And we're back

Check, check ... is this thing on?

OK, then. Comcast seems to have me all set up here in my new digs. They're quite accommodating if you ask politely and say the magic word (not "please" -- "Verizon"). So we now resume our irregularly scheduled blogging.

- - -

Thank you Trevor et. al. for sticking up for Rich Mullins in comments. Mullins did write the unfortunate worship anthem "Awesome God," but he also wrote quite a bit of music that doesn't make me want to run screaming from church.

Mullins died in a car crash in 1997. There's a nice obituary here which gives a bit of background on the man who, when not playing music, taught it to elementary school children in a Navajo reservation in Arizona.

I'm quite fond of his final recording project, The Jesus Record, recorded with the excellent Ragamuffin Band. Had the songs from that album -- songs like "Man of No Reputation" or "Hard to Get" -- become as ubiquitous as "Awesome God," then our megachurches might be very different places.

I actually met Mullins once, in 1994, in a bar in Macomb, Ill. The summer of '94 was a Very Bad Time for me, but my old partner in crime, Dwight Ozard, thought that hanging out with that band of Ragamuffins would do me some good. As usual, he was right. I never met any of them again until a few years ago, when one of the Ragamuffins came to town to sing "Man of No Reputation" at Dwight's funeral.

Anyway, in Mullin's defense, here's his song "Hard to Get."

- - -

Re: Hawker's Christian Music Story -- a post from the archives: "Teetotalist gift shops."

I used to enjoy calling area "Christian Bookstores" to ask for things like Donne's Holy Sonnets or The Brothers Karamazov. It was smart-alecky fun, and the point was a legitimate one, but I quickly realized that the poor souls on the other end of the phone were, themselves, the victims of the very thing I was trying to criticize.

The Christian-brand bookstores and publishing houses could easily follow Barnes & Noble's lead by producing and marketing affordable editions of older classics now in the public domain. My guess is that the reason they haven't done so, at least not on a similar scale, is that they've already calculated the potential sales from the shelf space of such a collection of books and determined that it couldn't compete with the sales they're already getting from the Precious Moments and other Jesus Junk now occupying that space. The flip-side of that blame-the-consumer argument, of course, is to note that they may be getting the chicken-or-egg of it backwards.

- - -

Is it accurate to say that a Navajo reservation is "in" Arizona? I mean, technically (if only technically, since our history with all such treaties is that they're honored only to the point of inconvenience) ... technically it's sovereign territory and thus not really a part of Arizona. I mean, if you want to go there, you have to go to Arizona, but once you're there, you're not really "in" Arizona anymore, right?

So maybe it's accurate to say the Navajo reservation is in Arizona geographically speaking, but not politically speaking? Anyone have any expert insight on this?

- - -

P.S.: I haven't yet figured out how to turn off Typepad's annoying new comments-per-page limit, but I was able to switch it from the extremely irksome 25 to the slightly less irksome 50 setting. Feh. If anyone has a script to work around this new feature, please let me know.

Comments

[Jesurgislac]

I haven't yet figured out how to turn off Typepad's annoying new comments-per-page limit, but I was able to switch it from the extremely irksome 25 to the slightly less irksome 50 setting. Feh. If anyone has a script to work around this new feature, please let me know.

Bless you, Fred.

[Robb]

Bless you, Fred.

So say we all!

[JPL]

I'm also ticked at the "posts per page" limit. I used to love being able to bring up the entire Left Behind series, then search though it all at once. ("L.B.: Welcome to the Hellmouth" is my fourth-favorite blog post ever, right behind "So You're Being Tortured To Death In An American Military Prison" on Fafblog!) But now I can't. If anyone knows a script I could use to download a copy of the whole thing, that would be nice, but I don't want to deprive Slacktivist of his Google Ads.

[JPL]

Speaking of Fafblog!, it's back. I think.

[Caravelle]

Bless you, Fred.

So say we all!

Indeed. And congratulations on your successful... move ? moving ? relocation ? new house getting into ? I think it's move.

Those members of the Navajo Nation living on the parts of the Reservation in New Mexico and Utah may feel left out by your description. The Reservation is much too large for only one state, I like to think. Regards from Indian country. chester miller

[mike.timonin]

Hey! let me be the Nth person to welcome you back!

[Machiavelli]

The Navajo Reservation is definitely it's own place, not a part of the three states it inhabits. Even more so than many other reservations- Navajo tribal government has considerable political power and influence. And I would not suggest referring to Hopi lands as being "in" the Navajo Reservation either, no matter how land-locked they may be!

[Jake]

If the Reservation were entirely surrounded by Arizona then I would say that one is justified in saying that it is *in* Arizona in the same way that the UN headquarters is in Manhattan, there's a US consulate in Toronto, etc. Since it spans more than one state, however, I don't think that's an accurate description any more. It would sort of be like saying that Washington, D.C. is in Maryland.

Oh, and welcome back! You've been missed. Hope your move went hitchlessly!

[Raj]

...if you want to go there, you have to go to Arizona, but once you're there, you're not really "in" Arizona anymore, right?

That's like needing to go to South Africa and get completely within the borders of South Africa in order to go to Lesotho, but no longer being in South Africa after entering Lesotho.

[Raj]

Welcome back, Fred! Thanks for fighting the Good Fight against teh EEEEVULLL Typepad.

I feel the presence of Fred in this place.

[Raj]

I'll post this here, too, just in case everybody abandons "Buck and the Preacher":

"Buck and the Preacher" sounds like a Western.

Preacher Bruce Barnes rode into the rough-and-tumble town of Mount Prospect, one hand holding his Bible and the other his six-gun. By the grace of God (and some bad writing and editing), he was still able to clutch his horse's reins tightly with both hands as he reached into his saddlebag for his portable telegraph set. He needed to send an urgent message to Capt. Rayford Steele, captain of the riverboat Global Queen and secret ringleader of the Tribulation Posse.

[Monkay]

Anyone have any expert insight on this?
No;
Alamo Band Navajo Indian Reservation, NM, USA
Latitude: 34.400002
Longitude: -107.449997

[Matt]

Indian reservations are sovereign in a somewhat stronger sense than, say, Louisiana is from the United States as a whole. But not by much. Anyone born in a reservation is a US citizen with constitutional rights, and correspondingly an obligation to abide by (most) federal law.

The short answer to your specific question is that the Navajo reservation is not part of the political entity called Arizona, but it is a mostly-autonomous part of the political entity called the United States. Here's a good writeup, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tribal_sovereignty

[R. Mildred]

I'd go with "surrounded by" if I could personally, it's both accurate and describes the geographical information you're probably trying to convey.

[Rosina]

Anyone born in a reservation is a US citizen with constitutional rights, and correspondingly an obligation to abide by (most) federal law.

The short answer to your specific question is that the Navajo reservation is not part of the political entity called Arizona, but it is a mostly-autonomous part of the political entity called the United States.

So how are their votes counted in US elections? Or don't they get a vote? Because if they do, then surely they must vote for the candidates in a state, which makes them part of that state. The Wiki article didn't seem to answer that point.

If the native Americans don't get a vote while living a reservation, then they are clearly still not citizens of the US.

[Horatio Queensbury]

Yes, the Navajo reservation is in Arizona, the American Embassy on Place de la Concorde is in Paris - and thus France. Wollankstraße station was definitely in East Berlin, though it was used (at their own risk) only by West Berliners during the partition. Location does not automatically imply either nominal jurisdiction or practical reach.

But actually Navajo sovereignty is nominal. It isn't recognised externally, the only reason for declaring them sovereign is the anomaly of the several US states considering themselves to be sovereign. Obviously if Arizona really /is/ a sovereign state (a question no-one wants in the spotlight, since it plays into the hands of extreme nationalist groups everywhere in the world) then the only way to stop it from tampering with the affairs of the Navajo is to declare that they're sovereign too. But Navajo sovereignty really extends only to some land-use issues and exlusively "Indian" matters (and they don't even get to decide who is or is not an Indian, the US Federal government gets to do that). By these standards I think the Parochial Church Council of the village I grew up in may be Sovereign too. Sadly, their national government does not agree and so they won't be setting up a huge casino any time soon.

[R. Mildred]

If the native Americans don't get a vote while living a reservation, then they are clearly still not citizens of the US.

Yet at the same time the Lakota Nation recently secceeded from the union so they must have been "in" it before that in some sense.

And John McCain was kinda involved with that massive landgrab and forced relocation of navajos (which I suspect might be related to Fred's question) so that some mining corporations could have at their land, something I doubt would be quite constitutional to do to regualar US citizens - so maybe they've got a sort of "friends with bonuses huge massive downsides" kinda relationship going on with the Feds.

[Horatio Queensbury]

Rosina, they vote in state and federal elections sort-of like everyone else. I say sort-of, because obviously an ordinary Arizona citizen votes in an Arizona election supervised by Arizona officials and overseen by representatives from the candidates. Inside the Indian Reservation things can be a little different, even though you'd prefer they weren't. The Arizona state government can't do anything about that because the Reservation is nominally sovereign. I guess it's as though Calais got to vote for a British Prime Minister, but the French government ran the ballot...

"But Navajo sovereignty really extends only to some land-use issues and exlusively (sic) "Indian" matters (and they don't even get to decide who is or is not an Indian, the US Federal government gets to do that)."

I do not believe this is an accurate reflection of the rather complicated legal arrangement. Only the Indian governmental unit can determine who is a member. Federal and state courts have no jurisdiction over membership. Congressional enactments concerning Due Process or Sex Discrimination are not enforceable unless adopted by Indian governments. State law enforcement has no authority on the reservation. Torts committed in Indian Country- an elusive area- might be solely prosecuted in Indian courts. The sovereign status of Indian lands is much more complex- and important- than can be summed up in a few phrases. They have been able to vote in national elections since the late 1920's or early 1930's, if memory serves.
While I may be off on a tangent, I do worry about inaccurate things being presented as gospel (see, I am paying attention) on any web site.
Regards, chester

[Horatio Queensbury]

“The sovereign status of Indian lands is much more complex- and important- than can be summed up in a few phrases.”

Well, I agree with at least half of that statement, it's certainly a very complicated area and my brief comment doesn't do it justice.

[Bruce Garrett]

What the other's have said: the Navajo reservation is in Arizona, Utah and New Mexico. I've stood on the border between Arizona and Utah in Monument valley. The most beautiful place on earth in my opinion. So...yeah, it's In Arizona. Just not all in. Geographically. Mostly. Politically I don't think the state of Arizona has any say in there. As far as I know it's sovereign Navajo territory...except when the Feds say it isn't.

[Amaryllis]

It would sort of be like saying that Washington, D.C. is in Maryland.

No, no, no: Washington, D.C. is part of the Luciferic New World Order.

[Chris Ashley]

Re: cheap editions of public-domain Christian classics, I know Hendrickson (the publishing arm of CBD) puts out a lot of them. My favorite example is definitely this one. They know their market, too: Retail (or Amazon) will charge you $1100 for that set, but since exactly the same editions are on CCEL for free, that $300 bookshelf looks like a bit less of a steal. (I took the plunge anyway a few months ago, back when it was still just $250, because, you know, books.)

That said, CBD is still problematic. I had a former pastor who, while he was working there, tried to raise hell about their carrying literature that opposed interracial marriage. Of course they had a fake caller try to order some, he refused, and they fired him. My complaint is less about the tactic itself than with their choosing to go to the mat at all on this one.

Also, they sell these Christian prayer shawls. About those, words sort of fail me.

[Geds]

I actually met Mullins once, in 1994, in a bar in Macomb, Ill.

Oooh, which one? Bootleggers? The Pace? It wasn't the Dog Pound, was it?

Or was it some place that was out of business by the time I got to Macomb and decided to spend most of my time studying and being too broke and responsible to spend my car payment money at one of the local bars? It's actually kind of funny. Every once in a while I think I would have spent my time at WIU way differently if I'd gone there with the mindset I have now. Then I realize that I still wouldn't have had enough money and been too busy trying to get killer grades for much of anything to have been different...

[Machiavelli]

So how are their votes counted in US elections? Or don't they get a vote? Because if they do, then surely they must vote for the candidates in a state, which makes them part of that state. The Wiki article didn't seem to answer that point.

Well, their lands do fall within the state boundaries of arizona, new mexico and utah- themselves sort of autonomous in the sense that all states are. Arizona claims the Arizona parts of the Dinetah, Utah claims the Utah part, and they collect votes and taxes from those respective territories, even though the people who live there also claim to be their own nation, with its own laws and presidency and elections incidentally. Some Navajo only do participate in tribal elections and until recently this was actually the law. But since the 1960's everyone who lives in a state's territory can vote in its state and country elections.

As I understand it, and I may be mistaken, the tribal government acts sort of like a county, administrating the voting process and delivering the results to the respective states. No one said it wasn't complicated. The tripartite identity of Native American Nationals is complex in part because the basis of the whole system is the American conquest of the West and as such patently racist, imperialist and illegal... but of course cannot be openly so now. For a while we in Colorado actually had a state senator who was concurrently a member of the Cheyenne nation. The Republicans tried to make an issue of it, but in the end I think the objection died due to mass confusion.

[not_scottbot]

Giblets says he is back, which is a reason to bake a pie, a pie in the sky, to shield us from millions of tons of radioactive moon rock.

Washington DC most certainly is in Maryland - the Virginian part of DC was handed back to Virginia in the 1846, in part because the fine citizens of Alexandria ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#19th_century ) feared that slavery would be banned in the capital, and in part because the port of Georgetown was taking their business away. As a side note - the fine citizens of Alexandria didn't have to worry, as slavery was not banned in America's capital until after Alexandria had left the United States of America anyways. But as noted in the article 'During the 1830s, the District was home to one of the largest slave trading operations in the country (see Alexandria, Virginia).'

Somehow, I doubt that anybody learns in school how the Nation's Capital was also one of the largest slave trading cities in North America - 'From 1828 to 1836,[4] Alexandria was home to the Franklin & Armfield Slave Market, one of the largest slave trading companies in the country. By the 1830s, they were sending more than 1,000 slaves annually from Alexandria to their Natchez, Mississippi, and New Orleans markets to help meet the demand for slaves in Mississippi and surrounding states.[5] Later owned by Price, Birch & Co., the slave pen became a jail under Union occupation.[6]'

And speaking as a native of Alexandria, it is pretty hard to find any mention of just why Alexandria is no longer part of the Federal City, much less anything noting its prominent role as a leading location in the North American slave trade of the 19th century, including any mention of its apparently world class slave pen. But Old Town looks real nice, doesn't it? You know, the part that was in large part built and funded on the trade of human chattel?

[not_scotbot]

As a language note - Alexandria was retroceded before it seceded, which seems pretty ungrateful to me. It was also re-incorporated as city, then re-incorporated as a part of the United States of America, before being split into a county and city.

[not_scottbot]

'So how are their votes counted in US elections? Or don't they get a vote?'

In a sense, the same problem applies to non-residents of the U.S. Due to its design, the United States of America is a federal republic, with its citizens represented in the federal government through their residence in a state.

Which tends to mean that people who are not residents of a state are not really well covered in a constitutional sense. Whether it includes a colonial acquisition like Puerto Rico, citizens living overseas, or other formal exceptions like the residents of DC, the existing structure of American democracy simply passes them by.

The case of the Indian nations is even worse. Notice how their status is handled in one part of the Consitution - 'To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes' (Article I, Section 8). Then contrast it with Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3:
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

Only taxed Indians were counted in the census for purposes of determining representation, which is an interesting idea to contrast commerce with Indian tribes was the province of Congress - where the Indians doing the commerce were not represented.

A generous person would say that American democracy has flaws. A less generous person would call it something an Italian with an emphasis on the use of statecraft to wield and retain power would recognize easily.

[Jenny Islander]

I would pay for the dead-tree editions simply because printing all of that out myself would cost much more than $300 and produce big clunky ringbound books.

[Nenya]

Whoohoo, Fred is back for reals now!

One is fascinated by this discussion of the legal state of the Navajo & other First Nations (the Canadian term), but is far too sleepy to participate, so I'll just be interested and surprised.

Very amused at the idea of not being able to get Handel's Messiah in a Christian bookstore! My grandfather, a church choir director all his life, raised my mom and her brothers on The Messiah, a tradition she continued with her own children. It's probably the one piece of classical music I know best--and love dearly, with both religious and family connotations, for me. So it's weird to have someone think of it as secular--especially since "Messiah" is right there in the name, and the entire thing is scripture verses. Ah well...I remember when I was thirteen and thought that any music not composed by our small specific splinter nondenominational church group was Not Okay to listen to, so....

[Kelly]

I live in Arizona right next to the Tohono O'odham reservation, and while that hardly makes me an expert, I think "in Arizona" is accurate. And they are beholden to the state for some issues, so their sovereignty isn't complete independence. Arizonans voted several years ago on whether to allow full gaming on reservations rather than just the slot machines that were there before.

[Tonio]

I was about to ask about the peculiar nature of Christian bookstores, but Fred's "Teetotalist gift shops" answered my question. I've been in a couple, and at times they've seem like Christian versions of sports merchandise stores. None of the books appear to challenge believers spiritually.

Christian novels today don't explore any type of spiritual growth, existential choices, or reason vs faith; in essence, none of the types of themes that would make a remarkable Christian novel.

Christian novels of today are basically cheerleading guides to fundamentalist Christians (Left Behind, for example).

For me, the journey to faith, ones choices, and free will and the like are types of motiffs that should show up clearest in Christian novels. They don't

It's much the same with Christian music. Some of it's good, as it does deal with doubt, isolation, and redemption. However, most of it is just cheerleading that doesn't encourage any spiritual growth or discovery. Jesus, at least in my view of his parables, leaves his deciples and future readers to come up with their own exact interpretation of his message; rarely does he give a straight analysis of his metaphor, leaving room for individual growth and knowledge. It's a shame Christian authors don't follow the same path.

[Amaryllis]

Chris Ashley: Yes, it's odd that a "Christian shop" is selling Jewish prayer shawls. But apparently there are such things as "Christian prayer shawls." Today, in the Parish Bulletin, an announcement of the formation of a "Prayer Shawl Ministry: come knit or crochet shawls in a prayerful atmosphere, for those in need of God's healing touch."
So there you are.

[Barney]

A gold star for the Church of England on the books, I think - under "A reading list for those exploring vocation" they have a decent section of novels, with authors like Bellow, Dostoyevsky, Golding, Greene, and more. But if the Archbishop of Canterbury can recommend Philip Pullman's "His Dark Materials", you'd expect them to be looking a bit further afield for their reading.

[Tonio]

Christian novels today don't explore any type of spiritual growth, existential choices, or reason vs faith; in essence, none of the types of themes that would make a remarkable Christian novel.

Christian novels of today are basically cheerleading guides to fundamentalist Christians (Left Behind, for example).

I was thinking mostly of the non-fiction books, but your explanation of the fiction books has much merit.

[happyapple]

Growing up, I was always a voracious little reader. I started the Left Behind books when I was 11 and I freakin’ loved ‘em! Of course, I was ELEVEN and fairly brainwashed so I wasn’t so much noticing things like, “Hey, all of his family just got raptured. Why hasn’t he noticed?” and things more like “Oooh! I know -- that’s the Antichrist! And I figured it out before they did!” Around that age, I decided I also wanted to read romance novels after seeing a couple of bodice-rippers at the library. Those secular books were of course contraband, but somewhere I got my hands on a lovely little genre called “Christian Romance” I got myself signed up for one of those book clubs and every month for about a year, I received three Christian romance novels in the mail. They were AMAZING. It was all about emphasizing the “Wife – God – Husband” trifecta and being pure, etc. (True story: at this time, I thought the most romantic thing a couple could do at their wedding was pray together and dedicate their marriage to God. Again, I was eleven. So I don’t know if it was the being eleven thing that caused all these strange ideas of relationships or my devotion to being a Real True Christian.)

Most were about couples who had just graduated high school, with an occasional widowed pastor thrown in the dating pool every once in a while, once was about a military couple being separated while he was out defeating terror. One was about a Single Christian Lady in her late 30s. She lived with her mother in small-town America. In moved a non-Christian bachelor, who just so happened to (a) be a middle-aged handsomely-handsome virgin yet not religious (just like Buck! Kismet!) and (b) a believer in the Bible and praying but not in going to church. So you knew that he would be a not-too-evil match for our Heroine once he got converted. At one point, there was a thunderstorm that trapped our Heroine and the Magical Bachelor together. There they fell in love. (SPOILER ALERT: God caused the thunderstorm just so they would be trapped together and be given the opportunity to fall in love, what with his working in mysterious ways and what not.) In the end, he saw the evil of his fellowship-forsaking ways and they married and lived happily ever after.

Back then, I thought it was CRAZY WEIRD that there could be a romance book about people as old as my PARENTS (ick!). Looking back, single women in that age category were probably the main readers of these books -- just about to give up on God and hit the dating scene, they would read books like this to restore their faith in the system. At least, that's my take on it.

[LMM]

I don't know of a work-around offhand, but if your Comcast trick worked, I was wondering if we couldn't try something similar with Typepad. (Incidentally, Making Light seems to have linked to Typepad's announcement from last Dec. I wonder why....) But, OTOH, I'm not sure I know offhand of a better host. Blogspot's pop-up comments are annoying, and I'm pretty sure they eventually delete them. LiveJournal has become censorship-happy, and I'm not sure I'd trust the alternatives (InsaneJournal, etc.) will be around five years from now....

All in all, I think a couple dozen of us emailing Typepad to complain probably couldn't hurt anything, however.

[Karen]

Bad church music: I asked my Sunday School class and they mentioned this as the worst song in the Presbyterian Hymnal. Note the repetition of the word "loud," which doesn't really make me think of appropriate Christian worship. Also, the third verse is the worst set of religious lyrics I've ever heard, including "Awesome God." On that last, this weekend was the first time I ever heard that the title wasn't surfer slang.

[Karen]

I just noticed that the link I posted doesn't include the revolting lyrics from our hymnal:

Class room and lab, loud boiling test tubes,
sing to the Lord a new song
Athlete and band, loud cheering people
sing to the Lord a new song

God has done wonderful things

Please note the ridiculous pep-rally-for-Jesus image.

[lonespark]

I will be sure to check out some other Rich Mullins stuff. However, I gotta say, I'm glad "Awesome God," exists, as a fan of Barack Obama's 2004 convention speech. Though I guess he and Mullins may have been drawing on the same scriptural sources? I don't know, and I'm officially a Heathen Idolator, so I don't have to.

In frith, y'all.

[LMM]

Wait a minute! -- Angry Bear is on blogspot, and he (they? it?) definitely have on-page comments. I think the threat is viable.

[Jake]

Blogger has the option of pop-out window or in-page comments. There are other things about typepad that make it a slightly better choice, though, I think.

[Jesurgislac]

LMM: But, OTOH, I'm not sure I know offhand of a better host.

I use Wordpress, and I'm quite happy with it.

[Tim Lehnerer]

Damned good to have you back.

[Ursula L]

Well, according to a Sidelight at Making Light, Typepad has set things so you can have anywhere from 10 to 50 comments per page - but no all-in-one-page option.

http://everything.typepad.com/blog/2007/09/new-comment-fea.html

[indifferent children]

> Arizonans voted several years ago on whether to allow full gaming on reservations

Florida just had a similar vote. The Governor pushed for a "Yes" vote, since the Seminoles were offering to throw some cash our way (in exchange for a promise that only Indian casinos would be allowed to operate in FL.) Some legislators were opposed, but the gorilla in the room was that the tribe was going to go ahead and do it anyway, since FL had no real jurisdiction.

Regarding "in": if the reservation were completely contained in AZ, then I could see saying "within Arizona". It feels to me that "within" implies only physical location, where "in" could imply "part of" or "under the authority of".

[sophia8]

Yet at the same time the Lakota Nation recently secceeded from the union so they must have been "in" it before that in some sense.
No, they didn't secede.

[Jesurgislac]

Well, according to a Sidelight at Making Light, Typepad has set things so you can have anywhere from 10 to 50 comments per page - but no all-in-one-page option.

That's Six Apart for you. Never slow to do their utmost to inconvenience their customers.

Can we has Wordpress nao?