July 2, 2016

Saturday Link Love is a new feature where I collect and post links to various articles I’ve come upon over the past week. Feel free to share any interesting articles you’ve come along as well! The more the merrier.

Note: Inclusion does not imply full agreement. 

Meet the woman making rape jokes that are actually funny, on Fusion—“You talk about how you get sent off to college like, ‘Here’s your dorm room, here’s the campus, and here’s this rape whistle,’ without anyone actually explaining anything else about it.”

Lin-Manuel Miranda Thinks the Key to Parenting Is a Little Less Parenting, on GQ—“That’s right: TV is not a bad thing. In a lot of ways, it was my co-parent. But I was never just a passive TV watcher.”

A Note on The Toast, by Hillary Clinton—“This is not a joke.”

How Will Brexit Affect The UK’s Marginalized Populations? by Dianna Anderson—“This is the world Kohlt grew up in—a world where her hard work was rewarded by a placement at a top university, made possible by the freedom of movement granted by the EU’s open borders.”

The Sexism of Brexit, on Feministing—“The white men who orchestrated Brexit got their wish — and it’s women and people of color who will be forced to shoulder the consequences.”

Roianna: “I think complete dysregulation is dangerous and harmful,” on Coalition for Responsible Homeschooling—“While I was researching what I would need to do to homeschool, I was stunned to find that in Texas homeschooling is completely unregulated.”

Self-Care Printable—“Are you hydrated? If not, have a glass of water.”

And finally, the lovely John Oliver:

February 5, 2021

The Vision, pp. 285-295

This book is so weird.

Magdalene was dead. 

Grief pulled them down like a tidal undertow. It was a nightmare, beyond comprehension. Every pleasure was swallowed up in the pain they bore. Sleepless nights, sobbing off and on all day, work left undone, their vision gone in the midst of despair. They had talked about danger and dying. They thought they were ready for anything. They were willing to be martyrs. But this was real—so different from their play pretend bravery and spun spirituality.

Who is “they”?

Reporters came from all over the nation to document the arrest of what seemed to be half the country. Corruption, greed, murder, and major fraud involving banks, insurance companies, local lawyers, and county tax assessors, all suddenly made known. The novelty of discovering every political leader in a three county area to be involved in a violent White Supremacist clan was worth reporting.

First, there is nothing in the text to directly link this crackdown to Magdalene’s mother and brother contacting the feds. I assume these are linked. But it seems like this could have been more clear.

Second, the statement white supremacists running the area was so novel that reporters came “from all over the nation” changes my conception of the world Debi has sketched. The fact that white supremacists controlled the area had always been stated as an open and unchangeable secret. If white supremacists running an area is novel and easy to clean up in one fell swoop … that changes things.

This book is nothing if not inconsistent.

How do the feds even have the time to come in and clean up white supremacist infiltration of a local community’s government? We’ve been told the Muslim extremist threat is so severe that there are bombings around the country practically every day. Why would the feds care about a single act of arson and murder in a small Tennessee town?

Also, if this all came to light because of Magdalene’s mother and brother sending the feds Magdalene’s dad’s white supremacist internet passwords … IDK. That’s not my understanding of how the internet works? Besides, don’t the feds already monitor white supremacist activity on the internet?

Well, regardless, that’s the end of the White Supremacist threat to our merry band of heroes. It’s over—just like that. Kaput. Poof. One enemy down! Two to go!

A Performance of Grief

Back to the reporters:

When they approached those who loved Magdalene, asking about hte night of the fire, they were met by sobs from men and women alike. The great sorrow subdued the news hounds, making them wonder how one young girl had provoked such devotion.

This feels … performative.

Word trickled to the Freemans that, amidst the many arrests, federal gents were discovering that some local and state officials were actively manipulating the law to seize the property and assets of The Last Publishers ministries and their leadership. It all smelled of money … big money.

Wait, what is that supposed to mean?

The weary eyes of Malachi met the eyes of his beloved.

This writing. Egads.

Obviously the berry secret was not such a big secret after all.

Oh FFS, they already knew the local white supremacists were trying to gain control of their property. And someone broke in and stole their last jar of the berry brew after they shipped the rest of it out to heal that missionary, remember. I’d gotten the impression this was all a pretty open secret.

Then, suddenly, the press was gone. The feds were gone. The mourners were left to weep undisturbed.

Yellowstone’s soon coming fury could no longer be hidden.

What an interesting transition.

Anyway, everyone gathers at the Herb Den.

They came because the were shaken to their very core. Every face looked troubled; not just sad, not just confused, but very, very disturbed.

Even with everything else that had been happening, losing Magdalene had been the greatest blow in Cheyenne’s life. Bobbie Jo hadn’t stopped crying since that night; even in her sleep she whimpered. Julie and thrown up for two days.

Look, I’m not going to police people’s grief. But. These people made Magdalene call her father, knowing that he was both abusive and a committed white supremacist. If they hadn’t done this, she would still be with them. This just feels over the top. Like, fine. But here’s my side eye.

Why Did God Let Her Die?!

Dusty is pissed.

“Why would God do such a thing? Why did God let that nasty, filthy scumbag kill Magdalene? God could have turned the bullet just a tiny bit. He could have caused the smoke to cloud Derek’s vision. He could have done any number of things that would have required almost no effort. Why?! Didn’t he care?

“She was so young! She had her whole life ahead of her. Why would anyone hurt there? She believed and trusted! How could God allow this terrible thing to happen to her? She trusted him to protect her! We prayed … and now she’s dead!”

He’s not wrong.

Yancey stands up and says “Da boy’s right” and “What did God do about dose prayers?”

Yancey’s angry eyes settled on Malachi as if he were blaming him for the murder of Magdalene. A tremor seemed to engulf him. He dropped into his seat as if he no longer had strength to stand.

Why is Yancey there? Why does Yancey care? Yancey is such a weird character. Why does he drop in his seat as though he has no strength?

Asher could see that Malachi’s health was heavy. He had seen him break into weeping several times over the last week. Now he watched the Old Gent struggle to clear his eyes and throat before he answered.

The “Old Gent”?

Why is no one willing to deal with the fact that it is their fault that Magdalene is dead? No one even acknowledges this. No one mentions the role that making Magdalene call her dirtbag dad played in her death—not even Dusty notes this, and he was there when she called. It’s like it didn’t happen.

So. How is Malachi going to explain Magdalene’s death?

I’m sure it’ll be fine.

“When should God have let Magdalene die? Should he have turned the bullet, this time saving her, then stopped the car from crashing five years from now?”

Is “yes” an acceptable answer?

“Should he have kept her from getting cervical cancer at 45 years old—

Damn, Magdalene’s life sounds dangerous.

—or stop her from having a stroke at 68?”

Yes! Yes, he should stop those things!

Look, the average life expectancy for someone born when Magdalene was is something like 78 years. Malachi’s narrative makes it sound like someone was out to get her. Also, the Bible says that those who walk in God’s ways will be granted long life, so that is not too much to ask.

“Is God more merciful to let her live a long time before she dies? Is he unjust to let her die so young?

Uhhh.

“Who has suffered? Her? Or us?”

Here it comes.

Malachi’s hands hung loose down his side as if he were too weary to lift them. His voice dropped almost to a whisper. “What we fail to understand is how short life really is.”

Yup.

“What really counts is eternity.”

There it is.

Oh, but wait. Wait wait wait.

“So she went on ahead. Yes, I grieve to lose her. But our loss is her gain. Many of you did not know that Magdalene carried a very heavy secret on her small shoulders. That secret weighed her heart with great grief.”

Oh no.

“She was too young to keep such a terrible thing to herself. She bore her grief alone except for Hope and I, and at our request she told Tess.”

Oh no. Oh no no no.

“She didn’t want to grieve you, so she kept quiet. She wanted to protect you from sorrow.”

THIS WHOLE NEW PLOT LINE IS UNNECESSARY.

“You remember she was fanatically clean and particular.”

Do you see it yet? Can you guess it?

“We often laughed at her and her yellow rubber gloves and doctor’s masks.”

Ahahah Debi, you should’ve gone back and added some mention of this earlier, lolol.

“She was particular for your sakes, not hers.”

Have you guessed it yet?

Well. Here goes nothing.

“During her year on the street she had become HIV positive.”

Yep. They went there. They really went there.

“The disease was already advancing in her body. She knew she was living on borrowed time.”

I don’t like this new plot line, I don’t like it at all!

AIDS Like It’s 1985

I have a question. How did they know she was HIV positive? We never heard any mention of her visiting a doctor. If she learned of her status before, while she was working on the streets—how? She’s a minor. She needs a parent’s signature on all of her documents. If Hope and Malachi had taken her to the doctor, they’d have had to reveal that she’s a runaway. So that clearly didn’t happen.

I don’t see how they could possibly know she’s HIV positive, and even if she somehow got a diagnosis for that, she was absolutely not visiting the doctor while living at TLP, which is gross medical neglect. AIDS is treatable now. And yes, this book was written in 2009, not 2021, but it was treatable then too. Debi is writing as though AIDS is a death sentence, when by 2009 it was not. 

There was a shared gasp across the room as everyone sat up in unison, trying to fathom this unexpected revelation. Then the mood in the room shifted to fear as people searched their memories of any time they might have come in contact with Magdalene.

Small-town east Tennessee, where it’s still 1985.

This is just so sad. So, so sad.

But also, this is just so completely unnecessary. They could have just said that Magdalene is with Jesus, and is happy now, and isn’t that better than life on this earth with all of its worries and cares? And then they could have left it at that. That is, after all, what they believe. But no! They have to invent this brand new claim that Magdalene had AIDS and was going to die soon anyway, so no harm no foul.

This is so unnecessary!

Cheyenne interrupted, “But what about the brew? Wouldn’t that have helped?”

Good question.

Rather than begin a discussion about the brew, Malachi responded with as little information as possible. “There seems to be some properties of this particular disease that would not respond to the brew. The brew’s formula works with the immune system, building it. HIV uses your immune system to destroy your health.”

Well isn’t that convenient.

He stumbled to recover his thoughts. “Of course, Magdalene took every precaution, especially around the children, and Tess saw to it that she did. That is one reason that Tess encouraged Magdalene to contact her daddy when she did, before it was too late.”

I am extremely uncomfortable with all the talk about how careful Magdalene was to protect everyone. That focus just feels off. Also, Malachi’s comment about the children makes clear why Hope and Malachi made Magdalene tell Tess she was HIV positive. And somehow that just feels … bad.

The Cult Leader Lie

This is also the first time we learn that Magdalene was motivated to call her father by her own impending death. And you know what? I don’t buy it. It’s so out of the blue.

You know what this feels like? It feels like a cult leader rewriting history. Dusty and Yancey both just yelled at Malachi, questioning his claims and his authority, and in response, Malachi is reasserting his claim to control over this group by suddenly announcing that no one knew this, but Magdalene was HIV positive. And that’s why it was God’s will that she died! And that’s why they made her call her dad!

I mean, good gracious, look at this:

“Another thing you need to know about our little sister is that she dreaded her advancing sickness. She knew that it might be long and drawn out. She had studied what to expect, and it was an awful road she had to travel. Death is always an ugly monster, but when AIDS is the vehicle it is an extended ugliness that torments over and over before it is through. She would be thankful that her friends and family did not have to go through that with her.”

When rereading this section, I wrote a note in the margins: “this feels like a cult leader lie.” Because I’m sorry, it does. It’s just too convenient that Malachi is the only one who knows all of this, and that Magdalene isn’t here to confirm or deny his assertions. We never got any hint of any of this before.

Finally, we get this:

“We have all seen and heard Mr. Giles testify to having come to know Jesus. In prison he will be able to share his testimony of being deceived and then seeing the truth, and coming to know the Savior. He may make a profound difference in the lives of many inmates. Ike, her favorite brother, has shared with us that the rest of the family is now seeking God.”

Of course. Because Ike, at 15, is now the leader of the family. Because he’s male. So he’s the one they’re communicating with, not Magdalene’s mother. Who is an adult.

So see! It’s actually good that Magdalene died!

No no really.

“I can almost hear her laughing and saying to me, “Oh Malachi! You know, it was perfect timing. He spared me all my pain and gave me all his joy!”

For real. For real it says that.

There was a pause as everyone contemplated the words. Cheyenne looked around at the people who sat there. The Old Gent had answered well. It was strange how differently you feel when you know all the facts.

This feels off.

It just feels off. So very very off.

Magdalene’s Girls

Within the conversation of Magdalene’s AIDS comes a conversation about what she believed was her mission in life: Malachi tells everyone gather that Magdalene that believed God had given her a special mission to convert Muslim girls. He tells those listening that Magdalene once had a dream in which she saw “lots of young Muslim girls” standing in a circle and singing a song.

“I can’t remember all of the words,” Malachi says, “but it was something to the effect of:”

We sing a new song
Jesus is Lord. Jesus is God.
He has redeemed us to God by his blood
out of every kindred, and tongue, and people and nation.
He has removed our darkness,
now we see.
Jesus is the King of Kings.
He is worthy.
Worthy is the lamb that was slain.
Sing a new song with us.

Malachi says that when Magdalene came to TLP, “she began to fast three days a week” and to pray for Muslim girls. Is that a good idea if you’re HIV positive? That seems like probably not a good idea to me.

Bobbie Jo then stands up and tells everyone about the “jewel” Magdalene gave her—remember, at the end of an emotionally charged conversation, Magdalene went through the motions of putting something in Bobbie Jo’s hands—even though there was nothing there—and told her to reveal her “jewel” when the time was right. She shares Magdalene’s dream of raising her daughter Starlight in the Millennium.

Bobbie Jo raises her hands, releasing the jewel.

Bobbie Jo dropped to her knees, weeping. “It’s okay! Oh, Lord, I love you! It’s okay. I know Magdalene would be glad.”

Glad … that she died? I assume?

Everyone sat silent without looking up or saying anything. Except for the quiet weeping, the silence went on and on.

At that moment—well, I’ll let Debi tell it, because her writing is … something else.

Suddenly the door of the office was thrown open, sending in a flood of late afternoon light. Raw terror from the tense days caused every person in the room to react with a violent jerk. Several metal folding chairs slapped the concrete as people jumped to their feet as if to flee. There was a guttural sound as air rushed from their lungs. Panic sent a surge of adrenaline through Cheyenne’s extremities, stinging her arms and legs.

Yeah.

It’s the shopkeeper from next door. “Turn your TV on … just turn your TV on,” she says. The last time someone said something like that to me was September 11th, 2001. But no matter! Asher jumps up “like a jack-in-the-box” and turns on the TV. (I’m not sure why the Herb Den has a TV handy.)

It was Fox News, live form Iran.

Of course it was.

They saw on the screen what looked to be several thousand people standing tightly grouped together, in front of what appeared to be a  college campus. Many had their hands in the air. Their faces were full of joy. They were obviously Middle Eastern. Some of the women were covered head to foot in burkhas and dark robes.

This is all going to be great. So great.

Right in front, clear to all, a large group of smiling teenage girls was waving the Farsi translation of God’s Story book. The camera panned and came in for a close-up shot, settling on one of the books. The girls began to sing in another language, but the English translation scrolled across the bottom of the screen.

Sure Debi. Sure. Sure that happened.

It’s the song: word-for-word the one Malachi recited earlier, which he said was an approximation of the song Magdalene said she heard in her dream, which he couldn’t remember word for word.

That makes total sense. Total. Sense.

We sing a new song
Jesus is Lord. Jesus is God.
He has redeemed us to God by his blood
out of every kindred, and tongue, and people and nation.
He has removed our darkness,
now we see.
Jesus is the King of Kings.
He is worthy.
Worthy is the lamb that was slain.
Sing a new song with us.

So let’s see how this went. These teenage girls are going to college (I assume, given the setting), and someone gets their hands on this new book, and they all start passing it around and reading it, and they’re transfixed by what they read, and decide to become Christians. Fine. So then they … call the media? Debi tells us it “appeared to be a huge peaceful rally.” So they … hold a rally?

And they write a new song, practice it, and memorize it, so they can sing it at the rally? In front of the cameras? While waving copies of the book? Their point is … what, exactly? And what is their next step? Are they having a rally with specific demands, or aims? This seems incredibly risky.

Bobbie quietly whispered in a trembling voice, “Magdalene’s girls? They’re singing Magdalene’s song!”

I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on Iran, but things are not great there for religious minorities, especially individuals who convert from Islam. And this is a thing that often frustrates me: things are not great because the country does not have religious or political freedom, not because of a specific vendetta against Christians (in fact, google tells me that members of the Baha’i faith and individuals who are members of the wrong Muslim sect are also persecuted in Iran).

Trying to convert people to your religion when they live in a country where they will likely be harmed if they change religion seems like a dick move to me. My preference would be to start by helping people gain religious and political freedom … and focus missionary efforts on places where people won’t be killed if they convert to your religion. I get that this is driven by the Christian belief that those who do not convert will be tortured for eternity after their deaths, but … that belief is a bad belief.

So. Magdalene is dead and all is well with the world.

Cool.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

November 23, 2020

This is Texas Senator Ted Cruz, on July 22nd:

If it ends up that Biden wins in November—I hope he doesn’t, I don’t think he will—but if he does, I guarantee you the week after the election, suddenly all those Democratic governors, all of those Democratic mayors will say, ‘Everything is magically better, go back to work, go back to school.’ Suddenly the problems are solved. You won’t to have to wait for Biden to be sworn in.

You can even watch the video of Cruz saying this, here. And it wasn’t just Cruz! Many many many Republicans—including Trump himself!—claimed in the face of all evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic would end and disappear the day after the election.

Not a single person should vote for Ted Cruz, or trust his judgement, ever again. When you’re that wrong—and that wrong about something experts could and did tell you you were wrong about—there should be consequences, and those consequences should include a complete and total loss of credibility and public trust.

Consider the sequence of events: Republicans claimed that the pandemic and/or pandemic restrictions were a Democratic plot to defeat Trump at the ballot box, and that the pandemic and/or pandemic restrictions would end the day Biden won. The election came, Biden won, and the pandemic did not end and Democratic governors and mayors did not remove pandemic restrictions—instead, the pandemic began accelerating, as scientists had long said it would in the fall, and even many Republican governors and mayors started implementing pandemic restrictions they had previously eschewed.

This is a colossal failure on the part of politicians like Cruz to understand the basic nature of reality. Cruz should be all over the media right now saying not just that he was wrong about the pandemic, but also that he has fundamentally misjudged the Democrats.

Think about it: Cruz was more willing to believe that Democrats were consciously and intentionally destroying the economy in order to unseat a Republican president than he was to believe that Democrats were following scientific and epidemiological guidance and trying to protect people in their states from a deadly new virus.

That Cruz could make such egregious misjudgments not only about the science of a new disease that is killing his constituents but also about the motivations and actions of his primary political opponents ought to be career ending.

And yet it won’t be.

This moment ought to be a reality check for ordinary Republican voters, the moment when they say “wait a minute, this doesn’t make sense, I feel like I was lied to.”

But it won’t be.

You see, ordinary Republican voters are currently very busy believing the bald-faced lies being spread by individuals like Trump and Cruz about the integrity of our election.

Reality no longer matters. Facts no longer matter. Being wrong—obviously, clearly, inescapably wrong—no longer has consequences.

Ordinary Republican voters are usually quick to complain about politicians—remember, Trump was elected partly because he wasn’t a politician—but what does it mean when lies—overt, easily checkable lies—no longer have any consequences at all? What does it mean when a politician can lie, and lie, and lie, and voters don’t even care?

What does it mean to live in a world where truth does not matter? We are only just learning. Though perhaps we have been learning, for some time. Truth didn’t matter when Bush invaded Iraq. Truth didn’t matter when Republicans claimed Obamacare included “death panels.” Truth didn’t matter during Iran-Contra, either.

It’s possible the last time truth mattered was in the 1970s, when Republicans pushed Nixon to resign when faced with incontrovertible evidence regarding his actions. Still, regardless of any particular moment or exact path, I am afraid of what comes next in a world when truth and fact have been exchanged for rank populist demagoguery.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing! 

October 19, 2020

There is so much news right now and so much going on that it is sometimes hard to pick one single thing to write about. So today, instead of picking one thing, I’m going to try to distill some of the issues at hand.

First, of course, is COVID-19, which seems to throw a shadow over everything else. But of everything that’s going on, this pandemic is the most temporary. It will end, and we will move on. COVID-19 is likely to plague us (ha ha) well into 2021, primarily because even once a vaccine is developed (and we should know whether we have a good candidate by January), it takes time to manufacture and distribute.

I don’t know what this means for schools—this situation is more complicated than a certain recent Atlantic op-ed suggested. I also don’t know what this means for family gatherings. This winter could be brutal—or it might surprise us, and not be quite as bad as feared. Either way, the Trump administration’s complete inability to mount any sort of national strategy is costing—and has cost, and will cost—lives. And it’s not just the lack of a national strategy—the administration is still spreading misinformation.

Next on everyone’s minds is the election. When Donald Trump was elected president in 2020, I was distraught. I knew things would be bad. But while I expected Trump to try to build his promised border wall, to enact inhuman policies vis a vis migrants, to continue arming police like a paramilitary force, to take the U.S. out of climate change deals, and to defang regulatory agencies, I did not fully understand the ways our federal government could be at once hollowed out and sewn with corruption.

Our democracy cannot survive four more years of Trump. He is a strongman of the likes of Putin—or at least so he imagines himself—and he is a master at playing the media. He sews lies and undermines trust in the very existence of truth. I never thought I would hold such fear for the future of our nation as I do now. This is not simply about policies I disagree with; it’s about an undermining of our democracy itself.

Speaking of democracy, from the Supreme Court to the Senate we are facing what may later look like a major turning point in our political system. Namely: we are facing minority rule. We are governed by a president who did not win the popular vote, and a Senate that fewer than 50% of Americans voted for. We are about to have a Supreme Court in which a majority of the justices were nominated by presidents who did not win the popular vote. And this is unlikely to change: given the way our system is currently set up, we may be in for a very long run of minority rule.

And then there’s the filibuster, an accidental rule that has completely broken the Senate. We do not currently have a functioning government. As the Congress fails to function (we saw this under Obama as well), the president plays a larger and larger role. Regardless of what one thinks of executive power, we all have to admit that something is broken. 

People on the Left are talking about big, bold changes, like getting rid of the filibuster, or expanding the Supreme Court, or making D.C. and Puerto Rico states. When one side doesn’t even live by the rules it itself makes up (see: Merrick Garland), it is only natural that the other side would consider bold action. But even as I support considering these changes, I worry. We are on the edge of a precipice, and nobody should underestimate the extent to which social media and propaganda (both foreign and domestic) have broken our country. Even bold action will face a concerted campaign of misinformation and lies.

I have written very little about Amy Coney Barrett, Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court. Partly that is because I feel so powerless. Roe v. Wade feels already gone. And remember, Barrett could also help overturn the Affordable Care Act, returning us to a world in which preexisting conditions (like pregnancy) are no longer covered by many health insurance programs. (I feel like I need to remind people that when I got pregnant with my first child, my health insurance did not cover pregnancy. This was not that long ago! It was 2008, when Obama was running for his first term!)

One reason I’ve hesitated to write about these things is that they are not at all the biggest changes a Barrett court might create. I worry that all of this focus on these highly specific issues takes away from the utter horror that a conservative court would mete out on everything from worker’s rights to voters’ rights to environmental law to our rights under the criminal justice system. When conservatives deride the “liberal” Warren court, they are deriding the court that gave us Miranda rights and public defenders!

Conservative activists may make hay out of social issues like abortion, but those issues were never more than the glue intended to ensure that religious conservatives would vote for the party of big business, the party of the rich, the party of deregulation, of voter suppression, the party that values people only for what they can contribute economically, and views the poor as unfit and less than. One of the things a Barrett court would likely do is overturn the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. And those were passed by Nixon!

It is all too much. Sometimes I feel this deep discouragement down in my bones, and then I wonder if that is what good people living in Nazi Germany felt, and then I realize that that sounds alarmist. So there I sit, lost in a morass of feelings I am torn between policing and surrendering to.

This is it. This is the four alarm fire of our democracy. See, there I go again with the doom and gloom, and that’s not exactly motivating, is it? Or maybe it is! Maybe I’m the only one that feels so very tired.

It helps that, at the moment, there’s one specific important thing to focus on: the election. Right now, the most important thing we can do is focus on getting out the vote. Remember: the majority is on our side. The other side is the party of minority rule, and that is why they are so focused on voter suppression. If we can get out the vote, we can win this thing. And we have to win it. Our democracy is at stake.

After the election, we regroup, and we plan. Until then, we focus.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing! 

September 25, 2020

The Vision, pp. 95-99

Y’all. This novel is so weird.

The romance between Asher and Cheyenne is completely boring, because they’re both interested in each other and yet not doing anything about it, for literally no reason. Magdalene asks Cheyenne why “her boyfriend” is going to Thailand, and Cheyenne is all “not my boyfriend” while making it clear that yeah he basically is. 

Magdalene threw a grin over her shoulder as she launched into her mockery of Cheyenne’s morning prayer, “Lord, help him as he gets off the plane this morning to find his contact and arrive safely at the mission compound—boo whooo.”

Irritated, Cheyenne turned to Magdalene. “You are a real jerk—I mean, first class, outta sight jerk. Did anyone ever tell you that you are a jerk? Well, you are.” Cheyenne hit the steering wheel and took a deep breath, trying to maintain her dignity. “Anyways, now that you know that you are a jerk, he is over there to teach eh Hmong people by giving them the God’s Story book in their own language.”

I. Just. What.

I grew up evangelical in the 1990s, and I was taught even then that the best missionaries to any group of people are members of their own group. Wherever possible, I remember learning, we should fund native missionaries, rather than sending Americans around the world. And you know what? Many many of the Hmong in Vietnam are Christians. Finding ways to fund their outreach to non-Christian Hmong would make far more sense than Asher, who can’t even speak the language, flying to Vietnam to drop off a bunch of graphic novel Bibles.

But also, Magdalene should not be with these people. I know that sometimes kids in situations like Magdalene’s need tough love, but they also need people who know what they’re doing. Cheyenne is 21 or 22, and she has no training in social work or counseling. But part of this is honestly Debi’s writing. This plot would make more sense if we’d been privy to a discussion between Cheyenne and her parents over what to do with Magdalene. A piece of the problem is that we don’t even really know their game plan. Why are they doing this? Who knows!

But. But. This conversation about the Hmong is about to go in a very different direction.

Magdalene took on a cynical expression. “Yeah, what gets me is why would they bother trying to reach a sub-race? They sure as h#%% are not gonna be in heaven. After all, they are only half human … like that black preacher of yours that picked me up, doing his Christian duty for the day.”

Cheyenne blanched. Her voice was clipped as she trembled with rage. “Excuse me—whatever are you talking about? That is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard of.”

Are you ready? Here we go!

“Stupidest is not a word. So who is the stupid one?” Magdaleine’s sough expression mirrored her tone. “Man, it is simple information I learned in Sabbath School when I was ten years old. People of color … Africans, Asians, Arabs, they’re not Arian and therefore a sub-race.”

Point of order, most people say Sunday School. People who say Sabbath School are mostly Seventh Day Adventists, that kind of thing, and we’re never given any reason to think that’s how Magdalene grew up. Also, Seventh Day Adventists don’t believe this stuff. So, saying Sabbath School is odd.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this book is its astounding lack of consistency. This section is actually an excellent example of this. When we learn about Magdalene’s background later, we are told that she grew up in a Christian homeschooling family; that her parents had a disagreement with their church and started home churching instead (something the Pearls disapprove of, as there is less accountability or community); and that, after this, her father started spending all his time in his room on his computer and became a White Supremacist through the various message boards he found. He disengaged with the family at about that time.

But … if Magdalene was raised in a church that taught overt white supremacy, why would Debi make a big deal later, when telling about her backstory, about Magdalene’s father’s conversion to white supremacy online, after he took his family out of their church due to a personal falling out with the leadership?

There are two stories being told here that each ring true—overtly white supremacist churches with white supremacist theology is a thing, as are individual conversions to white supremacy via online message boards. But these feel like two separate stories. You can make them the same story, if you really try. But you have to try. Magdalene could also be lying, but we’re never given any reason to assume that she is. It’s as though Debi’s ideas about Magdalene’s background changed over time, but she never went back and edited anything.

So. Let’s return to Magdalene:

“You must know about the garden of Eden when Eve fell, then she got it on with Satan, a beast, and bred the sub-race? Remember what Eve said when she found out she was pregnant? ‘I have got a man child from the Lord.’ Adam was not the father of Cain. She bred with someone she called The Lord. That was the beast of the field—Satan. It’s right at the front of the Bible.” Magdalene was nonplussed at the blank look in Cheyenne’s expression. “Sheesh … you really are dumb.”

Is this a thing? I’ve never heard of this. Oh my god, this is a thing. Oh dear oh dear. Goodness. Clearly, not only is this a thing, it’s also a thing Debi is familiar with, or she couldn’t have written this.

Golly.

Yes, I knew there were white supremacist churches. I absolutely knew that. I just genuinely did not know there were churches that teach that people of color are the descendants of Satan. I thought white supremacist churches just leaned hard into the myth of Ham—the idea that God cursed Ham and his descendants to serve the descendants of Japheth. But no. This is grosser. Cool. Cool cool cool.

Out of the corner of her eye, the young girl anxiously watched the silent Cheyenne. She could feel a nervous buzz growing in her stomach as time passed.

There should be a warning for head hopping.

Finally Cheyenne responded, “Girl … the day you have one tent the brains Omar has will be the day you leave the sub-race. Now you listen real close, because I mean what I am about to say; I don’t ever want to hear any more of that foul nonsense, ever.”

Oh, yeah, that’ll work.

No, really, though: there’s no attempt to explain to her that she’s wrong, or to give her an alternative interpretation. Just, don’t say those things ever again. Now, maybe that’s fine. There’s absolutely a time and place for just telling racists that their words are not acceptable. But this is also a case where Cheyenne is putting herself in a sort of mentorship role. This isn’t a passing interaction. Besides, isn’t Debi theoretically trying to teach people something with this book? All she’s done is introduce racist theology, without then debunking it.

“If I do, I will take you to the police. No second chances. I can be very heartless and mean when it comes to taking up for my friends.”

These are … words. They are definitely words.

These threats to take Magdalene to the police if she doesn’t do or say just as she’s told are bizarre. Why would they take her to the police? To have her arrested for having engaged in sex work? To turn her in as a runaway? What exactly is Cheyenne threatening Magdalene with? This happens repeatedly and it is maddening. 

Now. Check out this transition:

Magdalene suddenly lurched forward in the old worn seat, studying the rear view mirror. “Woe is us.” Her voice took on a childlike vulnerability that Cheyenne had not seen this streetwise girl express before. “Hey, check out that cream-colored Passat behind us. It’s a Muslim-looking dude driving. Ain’t no doubt about it, he’s following us.”

What exactly makes this guy “Muslim-looking”? Muslim men don’t typically wear special clothing. Besides, even if they did, she could say “a man wearing [insert religious gear]” rather than a Muslim-looking dude. We went straight from Magdalene saying that Africans and Arabs are descendants of Satan to … this.

Cheyenne’s going to scold Magdalene for her comment, right? Right?

Cold fear hit Cheyenne’s stomach, but she forced her voice to be skeptical. “You can’t see who’s driving through those dark windows. It could be a grandma for all you know.”

Magdalene’s voice sounded shaky as she replied, “I saw an Arabic guy getting out of that car the afternoon the black dude brought me to the Herb Den.”

The cognitive dissonance here is overwhelming.

After the girls got out and went into the Herb Den, the cream-colored Passat pulled into the parking lot behind the tobacco store. The driver got out and knocked on the back door—three rapid knocks followed by two slower knocks. The door opened in a few seconds and a Middle Eastern face appeared in the small shaft of light. he looked around hastily and then moved aside to let his brother in. As the door shut he could be heard saying, “It won’t be long now; these Christian Whores will be sorry they defamed Allah. Come in, we have so much to discuss. The others are already here. Saheed just got back from the Kingdom. They are going to continue financing our operation.”

The door shut and the light went out.

There’s. Um. A footnote here.

Let’s see, it says:

  • Muslims use several ways to proselytize their religion: Immigration, colonization and outbreeding (producing more children than others around them) are the most effective techniques. After large enough communities are established, violent threats and militant political demands become effective.

It’s the word “outbreeding” that’s the biggest tell that this is a racist screed. There’s a bizarre whiplash feeling here, given that Cheyenne literally just told Magdalene off for being racist. It’s pretty clear that Debi doesn’t have a problem with people being racist. She only has a problem with them being the wrong kind of racist.

Oh, and the footnote goes on:

  • When Muslims move to more countries, they tend to become more militant, more conservative and more dedicated to changing their new home to becoming an Islamic nation.

This is a lie, by the way. Very much so.

  • Islam is a violent religion. Heaven is granted to the militantly faithful.

Anything that starts with “Islam is” and then makes a singular pronouncement is going to be false as a matter of course. Religions are not monoliths. Debi should know this!

  • It is Iran’s ambition to expand the Islamic revolution worldwide. At the Muslims’ current explosive birthrate it will become a reality within 10 years.

The first half of this was true, but the second sentence rather undermined it. This video was created 11 years ago.

  • Billions of dollars from oil-rich Saudi Arabia is funding the building of mosques and training centers in non-Muslim countries (including the USA). These training centers are encouraging and equipping believers to become militantly Islamic.

I mean, maybe conservative presidents should stop being so buddy buddy with the Saudis? Just a thought. Also maybe we should transition to renewable fuels and end our reliance on oil? Oh, what’s that? Climate change is a hoax, so we can’t do that? Oh. Okay then.

  • Thorough immigration and out-breeding the Arabic Muslims have already successfully colonized Europe.

This will probably be news to most Europeans.

We’ll return to this in a moment, but first:

  • Mohammed is the most popular name for newborn boys in many European countries. In Belgium 50 percent of all newborns are Muslim.

Which European cities? The most popular boys name for babies born in Belgium in 2018 was Arthur, followed by Noah, Adam, and Louis. Mohammed was number 10 on the list. The most popular boys name in France that same year was Gabriel, followed by Raphael, Leo, and Louis. Mohammed didn’t make the top 1o. Yes, this is countries, not cities, but given the claim that 50% of babies born in Belgium are Muslim, that shouldn’t matter.

Continuing our trend of this whole list being a lie, only 5% of Belgians were Muslim in 2009 (and according to Wikipedia at least, that hasn’t changed). I’m trying to imagine how 5% of the population could possibly have 50% of the children, especially when, according to Pew, the birthrate among Muslim Belgians is 2.6%. For reference, the birthrate among non-Muslim Belgians is 1.7%. Because math is fun and I can do math, I’ll tell you what that means: 7% of babies born in Belgium are born to Muslim families. Not 50%. 7%.

It’s almost like this whole thing is a racist lie. Which, it is. Here’s an interesting way to examine this question: who exactly is very very concerned about scary Muslim immigrants in Europe? Oh, hello: white supremacist groups. That’s who is pushing this idea that Europe is besieged by Muslims. White supremacists. 

This footnote is a laundry list of white supremacist talking points. Debi is literally repeating white supremacist talking points. While having the characters her book react in horror to the only slightly more overt white supremacy of specific white supremacist churches. How is this book for real.

  • Now Islam is spreading its wings and is already making itself “felt” in many Asian countries. Japan is currently a new and interesting frontier.

As of 2010, 0.1% of the population of Japan was Muslim, and according to Pew, that is not expected to change one iota by 2030. Also, is Debi aware that Indonesia is in Asia? 60% of the world’s Muslims live in Asia (as opposed to the Middle East or northern Africa), and that is not new.

  • In one Arabic speaking Muslim community in Bangkok, Thailand, they are over 20,000 strong. You can smell the difference as you drive by, as their cleanliness is not that of the Thai people. Locals fear the strange militant people.

There are over eight million people living in Bangkok. That rather puts “over 20,000 strong” in perspective. Also, I’m sorry, but Muslim people are dirty and smell bad is racist! This isn’t just some sort of covert concern trolling. This is rank and blatant racism. Full stop.

Because I was curious, I turned to google to learn about Arabic speaking Muslims living in Bangkok. “I found this fascinating description of Bangkok’s “Muslim Quarter”: “Turning a corner, the air becomes smoky and filled with the whiff of roasting meat. A hijab-wearing Thai woman stands grilling satay sticks on a food cart labelled ‘halal.’ The woman smiles warmly and returns our greetings.” Scary stuff, that.

Also? This is how cities work. Many American cities have a Polish quarter, an Italian quarter, a Greek quarter, an Indian or Pakistani quarter, and so forth. I mean my goodness, this is why so many American cities have a Chinatown! It turns out that many immigrants like moving to places where other people who speak their language and share their food live. There is nothing “militant” or threatening about that.

Back to Debi’s footnote:

  • Russia and Ukraine are dealing with the same phenomenon. One in five adults is now Muslim. These Muslim families average 8.11 children per couple.

Looking into this took me down a bit of a rabbit hole.

According to Pew, 0.9% of Ukrainians were Muslim in 2010, and that is not predicted to change. I was able to find everything from the one-in-five number to the oddly specific large average of Muslim children in Russian nationalist articles denouncing demographic change in that country (more on that in a moment). So, why include Ukraine here? The only reason I can think is that those same Russian nationalist voices that have white supremacist concerns about Russian demography also assert that Ukraine is (or should be) part of Russia.

The inclusion of Ukraine is a tell that this bullet point is a tell that the information here comes directly from white supremacist talking points by Russian nationalists. Let that sink in for a moment.

So, what’s going on with Russia? According to Pew, 12% of Russians were Muslim in 2010, and that number is predicted to increase to 14% by 2030. This is not new or a threat, however, If you look at the Muslim population of Russia by region, you’ll see that most Russian Muslims live in the part of Russia that borders on the Caucasus. This is a historically Muslim area. According to Pew, 9% of Russians were Muslim in 1990, only slightly lower than 2010’s 12%. There has been a significant Muslim population in Russia for literally centuries.

But Russia also has a white nationalist ethno-state movement which makes the white supremacist problem in the U.S. look tame. I found a 2006 Washington Times article warning with hysteria that Muslims would make up one-fifth of the Russian population by 2020. It included quotes like this: “Russia is historically a Slavic, Orthodox Christian land, and we need to make sure it stays that way.” It also included this tidbit:

… the national fertility rate [in Russia] is 1.28 children per woman, far below what is needed to maintain the country’s population of nearly 143 million. … Russia’s Muslims, however, are bucking that trend. The fertility rate for Tatars living in Moscow is six children per woman, Mr. Goble said, while the Chechen and Ingush communities are averaging 10 children per woman.

This is probably where Debi’s “8.11 children per couple” number comes from, although that number itself is not listed, and must have gone through another filter. Note, though, that these high fertility figures here are for specific ethnic groups living in specific places, though, not for all Muslims living in Russia.

The “Mr. Goble” listed as the source for these fertility statistics is a former Voice of America staffer and state department advisor who runs a blog where he quotes white nationalist Russians uncritically and at length.

Ick. Enough on this Russia point!

We’re almost done with Debi’s footnotes:

  • Does the Bible speak of Muslims playing an important role in the end times?
  • If not, then what could happen that would so change the world that the leaders of the Muslim faith have set into place?
  • Only a mighty supernatural intervention could change the destiny they have set into place. From Revelation we know who wins … but how?

While this section could be more clear, Debi appears to be asserting that you can’t find anything about Muslims in the book of Revelation, so Christians must find a way to clean up and eliminate them before the end times.

Which, what.

Anyway, Debi’s series is in some sense a way of explaining why and how Muslims will be eliminated before the arrival of the end times—because they’ll all be converted by a graphic novel Bible, of course!

Which … sure Debi.

Debi’s footnote ends with this citation:

friendofmuslim at www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK1pnCldKZl for demographics.

The url for this video appears to have changed, but I found it. “Islam will overwhelm Christendom unless Christians recognize the demographic realities, begin reproducing again, and share the gospel with Muslims,” the unnamed creator of the video explains. This is literally the only video this account has. And yet, this account has … a lot of subscribers. It’s weird. 

If nothing else this section feels like a harbinger of our current moment. Over the last few years, conservatives have proven themselves so inept at media literacy that they’ve mindlessly swallowed every outright lie they find on social media—so long as it’s in meme form or in a youtube video, of course, and so long as it confirms their underlying white nationalist assumptions. And, here we are. Congratulations, America.

I would be remiss if I closed this post without noting, once again, that Debi began this section with a full-throated condemnation of white supremacy. The first time I read these pages, it felt like whiplash. We went directly from Cheyenne’s anger that Magdalene would dare say something racist to an insistence that Muslims are dirty and smell, with genuinely no realization that these two things might be incompatible.

It’s bizarre. 

And sad.

And utterly maddening.

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing! 

September 10, 2020

So remember that post on Lori Alexander’s blog that I wrote about recently? About how husbands should go about requiring their wives to submit to them? After I wrote my response, I checked the comments on Lori Alexander’s post, and, wow. This exchange is revealing. 

Laurie: In the U.S., patriarchy can only work if the family is willing to be subordinate because there are no laws giving fathers/husbands authority over wives/children (beyond guardianship of minors). In fact, the idea of a patriarchy is diametrically opposed to the American ideals of individuality, democracy and freedom for all because a true patriarchy gives freedom to adult male heads-of-household and no one else. What I’m thinking is that for a Christian patriarchy to succeed in the long term, it needs to be upheld by a theocracy (the rule of God) rather than the rule of the people (democracy).

Em: Christian patriarchy is only possible when the family decides to practice it. If we were to enforce it by law, we’d be no better than Saudi Arabia or Iran. God does not force us to follow him. We are given the free will to do so.

 

The disagreement centers on whether wives should be required by law to obey and submit to their husbands. Laurie argues that in the absence of a legal requirement that the husband obey the wife, Christian patriarchy will fail, because it is antithetical to ideas like democracy and freedom. (This is a stunning admission.)

Another commenter, Em, responds that Christian patriarchy is something families need to “decide” to practice, in absence of the law, because if we required wives to submit “we’d be no better than Saudi Arabia or Iran.” Am I the only one who feels like this statement may actually be rooted in racism? Her justification for not requiring women to obey their husbands is not that this is a bad idea or wouldn’t work, but rather that “we’d be no better than Saudi Arabia or Iran.” If laws requiring women to obey weren’t associated with countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, would Em still oppose them?

Laurie stating “patriarchy is diametrically opposed to ideas like freedom and democracy” and Em responding with “well, sure, but we don’t want to be like Saudi Arabia or Iran” is just plain weird. Look at Em’s comment again—she doesn’t push back against Laurie’s assertion that patriarchy is incompatible with freedom and democracy, at least not directly. Instead, she simply says that if we “enforce” patriarchy “by law” we’ll be “no better than” Saudi Arabia or Iran.

How does Laurie respond? Well.

Laurie: I think it boils down to being the woman’s choice, rather than the family’s, as to whether or not the family functions as a patriarchy. A man cannot force his wife to submit (at least not legally). Therefore the family structure is whatever the wife wants it to be. Either she chooses to be submissive or she chooses rebellion – either way the laws of the land support her.

Egads.

The idea that it is the woman who has the power in any relationship feels like it comes straight out of a men’s rights activists’ forum. Wives are the victims of domestic violence and abuse at a far higher rate than men. Women frequently find themselves stuck in relationships that are difficult to leave. Men earn more than women, and when one partner stays home to care for children, it is usually the woman. But it’s actually women who are calling all the shots? Really?!

Notice what “calling all the shots” actually means: it means wives can choose whether to obey or disobey their husbands. Imagine framing men’s options that way: that they can choose either to obey their wives or disobey their wives. Clearly, patriarchalists see men as entities with more agency than that!

Patriarchalists’ fundamental problem is an inability to see women as fully and completely human. Both men and women have ideas, propose plans, and share excitement over things they’ve been thinking about. Both men and women are human beings, and that makes them, on a basic level, fundamentally the same. Yes, there are differences between humans, and there are things that, on average, differ between men and women. But on an underlying, fundamental level, we are the same.

Patriarchalists don’t see it this way, of course. They see men as fundamentally actionary and women as fundamentally reactionary. Women can’t function on their own. They either obey and are cared for men, or they obey and are cared for the state. (No, really: while these particular comments don’t address this, supporters of Christian patriarchy argue that women who are not under the care and authority of a man simply substitute his care and authority for that of another—the state, a boss, etc.)

Okay, we’re almost done. One last commenter responds, making things only worse, if you can believe it.

KAK: Even if the laws of the land didn’t support her (by that I mean, if legislation was in place to support patriarchy) God doesn’t judge us on our outward actions. He judges us by our hearts. So a woman forced to submit to her husband can still be rebellious in her heart, and so therefore still be wrong in God’s eyes. We can ONLY serve the Lord when we CHOOSE to do it, because the only thing that matters is our heart.

KAK writes that, even if the law required wives to obey their husbands, and even if wives complied with these laws and obeyed their husbands, they could still be sinning in their hearts. Now yes, this means that KAK is saying women should not be forced to obey their husbands—that they have to voluntarily choose to obey their husbands or it does not count. But the addition of thought crime here actually feels like it makes everything worse. Wives can’t just obey, and have that be enough. They can’t even obey with a smile, and have that be enough. They have to obey with a smile inside. 

How is it 2020 and there are still Americans arguing over whether women should be required by force of law to obey their husbands?

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing! 

April 29, 2020

Answers in Genesis has created names and backstories for each of Noah’s son’s wives. For the unfamiliar, Answers in Genesis is a fundamentalist Christian organization that runs a “museum” and an “amusement park” dedicated to young earth creationism and flood geology. These backstories they’ve created for Noah’s sons wives are weirdly complex, but I’m most interested in something else—the racial depiction. Why? We’ll get into that in a moment.

Let’s take it from the top, shall we?

Rayneh—Japheth’s Wife

Being artistic, Rayneh works closely with Emzara, sketching the ark’s animals while studying and recording their habits. In her limited free time, she enjoys making crafts and adding some flair to her family’s surroundings, such as painting intricate designs on pottery.

Rayneh painting a vase

Rescued by Noah from a life-threatening situation when she was a little girl, Rayneh grew up around his family. She helped Japheth with his farming responsibilities, and the two eventually became husband and wife. She put her seamstress skills to good use during the ark’s construction, creating many of the clothes and tapestries seen on board.

According to tradition, Japheth was the ancestor of Europeans. So here is Rayneh, looking very, very white. And very, very artistic, as it turns out. The reason Rayneh’s backstory sounds so oddly specific—Noah rescued her from what life threatening situation exactly?—is that this whole thing functions in part as an extended advertisement for a book series Answers in Genesis is hawking—Noah: The Remnant Trilogy.

As a blogger who reviews bad Christian fiction and has also written about young earth creationism for years now, I really, really want this series. The Bible is really vague on all of this. It doesn’t give us Noah’s wive’s names, much less anything about their personality or how they came into Noah’s orbit. In other words, essentially everything in this trilogy is of necessity going to be fictional, which is odd for an organization that emphasizes sola scripture.

Moving on:

Ar’yel—Shem’s Wife

Ar’yel was raised in a remote forest village among people who worshipped false gods. She came to believe in the true God after hearing Noah speak to her people. Longing to know more about the Creator, she soon joined Noah’s family in building the ark.

Aryel in the kitchen

Quick to take part in conversations with the rest of the family, Ar’yel loves the profound discussions about God that she has with Shem. She also enjoys reading accounts of what the rest of the world was like before it became filled with wickedness, and she prays that it will be like that again after the flood.

According to tradition, Shem was the ancestor of those living in the middle east (including the Jewish people), so it’s unsurprising that Answers in Genesis would make Ar’yel middle eastern in appearance. And  again there is the overly specific detail. She lived in a remote forest village? I thought the pre-flood era was supposed to have advanced technology, cities, and an urban culture? Where did this remote forest village come from? Also, was Noah a missionary to remote forest villages?

No really, I want to know! I grew up on young earth creationist materials and as I remember it, the pre-flood world was fairly urban, and very, very sinful—not so much in the pagan gods way, though. More in the sex and murder way. Also, I was taught that the pre-flood world might have had technology we could only dream of today, because, being closer to God’s perfect creation of Adam, humans would have been more intelligent than humans today. Of course, there is diversity of thought within young earth creationism, so it’s possible that Answers in Genesis is taking a slightly different approach—I want this series. 

It wasn’t until I got to Ham’s wife that I grew really concerned, though.

Kezia—Ham’s Wife

Kezia grew up around Noah’s family as the ark was being constructed, and she trusted in the Creator from her youth. When her parents left to pursue other interests, Kezia decided to remain with Noah’s family.

Kezia holding basket of green beans

Similar to her husband, Kezia is a hard worker. She is the medical expert of the group, having learned the craft from her mother. She uses her skills to treat sick or wounded family members or animals. In fact, Ham and Kezia grew very close as she cared for the severe wounds he received from an animal attack, and they married shortly after he recovered.

Rayneh, the ancestor of the Europeans, is the artistic one. The defining feature of Ar’yel, the ancestor of the Jewish people, is her interest in profound discussions about God. But what is the first thing this page says about Kezia, the ancestor of sub-saharan Africans? That she’s a hard worker. But why? Why lead with that for Kezia, and not for the other wives of Noah’s sons?

I have a concern.

When the United States practiced chattel slavery, white enslavers claimed that Africans were adapted for brute physical labor in a way that Europeans and other population groups weren’t. They claimed that Africans were designed for hard work. This was also claimed of African women, at a time when women of European descent were portrayed as physically fragile.

Okay. Sure. But that’s history. Why assume there’s any connection? That’s ridiculous! This portrayal is probably just a weird coincidence. Besides, Kezia is also described as the family’s medical expert. Well, yes. But there’s actually more going on here.

In the nineteenth century, the idea that Africans were especially well adapted to physical labor coexisted side by side with the claim that Africans were descended from Noah’s son Ham, whom Noah cursed and prophesied would serve his brothers Shem and Japheth. This was called the “Curse of Ham” and was used by white southern Christians to justify chattel slavery.

The staff at Answers in Genesis know this. They know this because they still believe part of it. Oh, not the justifying slavery part—they disavow that part. But the idea that the African peoples are the descendants of Ham? That part they still teach. Answers in Genesis claims to reject the “Curse of Ham” (and indeed to not believe in the existence of different races)But for a group that disavows the “Curse of Ham,” they sure confirm a lot of its attendant pieces.

Have a look:

Below is a summary of the people groups that we teach descended from each of Noah’s sons—though keep in mind there has been considerable mixing … :

Japheth: Germanic tribes (e.g., Angles and Saxons), French, Welsh, Spain, Greece, Portugal, Poland, Turkey, Russia (four major ones: Meshech, Magog, Tubal and Togarmah), Ukraine, Mongolia, Medes, Northern India, some in Southwestern China (Maio peoples), some American tribes

Shem: Jews, Arabs, Assyrians, many North Africans, Much of India, Indonesia, Armenia, Turkey, some to the Orient, Iran

Ham: Chinese, Egypt, Libya, West Africa (Phut), Middle East (Canaan), Sinai, Hindu Kush in Asia and Mizoram in Asia, many island nations of Asia, Ethiopia and lower Africa, Babylonia, some of the American tribes (e.g., Athabascans), Portugal, and Spain (due to the Moors mixing)

They have a whole damn chart.

To be sure, they’ve shaken things up a bit—some Chinese peoples are put down as Ham’s descendants as well, and the Mongols are ascribed to Japheth. But why make Japheth’s wife look European, Shem’s wife look middle eastern, and Ham’s wife look African, if it’s not that simple? What is the point of making Noah’s son’s wives racial appearances so disparate, if not to confirm nineteenth century race theory that was intertwined with the “Curse of Ham”—an idea many fundamentalist Christians still ascribe to today? If they’re so eager not to be associated with this idea, why risk confirming it for some, even by accident?

I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that maybe—just maybe—Answers in Genesis should have taken more proactive steps to avoid perpetuating nineteenth century American race theory in their portrayals of Noah’s son’s wives.

And really, these portrayals make no other sense.

Who did Noah’s sons’ children marry? Presumably they married their cousins, and not their siblings (or at least, not only their siblings). If this is the case—if Noah’s sons children married their cousins, and their children married their children’s children, etc., all the way up until the Tower of Babel and the separating of the people into different language groups—then why portray Noah’s sons’ wives as racially distinct? By the time you get a few generations down—by the time you get to Babel—Noah’s sons descendants would have been all intermingled. Remember, they separated at Babel, not at the door of the Ark.

There is no reason to make Ham’s wife dark skinned, particularly when doing so risks confusing people and accidentally perpetuating and enforcing the “Curse of Ham.” Add to that that they lead with Kezia being a “hard worker,” something that is not stated of Japheth’s wife, the artistic one, or Shem’s wife, the deep theological thinker. Again, yes, Kezia is also “the medical expert” of the group. I don’t think the people who made these choices were trying to be racist—I think they were being careless.

Whether or not one tries to be racist is a terrible benchmark, though. If you don’t take active steps to combat racism—if your careless decisions create a result that reinforces others’ racism—you are part of the problem. It is especially important for Answers in Genesis to be proactive given the role of the “Curse of Ham” myth in justifying chattel slavery in our history, and the reality that there are plenty of fundamentalist Christians who still believe in the “Curse of Ham,” or are susceptible to believing it.

These decisions are especially boggling given that, as I noted above, the population separated at Babel, not at the door of the Ark. Answers in Genesis has long argued that there are different race—although they don’t like that particular term—because of the confusion of languages at Babel. When God confused the peoples’ languages, those who spoke the same language banded together in each in their own group and left Babel. If those in one group had darker skin tones, so would their descendants. If those in another group had differently shaped brow ridges, so would their descendants (this is how they explained Neanderthals).

Making Noah’s son’s wives racially distinct in the way Answers in Genesis has serves no purpose except to confirm the racial ideas that undergird the “Curse of Ham.” Why not instead take this opportunity to challenge those theories? Consider this—because these women’s descendants would have intermarried, we would all be descended from all of them. If they had portrayed all three women as racially mixed, it would have brought white visitors to the Kentucky “Ark Encounter” facility face to face with the idea that they have ancestors who are not white. Instead, Answers in Genesis’ portrayal of Noah’s wives allows white visitors to look at Rayneh and conclude that they and their ancestors have been white since time immoral. This is unhelpful. 

 

Also! Changing topics entirely: The wives of Noah’s sons already had names: Sedeqetelebab, Na’eltama’uk, and ‘Adataneses. Their names are listed in the Book of Jubilees, which is actually considered canonical by a few groups (such as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church). Sure, the book was never included in the Christian Bible, but it was written before Jesus’ time, so why not tap it as a source, if the stories you’re creating about Noah’s wives are fictional anyway? And oddly, Answers in Genesis does mention it:

Emzara—Noah’s Wife

Throughout history, many have wondered about the name of Noah’s wife. She is called Emzara in the ancient Jewish writing known as the Book of Jubilees (not found in the Bible). This name probably means “ancestor of Sarah,” and it connects her to Abraham’s wife, Sarah.

Why tap the Book of Jubilees for Noah’s wife’s name, but invent completely new names for Noah’s sons’ wives, when the Book of Jubilees names them too? It makes absolutely no sense. Sure, the names given for the wives are longer and more complicated—but why not shorten them into nicknames of a sort? Why Rayneh, Ar’yel, and Kezia instead of Sedeq, Na’el, and ‘Ada? I’m honestly curious! This seems like a weird decision!

Addendum: It also occurs to me that, according to Answers in Genesis, these women are also the ancestors of the Neanderthals, and the Denisovans, and other groups of early hominids. Given that, their thoroughly modern human appearance is also odd.

 

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!


Browse Our Archives