16 Mayo 2011
11:41 a.m.
Tienen tanta fortuna que viven en un mundo aparte
Súper clase, globócratas, uberricos. Son nuevos nombres para denominar a una nueva élite global que ha sido definida como una nación aparte.
Son tan ricos estos magnates que viven más alejados de la realidad del común de los mortales de lo que tradicionalmente han estado las élites pudientes.
Chrystia Freeland, periodista financiera y autora dellibro "Plutócratas", le dijo a la BBC que muchos de estos megarricos "son hijos de la globalización y el desarrollo tecnológico"; una minoría selecta muy particular que maneja una "porción desproporcionada" de la riqueza global.
Pero ¿cómo son estos nuevos potentados?
Comunidad global
"Los ricos de hoy son diferentes a los ricos de ayer. La mayoría no son caballeros ociosos que heredaron sus fortunas: son nerds adictos al trabajo y perpetuamente cansados", estima Chrystia Freeland.
"Nuestra economía global interconectada y de paso lento ha propiciado el surgimiento de una nueva súper élite que consiste, en grado notable, en acaudalados de primera o segunda generación".
Según Freeland, los miembros de esta élite son "tesoneros, altamente educados, meritócratas del jet set que se consideran los ganadores en buena lid de una dura competencia económica global".
Y, aunque su residencia principal esté en Nueva York, Londres, Hong Kong o Bombay, forman "una comunidad transglobal de pares que tienen más en común entre ellos que con sus conciudadanos. Son una nación en sí misma".
Esa nación, o "Richistán", como la denomina el autor estadounidense Robert Frank, está formada por personajes de muy variado origen.
La componen oligarcas rusos, jeques del Golfo Pérsico, petroleros texanos, magnates estadounidenses de internet, condes italianos, "bolligarcas" indios (en referencia a magnates de la industria del cine nacional, o Bollywood) y multimillonarios de los paraísos fiscales.
Se encuentran en lujosos destinos turísticos, exclusivos debido a su costo y, como acudiendo a una reunión familiar, llegan en sus jets privados a todos los eventos elitistas que los acojan, como el Foro Económico Mundial en Davos.
Y Londres, la capital del Reino Unido, es un imán para ellos debido a una combinación de factores como bajos impuestos para los no residentes, la zona horaria, la lingua franca internacional que es el inglés, el estatus de centro financiero y los bienes y servicios de lujo disponibles.
¿De dónde salieron?
Durante las pasadas décadas la economía global ha estado marcada por la integración de los mercados, la liberalización del comercio y la revolución de la tecnología de la información.
Esto ha creado una prosperidad global por la que cientos de millones de personas han salido de la pobreza absoluta y se han ubicado entre las clases medias particularmente en las crecientes economías asiáticas de China e India.
Pero en la medida en que se apreciaba un crecimiento de la economía planetaria también surgía otro fenómeno: el de la ampliación de la brecha entre ricos y pobres dentro de sus propios países.
Este fenómeno, como le señaló Chrystia Freeland a la BBC, fue particularmente pronunciado en Estados Unidos entre 2002 y 2007 cuando el 65% de todo el crecimiento de los ingresos correspondió al 1% de la población.
Pero la segregación de la riqueza se ha presentado además en países como Reino Unido, Canadá, Alemania y en las naciones escandinavas, así como también en la China comunista.
La división entre súper ricos y el resto llevó a que tres analistas del Citigroup concluyeran que "el mundo está dividido en dos bloques: la plutocracia y todos los demás".
Según explicaron, en la plutocracia no existen consumidores estadounidenses, británicos o rusos. Lo que hay son consumidores ricos, que son pocos pero se llevan una tajada enorme de los ingresos globales y consumen una cantidad de bienes desproporcionadamente grande.
Y luego están los demás: un grupo multitudinario pero virtualmente irrelevante en términos de ingreso y consumo.
¿Representa, entonces, un problema la aparición de esta clase de ultrarricos?
Para Alan Greenspan, el legendario jefe de la Reserva Federal de EE.UU., el lío es que "básicamente tenemos una economía muy distorsionada", según dijo en una entrevista en el verano pasado.
Julia Margot, subdirectora del grupo independiente de análisis Demos, le dijo a la BBC que "deberíamos preocuparnos" por este fenómeno, particularmente en "sociedades que están obsesionadas por lo que sus élites hacen" debido a la exposición continua que éstas tienen en los medios de comunicación.
"Existe una compulsión muy intensa a ser parte y parecerse" a esas élites debido a la "fabricación de aspiraciones que se parecen a los sueños de Hollywood".
Sin embargo, en su opinión "si hablas con jóvenes de escasos recursos te das cuenta de que -debido al modo en que se ha desarrollado el mercado laboral, y por la manera en que funciona la mobilidad social- sus aspiraciones no se van a cumplir", lo cual puede generar cada vez más frustración.
En palabras de la autora Freeland, el auge de los "uberricos" presenta, por lo menos, un dilema.
"En la economía global competitiva de hoy, necesitamos más que nunca a los súper ricos y las compañías innovadoras que ellos han creado. Pero ellos nos necesitan a nosotros también, como consumidores, como empleados, como conciudadanos".
No obstante, añade, "hay una lección que nos enseña la historia. A largo plazo las súper élites sólo pueden sobrevivir de dos maneras: suprimiendo la disidencia o compartiendo la riqueza".
¿Cuál de estos dos modos prevalecerá? Sólo el tiempo podrá decirlo.
En este blog publicare articulos y comentarios de interes para entender el acontecer cultural en aspectos politicos, sociales y educativos.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Los duenos de corporaciones se ganan 225 veces mas
Es imposible creer como en tiempos de crisis economicas globales en donde se avecinan cambios en la manera en vivimos en todos los paises del mundo, los duenos de corporaciones tengan una sed insaciable por tener mas y mas dinero. Segun los ultimos reportajes, los duenos de corporaciones y los CEO se ganan 225 veces mas que los empleados en sus companias. Estas grande corporaciones controlan a los gobiernos alrededor del mundo, ellos son los verdaderos duenos del destino de la clase trabajadora. Necesitamos un cambio en la manera en que definimos exito en la vida. Exito en la vida no puede ser tener y tener mas, sino tener los que necesitamos y ayudar a que otros en la sociedad tambien tengan lo necesario. Como hay personas que pueden gastarse en un dia lo que una familia se gana en un ano. Es algo incomprensible e inmoral.
Tengan cuidado con los que postean en su pagina de Facebook...hasta donde ha llegado la opresion economica cuartando los derechos humanos.
Histórica decisión a favor de los usuarios de Facebook
Las empresas de EE.UU. tendrán que pensárselo dos veces antes de despedir a un empleado por comentarios en Facebook después de que un caso muy seguido se acordara a favor de una trabajadora que criticó a su jefe en la red social.
Agencia EFE
Washington - Las empresas de EE.UU. tendrán que pensárselo dos veces antes de despedir a un empleado por comentarios en Facebook después de que un caso muy seguido se saldara hoy a favor de una trabajadora que criticó a su jefe en la red social.
Dawmarie Souza, la empleada en cuestión, trabajaba para una compañía de ambulancias en el estado de Connecticut y perdió su empleo el año pasado tras realizar un comentario negativo sobre su jefe desde el ordenador de su casa en su página de Facebook.
La Junta Nacional de Relaciones Laborales (NLRB, por su sigla en inglés), una agencia independiente del Gobierno de EE.UU. que investiga y corrige prácticas laborales injustas, demandó a American Medical Response, la empresa de Souza, el 27 de octubre de 2010.
La agencia adujo que los comentarios de Souza forman parte del derecho a expresión protegido por las leyes laborales del país.
La empresa, por su parte, sostuvo que el motivo del despido no habían sido los comentarios negativos sino las quejas de los clientes sobre la empleada.
La disputa llegó hoy a su fin en un acuerdo extrajudicial del que no han trascendido todos los detalles.
La NLRB informó en un comunicado en su página web que la empresa ha accedido a modificar sus reglas de forma que no restrinjan indebidamente los derechos de sus empleados, como el de discutir sus salarios, horarios y condiciones laborales con compañeros y otras personas fuera de horas de trabajo.
La compañía se comprometió a no penalizar o despedir a sus trabajadores por participar en conversaciones de ese tipo.
A su vez Souza y American Medical Response llegaron a un acuerdo extrajudicial privado, según indica el diario The Wall Street Journal. No han transcendido detalles de ese segundo acuerdo.
El caso había despertado expectación, al servir como una especie de barómetro para determinar cuán lejos pueden ir los empleados a la hora de realizar comentarios laborales desde sus ordenadores fuera de la oficina en Facebook.
La NLRB había indicado, cuando se planteó la demanda el año pasado, que el despido era ilegal porque las leyes estadounidenses permiten a los empleados hablar sobre los términos y condiciones de su trabajo con compañeros y otras personas.
La NLRB consideró también entonces que la empresa de Souza tenía reglas demasiado genéricas sobre comentarios en internet, blogs y comunicación entre empleados.
Los problemas de Souza comenzaron cuando su supervisor le pidió que preparara un reporte después de que un cliente se quejara de su trabajo. La empresa le negó representación sindical.
Al llegar a casa Souza se conectó a Facebook y escribió: "Parece que me van a dar tiempo libre. Me encanta que la empresa permita a un 17 ser supervisor".
El número 17 es un mensaje clave que la compañía usa para los pacientes psiquiátricos. Ese comentario fue respaldados por varios compañeros de Souza en Facebook.
La NLRB indicó en su comunicado que la empresa de Souza se ha comprometido a no negar representación sindical a sus empleados en el futuro y que sus trabajadores no serán amenazados con medidas disciplinarias por pedir ser miembros de un gremio sindical.
Histórica decisión a favor de los usuarios de Facebook
Las empresas de EE.UU. tendrán que pensárselo dos veces antes de despedir a un empleado por comentarios en Facebook después de que un caso muy seguido se acordara a favor de una trabajadora que criticó a su jefe en la red social.
Agencia EFE
Washington - Las empresas de EE.UU. tendrán que pensárselo dos veces antes de despedir a un empleado por comentarios en Facebook después de que un caso muy seguido se saldara hoy a favor de una trabajadora que criticó a su jefe en la red social.
Dawmarie Souza, la empleada en cuestión, trabajaba para una compañía de ambulancias en el estado de Connecticut y perdió su empleo el año pasado tras realizar un comentario negativo sobre su jefe desde el ordenador de su casa en su página de Facebook.
La Junta Nacional de Relaciones Laborales (NLRB, por su sigla en inglés), una agencia independiente del Gobierno de EE.UU. que investiga y corrige prácticas laborales injustas, demandó a American Medical Response, la empresa de Souza, el 27 de octubre de 2010.
La agencia adujo que los comentarios de Souza forman parte del derecho a expresión protegido por las leyes laborales del país.
La empresa, por su parte, sostuvo que el motivo del despido no habían sido los comentarios negativos sino las quejas de los clientes sobre la empleada.
La disputa llegó hoy a su fin en un acuerdo extrajudicial del que no han trascendido todos los detalles.
La NLRB informó en un comunicado en su página web que la empresa ha accedido a modificar sus reglas de forma que no restrinjan indebidamente los derechos de sus empleados, como el de discutir sus salarios, horarios y condiciones laborales con compañeros y otras personas fuera de horas de trabajo.
La compañía se comprometió a no penalizar o despedir a sus trabajadores por participar en conversaciones de ese tipo.
A su vez Souza y American Medical Response llegaron a un acuerdo extrajudicial privado, según indica el diario The Wall Street Journal. No han transcendido detalles de ese segundo acuerdo.
El caso había despertado expectación, al servir como una especie de barómetro para determinar cuán lejos pueden ir los empleados a la hora de realizar comentarios laborales desde sus ordenadores fuera de la oficina en Facebook.
La NLRB había indicado, cuando se planteó la demanda el año pasado, que el despido era ilegal porque las leyes estadounidenses permiten a los empleados hablar sobre los términos y condiciones de su trabajo con compañeros y otras personas.
La NLRB consideró también entonces que la empresa de Souza tenía reglas demasiado genéricas sobre comentarios en internet, blogs y comunicación entre empleados.
Los problemas de Souza comenzaron cuando su supervisor le pidió que preparara un reporte después de que un cliente se quejara de su trabajo. La empresa le negó representación sindical.
Al llegar a casa Souza se conectó a Facebook y escribió: "Parece que me van a dar tiempo libre. Me encanta que la empresa permita a un 17 ser supervisor".
El número 17 es un mensaje clave que la compañía usa para los pacientes psiquiátricos. Ese comentario fue respaldados por varios compañeros de Souza en Facebook.
La NLRB indicó en su comunicado que la empresa de Souza se ha comprometido a no negar representación sindical a sus empleados en el futuro y que sus trabajadores no serán amenazados con medidas disciplinarias por pedir ser miembros de un gremio sindical.
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Poll: Large Number Of Texans Doubt The Theory Of Evolution, Believe In Human-Dinosaur Coexistence
Poll: Large Number Of Texans Doubt The Theory Of Evolution, Believe In Human-Dinosaur Coexistence
A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune survey shows just how destructive a politicized right-wing curriculum can be. A large number of Texans polled said they still don’t believe in evolution and are convinced that humans and dinosaurs co-existed:
– 51 percent disagree with the statement, “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.”
– 38 percent agree with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.”
– 30 percent agree with the statement, “Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.” Another 30 percent said they “don’t know” whether the statement is true.
Texas Poll
Refusing to believe in evolution is a point of pride for many conservatives, who are also trying to indoctrinate young people with their same misguided views. The right-wing Texas State Board of Education has been reviewing the direction of the state’s social studies curriculum and textbook standards. Some of their changes include adding “causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s,” “documents that supported Cold War-era Sen. Joseph McCarthy,” and how to “differentiate between legal and illegal immigration.”
In terms of textbook standards, as Texas goes, so goes the nation. The state “is one of the nation’s biggest buyers of textbooks.” Publishers are often “reluctant to produce different versions of the same material,” and therefore create books in line with Texas’ standards. (HT: Daily Kos)
A new University of Texas/Texas Tribune survey shows just how destructive a politicized right-wing curriculum can be. A large number of Texans polled said they still don’t believe in evolution and are convinced that humans and dinosaurs co-existed:
– 51 percent disagree with the statement, “Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.”
– 38 percent agree with the statement, “God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago.”
– 30 percent agree with the statement, “Humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time.” Another 30 percent said they “don’t know” whether the statement is true.
Texas Poll
Refusing to believe in evolution is a point of pride for many conservatives, who are also trying to indoctrinate young people with their same misguided views. The right-wing Texas State Board of Education has been reviewing the direction of the state’s social studies curriculum and textbook standards. Some of their changes include adding “causes and key organizations and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s,” “documents that supported Cold War-era Sen. Joseph McCarthy,” and how to “differentiate between legal and illegal immigration.”
In terms of textbook standards, as Texas goes, so goes the nation. The state “is one of the nation’s biggest buyers of textbooks.” Publishers are often “reluctant to produce different versions of the same material,” and therefore create books in line with Texas’ standards. (HT: Daily Kos)
Coalition Says More Than 20,000 Teachers In Illinois May Lose Jobs Next Year.
Coalition Says More Than 20,000 Teachers In Illinois May Lose Jobs Next Year.
The Chicago Daily Herald (3/29, Holdway) reports that "a coalition of Illinois education groups says more than 20,000 teachers could be laid off from state schools in the next school year." Based on surveys returned by three-quarters of the 944 school districts that received the, the coalition says that 9,764 of the planned layoffs will be "certified staff members -- basically, teachers," another 5,867 will be "noncertified staff members," and 1,597 will be "certified retirees not being replaced." In a news release, coalition member Brent Clark said, "This data only reflects expected job losses. ... The situation is far worse when we factor in elimination and reduction of hundreds of programs in sports and music and school activities that are so beneficial to students." The Daily Herald notes that the coalition is made up of the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Association of School Business Officials, "the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois Principals Association," and the Illinois Association of School Administrators.
Illinois Districts Lay Off Nearly 10,000 Teachers As State Struggles To Catch Up On Payments. The Chicago Sun-Times (3/27, Ihejirika) reported that "in recent weeks, state education funding woes have triggered a tsunami of pink slips to thousands upon thousands of teachers and support staff in school districts statewide, with about 9,800 announced layoffs of teachers so far." Said Illinois Education Association spokesman, Charlie McBarron, "What looms this school year is devastating for all of Illinois. It's going to significantly diminish the quality of education throughout the state." Because the state is "woefully behind on paying its 2009-2010 bills -- and eyeing further budget cuts in 2010-2011 -- districts such as the Chicago Public Schools are drastically plugging holes that may only get bigger."
The Chicago Daily Herald (3/29, Holdway) reports that "a coalition of Illinois education groups says more than 20,000 teachers could be laid off from state schools in the next school year." Based on surveys returned by three-quarters of the 944 school districts that received the, the coalition says that 9,764 of the planned layoffs will be "certified staff members -- basically, teachers," another 5,867 will be "noncertified staff members," and 1,597 will be "certified retirees not being replaced." In a news release, coalition member Brent Clark said, "This data only reflects expected job losses. ... The situation is far worse when we factor in elimination and reduction of hundreds of programs in sports and music and school activities that are so beneficial to students." The Daily Herald notes that the coalition is made up of the Illinois Education Association, the Illinois Association of School Business Officials, "the Illinois Federation of Teachers, the Illinois Association of School Boards, the Illinois Principals Association," and the Illinois Association of School Administrators.
Illinois Districts Lay Off Nearly 10,000 Teachers As State Struggles To Catch Up On Payments. The Chicago Sun-Times (3/27, Ihejirika) reported that "in recent weeks, state education funding woes have triggered a tsunami of pink slips to thousands upon thousands of teachers and support staff in school districts statewide, with about 9,800 announced layoffs of teachers so far." Said Illinois Education Association spokesman, Charlie McBarron, "What looms this school year is devastating for all of Illinois. It's going to significantly diminish the quality of education throughout the state." Because the state is "woefully behind on paying its 2009-2010 bills -- and eyeing further budget cuts in 2010-2011 -- districts such as the Chicago Public Schools are drastically plugging holes that may only get bigger."
Born Again, Sort Of : How the first Christians understood Jesus' resurrection.
Born Again, Sort Of
How the first Christians understood Jesus' resurrection.
By Larry Hurtado
Posted Friday, April 2, 2010, at 9:48 AM ET To observant Christians, Easter is about much more than bunnies and chocolate eggs. In 2008, Larry Hurtado examined how early believers came to grips with the idea of Jesus' resurrection. His column is reprinted below.
Easter Sunday represents the foundational claim of Christian faith, the highest day of the Christian year as celebration of Jesus' resurrection. But many Christians are unsure what the claim that Jesus had been raised to new life after being crucified actually means—while non-Christians often find the whole idea of resurrection bemusing and even ridiculous.
These differences over what Jesus' resurrection represents and discomfort with the whole idea are nothing new, however: Christians in the first few centuries also had difficulty embracing the idea of a real, bodily resurrection. Then, as now, resurrection was not the favored post-death existence—people much preferred to think that after dying, souls headed to some ethereal realm of light and tranquility. During the Roman period, many regarded the body as a pitiful thing at best and at worst a real drag upon the soul, even a kind of prison from which the soul was liberated at death. So, it's not surprising that there were Christians who simply found bodily resurrection stupid and repugnant. To make the idea palatable, they instead interpreted all references to Jesus' resurrection in strictly spiritual terms. Some thought of Jesus as having shed his earthly body in his death, assuming a purely spiritual state, and returning to his original status in the divine realm. In other cases, Jesus' earthly body and his death were even seen as illusory, the divine Christ merely appearing to have a normal body (rather like Clark Kent!).
The idea of a real, personal resurrection—meaning a new bodily existence of individuals after death, in one way or another—did not originate with Christianity or with claims about Jesus. Instead, it seems to be first clearly reflected in Jewish texts dated to sometime in the second century B.C., such as the biblical book of Daniel 12:2. At the time, it was a genuinely innovative idea. (Alan Segal's book Life After Death gives an expansive discussion of the origins of the idea of resurrection.) Many peoples of the ancient world hoped for one or another sort of eternal life, but it was usually thought of as a kind of bodiless existence of soul or spirit set in realms of the dead that might or might not be happy, pleasant places. In still other expectations, death might bring a merging of individuals with some ocean of being, like a drop of water falling into the sea.
The ancient Jewish and early Christian idea of personal resurrection represented a new emphasis on individuals and the importance of embodied existence beyond the mere survival or enhancement of the soul, although there was debate about the precise nature of the post-resurrection body. Some seem to have supposed it would be a new body of flesh and bones, closely linked to the corpse in the grave but not liable to decay or death. Others imagined a body more like that of an angel. But whatever its precise nature, the hope of resurrection reflected a strongly holistic view of the person as requiring some sort of body to be complete. With ancient Jews, early Christians saw resurrection as an act of God, a divine gift of radically new life, not an expression of some inherent immortality of the soul. That is, the dead don't rise by themselves; they are raised by God and will experience resurrection collectively as one of the events that comprise God's future redemption of the world and vindication of the righteous.
In the ancient Judaism of Jesus' time, however, resurrection was not universally affirmed. Some devout Jews (particularly the religious party called Sadducees) apparently considered the whole idea ridiculous, as evidenced by the New Testament, which gives us some of the most direct references to disputes among ancient Jews about the matter. In Mark 12:18-27, Sadducees taunt Jesus with a question about a woman married several times, asking him whose wife she will be following the resurrection. Jesus strongly affirms resurrection, but he insists that those resurrected will not marry and portrays the Sadducees' question as reflecting a foolish ignorance of God's power.
In the earliest expressions of their faith that we have, Christians claimed that Jesus' resurrection showed that God singled out Jesus ahead of the future resurrection of the dead to show him uniquely worthy to be lord of all the elect. However, the paradigmatic significance of Jesus' resurrection was also very important for early Christians.
n Christianity's first few centuries, when believers often suffered severe persecution and even the threat of death, those who believed in Jesus' bodily resurrection found it particularly meaningful for their own circumstances. Jesus had been put to death in grisly fashion, but God had overturned Jesus' execution and, indeed, had given him a new and glorious body. So, they believed that they could face their own deaths as well as those of their loved ones in the firm hope that God would be faithful to them as well. They thought that they would share the same sort of immortal reaffirmation of their personal and bodily selves that Jesus had experienced. Elaine Pagels, a scholar of early Christianity, has argued that those Christians who regarded the body as unimportant, perhaps including "Gnostics," were less willing to face martyrdom for their faith and more willing to make gestures of acquiescence to the Romans—for example, by offering sacrifices to Roman gods—because they regarded actions done with their bodies as insignificant so long as in their hearts they held to their beliefs.
By contrast, Christians who believed in bodily resurrection seem to have regarded their own mortal coils as the crucial venues in which they were to live out their devotion to Christ. When these Christians were arraigned for their faith, they considered it genuine apostasy to give in to the gestures demanded by the Roman authorities. For them, inner devotion to Jesus had to be expressed in an outward faithfulness in their bodies—and they were ready to face martyrdom for their faith, encouraged by the prospect of bodily resurrection. Indeed, Christian martyrs are pictured as engaged in a battle with the Roman authorities (and the Devil, whom Christians saw as behind Roman malevolence toward them), with the martyrs' bodies as battlegrounds in which the integrity of their person and their personal salvation could be lost or retained.
Historically, then, how Christians have understood Jesus' "resurrection" says a lot about how they have understood themselves, whether they have a holistic view of the human person, whether they see bodily existence as trivial or crucial, and how they imagine full salvation to be manifested. Does salvation comprise a deliverance from the body into some sort of immediate and permanent postmortem bliss (which is actually much closer to popular Christian piety down the centuries), or does salvation require a new embodiment of some sort, a more robust reaffirmation of persons? This sort of question originally was integral to early Jewish and Christian belief in the resurrection. In all the varieties of early Christianity, and in all the various understandings of what his "resurrection" meant, Jesus was typically the model, the crucial paradigm for believers, what had happened to him seen as prototypical of what believers were to hope for themselves.
Become a fan of Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Larry W. Hurtado is head of the School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. His recent books are The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? and Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.
How the first Christians understood Jesus' resurrection.
By Larry Hurtado
Posted Friday, April 2, 2010, at 9:48 AM ET To observant Christians, Easter is about much more than bunnies and chocolate eggs. In 2008, Larry Hurtado examined how early believers came to grips with the idea of Jesus' resurrection. His column is reprinted below.
Easter Sunday represents the foundational claim of Christian faith, the highest day of the Christian year as celebration of Jesus' resurrection. But many Christians are unsure what the claim that Jesus had been raised to new life after being crucified actually means—while non-Christians often find the whole idea of resurrection bemusing and even ridiculous.
These differences over what Jesus' resurrection represents and discomfort with the whole idea are nothing new, however: Christians in the first few centuries also had difficulty embracing the idea of a real, bodily resurrection. Then, as now, resurrection was not the favored post-death existence—people much preferred to think that after dying, souls headed to some ethereal realm of light and tranquility. During the Roman period, many regarded the body as a pitiful thing at best and at worst a real drag upon the soul, even a kind of prison from which the soul was liberated at death. So, it's not surprising that there were Christians who simply found bodily resurrection stupid and repugnant. To make the idea palatable, they instead interpreted all references to Jesus' resurrection in strictly spiritual terms. Some thought of Jesus as having shed his earthly body in his death, assuming a purely spiritual state, and returning to his original status in the divine realm. In other cases, Jesus' earthly body and his death were even seen as illusory, the divine Christ merely appearing to have a normal body (rather like Clark Kent!).
The idea of a real, personal resurrection—meaning a new bodily existence of individuals after death, in one way or another—did not originate with Christianity or with claims about Jesus. Instead, it seems to be first clearly reflected in Jewish texts dated to sometime in the second century B.C., such as the biblical book of Daniel 12:2. At the time, it was a genuinely innovative idea. (Alan Segal's book Life After Death gives an expansive discussion of the origins of the idea of resurrection.) Many peoples of the ancient world hoped for one or another sort of eternal life, but it was usually thought of as a kind of bodiless existence of soul or spirit set in realms of the dead that might or might not be happy, pleasant places. In still other expectations, death might bring a merging of individuals with some ocean of being, like a drop of water falling into the sea.
The ancient Jewish and early Christian idea of personal resurrection represented a new emphasis on individuals and the importance of embodied existence beyond the mere survival or enhancement of the soul, although there was debate about the precise nature of the post-resurrection body. Some seem to have supposed it would be a new body of flesh and bones, closely linked to the corpse in the grave but not liable to decay or death. Others imagined a body more like that of an angel. But whatever its precise nature, the hope of resurrection reflected a strongly holistic view of the person as requiring some sort of body to be complete. With ancient Jews, early Christians saw resurrection as an act of God, a divine gift of radically new life, not an expression of some inherent immortality of the soul. That is, the dead don't rise by themselves; they are raised by God and will experience resurrection collectively as one of the events that comprise God's future redemption of the world and vindication of the righteous.
In the ancient Judaism of Jesus' time, however, resurrection was not universally affirmed. Some devout Jews (particularly the religious party called Sadducees) apparently considered the whole idea ridiculous, as evidenced by the New Testament, which gives us some of the most direct references to disputes among ancient Jews about the matter. In Mark 12:18-27, Sadducees taunt Jesus with a question about a woman married several times, asking him whose wife she will be following the resurrection. Jesus strongly affirms resurrection, but he insists that those resurrected will not marry and portrays the Sadducees' question as reflecting a foolish ignorance of God's power.
In the earliest expressions of their faith that we have, Christians claimed that Jesus' resurrection showed that God singled out Jesus ahead of the future resurrection of the dead to show him uniquely worthy to be lord of all the elect. However, the paradigmatic significance of Jesus' resurrection was also very important for early Christians.
n Christianity's first few centuries, when believers often suffered severe persecution and even the threat of death, those who believed in Jesus' bodily resurrection found it particularly meaningful for their own circumstances. Jesus had been put to death in grisly fashion, but God had overturned Jesus' execution and, indeed, had given him a new and glorious body. So, they believed that they could face their own deaths as well as those of their loved ones in the firm hope that God would be faithful to them as well. They thought that they would share the same sort of immortal reaffirmation of their personal and bodily selves that Jesus had experienced. Elaine Pagels, a scholar of early Christianity, has argued that those Christians who regarded the body as unimportant, perhaps including "Gnostics," were less willing to face martyrdom for their faith and more willing to make gestures of acquiescence to the Romans—for example, by offering sacrifices to Roman gods—because they regarded actions done with their bodies as insignificant so long as in their hearts they held to their beliefs.
By contrast, Christians who believed in bodily resurrection seem to have regarded their own mortal coils as the crucial venues in which they were to live out their devotion to Christ. When these Christians were arraigned for their faith, they considered it genuine apostasy to give in to the gestures demanded by the Roman authorities. For them, inner devotion to Jesus had to be expressed in an outward faithfulness in their bodies—and they were ready to face martyrdom for their faith, encouraged by the prospect of bodily resurrection. Indeed, Christian martyrs are pictured as engaged in a battle with the Roman authorities (and the Devil, whom Christians saw as behind Roman malevolence toward them), with the martyrs' bodies as battlegrounds in which the integrity of their person and their personal salvation could be lost or retained.
Historically, then, how Christians have understood Jesus' "resurrection" says a lot about how they have understood themselves, whether they have a holistic view of the human person, whether they see bodily existence as trivial or crucial, and how they imagine full salvation to be manifested. Does salvation comprise a deliverance from the body into some sort of immediate and permanent postmortem bliss (which is actually much closer to popular Christian piety down the centuries), or does salvation require a new embodiment of some sort, a more robust reaffirmation of persons? This sort of question originally was integral to early Jewish and Christian belief in the resurrection. In all the varieties of early Christianity, and in all the various understandings of what his "resurrection" meant, Jesus was typically the model, the crucial paradigm for believers, what had happened to him seen as prototypical of what believers were to hope for themselves.
Become a fan of Slate on Facebook. Follow us on Twitter.
Larry W. Hurtado is head of the School of Divinity, University of Edinburgh. His recent books are The Earliest Christian Artifacts: Manuscripts and Christian Origins, How on Earth Did Jesus Become a God? and Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity.
“Tea Party” Merchants of Fear
An Editorial by Warren J. Blumenfeld
As a student of history, and a longtime resident of Boston, I am very troubled by the so-called “Tea Party” movement’s current (mis)appropriation of the term.
The original direct action protest on December 16, 1773 by British American colonists was the culmination of longstanding grievances against the British government under the battle cry of “no taxation without representation.” According to the British Constitution, only Parliament could levy taxes, and since colonists were prohibited from voting for members of Parliament or of sending their own representatives to serve in Parliament, they considered the series of taxes, including the tea tax, a violation of their rights as citizens of the British realm.
The current movement contains no well-developed political philosophy other than extreme hatred of what they consider “Big Government,” which they view as the cause of the nation’s troubles.
House Minority leader, U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), referred to Teabaggers as “great patriots,” and stated: “It’s not enough, however, for Republicans to simply voice respect for what the Tea Partyers are doing, praise their efforts, and participate in their rallies. Republicans must listen to them, stand with them, and walk among them.”
The Teabaggers with their Republican allies have very deftly used the rhetoric of fear verging on paranoia to exploit people’s anxieties about their economic well being and, quite ironically, even to vote against their own economic interests.
Tea Party leaders espouse all forms of dire warnings, and Boehner asserted that the health care bill “is Armageddon” and “it will ruin our nation.” To the contrary, the newly passed law, while unfortunately severely neutralized over the past year, actually serves middle class and working class people by limiting insurance companies from restricting coverage to people with previous conditions, it increasing the rights of parents to continue covering their adult children on their policies until the age of 26, it provides greater choices in health care coverage, and as projected by the National Budget Office, it will reduce the deficit over the next decade.
I do see, however, a clear parallel between the protestors aboard the ship on Boston harbor and the recent Teabaggers. Through a collective mythology, many of us were taught in school that the protesters donned Indian clothing and face paint for their tea dumping actions. In actuality, while the majority were not so attired, some were. I find this problematic since they were acting out racist stereotypes of the so-called “thieving heathens.”
While I would hope that the vast majority of current Tea Party Members would not personally condone oppressive actions, a number of followers have engaged in racist, homophobic, ableist, and misogynistic name calling and other acts of violence.
For example, at a rally held in front of the U.S. Capitol shortly before the House was to vote on the impending health care legislation, a protestor spat upon Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), another called Representative John Lewis (D-Ga.) a “ni---,” and someone called gay Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) a “fa—ot” through distinctive lisppy intonations. And supporting the protestors, Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) held up and physically swatted a picture of Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) from atop the Capitol balcony.
Protestors throughout the country hurled bricks through windows of some Democratic representatives and a Democratic Party office, sent death threats and racist faxes, and even delivered a coffin to one congressperson’s office.
At a Tea Party rally held in Columbus Ohio, some protestors heckled a U.S. veteran who sat on the ground holding up a sign “I Support Health Care.” Screamed one Tea Partyer: “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong damn town.” Another threw five-dollar bills in his face shouting: “I’ll decide when to give you money!”
In a March 23, 2010 tweet, in reference to the passage of the Congressional health care bill, Sarah Palin commented: “Commonsense Conservatives and Lovers of America, Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” In addition, on her website, she constructed a page listing vulnerable Democratic Party elected officials projected through the cross hairs of a rifle. While I do not connect the current spate of violent actions to Palin’s words, I wonder how her statements constructively contribute to the debate.
I actually agree with Tea Party follower’s contention that great economic disparities exist and are widening in this country, though not for the reasons they assert. So-called “Big Government” is not the cause of the problem. The relatively unregulated and unfettered Wall Street, banking, and “free market” systems constitute the actual threats.
According to the organization, United for a Fair Economy, by 2004, the top 10% of the population owned 71% of accumulated wealth in the country. Subdivided even further, the top 1% owned 31% of the country’s wealth. The wealthiest 1% own approximately 45% of all stocks and mutual funds. In addition, the very rich pay less in taxes than at any point in recent history. Overall, the concentration of wealth is even more extreme today than during the Great Depression.
I find it unbelievable that one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world fails to provide quality health care to an estimated 47 million of its citizens. Echoing this sentiment, President Nickolas Sarkozy of France, during a speech this week at Columbia University stated: “The very fact that there should have been such a violent debate simply on the fact that the poorest of Americans should not be left out in the streets without a cent to look after them ... is something astonishing to us [in France].”
Quality health care coverage must be considered as a right and not as a privilege for some. Collectively, we cannot allow the merchants of hate to distort and manipulate the facts and divert our attention from the genuine roots of the problems we currently face.
Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Office 515-294-5931 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 515-294-5931 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Home 515-232-8230 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 515-232-8230 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
wblumen@iastate.edu
As a student of history, and a longtime resident of Boston, I am very troubled by the so-called “Tea Party” movement’s current (mis)appropriation of the term.
The original direct action protest on December 16, 1773 by British American colonists was the culmination of longstanding grievances against the British government under the battle cry of “no taxation without representation.” According to the British Constitution, only Parliament could levy taxes, and since colonists were prohibited from voting for members of Parliament or of sending their own representatives to serve in Parliament, they considered the series of taxes, including the tea tax, a violation of their rights as citizens of the British realm.
The current movement contains no well-developed political philosophy other than extreme hatred of what they consider “Big Government,” which they view as the cause of the nation’s troubles.
House Minority leader, U.S. Representative John Boehner (R-Ohio), referred to Teabaggers as “great patriots,” and stated: “It’s not enough, however, for Republicans to simply voice respect for what the Tea Partyers are doing, praise their efforts, and participate in their rallies. Republicans must listen to them, stand with them, and walk among them.”
The Teabaggers with their Republican allies have very deftly used the rhetoric of fear verging on paranoia to exploit people’s anxieties about their economic well being and, quite ironically, even to vote against their own economic interests.
Tea Party leaders espouse all forms of dire warnings, and Boehner asserted that the health care bill “is Armageddon” and “it will ruin our nation.” To the contrary, the newly passed law, while unfortunately severely neutralized over the past year, actually serves middle class and working class people by limiting insurance companies from restricting coverage to people with previous conditions, it increasing the rights of parents to continue covering their adult children on their policies until the age of 26, it provides greater choices in health care coverage, and as projected by the National Budget Office, it will reduce the deficit over the next decade.
I do see, however, a clear parallel between the protestors aboard the ship on Boston harbor and the recent Teabaggers. Through a collective mythology, many of us were taught in school that the protesters donned Indian clothing and face paint for their tea dumping actions. In actuality, while the majority were not so attired, some were. I find this problematic since they were acting out racist stereotypes of the so-called “thieving heathens.”
While I would hope that the vast majority of current Tea Party Members would not personally condone oppressive actions, a number of followers have engaged in racist, homophobic, ableist, and misogynistic name calling and other acts of violence.
For example, at a rally held in front of the U.S. Capitol shortly before the House was to vote on the impending health care legislation, a protestor spat upon Representative Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), another called Representative John Lewis (D-Ga.) a “ni---,” and someone called gay Representative Barney Frank (D-Mass.) a “fa—ot” through distinctive lisppy intonations. And supporting the protestors, Representative Steve King (R-Iowa) held up and physically swatted a picture of Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) from atop the Capitol balcony.
Protestors throughout the country hurled bricks through windows of some Democratic representatives and a Democratic Party office, sent death threats and racist faxes, and even delivered a coffin to one congressperson’s office.
At a Tea Party rally held in Columbus Ohio, some protestors heckled a U.S. veteran who sat on the ground holding up a sign “I Support Health Care.” Screamed one Tea Partyer: “If you’re looking for a handout, you’re in the wrong damn town.” Another threw five-dollar bills in his face shouting: “I’ll decide when to give you money!”
In a March 23, 2010 tweet, in reference to the passage of the Congressional health care bill, Sarah Palin commented: “Commonsense Conservatives and Lovers of America, Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” In addition, on her website, she constructed a page listing vulnerable Democratic Party elected officials projected through the cross hairs of a rifle. While I do not connect the current spate of violent actions to Palin’s words, I wonder how her statements constructively contribute to the debate.
I actually agree with Tea Party follower’s contention that great economic disparities exist and are widening in this country, though not for the reasons they assert. So-called “Big Government” is not the cause of the problem. The relatively unregulated and unfettered Wall Street, banking, and “free market” systems constitute the actual threats.
According to the organization, United for a Fair Economy, by 2004, the top 10% of the population owned 71% of accumulated wealth in the country. Subdivided even further, the top 1% owned 31% of the country’s wealth. The wealthiest 1% own approximately 45% of all stocks and mutual funds. In addition, the very rich pay less in taxes than at any point in recent history. Overall, the concentration of wealth is even more extreme today than during the Great Depression.
I find it unbelievable that one of the richest and most powerful countries in the world fails to provide quality health care to an estimated 47 million of its citizens. Echoing this sentiment, President Nickolas Sarkozy of France, during a speech this week at Columbia University stated: “The very fact that there should have been such a violent debate simply on the fact that the poorest of Americans should not be left out in the streets without a cent to look after them ... is something astonishing to us [in France].”
Quality health care coverage must be considered as a right and not as a privilege for some. Collectively, we cannot allow the merchants of hate to distort and manipulate the facts and divert our attention from the genuine roots of the problems we currently face.
Dr. Warren J. Blumenfeld
Department of Curriculum and Instruction
Iowa State University
Ames, IA 50011
Office 515-294-5931 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 515-294-5931 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
Home 515-232-8230 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 515-232-8230 end_of_the_skype_highlighting
wblumen@iastate.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)