Kolvenbach and King

            Nash’s idea of Freedom Dreaming highlights the importance of recognizing suffering and trauma as a means of moving towards a better future. This concept is demonstrated in both Kolvenbach’s and King’s works on a practical level as they advocate that a necessary step in promoting and achieving social justice is to truly witness the injustice in the world.

            In King’s letter this manifests in the premise of direct-action creating immediate need to respond. Although the idea of demonstrations and sit-ins seem extreme to white moderates King states that “it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say ‘wait’” (King 2). Without having to reckon with the injustice others face, many people choose to stay ignorant on the sufferings of others. He states that the purpose of these demonstrations “is to create situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation” (King 2). Demonstrations and sit-ins force the people in power to witness the suffering of the oppressed and it is only possible through this witnessing that world can begin to change. Kolvenbach echo’s this methodology: “personal involvement with innocent suffering, with the injustice others suffer, is the catalyst for solidarity which then gives rise to intellectual inquiry and moral reflection” (Kolvenbach 34). He argues that a faith without love for all people is not truly the message of God. Engaging with the suffering in the world is an important step to understanding and empathy that will bring about liberation.

            People tend to disconnect an individual from their humanity to deal with the discomfort they feel from knowing that they are existing in such suffering. Bearing witness to the suffering of others is a crucial step in equality as shown in both of these works.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Don't Let Them Define You

     The book  George , by Alex Gino explores the struggle of gender and identity within the main character, George. One of the themes that I found prevalent in this book that I believe relates to the entirety of the course is the idea of defining things. Throughout many of the works we have read throughout this course there has been an underlying notion of society trying to define certain people. Such as Starr, for example, who was defined by both her white friends at school and by her black community as different things for different reasons. Or in  Lysistrata  where the women were defined by their sexuality and pleasure that they could provide to their husbands. Throughout society in the real world and in many of the books we have read, definitions and labels are always being imposed on people. And as we can see through the practice of banning books, society does not like when people try to expound upon or reject these labels. They have a need to be stra...
Read more

Ringel

     While reading Ringel’s article, “How Banning Books Marginalizes Children,” a quote really struck me: “More broadly, keeping books about certain types of children or experiences out of libraries or putting them on separate shelves perpetuates a troubling vision of a sheltered American childhood that in fact has rarely existed” (Ringel 4-5). By telling American children that their experiences and lives are not valid or appropriate, we run the risk of making them even more excluded than they already feel. Keeping the books that deal with relevant life experiences out of libraries and on separate shelves is troubling. Even as a twenty-year-old, when I look in the LGBTQ+ section of Barnes and Noble, I barely feel safe around my family. They question why I am even looking in that section to begin with, telling me that it is a sin to read these types of books and that they will "turn me gay." The fact that it is separated allows for more marginalization and could possibly o...
Read more

Ringel and Mullally

In the articles "How Banning Books Marginalizes Children" and "Banned Books," Paul Ringel and Claire Mullally provide a compelling discourse on the banning of books. Specifically, the authors explore the implications these decisions have on young students.  One aspect of Mullally's article that I found especially interesting was her discussion of book banning today compared to book banning in the past. In its earliest days, book banning was often associated with the destruction of texts. If a book was deemed unsuitable for the public, it was common for the book to be burned and destroyed. At this point, this decision was controlled by secular and religious authorities rather than the individual beliefs held by people. Because this was prominent in Europe, it unsurprisingly spread to the Americas. Initially, book banning continued in the United States as a unified system. This is seen most prominently through the development of the Comstock laws, enacted by the...
Read more