www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall $$"House Slave"? Or Loyal Husband of The Household?+

I think this subject matter I will bring up is fitting under this Byzantine Faith & Worship section, as it has to do with how one discerns to live out their faith.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It is my understanding that Harry Belafonte (spelling?) has refered to Collin Powell (spelling?) as a "house slave" for backing the Bush administrations goal of war with Iraq.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and speculate that Belafonte would never have labeled our former Democratic President (Clinton) in derogatory terms like this. And not that he should or should have. But I must raise a question of how one discerns priority here.

I know for myself life would have been a lot easier up to this point if I had a mentor who could of taught me how to discern, prioratize, and so on. As it is mostly every thing I know in life, outside of academics, I learned on my own. I think this is common with most boys to men.

So culturaly here the question arises: who is a man to be foremost loyal to - his wife and children? Or his racial blood line i.e. in today's term politics?

I think it is known that I am against war with Iraq for the trumped reasons we are to go over there for. Of course Powell is leery of war with Iraq, but with any administration in any world, in the end he must back his team and President when they need him. Now one can argue whether this is good or bad. But my discernment has more to do with the hatred in Belafonte's comment, where it derives from, discerning where real traitorship lies?

For myself, from what I have learned in life, and for those things I have placed in an order of importance, it is like this for me: I say a husband is to put his family (wife and children) before his racial fidelity.

If one was to discern things in this measurement. Powell would look less like the traitor then Clinton. You may not agree with Powell and feel he has put himself in bind, but you could respect his commitments, both to his team and to his wife. Why is this important? Ah... because what is it we teach young boys when we crucify a Powell and relieve a Clinton of responsibilties of his error? I don't want to bash Clinton, I think there are many great qualities to him. But let us also respect those that stay faithful to their wives and children. At least this is what I say.

I wonder what the Byzantine men, Latin men, and Oriental men have to say on this? Where does their Christianity lead them at the end of this question? While women are important, important to humanity, I don't think voice reigns as heavily in a question such as this. That and it is fair to presume most women in the end will choose racial fidelity (i.e. political fidelity) for the character they admire most in their men.

For me though no matter what side of the coin Christianity would place as higher importance. I know what I choose personaly, but then we all know where my religion is right now I already presume most secular persons would choose racial fidelity, for the record, for whatever that matters.

It is good to learn to discern what things to do. And I'm not talking about more simple things to figure out - like hey it's not good to put heroin in your arm or drop kick your girlfriend.

I know before I went into community I had recieved a three dollar an hour pay raise from my boss. Within a month he told me he was giving me another dollar an hour raise. I was at a cross road here, and a professed Catholic at the time also, I was already fortunate and not in dire straits. I could take the raise - God knows it couldn't hurt - or I could suggest to him to give the dollar raise to another particular good employ, who was hard working, made less then I did, and had a kid to support? What to do? How would Christianity tell me to discern out this situation? So I had to decide for myself what road I would take. This was not something I was ever trained to discern. I know the street tells me I should take the money.

So Powell - Catholic house slave or loyal husband of the household?

Justin

Justin,

I don't think the situation is comparable to marriage. A JOB, even as important a job as Secretary Powell holds, is not = a marriage or Holy Orders.

I think Mr. Belafontes remark was hateful, unfortunate & ill considered. I am sorry that Mr. Belafonte said such a thing, and even sorrier that he said it within the hearing of the press.

Perhaps it's my lack of a Y chromosome, but I simply don't understand what you are talking about with respect to racial loyalties vs. family vs. job loyalties - and why women and men supposedly would make different choices???????

I have the deepest respect for Secretary Powell, a man who has served the US with honor, and continues to do so with dignity within an administration that has repeatedly contradicted him on the international stage. Even so, he knows who is in command, and when the President makes a decision, even one with which he disagrees, Powell works to support it. I do not recall that he has EVER publicly disagreed with the President, although it is widely known that he is not in a hurry to go to war now, if ever. (Have you noticed that the loudest voices urging war are people who have never been in combat, and the strongest voices urging exploring other options are folks who have? Where was Harry Belafonte when the bullets were flying?)

Don't know how much you follow the Civil War. I see Secretary Powell as being a man much in the mold and tradition of another honorable man - General Robert E. Lee. Historian Shelby Foote has said that prrior to the Civil War, people would say "The United States are.." because the country was less a unified nation than an association of relatively independent states. After the Civil War, it became "The United States is.."

General Lee (a West Point graduate) associated himself with the Confederacy NOT because he believed strongly in their cause, but because he felt his first loyalty was to Virginia. He led men very nearly to victory, with all dilligence, with honor, and brilliantly, in a cause he personally did not support. His soldiers loved him, and would have gone into Hell for him. (It may be argued that in many battles they did.)

I see Secretary Powell in much the same light. He has committed himself to serve this Administration honorably, and he is doing so - whether he personally supports the President's position or not. This is a man who clearly holds precious the lives of the men and women who would be in battle - and who grasps the subtleties of international issues - perhaps better than many around him. We are not privy to the discussions that go on behind the closed doors of Foggy Bottom or the White House, but I am confident that Secretary Powell is NOT simply rolling over and agreeing to whatever the Administration thinks they want, without a fight - or at least long, well reasoned persuasive argument. But at the end of the day, he knows that HE is not in charge.

It's a hell of a burden. So far, he has borne it with grace, honor and dignity. As an Eastern Catholic, I think the BEST response is to pray that Secretary Powell has the strength to continue bearing it - and that we might learn to do likewise.

Or maybe I don't get it.

Sharon

Sharon,

it has nothing to do with your lack of the "Y", I don't get the point of the post either.

Mr Belafonte's comment was most unfortunate, and ranks up there with "Uncle Tom". However, I could never see anyone call former President Clinton a "house slave" since it's use toward him would be out of context.


Now on the other hand, he may in a few years be a White-"househusband".


John

Sharon,

Liked your post.

Perhaps the confusion is just my lack of getting my question across clearly? Or maybe it's just a cultural one.

Powell is percieved badly amongst many blacks in America. Has been for a long time. What does this have to do with any thing? With a job? A lot. At least I personaly consider it a small matter of wisdom or at the minmum ethical issues.

Why Belafonte would not strike out at Clinton with such terms is due largly to what he places as a priority. The priority of Clinton's faithfulness to black America over Clinton's faithfulness to his own family. Powell from what I understand could have ran for the Presidency, but being a realist, knew, as well as his wife, that the death threats and chance of harm to him and his family would start to come in - due to him being black. He choose to respect the happiness of his wife over that of his own personal ambission.

Is there anything to respect worthy in Powell - as much as in Clinton? I can tell you what many black children will be taught. But I will leave it unanswered.

I think this is not just a black American issue but rather a larger issue symptimatic of all of America when it comes to discernment. I just use this as an example.

What I am suggesting is that we teach our children that it may not be good to commit adualtry. But it is not as bad as failing your racial political alligiance. And that if you do hold true to your politics - along racial lines, we will over look all other errors in your life including your unfaithfulness to your wife. But at the same time no matter what good you do or virtue you have, if you place any of those things above and beyond racial politics - we will never forgive you.

We can repeat this same thing over amongst white Republicans or Latino Republicans or Democrats. It's not just a black American thing. I see it as an American thing.

What I ask is what does the Christian, Byzantine, Latin man say as to how one stacks their priority, if they where teaching lessons to their son(s). Though I have already recieved my answer - they remain in silence. Though you may not believe it Sharon, your answer will give some young kid something to think about. This is good. And who knows your answer may be that which will begin the reshaping of his priorities in some ways.

What I suggest - to set the record straight - is not that it is a one or the other thing. But that some things do have higher presidence. I'm no Christian but if I where to look to the Bible the Ten Commandments would be a starting point perhaps? And I don't believe the Ten Commandments say anything about inheriting the kingdom of God by faithfulness to racial politics. But the Ten Commandments do say something about fidelity to ones wife or at least allude to it. So again I'm not say any thing is an either or thing, but I think one should be taught to begin in his marriage firstly. Nor am I condenming Clinton, or think he should be whiped, verbaly, or physicaly for his extra marital affairs. This is between him and his wife. I can forgive him, no problem. I just ask a question of discernment in ones own life.

Bisantino, don't worry I won't be bothering to much longer with any questions here. I'll leave the Christians to the Christians they by-in-large don't have anything to teach me anyways. I know my questions can be troubling to most Christians as they tend not to have answers. But I'm old enough to search and find out the answer on my own so that responsibilty I place on my own shoulders with out any help from Christians. Your time and response has been appreciated as much as it can be - and I'm certain if I look hard enough with out bias I can learn something from your reply.

Justin

Dear Friends,

I agree with Sharon on this subject. Secretary Powell has always been a loyal team player. He knows who the boss is, and if he has a serious enough disagreement with the President, I am confident he would leave his office.

For those who don't remember, General Powell was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff when Bill Clinton was President. As far as I know, he served loyally then as well.

Have a Blessed Day !!!!

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Call Mr. Powell what ever you want except a house slave. Yes, these liberals never called any of Clinton's Black supporters Uncle Tom for supporting Clinton's unrelenting bombing campaigns in Iraq and other places; the most shameful of which was done in the middle of his impeachment hearings and abruptly ended when the hearings were over. That is the fall back in being part of a political party. You lose your independence and can not say what you want or feel. You even make opportunistic cheap shots like Harry Belafonte made (himself is not stranger to positions in the "house' and establishment politics).

Powell has done some things that he could defiantly be criticized for: he was part of the cover up of the Mai Li massacre of Vietnamese peasants during the war in Vietnam. Also, in 1995 when the rest of Black America put all religious and political differences to the side to support the historic Million Man March, Powell refused to participate and made some unfortunate remarks about the participants.

However, even after considering his worst decisions Colin Powell is no house slave and is not even comparable to such disgraces like Clarence Thomas.

Listen to the speech that Powell made at the electoral Republican Convention. While all the other self-styled "Black conservatives' were demonstrating what it really meant to be a house slave and stool pidgin, Powell stood up for principle and did not tow the line. He criticized the Republican Party's policy on Civil Rights and corporate welfare. For this he was booed numerous times from the convention floor; something that I have not read any other Republican speaker having to endure with such severity.

Now, as a critic of the U.S. imperial ambitions then I am like wise a critic of Powell's politics and political commitments. While I would never vote for him (so long as he ran as a Republican or a Democrat); he will always have my respect. I will also always consider him an excellent role model. I am no where near conservatism but I can respect Powell's genuine conservative stands which differ very much from the corporate bought and paid for lines promoted by the "New Right' hucksters.

And oh yes; that General Lee was a loathsome individual. If his side was victorious then Colin Powell would have never been Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff but instead would have been sitting on someone's plantation. I like the historical rumors that when he was captured he was wearing a dress and panties. True or not true, it fits his character.

Aklie,

This is off the subject, but wasn't Robert E. Lee the turning point for the better for the Confederacy? A West Point graduate and resulting as one of the more formidable ones of that era? Wouldn't it be fair to say that under his charge the Confederate colors didn't run?

Yes Confederacy was all about slavery - I think. Higher ideals beyond that didn't necassarily exist - as far the Confederate Government was concerned. But I have little doubt that good men were to be found in the Confederate army. The Confederate nobility sold it's war to the less well-to-do southern men and women through propaganda, just as the American government does today. And as in all societies of the world even the well intentioned get swept up into the fray, doing what they believe is right, whether it is or not? Yes. In the end Robert E. Lee was fighting for the right of southern nobility to maintain slavery whether he believed it or not - not without the support of the Pope of Rome by the way, who being a true Paulinian student, discerned Democracy, human rights, and the revolutionary ideals of freedom of conscience, to be a greater crime against Christianity and it's upper echalon then that of cattle slavery. Mark em' on the side of the face or back, dress em' in rags, so long as they are marched off to sunday Mass and remain obedient to the Church - It is the will of God. --- Man I could of wrote all the Catholic speaches of that era. But just think to the surprise of the Catholic world of that time, America still stands, and prospers at that. More kindly to Children then Brazil I might add, the worlds largest Catholic population, who hunt down and murder street children. And unlike most Catholic worlds - American Colors Don't Run!

With regard to the original post, I'd say the socially difficult or uncomfortable answer to many of life's every day dilemmas is often the right one.


Too often, we do not carry out our public lives - or even our private lives -in accordance with our own professed sense of morality. That's not good.

If only we would learn to follow some of the simplest lesson Jesus taught - i.e. to love one another - and to seek true justice (which Aquinas explained so very well), we'd all be doing great.

And w/r/t General Powell, I've got to say I respect him for his long service to the American people. Mr. Bellanfonte is entitled to his opinion, but I think what he said was pretty darned idiotic and not at all helpful nor was it loving or just.

Once again, my hat's off to Annie for her perspective.

The ultimate question is: do you live your life according to your principles? Christian principles say to love God and love your neighbor - "to give and not to count the cost".

I believe that Colin Powell is an honest and straightforward man. And I believe he makes his decisions based upon his principles. And this is why he has earned the respect of all sorts of people. Those who accuse him of not being "black enough" are just experiencing sour grapes.

I work with a boatload of African-Americans. (And I'm a 'buddy' to a lot of them. Hey, I'm on their internet joke-list -- the only Euro-American to be there. And you only send jokes to people you like and trust to not get pissy about 'non-job-related' e-mails.) And most of my African-American friends are basic, honest, church-going, bible-believing, generous to a fault, and straight shooters. (Screen savers are bible quotes.) When they are confronted with the Hip-Hop so-called "black culture" music, where women are called bitches, and sex is interpersonal gymnastics, and drugs are just another food group, these folks just roll their eyes and sigh. Although they recognize that this 'sub-culture' is identified with the "Black" community, they just don't support it at all. They don't outright condemn it (solidarity, you know!), but their lives are a witness to the fact that this is NOT their lifestyle. And, I think that most African-Americans are (rightly) proud of Colin Powell not only because he "made it", but also because he is not type-cast as saying the pre-scripted line of the Farrakhans and the other 'anointed' leaders of the black community.

The ultimate: follow the moral dictates of one's conscience. Love God and love one's neighbor and serve them. The alliegance is to the moral norms that one's conscience commands.

Blessings!

Annie,

Appreciate your response. And as often with women, whether I dismiss you or not based upon your gender, you arise to the occassion. This is why I find women to have in general - greater moral courage then men. Men will not do what they fear, they cannot over come what they begrudge. Women tend to display greater heroics in these avenues.

May I suggest this, that while your above comments may not be wrong, they are none the less vague. Vague that is, to be the hallmark of Vatican politics i.e. concerning voting; the laity must vote pro-union and against abortion - but vote with ones conscience.

Have the courage to be wrong and take a stand. This is what I say. If abortion is the killing of children truely. Then one must vote against orginized labor and for the end of abortion if this is the option he is left with. One may just be of greater importance. No one said being an adult meant making easy choices. But if adults can't even muster the courage to place greater importance lesser importance on issuse of life, but rather are manipulated by the trend of sentiment in their said cultures. Then how pray-tell can we expect young boys to arise as adults with the discernment skills needed of any great people or nation?

Men I notice have chosen to pass the buck around. Perhaps this has always been the case and that is why men have always been left with the option to abandon their wife and kids for more pleasurable pursuits and mistresses. Or maybe it is something new - which I see it as. The oft said solution to raise a boys confidence is: "I'll put him in martial arts classes". Said by many a man. I say: you yourself are to raise your sons confidence, this is your responsibility as a father. Like wise one is to teach how to discern. Now no father can give their children all the answers to every problem the world will throw at them. But they can impart on them the skills of discernment. This goes for war and everything. Because all war is not bad. Sometimes some people will have to bleed. Some governments will have to fall. Sometimes the position of power will have to change.

The marginalized of the world respect one thing, I know, of Islam over Christianity, Islam at least has the courage to take a clear stand and be wrong. Christians all to often think the word 'Love' is enough to answer any question in it's fullness. The Italian Mafioso heard the word 'Love', the Mexican gangbanger heard the word 'Love', the black kids that beat that Milwaukee man to death heard the word 'Love'.

Justin

Hey, watch what you say about Robert E. Lee, a fine Christian gentleman of impeccable character!

Some facts:

Lee was not captured. He surrendured. He was free to return to civilian life and did so. Jefferson Davis was captured, but AFAIK he was not a cross dresser!!!!

Lee was opposed to slavery and freed all his slaves before the War. When he surrendered to Grant at Appomatox, guess which General still owned slaves? Right, Grant. He inherited them from his wife. The Emancipation Proclamation had been issued by this time, but it only applied to slaves in Confederate terrority. When asked why he still had slaves, Grant replied that good help was hard to find. (Actually, I kind of like Grant, he wasn't a war criminal like Sheridan and Sherman and you have to feel for a guy who was an alcoholic and a failure most of his life and finally pulled himself together and was a brilliant general).

Lee also was opposed to the secession movement and was even offered command of the Union armies by Lincoln, but could not bear to take up arms against Virginia, and resigned his commission in the US Army. This was quite difficult for him; his father was the famous Revolutionary War cavalry hero Lighthorse Harry Lee. Lee himself was married to the great-granddaughter of Martha Washington (from her first husband; she and George had no children). However, at that time, people felt more loyalty to their state than to the US as a whole.

So many people seem to think the Civil War was only and entirely about slavery, which it wasn't. Lincoln's original intent was to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves. He felt that blacks were inferior to whites and could never live together in the same country. He supported a program of compensated gradual emancipation and the settling of freed blacks in Liberia or somewhere in Latin America, I think Panama was one of the places he thought would be good. It was only later he came to the view that slaves should be immediately freed (but only in the Confederate territories, freedom for the rest had to wait until the 13th Amendment) and could remain in the US.

Only 1/12 of the population of the South owned slaves. Most were small farmers and businessmen who did not have slaves. One of the other big burning issues was tariffs. The South had the raw materials; the North had the industrial capacity. The North charged high tariffs on Southern goods. This made the South mad. So many in the South felt that they were fighting a war of defense against an invading power. (When I was a kid, the Civil War was often referred to with tongue in cheek as "The War of Northern Agression"! I was 12 years old before I realized that "Damn Yankee" was two words!!)

There was nothing in the Constitution that said that states couldn't secede; the New England states threatened to secede on several occasions in the early 19th cent. This is why Jefferson Davis was eventually freed after the war, since there's nothing against secession in the Constitution, he couldn't actually be tried for treason.

I think the South would have probably moved toward a program of gradual, compensated emancipation as well, but who knows how long it would have taken. The Virginia General Assembly failed by 7 votes to abolish slavery in the 1830's so public opinion was moving in that direction. That doesn't excuse the defense of slavery, which is self-evidently wrong to us now; however, people often quoted the Bible in defense of slavery; admittedly, the Bible takes the existence of slavery for granted. Unfortunately, we'll never know. The assassination of Lincoln and the rise of the Radical Republicans who were determined to punish the South and treat it harshly set back race relations by decades. I am only 48 years old and still vaguely remember Jim Crow, thank God that is gone!

Lee was a serious and devout Episcopalian who prayed and read his Bible every day. He was a rather humble man who after the war quietly went to Lexington, Virginia to be president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee Univ.) He was known for his graciousness, his honesty, his fair treatment of subordinates, his devotion to duty, his chivalry to women. I am sure he had some faults, of course, a sinner like us all, but he really was a fine person.

If the South had won, Colin Powell wouldn't be enslaved; his parents came from Jamaica and settled in the Bronx!

He's a good guy and I wish the President would listen to him instead of the neo-con crazies, but that's another topic.

Don't mess with Virginia!

Martha, American by birth, Virginian by the grace of God!!!

I think we need to keep the Republican Propaganda out of the Byzantine Faith and Worship section, please!

Brian

Let's see. We start with an attack on the Republican Secretary of State and move along to a discussion of Confederate Gen. Lee and an attack on Republican President Abraham Lincoln.

Somehow, I don't think it's "Republican Propaganda".

However, I think the thread should be closed, because it really has nothing to do with Byzantine Faith and Worship, however "byzantine" this thread may be.

John
Pilgrim and Odd Duck

Actually, I'm not attacking Lincoln, just stating historical facts. He was always opposed to slavery, of course, but the things I stated are well known historical facts and can be easily verified. He once said if he could save the Union by freeing all the slaves, none of the slaves, or only some of the slaves, he would do so.

You are right, though, this thread has gotten a little strange.....but don't a lot of them
:rolleyes: