Civilian Friends Versus Military Friends! (Courtesy of M&M)

I am not sure who authored it, but I thought the vets here will love it. Civilians: Get upset if you are too busy to talk to them for a week. Veterans: Are glad to see you after years, and will happily carry on the same conversation you were having the last time you met. Civilians: Have never seen you cry. Veterans: Have cried with you. Civilians: Borrow you stuff for a few days then give it back. Veterans: Keep your stuff so long they forget It’s yours. Civilians: Know a few things about you. Veterans: Could write a book with direct quotes from you. Civilians: Will leave you behind if that’s what the crowd is doing. Veterans: Will kick the crowds’ ass that left you behind. Civilians: Are for a while. Veterans: Are for life. Civilians: Have shared a few experiences. Veterans: Have shared a lifetime of experiences that NO civilian could ever dream of. Civilians: Will take your drink away when they think you’ve had enough. Veterans: Will look at you stumbling all over the place and say’ “You better drink the rest of that before you spill it!” Then carry you home safely and put you to bed. Civilians: Will talk crap to the person who talks crap about you. Veteran: Will knock the Hell out of them for using your name in vain.

Compassionate Fatigue

I practice a lot of self care and I encourage others to do the same. If I am not able to take care of myself, I can certainly not take care of others. I make it a practise to surround myself with people who love life, who want to enjoy what life offers and who are kind. For the first several years of interning and working, I found it rather difficult to either turn people away who could not afford therapy or to charge people what I should be charging. I still do not charge what I can be charging but I have learned to be more firm. At one seminar a physician from another country, now a motivational speaker of sorts (I have talked about him in an earlier blog) said everyone wants to be your great friend when it is free. Of course they are nice to you. That resonated with me at the time. My mother told me that I was making money from the grief of others. I replied that physicians do too. She pondered and agreed. However, aside from all this, one must remember how paramount self care is. I was reading a blog the other day from CRTI (I have taken a few workshops with them PTSD being one). It talked about one social worker knowing three who took their own lives within ten years. I often hear clients in professions of helping others trying to cope with the overwhelming amount of people who burden them with problems. These people are not in their care. My advice is to inform these acquantances to see a therapist and to let them know they they require to maintain self care so they can continue to help the people that they do. With people working in the care of others, this is sometimes rather difficult at times but I encourage all of you reading this today to begin to take care of yourself, if you are not doing so. I was at a conference when I was informed that a chaplain working with those suffering from PTSD, developed it himself after listening to so much sorrow. I am fortunate that I see clients suffering from a variety of reasons. I am not focused only on self harm, or PTSD, grief etc…. Of course clients do not call me because they are happy. They call because they are in crises or need help or need a consultation. Couples see me because they want to re-ignite their relationship or save it and families need to resolve the anxiousness in their household etc…..Sometimes it is difficult and sometimes it is not. What I do is ensure I am not overwhelmed. If I see that I am heading that way I take more time to self care and to spend time having fun. I think that one of the things that help me is my years of experience working with people in crises and practising self care and balance as a way of life. I now limit how much I listen to people suffering who are not my clients or family. There is an expectation at times that one who helps people needs to be readily available to do so free of charge whenever someone wants. That is not practical nor is it self care. So, if you have someone in your life who is always complaining or upset and you are noticing that you are becoming overwhelmed say you are. You are not obligated to surround yourself with sorrow. This life is so short and can be so wonderful but you never know what is going to happen around the corner. There is nothing wrong to be there for a friend who has always been there for you. There is nothing wrong with listening. However, if you see that you are being affected and overwhelmed, because you are suffering yourself, or working in the service of others who need you to be there for them because it is your work, than perhaps it is time to separate your work from those who you see that make your life a bit better for having them in your life. Maybe, just maybe, it is time to have a balance in your life. Don’t be afraid to say no. If they cannot afford therapy, there are many charity organizations to help them. Why not begin today to take care of your own wellbeing? What do you think?

Happy Valentine everyone

Give me a reason to celebrate and I am in. I love this day. It is a day to express love. As a child we used to buy cut out valentines and write our names on it and give them out in class. I used to go home with many and I was so pleased. As I grew older and received more personal gifts, my mom taught me that sometimes accepting a gift may have other motives from the giver. Now that I am a full grown woman I know that I have an abundance of love which extends to all people. I hope that today you allow yourself to express your love to someone in your life who is important to you. It can be your partner, your parent, your pet, your neighbour etc......Now is a great day to love and if you don't already, learn to love yourself and give yourself a treat. Sometimes, one has to love herself or himself before being able to love others. So, take that stand today and give yourself a great hug and then extend that love and hugs to others who are important. What do you think? Happy Valentine!!!!!!

Original Sin - A Muslim's Perspective (Theology)

Original Sin - A Muslim’s Perspective Augustine’s theme of the universality of sin is not the only perspective for Christians. The Eastern Fathers such as Iraneous and other Theologians have a different interpretation. Christians believe that Jesus died to atone for our sins. Muslims reject this notion. Reconciliation is for repentance and not through atonement as in Christianity. Muslims do not believe that Jesus died to suffer for us and went miraculously to heaven. Muslim’s believe Jesus was ready to die for God and that is an indication of a good Muslim. This paper will present the Qur’anic view of Jesus, the Islamic denial of Jesus’ divinity, death and resurrection as well as the concept that Adam and Eve did sin but this did not result in the condemnation of every person born into this world. It will be argued that the view of the Eastern Fathers is more compatible with modern science because of evolution rather than the static view of the world put forward by Augustine. Muslims and Christians have roots dating back to Abraham. According to the book of Geneses, God promised Abraham that he would be the father of a great nation (Gn 12: 1-3) and that his descendants would be as many as the stars in the sky (Gn 15: 1-6). Not being able to conceive Sarah brought her maid Hagar to Abraham and they had a child, Ishmael. Sarah became jealous of Hagar when she was pregnant and persuaded Abraham to banish the woman into the desert. Sarah did have a child afterwards who was named Isaac. Through Isaac and Ishmael there are two parallel lines of Abraham’s descendants, Isaac to Jerusalem and Jesus and Ishmael to Mecca and Muhammad. In the Qur’anic version of the story of Abraham there is no mention of Hagar or Sarah, nor is there any mention that Ishmael was rejected in favour of Isaac. Abraham was neither Jew, Christian, nor Muslim but each has claimed him as their spiritual ancestor. To understand the concept of Jesus for the Muslim one must understand what the Qur’an is. The Qur’an has no parallel outside Islam. Christians have equated the Qur’an to the Bible. The Qur’an in Islam is very nearly what Christ is in Christianity: the Word of God. The Bible derives its significance from Christ; but Muhammad derives his from the Qur’an. “There is no God except God” is counted in the Qur’an more than a hundred times (Norman, p 64). This is very significant because it is an indication of how Jesus cannot be accepted as God. The Qur’an is the record of the revelations received by Muhammad between his call in 610 A.D and his death 632 A.D. These revelations were collected and edited within a period of about twenty-five years into more or less the form in which they are found today (Mohammed, p 7). It is important for Christians to be aware that according to the Christian faith the fullness of revelation is not the written word of the New Testament but the person of Jesus Christ. The New Testament is the human record, the authentic memoir of the self communication of God in Christ. The New Testament itself admits that it reports the fullness of revelation through Christ only incompletely (Jn 20:30; 21:25). This is the understanding of Vatican 11 (Mohammed, p 54). The Qur’an makes it clear that it not only confirms, but corrects, the Laws of the Gospel (Injil) and the Pentateuch (Tawrat) meaning that the Jews and the Christians misrepresent the revelations entrusted to them (Norman, p 67). The three verses of the Qur’an indicate the evolution of the ordered world. God created the heavens and what is between them in six periods (Qur’an 50:38). Muslim commentators on the Qur’an feel the six days represent a metaphorical period. A day in the sight of God can range from 1000 to 50,000 years of our reckoning (Qur’an 70:4). The Qur’an also reveals that life began in water. This too has been determined from modern science ( Katerrenga and Shenk, p 10). Who is Jesus? A Muslim’s perspective Muslims have great respect and love for Jesus [Isa] the Messiah. They consider Jesus as one of the greatest prophets of Allah [God]. To deny the prophethood of Jesus is to deny Islam. Muslims believe that Jesus was born of a virgin mother, Maryam (Mary), by Allah’s Devine decree. Jesus is referred in the Qur’an as the son of Mary. The Qur’an teaches the coming of the Messiah (Qur’an 3:45). However, Muslims do not believe and are opposed to the belief that Jesus was divine or the son of God. “It is not befitting to (the Majesty of Allah) that He should beget a son. Glory be to him, when he determines a matter, He only says to it “”Be”” and it is there” (Qur’an 5:75) (Katerrega and Shenk p 131). Although Muslims believe that Moses and Jesus are true prophets, the Jews and Christians are claimed to have distorted the authentic revelations received by their prophets. Therefore, the Qur’an remains the only reliable sacred text, and Muhammad is the greatest and final prophet of God. Muhammad is blessed for Muslims. He is blessed among men, as Mary is blessed among women. The annunciation to Mary, a virgin, produced a son [Jesus], while Muhammad, produced a Book [Qur’an] (Mohammed, p 7). In a rare reference to the Qur’an, Pope John Paul stated: As I have of often said in other meetings with Muslims, your God and ours is one and the the same, and we are brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham…All true holiness comes from God, who is called “”The Holy One”” in the sacred books of the Jews, Christians and Muslims. Your holy Koran calls God “”Al Quddus,”” ( Sherwin and Kasimow, p 19) Irenaeaus Irenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202) believed that man’s basic nature in distinction from other animals is that of a personal being with moral freedom and responsibility. He is made in the image of God, capable of a personal relationship with God but only potentially to evolve into the perfected being who God is seeking to produce. He is only at the beginning of a process of growth and development in God’s continuing providence to culminate in the finite likeness of God. Man is an immature being whom God could not yet profitably bestow his highest gifts. This concept is in line with evolution which has been proven in contemporary science. The Irenaean view is that God is gradually forming perfected members of humanity whose fuller nature we glimpse in Christ (Hick, p 339). Clement of Alexandria (died c.220) confronted the Gnostics’ challenge, “If man was created good, how has he sinned; but if he was not, how can his Creator have been good?” He thus shared the Irenaean point of view that man was created immature (Hick, pp 215, 216). Methodius (died c. 311 and St. Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329- c. 389) apparently accepted the picture of Adam as immature and infantile. Therefore, man was not created perfect but his perfecting lay in the future (Hick, p 216). St Augustine Since the fifth century the Augustinian tradition of the fall of “man” and of the subsequent participation of sin has become deeply entrenched. Man was created finitely perfect, but in his freedom he rebelled against God and has existed ever since under the righteous wrath and just condemnation of his maker. The descendants of Adam and Eve stand in a corporate unity and continuity of life with the primal pair and have inherited both their guilt and a corrupted and sin-prone nature. We are born as sinners and we are bound to be lead daily into further sin. It is only by God’s free grace that some but not all will eventually be saved (Hick, pp 201, 202). Until comparatively recent times the ancient myth of the origin of evil in the fall of man was assumed to be history. First it was comprehensively developed by St Augustine and has continued substantially unchanged within the Roman Catholic Church to the present day. It is not unheard of to hear it in a Sunday sermon in the literal sense. It was adopted by the Reformers of the sixteenth century and has been virtually unquestioned as Protestant doctrine until within approximately the last hundred years (Hick, p 246). We know today that the conditions that were to cause human disease and mortality and the necessity for man to undertake the perils of hunting were already part of the natural order (Hick p 249). The doctrine of original sin does not appear among the beliefs of the earliest Christians. There is no mention of original sin in the New Testament. There is no concept that matches what was to become accepted as doctrine of original sin. Augustine is the author of this enduring Christian teaching. St Augustine also contended that infants who died without being baptized because of original sin were condemned to hell. Gradually the doctrine of limbo took the place of hell for non baptized babies (Rondet, p 178). How can one imagine God ever turning away from an innocent babe because she is not baptized, certainly not a Muslim. The Concepts of Adam and Eve - A Muslim and Christian Perspective The Qur’an is in agreement with the Christian view that man is created in God’s image. Unlike Christianity it regards this image as innate in all men and permanent. Islam regards every man at all times embodying the divine image. Islam holds that man is created innocent. It repudiates every notion of original sin; of hereditary guilt (Crawford, p 215). Salvation is an improper religious concept devoid of any equivalent term in the Islamic vocabulary. Adam, the first man, committed a misdeed when he ate from the prohibited tree, but he repented and was forgiven. His misdeed was an ordinary human mistake. It was the deed of one man and therefore his own personal responsibility. It had no effect on anyone else besides him. Not only was it devoid of cosmic effect but even of any effect upon his children. It did send Adam from Paradise to earth but it changed nothing in his nature (Crawford, p 218). Adam and Hauwa [Eve] ate the fruit of the forbidden tree as a result of Satan’s deceit. It was not a willful and deliberate disobedience. When God called to them, they quickly realized their sinfulness and they prayed for forgiveness. They did not turn away from God.” Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If thou forgive us not and have not mercy on us, surely we are of the lost” (Qur’an 7:22). Muslims can deduce from this event that man is imperfect, even if he lives in heaven. Islamic witness is that Allah [God] is always ready through his mercy and grace to forgive the sins of all who are sincere in their wanting to change for the better (Katerrega and Shenk, p 23). Adam, the first man on earth was also the first prophet of Allah. God revealed the religion of Islam to Adam which is submission to the one true God. According to Muslims all prophets are the same. They teach or remind man of the unity of God, the reward of leading a good pious, and peaceful life, the day of judgement, and the terrible punishment for unbelievers (Katerrega and Shenk p 36). Irenaeus pictures Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden as children. Their sin is seen as a calling of God’s compassion on account of their weakness and vulnerability. This objective of God is that man passes through all things and acquires the knowledge of death and learns by experience what the source of his experience is, so he may love God ever more. Contemporary life is gradual spiritual growth (Hick, pp 212, 213). Jesus too treated the likeness between the attitude of God to man, and the attitude of human parents at their best towards their children, as providing the most adequate way for us to think about God (Hick, p 258). From a Muslim’s perspective Allah pardoned Adam and Hauwa as the Qur’an testifies, “Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the relenting, the Merciful” (Qur’an 2:37). Adam and Hauwa were absolved of the sin of disobedience, and their future descendants were made immune from its effect. Allah [God] did not only accept man’s repentance but went ahead and appointed him as his messenger to give guidance to mankind (Katerrega and Shenk, p 23). Scholars are positive in affirming that the revelatory content of Genesis is not an explanation of the origin of evil. There is no portrayal of a “fall” from immortality. Humanity has not been changed from how it was created. Death, suffering and work are part of the human destiny, not divine punishment. There is no justification in Genesis for the submissiveness of women or for the destruction of the earth’s resources for human purposes. “The story of the ‘“fall”’ is human conduct in the face of temptation….In sum the doctrine of original sin is not to be found in Genesis…” Catholic biblical scholars recognize that the origin stories in Genesis I-II are not meant to be understood as historical fact. Therefore, we need not take as literal truth that human beings began their existence in a paradise, and had human knowledge and bodily control, and were without suffering and death. Most important of all one need not conclude that there was an offense committed by the first humans so horrible that God demanded that they and their descendants be punished with suffering and death and declared guilty of eternal damnation (Korsmeyer,pp 120, 121). The City of Wrong is a text based on an account of Good Friday during the days of Jesus written in Arabic by a Muslim Surgeon and Educationalist. In his book Dr Hussein indicates that Christianity has not freed itself, and perhaps never shall due to the disciple’s failure to save Christ. Dr Hussein claims that Christians have been destined to bear the reproach of the great sin of abandoning Christ to his prosecutors. “It seemed to them that they were only commanded to withhold themselves from rescuing their prophet because they did not deserve to be his witness. And thus a dread of falling into sin, an apprehensiveness about evil doing, has become a dominant feature of the Christian spirit. And so it will always remain. For Christians have no way of atoning for what happened on that day.” Hussein continues along the same notion deeper into the text, ”It is strongly established in their creeds that man is permeated with evil until he is cleansed, and it may well be that it goes back largely to what the disciples were made to do against their will on that fateful day.” (Hussein, p 123) When Christians and Muslims talk about God they are talking about the same God, although their witnessing, concerning God may be rather different. The Christian witness emphasizes the self disclosure of God (hence the Trinity), while in Islam it is the will and guidance of God which is revealed (Katerrega and Shenk p 88). Islam acknowledges the second coming of the Messiah but they believe that the Messiah will return to earth to firmly establish the true religion of Islam before the final judgment. Islam and Christianity both claim to have a mission to the whole of mankind ( Katerrega and Shenk, pp 168, 169). The human need to redemption, salvation or atonement through Jesus Christ is necessary because of what we are, selfish by nature and nurture. The sins of the world flow from our genetic heritage which has evolved in a struggle for our survival. New Testament reference to redemption, spell out its meaning in images and symbols. Redemption is achieved through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ and yet remains to be achieved (Korsmeyer, p125). To redeem means to buy back. Redemption signifies that God has set the relation between humankind and God right again. Evolution The first part of Genises begins with questions of chaos. From an evolutionary point of view this is a beginning. A situation of chaos is one where there is no observable order of substance from any organized past. Therefore the influence of the past on the present is minimal. “God broods over the chaos, then utters a command: Let there be light!” Creation is through a word, a call, a lure towards a particular form of becoming. Creation responds. The light is itself an introduction of difference and therefore definition into the chaos. If there is light and dark, then there is some form of order. We have a responsive God interacting with the world, calling it into being. It is creation through call and response. Catholic biblical scholarship took a major step in 1943 when Pope Pius XII in his encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu encouraged the use of modern scientific methods in studying the Bible. Vatican II’s Dei verbum strongly approved use of the historical-critical method of biblical analysis, which attempts to establish what the biblical authors intended to convey in their texts (Korsmeyer, p 48). The difference between primates and humans is much less than once thought. There is no need to insist that all humans can be traced to Adam and Eve. All humans require the grace of God because they are human, the product of an evolving, self-seeking universe. We don’t need the sin of the first parent to know that we sin (Korsmeyer, pp124, 125). Challenges and Benefits in Dialogue Christian-Muslim relations has since the beginning been one of ambivalence. The major reason for this is that both faiths are intensely missionary-oriented. Each claims to have an exclusive universal message of truth and salvation for all of humanity. Each community considers the other to be in grave error in its basic understanding of God, God’s nature, and God’s relationship to humanity and its history. There has been a deep mistrust of the aims and intentions of each community toward the other. This mistrust stems from long-held distortions and misrepresentations of the faith and culture by both communities of one another. Pope John Paul 11, first journeyed to a predominantly Muslim country to Turkey in November 1979. The Pope called on both Muslims and Christians to collaborate on the basis of their common faith in God, in promoting peace and brotherhood “in the free profession of faith proper to each.” Honouring Jesus and his mother is an essential part of the Muslim faith. But to acknowledge Jesus as God is for Muslims to associate other gods with God, which is the only unforgivable sin. These differences should not be ignored in efforts to promote better understanding through honest dialogue, but recognized and dealt with patiently and with sensitivity on all sides (Sherwin and Kasimow, pp 171, 172). While Christians constitute the most populous of the religions, around 1.9 billion in 1998, Muslims occupy an impressive, and growing, second place with 1.2 billion. Therefore, it is important that we learn to understand and respect each other. No matter how much we try, we are always going to view, hear and understand the other religious person from our own religious perspective (Knitter, p 217). That is the challenge. How open minded and respectful can we be towards the beliefs of the other. The time has come when it is not only beneficial it is necessary. There has been no other Pope who has contributed so much and so widely to a greater understanding of other religions as Pope John Paul 11. The unprecedented meeting in Assisi on October 27, 1986, of religious leaders of a great number of faiths came to pray for peace in the world and to give witness to their dedication to the cause of reconciliation among people of all religions. This has been followed up by similar events being organized almost yearly promoting the cause of world peace and solidarity. For Pope John Paul 11, every child born into this world is formed in the image of God, is love by God, is respected by God. God desires that each and every one of God’s be brought to the joy of God’s Kingdom. No Christian can say that he or she loves God but despises those whom God loves (1 John 4:20) (Sherwin and Kasimow p xii). It is perhaps best to be mindful of how Pope John Paul 11 addressed the President of the Sudan in 1993 when he was concerned with the unique situation facing the Christian community, “[t]he inalienable dignity of every human person, irrespective of racial, ethnic, cultural or national origin or religious belief, means that when people coalesce in groups they have a right to enjoy a collective identity. Thus, minorities [that is Christians] within a community have a right to exist, with their own language, culture and traditions, and the State is morally obliged to leave room for their identity and self expression.” (Sherwin and Kasimow, p 191) Interfaith dialogue can be quite difficult. Mary Boys who is in the process of writing a book with a Muslim and Jewish scholar said that “Dialogue has an altering effect.” The three (David, Mary and Mohammad) wrote a blessing that all three could pray. Boys said that “we need one another to understand ourselves.” Boys admitted that after the first week of getting together with the Muslim and Jewish scholar to write a book of the three religions she was prepared to leave the trio group because of the challenges of interfaith dialogue. Ultimately she is pleased that she stayed. Boys indicates that there are three types of particularisms: 1. advisory - one demonizes the other. This gives religion a bad name. 2. Superficial – lacking any knowledge of religion outside one’s own. Without knowing we have false perceptions. 3. Textual (rare) One has grown deep in one’s religion, divine presence, faithful to the vision of God. In today’s multicultural society and global village it is imperative that we understand each other as people, as religious and non religious, and as a unit for our own survival and that of our earth. Dialogue will be difficult and the more different others are to us, the more our tendency will be to distance ourselves. Being an atheist is not excluded either. Vatican 11 explicitly taught that even avowed atheists who follow their conscience are really though unknowingly, following the voice of God and so are “saved” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium [LG] 16) (Knitter, p 76). No one can deny how much damage religion has done. In religion’s name people have psychologically traumatized, groups have been exploited, wars have been fought. Some of the worst sins of humanity have been carried out in God’s name (Knitter, p118). It is no longer of primary concern or at least should not be that my religion is the fulfillment of yours, that my notion of God is superior to yours or that my Savior is bigger than yours. What does matter is that people actually be helped, fed, educated and given medicine, that violence and war be avoided and that the environment be saved and protected (Knitter, p 140). This is why we need to dialogue and unite as one people for the common good of all. It does not make sense this world of ours as it is. We have a responsibility to heal it and to recognize kinship in each of us. So when Christians lift up Jesus as the universal Savior, they are also affirming the integrity and validity of Buddhist claims that Buddha is a universal Savior (Knitter, p 201). It is important that we have a true understanding of each other’s religion. It is more than knowing that the Jews follow the path of the Torah, the Hindus follow the Vedas and the Buddhists follow the Darma (Sherwin and Kaslimow p 4 ). Buddhist argue that the idea of God is an attachment from which humanity must free themselves. According to Buddhism the world in itself is not bad. The source of our suffering is our own desires, our thirst, greed and clinging to a permanent self which is an illusion(Sherwin and Kaslimow, pp 10, 11).

Racism

Another conference I attended last November was one that left me quite frankly uncomfortable by the end of the day. I felt I was being beaten up for being white. “Isn’t that good?” a colleague I did not know ask me. I mentioned this a bit earlier. Time speeds by me so fast. I indicated that I would not identify the speaker from an American University who apparently is quite famous and speaks around the world. I feel the same. He began talking about Trump, his President. He spoke about a nine year old Puerto Rican child screaming that he will be sent away because Trump had been elected. The prof stated he was expanding the notion of trauma to social trauma because he believes all experiences of oppression causes trauma. The social locations are LGBT, the poor, war, colour……..He spoke of “men don’t cry.” He spoke of black men being at funerals and wearing dark glasses because they are not allowed to cry. He used the analogy of a pit bull barking but pushing back because of restraints, connected to being a black man in the USA. He talked about his story about how he was arrested and beaten badly by a policeman. He was fortunate to have an attorney to “Police and black.” He is aware he has a reaction which is not comfortable. The police notice that. He spoke about getting pulled over because he is appearing nervous. He spoke of dictorials for children on how to interact with the police. “Keep both hands on the steering wheel” “say yes sir and no sir.” The prof said that when he sees a cop, he should feel safe, but he does not. He indicated that people in the conference room I was at need to know what is important to white people (I am using his terminology of black and white). I asked the question if he had ever been stopped by the police in Canada. I felt that if looks could kill, I would have been very close to it. “Why are you asking that question?” He demanded. I was taken aback. But I explained that I was curious if there was a difference he had experienced by the police here and in the States. “No” he replied. At one point I dropped my pen and he gallantly picked it up for me. Was this make up time? Was this a way to diffuse the tension I was definitely feeling? He went into the role of professor and began talking about Trauma and Oppression. There are two levels, not one better than the other: Primary- silence is hallmark of oppression. Different access to resources. Eg. a woman has less power than a male in abuse. Secondary - no longer requires physical oppression because it is internalized. The oppressed takes on the characteristics of the oppressors; manifestation of helplessness. The classical responses to trauma is that it destroys assumptions of the world. What was taken for granted is destroyed. For example you have an accident, the truck driver is impaired and rams into you failing to stop or yield for you. You are out of work for two years. Now you can no longer assume. You do not trust that a vehicle will stop when it should. If you are raped by a man than all men look the same. A safe and comfortable environment must be provided by the therapist. If a therapist is too detached that may be perceived as disinterest. Regarding poor people: If poor are among the poor it is not poor cuisine but cuisine. But when the poor person leaves the area, eg a child going to school with lunch and another child asks, “what is that?” than the poor child internalizes and feels some disdain for her own lunch. In trauma, the sense of dignity is assaulted. The prof spoke about his arrest. He was riding a motorcycle and was going home for lunch. He did not come to a full stop at a stop sign. He provided his licence to the policeman and was asked if he should not be wearing glasses. The prof replied that he was wearing contact lenses. The officer told him to take them out. He didn’t want to. The policeman told him to take them out or he would take them out for him. The prof didn’t have his registration so a tow truck was called. The policeman kept calling him “boy” and poking him with two fingers. The prof reacted verbally and the policeman broke his nose, took him over to the hood of his car, handcuffed him and beat him. He said that marginalized people are not only marginalized but humiliated and shamed. Where there is shame, there is secrecy. If we work too quickly to expose it we may lose the client. He continued. People of colour are so socially conscious of what people think. With that conscious it is hard to have a clear sense of self. In Asia when a student graduates they have surgery in the eye area to look caucasian. In therapy a black person is the therapist with a white name and the client gasps, when sees that the therapist is black. (It is here that I draw a big heart on my notes, and write “Do I live in a bubble?” within. The prof reports that at his college he is asked why he always brings up race. His response to them, “I always talk about it because you never do.” He feels that white feel superior. People of colour believe white as superior. That is all in the context of how we interact. He talked about the black man in Alabama never eating water melon at functions. He spoke of the picture of a huge watermelon being eaten by a black man. It is how he is portrayed. The next best thing of being white is being liked. He spoke of anger management and how it is not good for rage. It is hard to get rid of the rage if marginalization exists. Rage enrages. Psychology and ecology. “I’m trying to not be the angry black person.” The prof reveals needlessly that he is a black enraged man - not angry. He channels his rage with his microphone. He thinks that people should stop denying rage. The prof spoke of psychological homelessness. The absence of metaphysical spiritual home. eg. Taiwan not fully here; goes to Taiwan and does not fit there. American blacks are going to Africa and seen only as Americans. Did a documentary on slavery. “Who am I” So desperate to claim a home and claim Africa, not having an existential self. He spoke of Americanizing names, taking away from Self. “Fall in love” anyone who has been in a relationship, recovers from the fall. The prof states that regarding Cross racial relationships there cannot be an authentic relationship (I disagree with this). Who am I is difficult to answer when there is psychological homelessness (In my work with clients this is a question I often ask. It is more difficult to answer and at times needs a lot of work and focus for the client to get to know themselves and what they want and need for themselves.) He asks if we like our clients and states that he has clients he does not like. (This is something I hear a lot. I wonder how the client would feel if he or she knew that he or she was not liked. Is it in the benefit of the client?) He states that it is not possible to like everyone. Holy, hopelessly subjective. He refers to the white therapists in the room. White Therapist, no sense as a white clinician. “ I need to know, you know you are white.” He states to us “white” to allow yelling. Yelling is the problem of the therapist. The therapist is entitled to safety but not comfort.” He spoke of a white therapist informing a black client that the police would be called if she did not stop screaming. (This is my third career. My previous two involved being in situations where there was a lot of screaming. I always accepted it. I realized that people were in crises, they were scared, they were hurt etc…….However, I too have not permitted screaming. It would depend on the facility where the client is being seen. I worked for about five years in a rented office in a medical building and screaming clients would have had me evicted. I know the benefits of screaming, of letting it all out and I often recommend to clients who feel rage to scream in the comfort of their cars and to let it all out. I also recommend parks where I should probably be as well for the sake of the client’s protection. In the therapy room itself, especially in couple therapy, loudness often shuts down the partner. It causes fear. It shuts the other person down. I find especially in the first few sessions of therapy clients need to get it all out verbally. Everything they have been holding onto needs to have a voice and it all comes out like boiling water). I did find this conference disturbing. I sat with therapists during lunch where I was the only white person. I then heard of other experiences, the child who went home crying from his first day of school, because he now knew he was not white and could not cope with that knowledge. I heard of mothers trying to prepare their children with this knowledge. I am aware that I am white. I know many who are not and I sometimes forget that. Not all that long ago a person I know very well and have a lot of respect for informed me that she did not buy a condo because of all the black people who were coming in and out of the lobby. They were residents. “You are prejudice.” I blurted out. “No” she replied solemnly. “Would you feel the same if they were all white?” I asked, certain of the answer. “Yes” she replied. “That is why I love Toronto. It is multicultural.” I felt so bad for my friend who had internalized that not being white was inferior and suffered her pain. This brilliant PHD educated soul with such a good heart had been suffering and not only did I not know it, she didn’t until she found her self in a lobby with people not of her race of origin. It is then that I recalled the conference which had made me so uncomfortable, “Know that you are white.”