sección `Valores de familia' de la plataforma del PNP define que `la institución del matrimonio es entre un hombre y una mujer' y enfatiza que `el Ejecutivo analizará cualquier posible legislación para considerar los principios y valores aquí expuestos y determinará la acción legislativa en lo que fuere pertinente'.
El coordinador de Puerto Rico Para Tod@s explicó que "en términos prácticos, la 99 representaría la perpetuación del discrimen por orientación sexual, identidad de género y estatus civil en nuestra máxima ley, la Constitución. Lo que resultaría en que ninguna otra ley podría ir por encima de ese discrimen plasmado en nuestra Carta Magna. De nada valdría que se hiciera una ley para prohibir el discrimen por orientación sexual en el empleo, pues la 99 permitiría que los patronos se negaran a conceder derechos a las parejas del mismo sexo o heterosexuales que conviven sin casarse, amparándose en la Constitución misma. Entre otras cosas, afectaría la economía de esas parejas que tendrían que pagar más para brindar cubierta médica a sus familias, así como quedarían desprovistas de las protecciones legales necesarias para garantizar la salud, el bienestar y la seguridad de sus familias".
Por otro lado, Fortuño expresó que la Iglesia debería intervenir con `mayor fuerza' en temas sociales, claramente haciendo un llamado a la confusión de la garantía de separación debida entre Iglesia y Estado. También se expresó en contra de que se enseñe la equidad por género en las escuelas y el derecho de la mujer a escoger sobre su propio cuerpo, su sexualidad y su propia vida. "Esta filosofía excluyente y moralista en su plataforma, sumada a sus expresiones de ayer, demuestran claramente que está dejando la puerta abierta para revivir la 99 y otras medidas similares que son excluyentes. Fortuño tiene que expresar, sin vacilaciones, si se limitará a gobernar selectivamente para un sector o si gobernará para todos los puertorriqueños", concluyó Serrano.

---2.http://www.vocero.com/noticia-3522-opuesto_fortuo_al_aborto_matrimonios_gay_y_eutanasia.html
http://www.primerahora.com/noticia/otras/noticias/opuesto_fortuno_al_aborto,_los_matrimonios_gay_y_la_eutanasia/236387
Opuesto Fortuño al aborto, los matrimonios gay y la eutanasia
El candidato a la gobernación por el Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP), Luis Fortuño, se expresó hoy en oposición a que se considere como familia a personas del mismo sexo que convivan.
Fortuño también rechazó el aborto y la eutanasia, o muerte asistida.
"De lo que estamos hablando es de la vida, cuándo comienza y cuándo termina, mi posición es que la vida comienza en el momento de la concepción natural y termina en el momento de la muerte natural", dijo el también Comisionado Residente.
"Mi posición ha sido, es, que el matrimonio es entre un hombre y una mujer, esto no debe ser interpretado como una postura de querer discriminar contra persona que piensen diferente", dijo.
Durante el intercambio de preguntas y respuestas organizado en la Pontificia Universidad Católica en Ponce por el Instituto de Doctrina Social de la Iglesia, el comisionado residente criticó la inclusión en el currículo de la escuela elemental de la enseñanza de género sin previo aval de los padres de los niños de este nivel.
"Los padres deben poder... deben tener el derecho de negarse a que sus hijos sean expuestos a conceptos e ideas que sus hijos no están preparados para lidiar con esos temas", señaló.
Sobre el aborto, el comisionado residente expresó, que al igual que la eutanasia, "estoy en contra".
Opinó, ante un auditorio mayormente católico que incluía religiosos, profesores, estudiantes, ex jueces, candidatos a cargos electivos y el alcalde de Yauco, Abel Nazario, que las opiniones de la Iglesia en asuntos públicos no afecta la separación de Iglesia y Estado.
"No solamente favorezco que la Iglesia alce su voz ante problemas sociales, sino que es una obligación moral así hacerlo, a través de su Instituto (de Doctrina Social) y distintas organizaciones", sostuvo.
Por otro lado, Fortuño favoreció la realización de una "reflexión" previo al inicio diario de clases en las escuelas públicas del país.-

3.http://www.elnuevodia.com/diario/noticia/politica/noticias/fortuno_pide_mayor_rol_de_la_iglesia_/469091
Fortuño pide mayor rol de la iglesia "Deben alzar su voz con mayor fuerza en el tema de valores de la crisis social que afecta a Puerto Rico".
Por Sandra Caquías Cruz
PONCE – El candidato a la gobernación Luis Fortuño rechazó el aborto y la eutanasia y abogó para que la iglesia actué con "mayor fuerza" en el tema de los valores y la crisis social que afecta a Puerto Rico.
"El matrimonio es la unión entre un hombre y una mujer", dijo hoy ante cientos de estudiantes de la Pontificia Universidad Católica de Puerto Rico (PUCPR).
Eso si, aceptó que existen otros tipos de relaciones de pareja que "hay que aceptar", pero insistió en "fortalecer y propiciar" el matrimonio. Destacó que "la iglesia debe alzar su voz con mayor fuerza en el tema de valores de la crisis social que afecta a Puerto Rico".
Sobre las preguntas del tema del aborto dijo que "la vida comienza en el momento de la concepción natural y termina en el momento de la muerte natural".
Rechazó la eutanasia como un método para finalizar la vida. "Uno puede llegar a ayudar a las personas, no podemos empujarlo a una muerte que no sea natural. La medicina hoy en día permite ayudar", dijo.
Fortuño hizo las expresiones durante una actividad organizada por el Instituto de Doctrina Social de la Iglesia, en la PUCPR.
Los temas discutidos en este conversatorio eran la defensa de la vida desde la concepción hasta la muerte natural, el matrimonio y la familia, la libertad de educación y la aplicación del principio de subsidiaridad en las relaciones estado-sociedad.
Fortuño, aplaudido por los estudiantes cuando habló de aumentos en la beca Pell, inició su participación con la premisa de que Puerto Rico atraviesa una crisis económica, fiscal y de valores. Indicó que esta última "se traduce en una sociedad más violenta".

4.http://www.primerahora.com/noticia/otras/noticias/matria_llama_a_no_dar_paso_a_fortuno/236637
Matria llama a no dar paso a Fortuño
7 de octubre de 2008Prensa Asociada
Para el proyecto feminista Matria, el pueblo no debe dar paso a candidatos políticos que se expresan abiertamente en contra de la separación entre Iglesia y Estado.
Matria se refirió a declaraciones del candidato novoprogresista a la gobernación, el comisionado residente Luis Fortuño, quien se expresó en contra del derecho al aborto y llamó a la Iglesia a asumir "mayor inherencia" en los asuntos públicos del país.
"El aborto el legal en nuestra Isla desde 1973. Cuando el licenciado Fortuño se expresa en contra de ese derecho reconocido por ley, crea confusión en quienes le escuchan y a la vez, nos hace preguntarnos si tiene la intención real de eliminar el derecho que tienen nuestras mujeres a decidir libremente y en privado si llevan a término un embarazo no deseado", señaló la abogada Amarilis Pagán, directora ejecutiva de Matria.
Opinó que la postura del comisionado residente sobre el aborto es una religiosa.
"Las expresiones del licenciado Fortuño son desacertadas y preocupantes pues denotan una clara falta de respeto a la separación entre Iglesia y Estado que debe existir en nuestra Isla", añadió en un comunicado.
Destacó que la discusión acerca del momento en el cual comienza la vida ha sido materia de estudios y controversias de toda índole y recordó que el Código Civil de Puerto Rico no reconoce como "persona" jurídica al cigoto fecundado.

En cuanto el tiempo me lo permita refutaré una por una las posturas de Frotuño presentadas en esta entrada. Realmente es increíble que aun no comprendamos lo que significa DEMOCRACIA, es imprescindible que lo hagam0s y así forjar una sociedad más justa y tolerante, una sociedad de paz y seguridad para tod@s sus ciudadan@s. No creo en el desorden y el caos y creo fielmente en la necesidad de un cuerpo de gobierno para la sociedad que provea liderato, coesión y leyes para mantener el orden. Sin embargo, por lo mismo sé que es imposible proteger la Constitución de una nación, a través de medios que la violen. Y es totalmente contraproducente intentar llevar una democracia creando estructuras para mantener a un grupo de ciudadan@s de segunda clase, imponiendo las ideas de algo tan subjetivo y diverso como los inumerables postulados religiosos a toda una nación y actuando como sí la democracia no se tratara de la diversidad misma.

Hasta pronto,
Perla Negra

White Privilege

This is Your
Nation on White Privilege

By Tim Wise

9/13/08

For those who still can't grasp the concept of white privilege, or who are looking for some easy-to-understand examples of it, perhaps this list will help.

White privilege is when you can get pregnant at seventeen like Bristol Palin and
everyone is quick to insist that your life and that of your family is a personal matter, and that no one has a right to judge you or your parents, because "every family has challenges," even as black and Latino families with similar "challenges" are regularly typified as irresponsible, pathological and arbiters of social decay.

White privilege is when you can call yourself a "fuckin' redneck," like Bristol Palin's boyfriend does, and talk about how if anyone messes with you, you'll "kick their fuckin' ass," and talk about how you like to "shoot shit" for fun, and still be viewed as a
responsible, all-American boy (and a great son-in-law to be) rather than a thug.

White privilege is when you can attend four different colleges in Six years like Sarah Palin did (one of which you basically failed out of, Then returned to after making up some coursework at a community college), and no one questions your intelligence or commitment to achievement, whereas a person of color who did this would be viewed as unfit for college, and probably someone who only got in in the first place because of affirmative action.

White privilege is when you can claim that being mayor of a town smaller than most medium-sized colleges, and then Governor of a state with about the same number of people as the lower fifth of the island of Manhattan, makes you ready to potentially be president, and people don't all piss on themselves with laughter, while being a black U.S. Senator, two-term state Senator, and constitutional law scholar, means you're "untested."

White privilege is being able to say that you support the words "under God" in the pledge of allegiance because "if it was good enough for the founding fathers, it's good enough for me," and not be immediately disqualified from holding office--since, after all, the pledge was written in the late 1800s and the "under God" part wasn't added until the 1950s--while believing that reading accused criminals and terrorists their rights (because, ya know, the Constitution, which you used to teach at a prestigious law school requires it), is a dangerous and silly idea only supported by mushy liberals.

White privilege is being able to be a gun enthusiast and not make people immediately scared of you.

White privilege is being able to have a husband who was a member of an extremist political party that wants your state to secede from the Union, and whose motto is "Alaska first," and no one questions your patriotism or that of your family, while if you're black and your spouse merely fails to come to a 9/11 memorial so she can be home with her kids on the first day of school, people immediately think she's being disrespectful.

White privilege is being able to make fun of community organizers and the work they do--like, among other things, fight for the right of women to vote, or for civil rights, or the 8-hour workday, or an end to child labor--and people think you're being pithy and tough, but if you merely question the experience of a small town mayor and 18-month governor with no foreign policy expertise beyond a class she took in college and the fact that she lives close to Russia--you're somehow being mean, or even sexist.

White privilege is being able to convince white women who don't even agree with you on any substantive issue to vote for you and your running mate anyway, because suddenly your presence on the ticket has inspired confidence in these same white women, and made them give your party a "second look."

White privilege is being able to fire people who didn't support your political campaigns and not be accused of abusing your power or being a typical politician who engages in favoritism, while being black and merely knowing some folks from the old-line political
machines in Chicago means you must be corrupt.

White privilege is when you can take nearly twenty-four hours to get to a hospital after beginning to leak amniotic fluid, and still be viewed as a great mom whose commitment to her children is unquestionable, and whose "next door neighbor" qualities make her ready to be VP, while if you're a black candidate for president and you let your children be interviewed for a few seconds on TV, you're irresponsibly exploiting them.

White privilege is being able to give a 36 minute speech in which you talk about lipstick and make fun of your opponent, while laying out no substantive policy positions on any issue at all, and still manage to be considered a legitimate candidate, while a black person who gives an hour speech the week before, in which he lays out specific policy proposals on several issues, is still criticized for being too vague about what he would do if elected.

White privilege is being able to attend churches over the years whose pastors say that people who voted for ohn Kerry or merely criticize George W. Bush are going to hell, and that the U.S. is an explicitly Christian nation and the job of Christians is to bring Christian theological principles into government, and who bring in speakers who say the conflict
in the Middle East is God's punishment on Jews for rejecting Jesus, and everyone can still think you're just a good church-going Christian, but if you're black and friends with a black pastor who has noted (as have Colin Powell and the U.S. Department of Defense) that terrorist attacks are often the result of U.S. foreign policy and who talks about the history of racism and its effect on black people, you're an extremist who probably hates America.

White privilege is not knowing what the Bush Doctrine is when asked by a reporter, and then people get angry at the reporter for asking you such a "trick question," while being black and merely refusing to give one-word answers to the queries of Bill O'Reilly means you're dodging the question, or trying to seem overly intellectual and nuanced.

White privilege is being able to go to a prestigious prep school, then to Yale and then Harvard Business school, and yet, still be seen as just an average guy (George W. Bush) while being black, going to a prestigious prep school, then Occidental College, then Columbia, and then to Harvard Law, makes you "uppity," and a snob who probably looks down on regular folks.

White privilege is being able to graduate near the bottom of your college class (McCain), or graduate with a C average from Yale (W.) and that's OK, and you're cut out to be president, but if you're black and you graduate near the top of your class from Harvard Law, you can't be trusted to make good decisions in office.

White privilege is being able to dump your first wife after she's disfigured in a car crash so you can take up with a multi-millionaire beauty queen (who you go on to call the c-word in public) and still be thought of as a man of strong family values,
while if you're black and married for nearly twenty years to the same woman, your family is viewed as un-American and your gestures of affection for each
other are called "terrorist fist bumps."

White privilege is being able to sing a song about bombing Iran and still be viewed as a sober and rational statesman, with the maturity to be president, while being black and suggesting that the U.S. should speak with other nations, even when we have
disagreements with them, makes you "dangerously naive and immature."

White privilege is being able to claim your experience as a POW has anything at all to do with your fitness for president, while being black and experiencing racism and an absent father is apparently among the "lesser adversities" faced by other politicians, as Sarah Palin explained in her convention speech.

And finally, white privilege is the only thing
that could possibly allow someone to become president when he has voted with George W. Bush 90 percent of the time, even as unemployment is skyrocketing people are losing their homes, inflation is rising, and the U.S. is increasingly isolated from world opinion, just because white voters aren't sure about that whole "change" thing. Ya know, it's just too vague and ill-defined, unlike, say, four more years of the same, which is very concrete and certain.

White privilege is, in short, the problem.

Amar o decir que amamos: el dilema de muchos religiosos cristianos con la comunidad Homosexual

En una clase sobre los Fundamentos Sociales de la Educación, discutimos el modelo funcionalista y el de la teoría de conflicto. Básicamente podríamos decir que en el funcionalista impera el statu quo como el modelo a seguir y sustentar, y aquellos que no se adaptan a ese modelo son los inadaptados. Mientras que la teoría de conflicto plantea que las personas pueden cambiar el sistema establecido cuando este ya no les es útil y eso es algo positivo. Los cambios pueden generarse como conflictos en un principio, pero luego resultan en progreso. Y adivinen qué modelo es el que tenemos en Puerto Rico: funcionalista. Por eso los cambios tardan taaanto en lograrse.

La cultura la aprendemos los seres humanos tácitamente, o sea, no la cuestionamos ni racionalizamos, simplemente la aprendemos. Y aprendemos que lo que conocemos es “lo correcto”, por eso nos confundimos y asustamos cuando nos enfrentamos a cosas diferentes a las que aprendimos. (Cáseres, 1966) Si a esto le añadimos de lo que he hablado anteriormente sobre el cerebro emocional según múltiples estudios neurológicos y de conducta (vea: Goleman), tenemos la receta perfecta para el discrimen, el rechazo y el odio.

Traeré dos puntos hoy, uno desde la perspectiva de la religión cristiana y otro desde la perspectiva de las ciencias sociales.

La religión cristiana

Si bien es completamente cierto que para que en Puerto Rico que logre la justicia social a través de leyes que reconozcan los derechos de TODAS las personas adultas a casarse y todo lo que ese contrato implica, NO es necesario que NINGUNA secta religiosa lo apruebe; para que el discrimen se detenga sí es necesario que los miembros de estas comprendan o que no tienen porqué querer imponer sus doctrinas en los asuntos legales, o que incluso sus propias doctrinas no aprueban sus actos prejuiciados.

Seré breve: la separación entre Iglesia y Estado es lo más compatible que existe con la DEMOCRACIA. Sino lo creen así todavía les recomiendo que lean cualquier libro de historia. Una nación no se puede regir por los preceptos religiosos de un grupo, mucho menos cuando los preceptos son interpretaciones humanas a un libro considerado sagrado por algunos; eso sería ser como esos “fanáticos” que tanto gustamos en el occidente de criticar y prejuiciar: los musulmanes. En cuanto a ser cristiano, que debe tratarse de actuar lo más parecido a Cristo posible, la teología cristiana misma y los fundamentos bíblicos NO concuerdan con el discrimen, las ínfulas de superioridad y el poner obstáculos para que los demás gocen de las mismas condiciones que el resto de las personas.

Si Cristo mismo lo resumió todo en “amen a su prójimo como a sí mismos”, es totalmente anticristo lo siguiente:

• Rechazar y burlarse de los demás con nombres despectivos. Al igual que los judíos llamaban “perros” a los gentiles y eso fue abolido por la sangre de Cristo, del mismo modo llamar “pato” a otra PERSONA es totalmente inaceptable si es que le amamos como nos amamos a nosotros mismos. ¿Te llamarías a ti mismo “aberración”, “inmundo”, “pato”? No, pues amar a los demás como te amas a ti mismo es tratarlos como te tratas a ti mismo.

• Tratar a otros como seres inferiores a ti. Es totalmente contradictorio, si Pablo mismo dice que ya no hay “señor ni esclavo, hombre ni mujer ... pues todos somos iguales en Cristo”, entonces NADIE es inferior a nadie delante de Cristo sin importar su condición ni preferencias. ¿Quién soy yo, una mera humana, para decir quien es y quien es no es “salvo”? El hecho de considerar a alguien de ese modo nos lleva a tratar a esas personas como si nos contaminaran, y terminamos aislados del prójimo, porque pensamos que somos “muy puros” o “santos” para estar con “esa gente del mundo” Les tengo noticias: Cristo no lo fue, El vino al mundo.

• Insistir en que un grupo deba irse del país simplemente por ser como es. Eso es un signo de que te consideras superior a ese grupo y definitivamente no amas a esas personas como te amas a ti mismo. ¿Qué tal si a algún líder religioso se le ocurriera decir que los gordos son una aberración porque no cuidan el templo del espíritu? ¿O que tal si porque un grupo piensa que las mujeres no deben trabajar porque por culpa de eso se ha “desmoronado la sociedad” y todas las que querramos tener derecho a trabajar porque creemos en la igualdad tengamos que irnos a otro país a hacerlo? Es el mismo principio: “que se vayan los que nos son o piensan como nosotros, no dejaremos que ensucien nuestro país” ¿Dirías eso de ti mismo? ¿Te mandarías al exilio a ti mismo por ser quien eres?

• Antes de terminar con esta parte aprovecho para contestar un repetido y gastado argumento de estos grupos religiosos “amamos al pecador pero no al pecado”. Me sorprende que sean los mismos grupos que dicen que todos somos pecadores, que no hay pecado grande ni pequeño, que Cristo todo lo perdona. Pues si fuésemos todos pecadores estamos todos bajo la misma condición y nadie debería tener mayores derechos que nadie. O sea, que si ser homosexual es pecado, según ustedes y por eso no deben tener el derecho de una vida como los demás (les reto a que busquen una sola vez en el Nuevo Testamento algo parecido), y todos somos pecadores, entonces nadie debería tener ningún derecho.
Y si Cristo todo lo perdona, aun más. En todo caso, ¿no dice su Biblia que Cristo quitó el pecado del mundo? Sí, quitó en pasado, verifiquen las traducciones que a veces dañan el mensaje... En fin, que si amamos tanto ¿cómo es posible que lancemos a los que supuestamente amamos a una vida de ciudadanos de segunda? O amamos o no amamos, sin condiciones o todo es mera palabrería.


Desde la perspectiva de las ciencias sociales

Aquí seré muy breve, por hoy, me citaré a mí misma hace unos días es una clase de Economía y Política: Por lo visto, la mayoría de las veces los preceptos supuestamente morales que sustentan los discrímenes son la justificación de lo económicamente conveniente en un momento dado de la historia.
Ya les explico otro día a que se debe este comentario. Por el momento les dejo con unas citas del libro de Cáceres:

No se justifica que los elemenos culturales perduren si estos no satisfacen las necesidades de los seres humanos. (p60)

Los ambientes democráticos por lo general estimulan el cambio; los ambientes autoritarios, lo impiden. Un ambiente de conformismo destruye la iniciativa individual; un ambiente de libertad estimula el cambio. (p.67)

Algunas referencias:
José Cáseres. Sociología y Educación. p.57
Daniel Goleman La Inteligencia Emocional (2000)

Y como siempre: Les recomiendo http://www.pedrojulioserrano.blogspot.com/