This
blog is mostly concerned with examining the construction, maintenance and
viability of a specific ethnic religious identity. While no one really bothers getting excited
over such a project, it is none-the-less a bit controversial – not in its
particular expression but in the perception of its aims. Does this project contribute towards the
preservation of a particular and valuable ethnic “particular’ experience or
does it contribute towards further divisiveness and discrimination.
It
is important to reiterate that just because one identifies a particular ethnic experience
as viable and worthy of study, that one does not necessarily denigrate or
negate the viability and value of all other ethnic or ethnic-religious
experiences. Just as a single rose can
be examined and cultivated along with many other roses in the garden, or just
as the genus rosa is worthy of study
but no more so, nor more to be preferred than is iris or syringe or paeonia…
each is worthy, necessary and valued both in and of itself and also for
the contrast and complementary impact each unique group has on the others and
on the inclusive group as a whole.
Nor
is this conundrum the sole propriety of the ethnic Mennonites, or even of
ethnic-religions in general. Similar
questions and dilemmas have been grappled with in many other examinations or
manifestations of “unique” identity – at various national or regional Jewish
heritage institutions, at the Swedish-American Museum (SAMAC) in Chicago, or even in defining
participation in and inclusion in the Canadian Museum for Human Rights now
under construction in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
At
the same time, while we prefer to tear down barriers, to foster inter-group
cooperation and shared identities, questions remain as to whether or not such
well-meaning and lofty goals are not merely the new politically correct code
words for cultural assimilation and enforced cultural proscription – think in
terms of the rights and existence of unique Native American and First Nations
cultures in the North American West and Far North, aboriginal rights in the
Chaco or the rights of Muslims to self-identify and maintain a unique cultural
perspective in the larger context of Western Europe.
The
aim of this essay is not to resolve these matters but rather to give them air
and light – to admit of their complexity and to encourage greater and more
tolerant dialogue in all respects. The
Canadian Museum of Human Rights evolved from tighter, more restrictive concepts
as a Holocaust museum, a museum of genocide and now a positive institution embodying
the concept of Human Rights. The LGBT
center has expanded programming into issues of youth homelessness, the aging
with chronic diseases and other larger social areas of expertise gained by the
recent painful history of LGBT civil rights attainment in North America. The Swedish in Chicago (SAMAC) has evolved
into a museum of immigration specializing in youth and children’s programming.
All
of these institutions have grown beyond earlier, more narrow cultural and
ethnic identities into something beyond what they originally stood for. Yet, there is a seemingly common trend – that
previous ethnic identities, cultural strengths and ethnic narratives have in a
sense specialized – given certain groups either a level of experience with
certain types of experiences (such as immigration, civil rights attainment, or
surviving genocide) or a cultural wealth that augments the collective
experience (not dissimilar to Augustine’s concept of a common culture that
borrowed from various ethnic expertises – Roman governance, Greek philosophy
and Hebrew religion).
However
the dialogue evolves and progresses – it is important for it to remain
respectful and inclusive. The embedded
graphic produced by the Illinois Mennonite Conference, is an excellent
visual example of how these goals might be pursued at the same time – and in a
mutually empowering, catalystic manner:
No comments:
Post a Comment