What's in a name? Plenty, actually!

Dallas can be a downright confusing place in which to live. In some ways, it's even worse when you've been here most all of your life.

Take the Cesar Chavez naming controversy that's been in the news since last summer.

Here's a summary.

With the Trinity River project going forward, the City decided to have a contest to rename Industrial Boulevard. Given all the new development, the anticipated park land and the rebirth of the Trinity River and its corridor, a new name seemed appropriate. You know, something like "Riverside Drive" or "Park Lake Lane."

Right?

Well no, wrong.

The name that won, and won overwhelmingly, was Cesar Chavez, the iconic Latino labor and civil rights leader of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s era and value-vision. In the Hispanic community Chavez holds the place of Dr. King, as should both for the entire nation in terms of how their lives affected needed change, progress and the further realization of justice in the nation as a whole.

Not hard to see how the name of Mr. Chavez won out in the contest, what with the growing Hispanic population in our community and the dearth of Latino street names to celebrate the various achievements of folks who shared this ethnic heritage.

But, our city leaders see it differently. Last week they voted to go with the name "Riverfront." In addition, they turned back the suggestion that Ross Avenue be renamed after the civil rights leader. The argument being that changing historic designations like the use of a family name of a prominent figure in the history of Dallas would be inappropriate. Needless to say, the Hispanic members of the City Council--Dr. Elba Garcia, Pauline Medrano, and Steve Salazar--were not pleased.

Alternative suggestions are now floating about, including the idea to rename the Dallas Farmers Market after Chavez, possibly a fitting tribute to a leader who did so much to ease the burden for so many farm workers.

Even The Dallas Morning News' editorial board expressed concern over the snub to Hispanic Dallasites. You can read their opinion here.

But, back to being from Dallas.

There are lots of street names here, mostly Anglo, though we do have our M. L. King Boulevard and Malcolm X Boulevard. Even our freeways hold out lots of prominent Anglo names: George H. W. Bush, Lyndon B. Johnson, Woodall Rogers, John Stemmons, John Carpenter, R. L. Thornton.

Hmmm. That last one is interesting.

"R. L. Thornton. "

Robert L. Thornton, to be exact.

I grew up hearing my dad speak fondly of "Uncle Bob" Thornton. Thornton served as Dallas Mayor from 1953 to 1961. He was president of the Dallas County State Bank and a prominent business and civic figure in the city.

What's really interesting is the fact that, like most Dallas leaders of the era, Thornton was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. Thornton's firm proudly advertised in local media that the bank he led was a "KKK business firm 100%" (see Michael Phillips, White Metropolis: Race, Ethnicity, and Relgion In Dallas, 1841-2001, University of Texas Press, page 96).

I'm sure "Uncle Bob" did a lot of good back in the day for folks who looked about like me. But I suspect that African American, Mexican American, Catholic and Jewish folks didn't get along quite as well under his leadership.

I don't know, but a little digging into these Anglo street and freeway names might not be such a bad idea. Maybe brushing up on the history of our city might take the luster off of some of the old names we seem so bound and determined to hang on to.

Of course, I don't see why we can't rename Main, Elm, Commerce or Pacific after Cesar Chavez. It's not like we don't have lots of options. In my view, it would be a really good thing to have the memory of Cesar Chavez running right through the middle of Downtown Dallas.

What do you think?

.

Fundamentalism, a very real problem

Fundamentalism is a problem, a very real problem.

The notion that we can arrive at and possess “the truth,” objective, absolute truth, runs counter to just about every real life, human circumstance or experience I can imagine. Not only is absolute truth beyond my reach, in reality I never even come close to it.

On an autobiographical note, I was reared in a religious tradition that assured me that absolute truth was attainable. All I had to do was read the Bible and it would be mine. Early on I came to realize that was not true! Ironic, huh? I've spent the last 30-plus years unraveling that childhood conditioning.

We move to a new level of absurdity when we promote the idea that this “attainable” truth can be gleaned from a particular source. Most onerous in this regard would be to focus on any one of several “holy books.” And, it’s not so much the books, but the conviction that my particular reading of these sources leads me to “truth” that cannot be challenged, must be defended and, even worse, must be propagated as a part of my life mission.

Fundamentalism, with its sharply contrasting black and white approach to issues, renders life largely, if not completely unworkable in a pluralistic, complicated world such as ours.

The particular brand of Fundamentalism doesn’t matter so much. The outcomes of the pursuit of such a system end up being about the same no matter what the particulars of the various sources.

Islamic Fundamentalists blow themselves up and kill innocents with great confidence and in the name of Allah for the sake of their Truth. Such extremists live to murder infidels as a sacred obligation before passing on to Paradise.

Jewish Fundamentalists refuse to recognize the claims of their Palestinian neighbors, claiming the Truth of the great land promises laid out so clearly in their Hebrew Bible. No concession can be tolerated for those who seek to block the certain eternal truths of the promises of their God.

Christian Fundamentalists preach a black and white message, are quiet certain about the truth of their Gospel and seem absolutely unquestioning in their approach to the Bible. With absolute confidence they murder doctors who perform abortions, regard homosexuals as perverts or objects of disdain, if not extermination, and consign those with differing opinions to Hell’s literal lake of fire.

In general, Fundamentalists don't do much to promote the positives of their various religious heritages.

Unfortunately, Fundamentalists are missionaries by definition. They must spread "the truth," their truth, no matter the cost. If called on, they willingly die def ending the truth about which they are completely certain. No room for conversation or new understandings.

Fundamentalism is a problem.

Too often it leads to death, literally and spiritually. Death is never good.

It cannot aid us in solving our most pressing problems today. In fact, it only adds to the problems we face. Dividing communities into warring parties, Fundamentalism stands over against almost every value necessary for human reconciliation and community building.

Fundamentalism is a problem, a very real problem.

.

new eyes. . .

The more I read after Shane Claiborne, the more he inspires, troubles, challenges and motivates me to rethink just about everything!

Here are quotes from chapter 9 ("Jesus is for losers") of his remarkable The Irresistible Revolution: living as an ordinary radical (pages 264-266, 2006) that speak to the importance of how we "see" other people.

Really important stuff, especially in the city.
_________________________

When we look through the eyes of Jesus, we see new things in people. In the murderers, we see our own hatred. In the addicts, we see our own addictions. In the saints, we catch glimpses of our own holiness. We can see our own brokenness, our own violence, our own ability to destroy, and we can see our own sacredness, our own capacity to love and forgive. When we realize that we are both wretched and beautiful, we are freed up to see others the same way. . . .

I have on old hippie friend who loves Jesus and smokes a lot of weed, and he's always trying to get under my skin and stir up a debate, especially when I have innocent young Christians visiting with me. (The problem is that he knows the Bible better than most of them do.) One day, he said to me, "Jesus never talked to a prostitute.” I immediately went on the offensive: "Oh, sure he did," and whipped out my sword of the Spirit [Bible] and got ready to spar. Then he just calmly looked me in the eye and said, "Listen, Jesus never talked to a prostitute because he didn't see a prostitute. He just saw a child of God he was madly in love with." I lost the debate that night.

When we have new eyes, we can look into the eyes of those we don't even like and see the One we love. We can see God's image in everyone we encounter. As Henri Nouwen puts it, "In the face of the oppressed I recognize my own face, and in the hands of the oppressor I recognize my own hands. Their flesh is my flesh, their blood is my blood, their pain is my pain, their smile is my smile" (With Open Hands, 1987, page 46). We are made of the same dust. We cry the same tears. No one is beyond redemption. And we are free to imagine a revolution that sets both the oppressed and the oppressors free.