Mediaboss Marketing

An episode in the Wests culture wars reverberates loudly in Bulgaria.

The tale of two British prime ministers and their Bulgarian connections illustrates the paradoxes of history and how Western preoccupations echo in the Balkans, fueled by events such as Brexit, the killing of George Floyd, and the storming of Washingtons Capitol Hill.

William Gladstone and Winston Churchill lived in different times and occupied different parts of the ideological spectrum. Their legacies, however, met similar fates as the Black LivesMatter movement ramped up. Gladstone and Churchill each left deep traces in Bulgarian hearts and minds if on opposite ends of the emotional rainbow.

For Bulgarians, Gladstone was their friend. The 19th-century statesman defended them after the bloody quenching of the 1876 uprising against the Ottoman Empire, known as the Bulgarian Horrors. A street in downtown Sofia bears his name.

No such treat for Churchill was ever envisaged. The rumor goes that he blamed Bulgaria for the failed Gallipoli landing during World War I. If Bulgaria had not sided with Germany and Turkey, the then First Lord of the Admiralty would have been spared his worst military defeat and personal humiliation. He later uttered some unflattering words about Bulgarians, who happened to be on the opposite side in the second World War, too. In the Balkans, people have long memories for insult, as for praise.

Until recently, it seemed that history had given these two personalities equal, positive treatment, honoring Gladstone as a beacon of democracy, Churchill as the greatest Briton. Enter 2020. Watchful historians reminded us that Churchill had made racist remarks, while the youthful Gladstone, a slave owners son, demanded compensation for former slavers. This was enough for activist groups to demand the removal of their monuments.

Few Bulgarians bothered about Churchills memory. Gladstone was another matter.

Marin Raykov, Bulgarias ambassador to the United Kingdom and a former prime minister, wrote the University of Liverpool (where a student dorm bore Gladstones name), explaining the statesmans importance to Bulgaria. Bulgarian students in Britain wrote angry letters. The idea was floated of shipping statues of Gladstoneto Bulgaria if they were taken down. Journalist Velislava Dareva wrote to every British institution connected to Gladstones memory, until she extracted promises the statues would stay.

Gladstones Bulgarian defenders claimed his merits outshine his background and noted that the famous son of Liverpool radically changed his views on slavery after the infamous compensation speech. Nobody expected such a defense of a historical personality from such an unexpected direction.

I brought this up with the new British ambassador in Sofia, Rob Dixon, who studied history at university. I see [in this case] that history is not zero sum but it is possible for us to have multiple interpretations of historical figures and events, he answered. I grew up understanding Gladstone as a great 19th-century liberal statesman, who campaigned for home rule in Ireland and extended our democratic system in the UK. But it is only recently, when I prepared for Bulgaria, I discovered the Bulgarian perspective: he campaigned for rights and freedoms of Bulgarians. And there is another perspective which developed in recent times, Dixon continued. His father was a major slave owner in the Americas. Gladstone himself campaigned for compensation of slave owners after the abolition of slavery. These are things which we, quite rightly, find abhorrent today.

Bulgarians know how perspectives vary with time. In 1999, I spoke to liberal Europhile politician, Oxford chancellor, former EU Commission president, and noted historian Roy Jenkins. He had written a biography of Churchill and come to Sofia to give a lecture on Gladstone. The context was entirely different. Tony Blairs government was part of the NATO air war against Yugoslavia over the ethnic cleansing of Albanians in Kosovo. Bulgaria supported the allies and enjoyed a rare moment in its history of excellent relations with the United Kingdom. Britain was later instrumental in bringing Bulgaria into the European Union. In 1999 Lord Jenkins even calculated the time quite accurately, based on his experience with Spain and Portugal: eight or nine years. Bulgaria joined in 2007.

The parallel is again paradoxical. Gladstone, a devout Christian, supported Bulgarian Christians against Muslim oppressors. Blair, a devoted internationalist, supported Bulgarians in the context of Christians oppressing Muslims. Today, the UK has just left the EU, which it helped Bulgaria get into.

Jenkins could not have predicted that. He told me that even the UK could join the euro after a referendum with a bi-partisan consensus: We will win like we won in 1975, he said, referencing the referendum on joining the EU.In the Balkans, you have a safer bet. History is shifting sands, optimism seldom prevails and, amid changing perspectives, it is always well to remember who has been good to you, even when everyone has forgotten why.

Boyko Vassilevis a moderator and producer of the weekly Panorama news talk show on Bulgarian National Television.

The rest is here:
Statues in Shifting Sands - Transitions Online

The legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. carries special meaning today as our nation wrestles with the unthinkable acts carried about by a violent, conspiratorial mob opposed to foundational elements of our democracy. Dr. King understood that, in spite of the challenges America faces, the most patriotic thing we can do is one day rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed.

Dr. King recognized that Americas founding principles are so profound that, if you look at every great cause in our history abolition, womens suffrage, the Civil Rights movement he led, and beyond you see that each great stride toward justice came from an appeal to those ideals.

Governance in this country must be aimed at realizing these principles. As legislators, we are tasked with carrying forward Dr. Kings work and doing just that securing justice, bringing about the common good and, in particular, preserving the essential dignity of the human soul. That dignity rests on three elements: access to a loving family and rich community; a nourishing faith that keeps us connected with God; and economic opportunity to provide for ourselves and others through safe, decent work.

At this moment, those ideals may seem quaint and even naive, but we cannot allow the most insidious actors white supremacists, armed militia groups, and dangerous, conspiracy-driven groups like QAnon to determine Americas future. Instead, that task falls to those of us who share Dr. Kings vision and pursuit of what he called the Beloved Community.

The success of our shared future depends, in large part, on American children growing up in stable, two-parent households, with flourishing neighborhoods waiting for them just outside their doorstep. This must not be limited by race or zip code.

Human dignity is also predicated on our freedom to practice our faiths as dictated by our conscience. As a Baptist minister, Dr. King understood the greater Christian context in which his work took place, which, when properly acted out, eagerly seeks to overturn injustice. All men and women are equal as children of God born with rights endowed to them by their creator, not their politicians and America as a nation must reflect that.

And to do so, we must also recognize the importance of maintaining our connection with the almighty and our freedom of religion for Americans of all spiritual backgrounds. Runaway secularism leaves us adrift, deprived of guiding values and vital notions of forgiveness or mercy in our disputes. The gnashing of our culture wars grows all the more frenzied, our political fights uglier. To invoke Dr. King, (t)he old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding. ... It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible.

And, in particular, policymakers must recognize that human dignity today is contingent on opportunity, especially when it comes to work. As Dr. King repeatedly noted, all forms of labor have dignity. That dignity cannot be reserved for those on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley. Fair wages, strong benefits, and general stability must be available to sanitation workers and metalworkers, teachers and cashiers alike.

For far too long, too many in our government ignored that fundamental truth. Recognizing this mistake, we should strive to preserve and extend that dignity to those who have suffered from reduced economic opportunity through short-term decision-making. As political and corporate elites chose to hollow out and offshore Americas industrial base to China, millions of Americans were left stripped of their vocation and ability to provide as a result.

That process of deindustrialization has affected Americans all across the country. But as factories shut down in places like Chicago, Baltimore and Detroit, neighborhoods of color were among the hardest hit hard right as they were beginning to feel the economic gains of the Civil Rights era. Realizing Dr. Kings vision of the Beloved Community will require recognizing the challenges facing Americas families, places of worship, and workers today and committing to substantive action to fix them.

Ultimately, we must remember that America is not a government, or a president, or a Congress. America is something much larger something much more tangible and intimate. It is your family, your congregation, and your community. And this is what Dr. King understood so well: that our pursuit of a more perfect Union requires unity and recognizing the inherent dignity in all Americans in that endeavor.

Marco Rubio, a Republican, is the senior U.S. senator from Florida.

Read the original here:
Dr. Kings message is more important today than ever | Column - Tampa Bay Times

Among the gifts I received from my dad, Les Gibson, were a love of reading and history, of arcane knowledge and trivial facts the latter of which made the game show Jeopardy! must-see TV. My earliest memories are of us kids riding in the car as he, a typesetter by trade who never went to college, would quiz us on one subject or another presidents, state capitals, great moments in American history.

He was Art Fleming in a Ford Falcon, and my brothers and I would shout answers as if our very status in the family depended on it and, when youre the only sister, mine did.

Dad, ask us the state capitals again, Id say, and Id be ready with Augusta or Pierre or Montpelier.

So Jeopardy! was a mainstay in our family, from Fleming in the 1960s to the return of the show with Alex Trebek as host in the 1980s, each of us trying to be the first to shout out the questions, which were really the answers.

At its core, Jeopardy! has always been a show where facts are facts, right is right and wrong is not only wrong it has consequences.

It was the show my dad and I watched every day together for seven weeks last spring from his retirement community in Florida, while he was on hospice with pancreatic cancer. The one half-hour where there were no sides in the culture wars, no arguments over cable news channels, no labels of liberal daughter and conservative father. Just answers and questions. The fact that Trebek was also battling pancreatic cancer was not lost on us. If Trebek could show up, dad would too.

He showed up every night for our Jeopardy! ritual until about four days before his death on June 5, answering questions such as, The northernmost city in the Andes Mountain range. Bogota, he said, in a voice faintly audible from his easy chair, a destination that each night took every bit of his strength to get to. Bogota, it turns out, was the peak on a mountain of knowledge from a lifetime of watching a TV game show.

After he died, I continued to watch, knowing that at least Trebek was beating cancer. Until he wasnt.

Alex Trebek died on Nov. 8, 2020, just 10 days after taping his last show. So we knew last Friday, the airing of his final show on Jan. 8, was coming. But that it came during one of the worst weeks of American history who could foresee that? Jan. 6, 2021, when an angry mob attacked the U.S. Capitol, will go down as one of those historic dates a young dad would have asked his daughter to recite.

Meanwhile, Jeopardy! goes on, and we do too, hoping to find a democracy where labels no longer define us. Trebek had some parting words for us, perhaps knowing he was nearing his end.

Were trying to build a gentler, kinder society, he said, and if we all pitch in just a little bit were gonna get there.

See the rest here:
The Answer Is... | Webster Kirkwood Times | timesnewspapers.com - Webster-Kirkwood Times, Inc.

Charities are facing increased hostility from politicians and the media, with some in danger of being reduced to fodder for phoney culture wars, according to a leading campaigning group.

The Sheila McKechnie Foundation said its annual survey of campaigners showed that nearly two-thirds thought politicians were becoming increasingly negative and less tolerant towards charities which actively fight for social justice.

It said the hostile political environment felt by many included politicians shutting down channels of communication, and attacking campaigners and their allies as a threat to the common good.

Examples included the bitter criticism of the National Trust by the so-called Common Sense group of Tory MPs for publishing a report into historical slavery links at some of its country house properties. The MPs accused the trust of pursing a Marxist, woke agenda.

Also cited was Priti Patels targeting of do-gooders and lefty lawyers in a speech at Tory party conference in October, despite Law Society complaints that the home secretarys earlier comments about activist lawyers had led to a racist assault on an immigration lawyer.

The UN aid charity Unicef was accused last month of a political stunt by Jacob Rees-Mogg after it funded food support for deprived children in south London, while Tory MPs reported Barnardos to the charities regulator after it published a blog discussing racial inequality and white privilege.

The foundation said the findings came after years of ever-tightening restrictions on charity campaigning, including lobbying restrictions, and the use of gagging clauses in grants and contracts to prevent charities openly criticising government policy.

Nine out of 10 campaigners said they thought the freedom to organise, speak out or protest was under threat. Over half (56%) felt conditions had got worse over the past year, while 72% said negative media coverage was a threat to their freedom to campaign.

The survey suggests that politicians and the media are out of touch with public attitudes to campaigning. Over half of respondents felt the public was increasingly positive about social justice issues, citing widespread support for the Black Lives Matter campaign, and the footballer Marcus Rashfords action over food poverty.

Halima Begum, the director of the race equality charity Runnymede Trust, was criticised in parliament on Wednesday by the women and equalities minister, Liz Truss, after saying the government sought to divisively prioritise the white working class at the expense of ethnic minorities.

Truss called Begums comments appalling, adding that they reflected an attitude on the left of politics that says: If youre not from an oppressed group, youre not entitled to an opinion, and I think that is fundamentally wrong.

Begum told the Guardian: It is a grave concern to see charity leaders being attacked at a time when charities funding is drying up. Increasingly, the government appears to engage with independent charities in a one-way process, making clear that its their way or the highway if you dare disagree with policy.

Sue Tibballs, the chief executive of the Sheila McKechnie Foundation, said: Civil society will keep working to defend rights and build a better world out of the pandemic. Its time for politicians to work with us, even where we dont always agree, not make us fodder in phoney culture wars.

The foundation was set up in memory of the late Dame Sheila McKechnie, a legendary campaigner who ran Shelter, and subsequently Which?, where her work on food quality led to the creation of the Food Standards Agency.

The government has been approached for comment.

View original post here:
Politicians and media getting more hostile towards charities, poll finds - The Guardian

In her latest book, author Katelyn Beaty says todays Christian women should be empowered to feel anything is possible. A successful professional life should not come at the cost of marriage and family. Beaty says its time that conservative Christians truly celebrate the role of women in society and encourage genuine gender equality.

KCRWs Jonathan Bastian talks with journalist and author of A Womans Place: A Christian Vision for Your Calling in the Office, the Home, and the World Katelyn Beaty.

The following interview excerpts have been abbreviated and edited for clarity.

When did you first start to notice this tension between your gender and being a professional?

Katelyn Beaty: I currently live in New York, but I used to live in the Chicago suburbs and work at a magazine in the Wheaton area, where theres a very heavily Christian subculture. I really found in my own life, that tension between what I wanted to do as a professional and what I was hearing in the Christian subculture around me. I started to experience that as I started to really gain some traction in my professional life. I often found that one's work, professional work just wasn't something that was being talked about at church. It was almost like the 40 hours that many of us spend in places of work every week, was just not a point of consideration or importance in those church communities.

But also in many church communities, not only in where I used to live, but across the country, in evangelical subcultures, there is a suspicion of women who have too many professional ambitions and just a reclamation of women as nurturers and caretakers, wives and mothers and of course, nothing that I say or write wants to denigrate the the work of caretaking or parenting or nurturing but I think there's really something that the world loses when women are told they can only be one thing That they can't be many different things.

Being a single person, I didn't really find a lot of space in the spiritual communities that I was a part of to bring my full self, including my professional self, which is a really big part of who I am. I had to imagine in writing my book that there were a lot of other women of faith who felt that same lack, that they also couldn't bring their full selves into their communities of faith. So I wanted to try to remedy that and to cast a more expansive vision for women in the church.

Why do you think some components of the Evangelical Church still uphold so deeply these traditional roles for women?

Beaty: I think a lot of evangelicals find references in Bible scriptures, especially in the New Testament that would delineate really strong roles between men and women between husbands and wives. Of course, so much of reading the Bible and understanding the Bible is interpretation and 10 people can look at the same passage of scripture and come to 10 different readings of what that scripture means. At least in the Catholic tradition, I know that you were asking about the Evangelical world, but there is some overlap there.

Traditional Catholics would find a lot of robust teaching about gender differences and theology of the body and manhood and womanhood and how they complement one another in marriage and I think for a lot of conservative Christians today, whether they're evangelicals or Catholics, they perceive that there's a kind of blurring of gender roles in broader Western culture and that there's a trend towards that. There's a sense that they're something really valuable would be lost to them, if they don't teach really distinct roles for men and women and keep the gender differences really clear.

That would be a significant reason why conservatives, including conservative Christians, in the 60s and 70s, and 80s really railed against second wave feminism, because it was perceived that if more women are encouraged to advocate for themselves in the workplace, then they will neglect or forsake or diminish the role of motherhood. That's where we have such a strong component of the culture wars over the last 50 years which has been about women's entree into the workforce.

How does someone like Judge Amy Coney Barrett pull this off?

Braude: In conversation with Catholic women after the New York Times piece came out, that Catholicism has, despite stereotypes, have done a better job than evangelical communities in affirming women's intellectual gifts and capacities. I have to imagine in terms of her extensive schooling at elite institutions, that Amy Coney Barrett found encouragement from her various faith communities to pursue that kind of intellectual formation and attainment. In terms of practically, how she has managed to, as you said, have a lot of kids and also have this incredibly time consuming and high profile position of power, she would be, I'm sure, the first to point to the fact that her husband, her life partner is 100%. behind her. Both of them probably draw a lot of support from their broader community so that it's not just left to the two of them, but there are many people involved in raising their children and managing a household.

Of course, she is in a position of privilege, not only to attain the education that she has, but also to have that kind of support network. That's something that very few women realistically have access to. That's all the more reason why we need to advocate for workplaces and communities that affirm women's desire to be fully engaged as professionals and also fully engaged as parents and to be creating more flexible workplaces or policies that allow for women to flourish in both areas of life at once.

Do you recognize the work done by women in the workplace by liberals and feminists like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is an interesting comparison in this moment with Judge Coney Barrett?

Braude: Absolutely. When I wrote The New York Times piece, it wasn't so much because Amy Coney Barrett is a personal heroine. At the end of the day, if I had to choose, I would more naturally resonate with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and much of what she championed but I could also see my own faith formation and faith community in the person of Amy Coney Barrett and that is why I wrote that piece about her.

But absolutely, I would not have been able to, for example, attain higher education or advocate for equal pay or advocate for more women in leadership at various workplaces that I've been a part of including my own leadership, we're not for liberal feminists of the last 100 years, pushing for gender equity at all levels of society.

So when conservative Christians are kind of tempted to throw feminists under the bus or kind of lump all feminists together, we have to remember that we have the feminists to thank for much of the inroads that women have made and we're a part of their legacy, we're part of what they championed and we now get to enjoy the fruits of their labors. And we would be remiss not to remember the sacrifices and the cost of what they won for women today, even though we also still have a long way to go.

Originally posted here:
Should the Church embrace a more expansive and empowered vision for women? Christian feminists say yes - KCRW