Child immigrant crisis

We have reached a crisis point regarding the children who are coming, often unaccompanied, to the U.S. from Central America.  Vox has done a helpful two minute summary on the issue.  We recently watched The Stranger, a short film about the broken U.S. immigration system and another good source to consider alternative perspectives. On the other hand, I’ve been reading a number of memes posted by Facebook friends lately regarding the situation, with many expressing anger over the costs of dealing with the children and the delays in sending those from Central American nations back to their home countries. Murrieta, California has been the center of protests, with angry U.S. protestors holding up signs and shouting “USA”, demanding those crossing the border go home. This is my response especially written to fellow followers of Jesus.

First, the Bible makes it quite clear we serve a biased God. Indeed, Jesus not only sides with the least among us, he identifies as one himself. Those who Jesus sends away at judgement are those who did not help the sick, the hungry, the thirsty, those needing clothes, the oppressed, the stranger. For in so ignoring them, we ignored Jesus. Check out Matthew 25:31-46. Taken literally, our anger and dismissal is of Jesus. We are sending Jesus away from our borders. The question shouldn’t be “What would Jesus do?” but “How will we treat Jesus today as he crosses our border?”

Second, we heard a wonderful sermon at Twin City Bible Church today based on Ephesians 1:15-28. As I listened and reflected on the immigration issue, Pastor Allen’s consideration of verse 18 particularly caught my attention: “the riches of his glorious inheritance in his holy people.” An increasing number of theologians are beginning to understand this clause as meaning God’s inheritance is us. We humans are worth that much. What does it mean when we reject so strongly a part of God’s inheritance? In expressing such anger, sometimes directly to their face, are we making the immigrants feel more or less human? More or less the children and inheritance of God that they are?

And when immigrants come seeking asylum, the U.S. has laws allowing for that. So it is not necessarily that they are coming illegally. But even if they were, let me ask those who have ever driven faster than the speed limit, or in some other way broken the law — why would it be that they are less deserving of grace than you? We are all human, we are all especially cherished in God’s eye, and we’ve all been shown grace in spite of the ways we fall short.

Third, while God is slow to anger, He also punishes the sins of the father to the third and fourth generation (see Numbers 14:17-18). I am more familiar with the history of East St. Louis than I am of Central America, but I know enough to know many of the issues are the same. Whether in the mid-1800’s or the late 1900’s, citizens of the U.S. wanted to be able to purchase things at the lowest price possible so that we could have more. Industries responded by finding ways to produce products more cheaply. In some cases, this resulted in the inhumane treatment of workers merely as a means to the end of low-cost production. Further, there was a lack of concern for the long-term human, economic, and environmental costs within the region where manufacturing occurred. In the mid-1800’s Industrial Suburbs such as East St. Louis, Illinois, or Gary, Indiana, were created by manufacturers acting out of concern that new worker and environmental regulations being passed by cities such as St. Louis, Missouri, or Chicago, Illinois, respectively, would negatively affect their profits. But make no mistake, the blame was not just the industrial leaders or their shareholders, but people acting at all points in the consumption economy that drives such behavior. One hundred and fifty years later, the people who struggle to overcome the disadvantage of the sin of the many visited upon the industrial suburbs affect us all as we miss out on their full participation in our society and as our meager but important safety net of essential services struggles to keep up.

When the human and natural resources of the Industrial Suburbs were used up, industry looked for other virgin territory to pillage so that so many of us in the U.S. can continue our gluttonous lifestyles. We are not solely responsible for the severe conditions being experienced in some Central American nations, but we bear our fair share. And those coming to our border fleeing those conditions bring to our borders the sins of our fathers – and our own sins. God regularly requires of us to confess our sins and the sins of our ancestors before He will remember us (for instance, Leviticus 26:40-41). We are all too quick to cast the first stone when we are far from blameless (John 8:2-11).

How will we treat Jesus today as he crosses our border? Will the stranger at the border feel more or less like the wonderful inheritance of God that they are? Will we show them the same grace that is daily shown to us? Will we confess our sins and the sins of our ancestors that have significantly contributed to the inhumane conditions being experienced by these strangers back in their home countries and which drove them to take such drastic actions as to pull up stakes, leave everything behind, and seek asylum from us?

Our choice will determine whether God will remember His covenant with us, or whether He will show hostility and dismiss us as a people.

Posted in Reflections, Social Justice | Leave a comment

Of Gardens and Walled Communities

2014-07-06 09.06.56This morning I laid in bed listening to passersby walking or biking down our street commenting on our garden. A few minutes later I was walking through the garden assessing the impact of the overnight rains. I pulled a few weeds to feed to the livestock and ended up chatting for a while with the custodian from our building at work just happened to be biking by. When your garden is mostly just off the street, garden tasks are often intertwined with neighborhood tasks.

Backyard gardens, backyard chickens, backyard grilling, backyard pools. A couple of Sundays ago Ana Caughey reported back to Twin City Bible Church about her first experience joining us on the youth mission trip to East St. Louis. She commented on how she noticed the folks in East St. Louis spend their leisure time on their front porches and visiting with neighbors. We often spend our time in our backyards with our immediate family but closed off from our neighbors.

Gated communities are exclusive neighborhoods with carefully controlled access. Something about them has always been off-putting to me. They seem the opposite of how I understand Jesus lived in the world, and as a follower, seem the opposite of how I should live in the world. But is it possible that we’ve made the backyard a more palatable, but still problematic, equivalent?


Posted in Civics, Reflections | Leave a comment

Facebook Does Mind Control


The only thing I would add to what Mike writes is the importance of recognizing that ALL of our technologies are a relationship of the technical with the social/political/economic/cultural. Ideologies, economics, and even epistemologies are embedded within the technologies and have subsequent influence on our trajectory as a society, an effect that can only be minimized when we approach them critically and appropriate them strategically.

The last paragraph raises an important point that deserves considerable ongoing discussion regarding the need for international oversight. I would add the importance of improved and new pedagogy taking a sociotechnical systems approach to facilitate greater local agency in critical appropriation and co-creation of innovations. We need both top-down and bottom-up activism.

Originally posted on Gurstein's Community Informatics:

News is coming out about Facebook initiated and largely conducted social research experiment examining the effects of various types of emotionally loaded messages on the “mood” of selected Facebook (FB) users. The details of the study are now becoming widely known and it is clear that the actual study was the result of a combination of naivety and hubris on the part of FB staff who didn’t realize that there might be a very strong negative reaction to this kind of activity.

The actual experiment (and results) are quite interesting from a social research perspective and the undertaking of this kind of research is fairly unproblematic (or apparently at least not illegal according to FB terms of use) although it is unlikely that most universities would have allowed it to pass an internal ethical review (on the basis of a lack of “informed consent“). The findings do in…

View original 1,486 more words

Posted in Miscellaneous | Leave a comment

Wealth requires commonwealth

I’ve had a phrase running through my mind recently about how there isn’t wealth without commonwealth. But for the life of me I couldn’t place where I had come across that phrase. Finally, this morning I found a reference to a sermon by Martin Luther King, Jr. titled “The man who was a fool.” Sure enough, it was the most recent sermon I had read out of the book Strength to Love, compiled by Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1963 and most recently published by Fortress Press. 

The sermon is based on Luke 12:16-20, a parable about a rich young man who decides to build up more barns to store his surplus grain so that he can relax, eat, drink, and be merry. Perhaps half way through the sermon, Martin Luther King, Jr. says (emphasis mine):

The rich man was a fool because he failed to realize his dependence on others. His soliloquy contains approximately sixty words, yet “I” and “my” occur twelve times. He has said “I” and “my” so often that he had lost the capacity to say “we” and “our.” A victim of the cancerous disease of egotism, he failed to realize that wealth always comes as a result of the commonwealth. He talked as though he could plough the fields and build the barns alone. He failed to realize that he was the heir of a vast treasury of ideas and labour to which both the living and the dead had contributed. When an individual or a nation overlooks this interdependence, we find a tragic foolishness.

And so it is…

Posted in Miscellaneous | Leave a comment

My “Inconvenient” Walk

I received word from our credit union today that soon we’ll be able to electronically deposit our checks from a smartphone or scanner. I had in my pocket a check that has been awaiting deposit for a week and thought how convenient. But the feature isn’t enabled yet so I walked to the bank during a break in work. I walked down the quad on campus, past trees blooming. I noticed an interesting student exhibit being temporarily installed outside the union called “The Wall of Prejudice”. I took in some of the energy of students walking all around and somehow got to noticing a wide variety of different skin tones and cultural garbs. I got to the bank and stood at the teller’s station. He was stumbling on actions a little and we chatted about how long a day it had been. I commented on the new check deposit feature and he expressed a lingering question whether he would have a job for much longer.

As I walked back to the office I thought about how new research is finding we are constantly loosing days from our lives because we sit for such extended periods. I thought about how I rarely get to the gym, but instead only integrate my exercise into my daily commute and my urban farm chores. And I thought about how technology provides convenience but it also segregates us from people different from us by destroying the chance opportunities for community that we have in the “inconvenient” walk to the bank.

I’m not a Luddite by any means, and have been one of the earliest adopters on a number of emerging technologies over my lifetime. My job is to teach others about the basics of technology. My research is about the application of technology in community to meet community and individual development goals. But I also am deeply convinced that we have the agency and self-efficacy to choose which technologies to use, when to use them, and where. We also can and should stop sometimes, and critically reflect on whether our choices are advancing our goals more than they are hurting them. And we need to take a bigger systems approach to that appraisal, to consider our deeper goals, not just the most obvious, such as what is most convenient or efficient. Sometimes convenience and efficiency are happy byproducts of achieving our broader goals of community development. And sometimes they are the hindrance to those goals.

I certainly will be tempted to use that automatic deposit feature. I wonder if I will, and whether as a habit or only when its the “best” choice within the context?

Posted in Miscellaneous | Leave a comment

Neighborhood Gardening

Recently I posted about urban farming as civic duty. Today in my email one of the aggregator lists I subscribe to sent me a link to this article about Neighborhood Gardening in Mother Earth News. This is a great example of how reconnecting with the earth and our food system can also be an act of community building. Note that neighborhood gardening is different from a community garden, although it might include a community garden. Neighborhood gardening is neighbors cooperating to maximize what each can produce on their own yards and as a neighborhood to meet their food needs.

Who’s working in your neighborhood to do neighborhood gardening? How can you help build community in your own “hamlet”?

Posted in Civics | 1 Comment

The Making of a Savior

The raw materials are slowly extracted from the ground – silicon, copper, gold, palladium, platinum, yttrium, scandium, the lanthanides, alumina, borax, feldspar, nepheline syenite, magnesite, silica sand, limestone, soda ash, kaolin clay. Some workers run heavy equipment to strip the resources from the top of the earth, while other workers descend deep into the earth to extract out the resources. Still other workers use mineral processing is used to break down the extracted material and separate out the pure metals. Still others work in factories to turn these minerals into the printed circuit boards and integrated circuits that are at the heart of every electronic device on our desk, in our pocket, on the kitchen counter, embedded in our vehicles, in our medical devices, and flashing on information kiosks.

The income earned by the workers mining the materials and producing the electronics is used to feed, clothe, house, and educate families. Sometimes the very cell phones built with these raw materials are used today to transfer funds from the distant mine and factory workers back home to the families in a new form of banking where trustworthy bankers don’t exist. But mines and factories are sometimes run with minimal safety standards leading to severe health risks for the workers. In other cases wars break out over the mines hurting or killing not only the workers but residents who live near the mines but might not even benefit from the minerals in their backyards. Run off and smoke wage a war impacting human and environment unless careful measures are taken. Cost and benefit is complicated as we consider the everyday worker who gives up some or all of their own life to support more life through wages and perhaps a new useful electronic device.

Meanwhile, engineers, computer scientists, behavioral scientists, information scientists, and others work separately and together to develop  ways to engineer the materials to meet new design specifications, to write programming code to address old problems and add new features,  to improve the user experience and performance, and overall to advance participation in the information society. At the same time, market analysts, business administrators, accountants, advertising agents, and others in the companies working to turn scientific advances into marketable products determine existing or potential niches, the costs and benefits of production using different design specifications, design branding, and a range of other choices that further influence what is ultimately distributed to the market.

The choices made by the different participants in this creation process will subtly and not so subtly leave a mark in the technical artifact in much the same way that an artist leaves their mark on their canvas. It will reflect the beliefs and visions about the world held by those who participate in the design. Certainly the work of the engineer seems strictly technical and not artistic. But the engineers design to design specifications, and the design specifications reflect many different economic, social, and political priorities. Will the design specifications list materials readily available from mines that have good environmental and human rights records, or from those only found in contested regions, or from mines that have bad safety records? Will design specifications encourage production practices that encourage friendly work environments, or those that prioritize profit over human rights? Will design specifications include extended product life, or limited useful life with few repairable or upgradable parts? Will the design specifications allow for reinvention to enable users customizability to fit new contexts, or will it be a closed box physically or through legal restrictions keeping users from modifying the product? Will the design specifications consider the many different cultures and ways of accomplishing daily tasks, or will other cultures be expected to adapt their way of doing things to the design of the product? Will design specifications consider the many different physical and intellectual characteristics of potential users, or will it designed for mass production to meet the narrow specifications of the “normal” user represented by the limited diversity of those participating in the design process? Will design specifications minimize the environmental footprint during use and will it include consideration of recycling upfront so as to decrease the environmental impact upon end-of-life?

As the product comes to market, business professionals, medical professionals, teachers and librarians, public sector workers, those from the non-profit sector, and individual early adopters get their first look at the new product. Business leaders consider how they might use this new product to increase profits, reduce costs, build new services, and otherwise gain a competitive advantage or serve the interests of their stakeholders. Medical professionals consider how they might use the product to improve care and decrease costs. Teachers, librarians, and public and non-profit sector workers consider how they might integrate the new product into their practices to meet individual and community learning and development goals. All are working to build what they understand to be stronger communities.

Each of the innovators and early adopters in these communities of practice tinker and explore, tweaking and reinventing. Slowly the product diffuses as what the engineers, scientists, and those working in product development and distribution initially innovated is appropriated for new uses within a cornucopia of contexts. But who participates in the appropriation process, and for what ends? Will the product be used by people in the community to build new collaborations, or will it be used to gain a competitive advantage? Will creative reinvention and use of this product by people in community allow others to more fully participate in society? Might limits in understanding of the social system result in those appropriating the technology to unintentionally exclude others from full participation in community life?

Hundreds and thousands of people contributed to the design, production, and appropriation of the product, a product that is not just comprised of minerals but also embeds human ingenuity and aspirations, and thereby inherits social, economic, and political qualities. Might it be that we sometimes loose site of the people behind and in front of the product and instead fixate on the product itself and the potential profit from its distribution and use in ways that dehumanize both [re]-innovators and users of the product?

And thus it came to pass that a savior was born into this world, and the savior was called Technology. It came to give hope to the hopeless and voice to the voiceless. For Technology inspires us and takes us to places humans could only dream about. Or so the myth goes.

Posted in Dehumanizing, Social Justice, Technology and Society | Leave a comment