Ninth in a series of posts about the January UUA Board meeting
The blogsphere flurry about President Morales' Congregations and Beyond surprises me in that it is the extension of a conversation that started some time ago. A less restrictive definition of what a "congregation" is was passed by the delegates of GA2011. Peter brought an earlier version of this paper to the October board meeting, which dovetailed with a formal conversation the board was having about the scope of the Association. Even earlier, the "Sources" (what Policy Governance refers to as a "moral owner" of the association) included concepts beyond congregations, our traditional accountability. More recently, the Gathered Here initiative intentionally included people who identified as Unitarian Universalist, but were not necessarily a member of a congregation.
What a good CEO does is take something and make it real. As long as we stay high level and metaphorical, we can avoid the idea that certain sacred traditions may change, such as "worship is central to our church life", implicitly meaning together where we can see and touch each other each Sunday morning.
What does Peter mean when he talks about "a UU movement that is composed of a mix of congregations and a variety of
other structures"? Our Young Adults have been wrestling with that for some time, even changing their name to CAYAN to reflect an expanded view of what it means to be UU.
I was not around when the Church of the Larger Fellowship, our largest congregation at 3600 members, was formed. I suspect that was viewed with apprehension. In the past ten years, it has provided 400 of the roughly 8300 membership growth in UUA congregations -- not trivial, but not exactly replacing our congregations. I do find it interesting, though, that the new CLF website effectively buries its connection to Unitarian Universalism: nothing on the welcome nor the "new here" pages, explaining it as "We're just opening our doors to seekers who might not understand what our name means or what Unitarian Universalism is."
Is this what Faith Formation 2020 means by a "third place" -- that non-religious/non-secular space for those who are "spiritual but not religious"?
It's a great conversation -- join it.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Monday, February 6, 2012
Being accountable
Ninth in a series of posts about the January UUA Board meeting
A basic tenet of our governance is that if the board does not speak with one voice, the board has not spoken. "One voice" is not consensus, but rather relies on our democratic principle: we vote.
And so we voted to send the President's Ends Monitoring Report back to the staff for additional work. Those of us who had seen all three iterations agreed this was the best attempt yet: there was were clear operational definitions and defined means of measurement. Essentially the staff said progress toward the UUA goals would be measured annually by the change in how a sample of Unitarian Universalists perceived we were doing. "People develop a personal spiritual practice" would be measured by asking the sample if they had one (on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being highest, 56% were a 4 or 5), or "Our congregations are open and inclusive in their outreach and welcome" by asking the sample if they thought their congregations were (2/3 labeled it a 5). The President/staff found itself in "non-compliance" because this established a single data point for each end/goal, rather than showing progress over time.
Despite obvious problems with the sample*, I found the data fascinating. Should we rejoice, for example, that less than 2% of UUs find their congregations NOT welcoming (a 1 or 2), or are we asking the wrong people? How about 2/3 giving their congregations high marks (4 or 5) for being "intentionally multi-generational"? It substantiated things many of us know: about a third have a "strong relationship" with other congregations (4 or 5), a third really engage (4 or 5) with issues of oppression and privilege, and a third have "high expectations of their members" (4 or 5).
It was not enough for most board members. We are looking for a way to say definitively to our congregations "here is proof of the difference being made by the Association". These kinds of high-level surveys are not meant to give definitive answers, but rather indicate where further analysis is needed, particularly over time. Is this monitoring report significant progress towards being able to do that, or the third year of something we are unable to take back confidently? Is the staff really using the ends to generate strategies going forward, or force-fitting the campaign platform into enough of them to attempt to satisfy the board?
Who sets the vision?
I think members of the staff are genuinely trying to shift to the new paradigm and are having genuine difficulty doing so, not because they are unwilling or incapable, but because what we are attempting to do something that has never been done before. The shift showed up big time in some of the limitations policies reviewed by the board -- they were superb, and sailed through on the consent agenda. They addressed, not "here is what we did" so that board members used their own experience on whether or not that was enough, but "here is our standard for knowing what we did worked, why that standard is reasonable, and the data that proves our compliance." The shift difficulties are exacerbated by the board: we know what we don't want, but do not have a clearly articulated sense of what we do want. Four of us actually found the report "in compliance" initially even though the staff said it wasn't.
It is a new world to us too.
*The sample was pulled from the email database of 121,000 UUWorld recipients. Over 40% of the respondents were paid staff -- 5% were under the age of 34. Though I suspect the age ranges really do represent our congregations (at least they do in the Bay Area), the paid staff ratio suggested that the sample would not accurately mirror the universe of Unitarian Universalists.
A basic tenet of our governance is that if the board does not speak with one voice, the board has not spoken. "One voice" is not consensus, but rather relies on our democratic principle: we vote.
And so we voted to send the President's Ends Monitoring Report back to the staff for additional work. Those of us who had seen all three iterations agreed this was the best attempt yet: there was were clear operational definitions and defined means of measurement. Essentially the staff said progress toward the UUA goals would be measured annually by the change in how a sample of Unitarian Universalists perceived we were doing. "People develop a personal spiritual practice" would be measured by asking the sample if they had one (on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being highest, 56% were a 4 or 5), or "Our congregations are open and inclusive in their outreach and welcome" by asking the sample if they thought their congregations were (2/3 labeled it a 5). The President/staff found itself in "non-compliance" because this established a single data point for each end/goal, rather than showing progress over time.
Despite obvious problems with the sample*, I found the data fascinating. Should we rejoice, for example, that less than 2% of UUs find their congregations NOT welcoming (a 1 or 2), or are we asking the wrong people? How about 2/3 giving their congregations high marks (4 or 5) for being "intentionally multi-generational"? It substantiated things many of us know: about a third have a "strong relationship" with other congregations (4 or 5), a third really engage (4 or 5) with issues of oppression and privilege, and a third have "high expectations of their members" (4 or 5).
It was not enough for most board members. We are looking for a way to say definitively to our congregations "here is proof of the difference being made by the Association". These kinds of high-level surveys are not meant to give definitive answers, but rather indicate where further analysis is needed, particularly over time. Is this monitoring report significant progress towards being able to do that, or the third year of something we are unable to take back confidently? Is the staff really using the ends to generate strategies going forward, or force-fitting the campaign platform into enough of them to attempt to satisfy the board?
Who sets the vision?
I think members of the staff are genuinely trying to shift to the new paradigm and are having genuine difficulty doing so, not because they are unwilling or incapable, but because what we are attempting to do something that has never been done before. The shift showed up big time in some of the limitations policies reviewed by the board -- they were superb, and sailed through on the consent agenda. They addressed, not "here is what we did" so that board members used their own experience on whether or not that was enough, but "here is our standard for knowing what we did worked, why that standard is reasonable, and the data that proves our compliance." The shift difficulties are exacerbated by the board: we know what we don't want, but do not have a clearly articulated sense of what we do want. Four of us actually found the report "in compliance" initially even though the staff said it wasn't.
It is a new world to us too.
*The sample was pulled from the email database of 121,000 UUWorld recipients. Over 40% of the respondents were paid staff -- 5% were under the age of 34. Though I suspect the age ranges really do represent our congregations (at least they do in the Bay Area), the paid staff ratio suggested that the sample would not accurately mirror the universe of Unitarian Universalists.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Protecting Unitarian Universalist Identify
Eighth in a series of posts about the January UUA board meeting
The board took a controversial vote right before I joined it in 2007 -- a reduction from $250,000 to $225,000 each to Meadville Lombard Theological School and Starr King School for the Ministry (the Schools), distributed from a trust established with the board by the North shore Unitarian Universalist Society, now known as Shelter Rock*. This was the first stage of a recommendation from the Panel on Theological Education (Panel), which administers the fund, to drop operational funding to zero over four years.
It was not popular with the Schools, particularly Starr King, whose board members' calls to the UUA board were not particularly welcome. Though the decrease was arrested after a few years at $190,000, the board has never reversed its 2007 position.
Until now. Recognizing that distributing trust funds is not board work, the board voted to transfer the administration of the trust to the Staff. Under Policy Governance®, such moves are delineated with limitations -- in this case, limitations that are meant to safeguard what the Panel had decided it should focus on at their October retreat: Unitarian Universalist identity. As described in my May 7, 2009 post, identity was the path back to right relationship with the two schools. The limitations read:
Because this is uncharted territory, the Panel (as represented by me and UUA Director of Ministries and Faith Development Sarah Lammert, both members of the Panel), worked to provide the second step in this Carver-structured transfer: an operational definition that outlined how right relationship with Meadville Lombard and Starr King would be defined and measured, and the historic relationship with Harvard will be maintained. The idea was to provide some comfort to the board over how this trust would be administered.
The motion was approved with one abstention: the abstention to make a point that the three schools mentioned had Unitarian heritage, not Universalist, and had not always been hospitable to People of Color.
Though I am happy with the outcome of the vote, I am happier still with the process we went through to get there. The ideas behind the transfer started with the Panel itself, the policy crafted with the help of the Panel chair (Rob Eller-Isaacs). The operational definition was a collaborative process that brought out the best of our respective board/staff roles.
This is how Policy Governance should work.
*A paper with the background of the establishment of the trust and historic relationship between the Schools and the UUA board was provided in the January 2012 board packet, available from the UUA website.
The board took a controversial vote right before I joined it in 2007 -- a reduction from $250,000 to $225,000 each to Meadville Lombard Theological School and Starr King School for the Ministry (the Schools), distributed from a trust established with the board by the North shore Unitarian Universalist Society, now known as Shelter Rock*. This was the first stage of a recommendation from the Panel on Theological Education (Panel), which administers the fund, to drop operational funding to zero over four years.
It was not popular with the Schools, particularly Starr King, whose board members' calls to the UUA board were not particularly welcome. Though the decrease was arrested after a few years at $190,000, the board has never reversed its 2007 position.
Until now. Recognizing that distributing trust funds is not board work, the board voted to transfer the administration of the trust to the Staff. Under Policy Governance®, such moves are delineated with limitations -- in this case, limitations that are meant to safeguard what the Panel had decided it should focus on at their October retreat: Unitarian Universalist identity. As described in my May 7, 2009 post, identity was the path back to right relationship with the two schools. The limitations read:
5. [The President shall not] Jeopardize the formation of Unitarian Universalist identity within our professional ranks. Furthermore the President shall not:
5.1 Jeopardize right relationship with Meadville Lombard Theological School and Starr King School for the Ministry
5.2 Jeopardize the historical relationship between the UUA and Harvard Divinity School
Because this is uncharted territory, the Panel (as represented by me and UUA Director of Ministries and Faith Development Sarah Lammert, both members of the Panel), worked to provide the second step in this Carver-structured transfer: an operational definition that outlined how right relationship with Meadville Lombard and Starr King would be defined and measured, and the historic relationship with Harvard will be maintained. The idea was to provide some comfort to the board over how this trust would be administered.
The motion was approved with one abstention: the abstention to make a point that the three schools mentioned had Unitarian heritage, not Universalist, and had not always been hospitable to People of Color.
Though I am happy with the outcome of the vote, I am happier still with the process we went through to get there. The ideas behind the transfer started with the Panel itself, the policy crafted with the help of the Panel chair (Rob Eller-Isaacs). The operational definition was a collaborative process that brought out the best of our respective board/staff roles.
This is how Policy Governance should work.
*A paper with the background of the establishment of the trust and historic relationship between the Schools and the UUA board was provided in the January 2012 board packet, available from the UUA website.
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
A new vision for immediate witness
Seventh in a continuing series of posts about the January UUA Board Meeting
The Board was joined by several members of the Commission on Social Witness, who were there to discuss some new ideas for immediate witness at General Assembly. There will be no Actions of Immediate Witness at this coming GA, but they will commence in 2013. The Commission is looking at various ways to make the process more meaningful with greater impact.
But first, some preliminaries.
The Commission read a statement about how they had felt dismissed and disrespected by the Moderator's Report at General Assembly. Moderator Gini Courter listened intently, and apologized, gracefully, several times. I suspect this had all been planned, and in my opinion, needed to happen to move forward in the kind of collaborative spirit the Board needs to have with the Commission.
The ideas presented for a "new vision" were interesting. They starting with some principles around social justice articulated by Dan McKanan, who fills our Emerson Chair at Harvard, including:
The Board was joined by several members of the Commission on Social Witness, who were there to discuss some new ideas for immediate witness at General Assembly. There will be no Actions of Immediate Witness at this coming GA, but they will commence in 2013. The Commission is looking at various ways to make the process more meaningful with greater impact.
But first, some preliminaries.
The Commission read a statement about how they had felt dismissed and disrespected by the Moderator's Report at General Assembly. Moderator Gini Courter listened intently, and apologized, gracefully, several times. I suspect this had all been planned, and in my opinion, needed to happen to move forward in the kind of collaborative spirit the Board needs to have with the Commission.
The ideas presented for a "new vision" were interesting. They starting with some principles around social justice articulated by Dan McKanan, who fills our Emerson Chair at Harvard, including:
- social justice and dialogue should be part of every General Assembly
- if we already have consensus on an issue, the focus should be action
- dialogue is needed if we don't yet have consensus
- wordsmithing in plenary is almost never helpful
They then presented several ideas for Board input. These ranged from AIWs being proposed by congregations versus individuals, congregations proposing a social action project, handling AIWs like responsive resolutions (no petitions or mini-assemblies), and/or using an Open Space-like environment at GA for issues formulation. The only option that was discouraged was the social action project, as the lead time to do it well (and with local partners) made it unfeasible. The image of a large group of (mostly white, middle-class) people coming to town to demonstrate, with little or no contact with those who were impacted by the issue, then disappearing, was not flattering.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
What price tradition?
Sixth in a series of posts about the January UUA Board meeting
My first meeting in the chapel of 25 Beacon had me in awe -- the history of the conversations that had taken place in that room, the "greats" peering down at us from the walls. Any references to leaving these hallowed spaces seemed to plop loudly on the table in front of us, and go no where.
Until now. It is clear that remaining on Beacon Hill makes no financial or mission-related sense. Office staff is spread across 3 buildings that were not designed for collaborative work. One of them does not have good Internet access because of the prohibitive cost of high speed lines. Many of us experience allergies to whatever is lurking in them. Needed renovations would cost between $6 and $10 million, and operating costs of the energy inefficient buildings are high. Selling the buildings for a conversion to residential property and moving to more collaborative and energy efficient space would fetch a premium, allowing us to add millions to our endowment, and save around a half million a year in operating costs - not to mention reducing our carbon footprint.
Yes, I liked the idea of a headquarters right next to the historic Capitol building, the smell of the old wood, and my daily walks down to the Starbucks on the corner of Beacon and St. Charles. I appreciate the "heritage, traditions, and ideals of Unitarian Universalism" that were forged right there in those rooms. Yet I feel a greater responsibility to look forward, and my priority for mission-driven programs is higher than for museums. A straw vote by the board says I am not alone.
So the next question is where? It is seductive to think about us putting our values into action by moving into a blighted area of Detroit, for example, or some place outside of our New England roots. I do not think that is realistic. Headquarters moves take years of productivity loss (per consultants who have worked directly with churches that have done so), and also years to recoup the financial cost. I personally do not believe that we have that kind of time, nor do I believe that moving out of the Boston area would solve the classic "us vs them" issues that the headquarters of any organization has.
There is also the question of what our headquarters will be in 5, 10, or 50 years. About a third of our UUA staff is located outside of Boston, some field staff, and some just remotely located. What does that imply for space needs in the future?
Last year the Board answered the question "what would I need to see to approve a major real estate transaction?" with a policy that incorporated our values around such a transaction. I have added it in its entirety below, as it is the outline of what the current real estate activity.
2.8.12 [The President shall not] Acquire, encumber, make significant renovations to, or dispose of real property, or lease significant amounts of space, without prior Board approval, except that the President may accept and promptly dispose of real property donated to the Association. Before requesting Board approval for any such action, the President shall not fail to provide to the Board a detailed proposal, including an assessment that compares proposed and current facilities, and a plan for communicating the rationale for property decisions to congregations. In preparing such an assessment, the President shall not fail to:
My first meeting in the chapel of 25 Beacon had me in awe -- the history of the conversations that had taken place in that room, the "greats" peering down at us from the walls. Any references to leaving these hallowed spaces seemed to plop loudly on the table in front of us, and go no where.
Until now. It is clear that remaining on Beacon Hill makes no financial or mission-related sense. Office staff is spread across 3 buildings that were not designed for collaborative work. One of them does not have good Internet access because of the prohibitive cost of high speed lines. Many of us experience allergies to whatever is lurking in them. Needed renovations would cost between $6 and $10 million, and operating costs of the energy inefficient buildings are high. Selling the buildings for a conversion to residential property and moving to more collaborative and energy efficient space would fetch a premium, allowing us to add millions to our endowment, and save around a half million a year in operating costs - not to mention reducing our carbon footprint.
Yes, I liked the idea of a headquarters right next to the historic Capitol building, the smell of the old wood, and my daily walks down to the Starbucks on the corner of Beacon and St. Charles. I appreciate the "heritage, traditions, and ideals of Unitarian Universalism" that were forged right there in those rooms. Yet I feel a greater responsibility to look forward, and my priority for mission-driven programs is higher than for museums. A straw vote by the board says I am not alone.
So the next question is where? It is seductive to think about us putting our values into action by moving into a blighted area of Detroit, for example, or some place outside of our New England roots. I do not think that is realistic. Headquarters moves take years of productivity loss (per consultants who have worked directly with churches that have done so), and also years to recoup the financial cost. I personally do not believe that we have that kind of time, nor do I believe that moving out of the Boston area would solve the classic "us vs them" issues that the headquarters of any organization has.
There is also the question of what our headquarters will be in 5, 10, or 50 years. About a third of our UUA staff is located outside of Boston, some field staff, and some just remotely located. What does that imply for space needs in the future?
Last year the Board answered the question "what would I need to see to approve a major real estate transaction?" with a policy that incorporated our values around such a transaction. I have added it in its entirety below, as it is the outline of what the current real estate activity.
2.8.12 [The President shall not] Acquire, encumber, make significant renovations to, or dispose of real property, or lease significant amounts of space, without prior Board approval, except that the President may accept and promptly dispose of real property donated to the Association. Before requesting Board approval for any such action, the President shall not fail to provide to the Board a detailed proposal, including an assessment that compares proposed and current facilities, and a plan for communicating the rationale for property decisions to congregations. In preparing such an assessment, the President shall not fail to:
- Explain how facilities support the Association’s Shared Vision, including the benefits and impacts of facilities on stakeholders, and including but not limited to historically marginalized voices.
- Evaluate facilities needs within a long term strategic plan (at least 10-15 years).
- Analyze the financial impact of facilities, including any savings or costs associated with changes.
- Assess potential liabilities, including environmental remediation costs.
- Ensure that facilities meet defined standards of accessibility, ease of logistics, and welcome.
- Consider the symbolic and historic value of facilities in balance with future needs.
- Assess the environmental impact of facilities.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Doctrine of Discovery
Fifth in a series of posts about the January UUA board meeting
Quick -- under whose authority did Columbus lay claim to the New World?
a) Elizabeth I of England
b) Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain
c) the Catholic Church
d) the U S Supreme Court
If you answered b and c, you were right -- but strangely enough, a), Elizabeth I, and d) the US Supreme Court, are involved in this drama as well, though after Columbus' "discovery" of inhabited lands.
The Spanish monarchs believed they had a god given right to seize lands and Christianize the inhabitants, forcibly if necessary, because of a series of decrees starting with Pope Urban II that decreed non-Christian lands "empty" (Papal Bull Terra Nullius ) and therefore subject to being seized by Christians. This was strengthened by Pope Nicolas V in 1452 with the Romanus Pontifex, which declared war against all non-Christians throughout the world and authorized the taking their nations and territories. By the time Columbus showed up in the "New World", this "doctrine of discovery" was well established and used by many Christian nations to create and subjugate colonies in far-flung areas of the world -- think British Empire, as well as the work of the French, Portuguese, and Spanish. In fairness, later papal edicts denounced slavery and inhumane treatment of indigenous people, but the damage was done.
And the US Supreme Court? The Doctrine of Discovery was codified in US law in 1823 in Johnson vs. McIntosh, and given an American twist with John L. O'Sullivan's coining of the term Manifest Destiny (do we teach this in schools any more?):
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty… is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth."
It was used to justify the breaking of treaties, and taking of lands, as recently as 2001. According to Professor Robert Miller, the doctrine of discover underlies US "Indian law" today: Congress has very broad authority in Indian affairs, which diminishes tribal authority.
The Doctrine of Discovery has been repudiated by most members of the United Nations, excepting Australia, Canada, and the United States, as has the Episcopal Church. The UUA has been silent, despite a number of attempts by various groups to bring it to the floor of the General Assembly.
A resolution about the Doctrine will be on the Phoenix agenda, primarily because our allies and partners in our Justice GA have asked us to do so. It is a good reason to educate ourselves about how this ancient concept continues to impact our "vision of beloved community".
Quick -- under whose authority did Columbus lay claim to the New World?
a) Elizabeth I of England
b) Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain
c) the Catholic Church
d) the U S Supreme Court
If you answered b and c, you were right -- but strangely enough, a), Elizabeth I, and d) the US Supreme Court, are involved in this drama as well, though after Columbus' "discovery" of inhabited lands.
The Spanish monarchs believed they had a god given right to seize lands and Christianize the inhabitants, forcibly if necessary, because of a series of decrees starting with Pope Urban II that decreed non-Christian lands "empty" (Papal Bull Terra Nullius ) and therefore subject to being seized by Christians. This was strengthened by Pope Nicolas V in 1452 with the Romanus Pontifex, which declared war against all non-Christians throughout the world and authorized the taking their nations and territories. By the time Columbus showed up in the "New World", this "doctrine of discovery" was well established and used by many Christian nations to create and subjugate colonies in far-flung areas of the world -- think British Empire, as well as the work of the French, Portuguese, and Spanish. In fairness, later papal edicts denounced slavery and inhumane treatment of indigenous people, but the damage was done.
And the US Supreme Court? The Doctrine of Discovery was codified in US law in 1823 in Johnson vs. McIntosh, and given an American twist with John L. O'Sullivan's coining of the term Manifest Destiny (do we teach this in schools any more?):
".... the right of our manifest destiny to over spread and to possess the whole of the continent which Providence has given us for the development of the great experiment of liberty… is right such as that of the tree to the space of air and the earth suitable for the full expansion of its principle and destiny of growth."
It was used to justify the breaking of treaties, and taking of lands, as recently as 2001. According to Professor Robert Miller, the doctrine of discover underlies US "Indian law" today: Congress has very broad authority in Indian affairs, which diminishes tribal authority.
The Doctrine of Discovery has been repudiated by most members of the United Nations, excepting Australia, Canada, and the United States, as has the Episcopal Church. The UUA has been silent, despite a number of attempts by various groups to bring it to the floor of the General Assembly.
A resolution about the Doctrine will be on the Phoenix agenda, primarily because our allies and partners in our Justice GA have asked us to do so. It is a good reason to educate ourselves about how this ancient concept continues to impact our "vision of beloved community".
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Animals and children
Fourth in a series of posts about the January 2012 UUA Board meeting
My seat mate on the New Orleans to Houston flight was a 30ish man who looked liked the volunteer fireman he once had been in the small town north of New Orleans where he had lived all his life. Engaging, proud of his wife and two kids, self-deprecating about his “hick” rural accent, he said Katrina hadn’t really impacted him much.
Except – he stopped and drew a breath – psychologically.
With Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) skills, he immediately volunteered and was in New Orleans two days after the levees broke. He lasted four days.
“It wasn’t so much the work”, he said. “We were basically pulling bodies. It was the way they were all treated….” His voice trailed off and he continued. “And nobody seemed to know what they were doing.”
The first day he was sent about 35 miles out to “pull bodies”. The second day his crew sat around on a log – no one knew where to send them. The third day they started again, but were quickly pulled in “because the government was doing something we had to wait for – no one knew what.” The fourth day he was back “pulling bodies” – “mostly animals and children”. That was enough.
The conversation shifted. His family had lived in the same area since 1806, when they bought the land as a land grant from Spain. They “raised cattle – and owned slaves”. “My great grandma was a dress-maker, so she said they would let her know when the ship was coming in with the slaves and concubines.”
Concubines? “Yeah. They would take the prettiest, maybe 13 to 17 years old, and they would be sold for concubines. They would rub them with butter, and my great grandma would dress them up so they looked real pretty. The person who bought the concubine would usually take the dress too. She said she could make two bits on each one.” Their family album includes very old photos of pretty dark girls in colorful dresses.
Rubbed them with butter!? Excuse me?
He paused and said softly “they thought of them like cattle”.
Animals. And children. He went on.
"You know, my 8 year old boy didn't know what slavery was. He plays with all kinds of kids, all colors -- we are a pretty integrated place now. So a few days ago he asked me what a slave was. I had to explain it to him, and he just couldn't understand how..." here his voice cracked and dropped lower, "how anyone could treat a human being that way."
Next post: Do you know where your mineral rights are?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)