I think there is something to Kerry's view of the Catholic Church as being relatively universalist, and Richard's view about the Catholic acceptance of those who have sinned, but there's a simpler explanation, that neither mentions, for the the Church's stance on illegal immigration in the United States: illegal immigrants tend to be Latin American, and so tend to be Catholic. Many Catholics in the United States are of Latin American ancestry, and their ordinary ethnocentrism will tend to push the Church's position in this direction. As well, it is in the institutional interest of the American dioceses to increase their membership and income by bringing in highly religious illegal immigrants. Compare the overwhelmingly positive Catholic reaction to illegal Mexican and Latin American immigration to the U.S. to the much more mixed reaction to Muslim immigration in the European Union.

Kerry invited Wonderment to her show?
Just freaking great.

Kudos to Kerry - excellent diavlog with Richard. At last I heard a description of an evangelical that seemed to encapsulate what they are. I always wondered what being "born again" meant. Now, I know. Like Richard most people I know don't read at all. My passion is reading. While on the subject David Wroblewski's debut recent novel "The Story of Edgar Sawtelle" is superb. John

I like Richard Rodriguez, but if people who are conventionally referred to as "white" are really pink, then by what standard is he "brown?" Most blacks are brown, strictly speaking, but Richard Rodriquez is something between pink and brown. Not that any of this is terribly important, I suppose, but he needs to be more consistent.

Richard is simply wrong when he says others (our culture, media, etc.) deny him the word "love." Homosexuals love other men, the male ones, the way most men love women: that is what homosexuality is, and the way it is widely understood. As for the legal institution of marriage, the real issue here is children and the role of the biological family in the nurture of children and the transmission of culture from one generation to the next. Marriage is the cultural institution that establishes the family as a fundamental institution, without which our civilization and its "many blessings of liberty' would likely decay. Maybe not all civilizations are worth preserving, especially those based on servitude and human inequality. But this one is different. Unless you address these fundamental issues you are really missing the point, in my opinion. At least give it a try. As for the question of whether Richard and his partner of 30 years may describe themselves as "married" or whether others might freely describe them as "married" -- no problem! You two apparently are married. "Let us not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments."

Quoting JoeK: Kerry invited Wonderment to her show?
Just freaking great.

Is this true or are you just joking? Seriously?

Gracias, pero no soy yo. I was teaching Richard's autobiography "Hunger of Memory" (5*****s) 20 years ago, so a smidge of his genius may have rubbed off on me. But just a smidge.

The fundamental point is, that the definition of marriage you seem to understand too conveniently is historically only one denotation among many. Using procreation as a standard is also convenient. It also leaves out adoption. And, speaking for those like my wife and me who have not been able to conceive either because of fertility issues or medical problems, such a narrow fixation is insulting.

Quoting Wonderment: Gracias, pero no soy yo.

I was teaching Richard's autobiography "Hunger of Memory" (5*****s) 20 years ago, so a smidge of his genius may have rubbed off on me. But just a smidge.

Yes, I figured when Richard disclosed his religion. I have admired Richard for years and always looked forward to listening to his poems. Sometimes his words communicated a lot of sadness, but they were always thought provoking and moving. Wonderment, you have your own genius and we admire you too!!!

Great diavlog! Kerry did a great job interviewing and sharing ideas with Richard. I find Richard's ability to navigate difficult and profound topics truly remarkable. A lot to think about... and learn. Thank you!

Rodriguez complains about literacy and book publishing, yet it seems quaint. Of course, I'm an evil Gen X'er. I like bookstores, except for the twenty discount tables in the front blocking the stacks. Yet, as an expat, the internet - and bhTV - is a godsend, because buying a book costs twice the ticket price in postage and custom fees. I might be able to buy second-hand books from other expats - I'm sure Rodriguez would take umbrage at that, too - but the internet and e-books allow me to pick what I want, like a book plugged on a diavlog. Unfortunately, Rodriguez's book is not available in that format, so I doubt I'll be able to read him. And, I want to read his books now. I also read yesterday, that Houghton Mifflin Harcourt - the name itself speaks volumes about the state of the industry - was refusing manuscript submissions. There's also TNR crowing about the unmasking of Herman Rosenblat's Angel at the Fence. All three point to what I think is the problem: delivering what people want to read in a form they can afford. I'm glad newspapers are going out of business, because why should a corporation dictate my reading habits? Why can't Rodriguez post his

Quoting Utilitarian: Many Catholics in the United States are of Latin American ancestry, and their ordinary ethnocentrism will tend to push the Church's position in this direction. As well, it is in the institutional interest of the American dioceses to increase their membership and income by bringing in highly religious illegal immigrants.

I think this highlights the illicit connection between organized religion - mostly Christianity - and politics that the Church has fostered since Constantine. The Church, a metaphor for all believers, not a particular business, is concerned with salvation and justice, not with receipts and attendance. These are just very secular ways of calculating how many sinners are being saved -and not very accurate. Paul was not concerned with attendance per se, but with saving as many people as he could reach. And then, through baptism, business organizations cheat, because babies don't require convincing. But, speaking of traditions, as a Lutheran, I too learned life was suffering, but also that salvation came through obedient faith in a God that more than likely will not reciprocate. That's Christ's job. Most church-goers accept that their attendance will ensure salvation, but, as I was taught, there is no certainty. Therefore, believers can only believe more, and through their

Getting very tired of these pundits putting words into the mouths and ideas into the heads of various evangelical Christian leaders. Last week we had Sara Robinson of the New America Foundation calling Rick Warren a "denier of global warming," despite his signing a "call to action" on global warming published by the National Association of Evangelicals. Now we get Mr. Rodriguez calling Rick Warren a "son of Jerry Falwell" and accusing him of nothing more than naked ambition--despite the work his church is doing to help aids victims in Africa and giving away nine tenths of his income to charity. You don't like his position on gays and gay marriage? Fine, please make your case against him on the merits, not on silly ad hominem name-calling.

Just once, it would be refreshing to hear a libertarian-minded dot-com billionaire fret over the cultural costs of the rise of the Internet, or, conversely, a crusty old man of letters with ties to religious orthodoxy embrace Ray Kurzweil's "trans-humanist" flights of fancy. In the last five minutes or so of this diavlog, I mostly heard a subtext of FEAR coming from a man who is finding himself in a world (and an emerging future world) in which he can't even wrap his head around the basic facts of the new reality, let alone the possible wondrous virtues. This sort of deranged nostalgia seems to come up on bloggingheads a lot, actually, whether it's somebody lamenting that we don't "all" get our news from one CBS anchorman anymore, or fretting over the fact that the business model of the traditional "local" newspaper (which has been dead and replaced with a service of re-printing AP wire stories for decades now) no longer seems sustainable. The reason so many of our traditional organs of information management are going away is because they are no longer the best means of providing that which we

After reading RRs piece to Obama, it's amazing that someone so smart can be just as stuck in the racial identity whirlpool as any typical La Raza idiot. My advice to Obama is please DO NOT speak to me as a 'brown person'. I do not care what color you are and I certainly hope that you never consider my color (I am mixed-race like both Obama and Rodriguez). Jump ahead of these loons who are clamoring for recognition of racial identity politics and just be American. It's not that Americans are more sad as per RR, it's that we are so wealthy that our drug habits which are replicated in many other countries have a greater impact on the drug-supply countries because of money and volume. Then again, to say this problem is purely American is to be clueless. Mexico struggles with soaring drug addiction rate “We have the impression that drug dealers have beards, cowboy boots and sombreros. But no, they are housewives, old people, ordinary people,” Rubido said in an interview in his Mexico City office. “They don’t believe they are doing anything wrong and are just looking to

Simply fantastic discussion.

Quoting harkin: [...]

Hear, hear. Good post, harkin.

She's so dreamy.

Anyone see the movie "The Good Shephard?" My memory is a little foggy but there was a scene that had Matt Damon a CIA agent speaking with an Italian American man. The man said to Matt "the blacks have their music, we have our pasta, but what do you have?" I think the answer was that this straight, white guy had "the agency" or "the country." The rub being that white people have no culture like these young students say to Richard Rodriguez. John

After reading RRs piece to Obama, it's amazing that someone so smart can be just as stuck in the racial identity whirlpool as any typical La Raza idiot.

First of all people in La Raza are not idiots. Second, I think you grossly misinterpreted the essay on Obama. What RR means by "brown' is INclusive, not EXclusive. He's saying that all people have mixes of cultures and that the American fixation of seeing things in black and white terms is a debilitating distortion of reality.

Boy, oh boy!

Among the questions I wish Kerry had asked RR is what makes the label "brown" less of a fiction than "white" or "black". I also would've like him to elaborate on his description of Obama's surrogate fathers as "false fathers".

I don't think he wants to label anyone as "brown", but is simply using it to "break down this white/black dialectic in America" as he puts it.

Quoting Fsharp: I don't think he wants to label anyone as "brown", but is simply using it to "break down this white/black dialectic in America" as he puts it.

Well how would you explain his advice to Obama that he should speak to Hispanics as a "brown" man? Why would it be less of fiction to present himself as a brown man than a black man?

A Mexican on Bloggingheads?? Apparently taking a low-wage ($0) job away from low-skilled American workers (Mickey.) The Reconquista is ON! I haven't had a chance to dig into this one yet but I look forward to it. Judging by the comments it looks like a keeper ;-)

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: A Mexican on Bloggingheads?? Apparently taking a low-wage ($0) job away from low-skilled American workers (Mickey.) The Reconquista is ON!

LOL! Funniest comment ever.

Because he is not just 'black', he is complicated. To deny that he has 'white' ancestors is to buy into the idea 'blackness' taints. I think, after reading RR's essay on Mr. Obama, that 'brown' just stands in for complicated. I am complicated even though you might call me 'white'. You see this even in school playgrounds in all 'white' neighborhoods; school children ask, "what are you?" and the answer comes back ".15 irish/.50 german/.25 english/ .1 indian". Even if it doesn't add up, it is more accurate than just "white".

Quoting grits-n-gravy: Well how would you explain his advice to Obama that he should speak to Hispanics as a "brown" man? Why would it be less of fiction to present himself as a brown man than a black man?

He's using the term brown as analogous to "mixed." He want's Obama to speak to hispanics as people who have a mixed Spanish and Native American ancestry, just as he has a mixed Kenyan and Kansan ancestry. As to your original comment on RR's description of Rev Wright being, in some ways, Obama's false father, I interpret it as reverend wright being a "false" father figure in as much as he has no real connection to Obama's cultural heritage.

Quoting Fsharp: He's using the term brown as analogous to "mixed." He want's Obama to speak to hispanics as people who have a mixed Spanish and Native American ancestry, just as he has a mixed Kenyan and Kansan ancestry.

He could speak to Mexicans that way and still remain "black". One of the ironies of the "one drop rule" is that it cultivated the kind of inclusiveness of varying phenotypes within the black community that RR says the term "brown" fosters. What I'm getting at is RR is being a little disingenuous when he says "brown" refers to mixture not color but then turns around and portrays a lightskinned person who self-identifies as black as only having in mind the color black, literally. Consequently I didn't find his remarks on this topic credible.

As to your original comment on RR's description of Rev Wright being, in some ways, Obama's false father, I interpret it as reverend wright being a "false" father figure in as much as he has no real connection to Obama's cultural heritage.

This is what I hoped he'd elaborate on. There are biological fathers, and then there are cultural or spiritual fathers. If

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: A Mexican on Bloggingheads?? Apparently taking a low-wage ($0) job away from low-skilled American workers (Mickey.) The Reconquista is ON!

I haven't had a chance to dig into this one yet but I look forward to it. Judging by the comments it looks like a keeper ;-)

I agree with TS. Your comment is hilarious! And I also would like to see Richard back at BhTV.

Quoting Ocean: And I also would like to see Richard back at BhTV.

I'm glad you said that. I haven't actually watched the whole thing yet, and wanted to wait until I had before I expressed my wish that he would return. But I think it's clear from the other comments that a lot of us would be happy to have him back. We don't get NEARLY enough of his kind of perspective. (Or, at least I don't.)

Quoting TwinSwords: I'm glad you said that. I haven't actually watched the whole thing yet, and wanted to wait until I had before I expressed my wish that he would return. But I think it's clear from the other comments that a lot of us would be happy to have him back. We don't get NEARLY enough of his kind of perspective. (Or, at least I don't.)

Yes, he presents a deeper perspective about various issues. And he counterbalances our materialistic selves. You may agree or disagree with him but he always makes you think a little harder. Hey, I really like the guy!

I also really liked the way he asked Kerry serious questions about her life. I've never seen that kind of interchange on Bheads before. I think it's old school literary sensibilities. We could use a few more artists and writers around here.

Quoting Wonderment: I also really liked the way he asked Kerry serious questions about her life. I've never seen that kind of interchange on Bheads before.

Richard is very soft spoken and he asks personal questions in a way that doesn't feel intrusive. He is at the same time disclosing aspects of his own life, so that the other person doesn't feel 'interrogated'. It's more like talking to a good friend. He seems to be a good listener too. I think it's old school literary sensibilities. We could use a few more artists and writers around here.[/quote] Yes, it's probably old school sensibilities as you say. Perhaps part of its appeal has to do with that nostalgia of tranquil conversations with old friends. I wonder how younger people perceive him.

Poor Richard. His instincts are right. As Uncle Eb joked... Fee for services rendered: Zero. Increased book sales due to bhtv exposure?: Maybe. His satisfaction has to come from our expression of appreciation for his efforts. I have read much of his work and enjoy even more his soft-spoken style. Some of his insights require pushback, but as Wonderment and Ocean expressed, the value is beyond politics. His art compels self-reflection and humility. Something likely lost on the Silicon valley exec with the Lambo locked in first gear:
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/167...4:44&out=56:44

Quoting Ocean: Yes, he presents a deeper perspective about various issues. And he counterbalances our materialistic selves. You may agree or disagree with him but he always makes you think a little harder. Hey, I really like the guy!

I read his first book and the title escapes me now. I followed him in the 80's and early 90's and he was accused by some as being inauthentic, a sell out, the usual derogatory stuff. What I like about Richard is he takes the deep subjects head on and doesn't equivocate. He has thought them through and says what he thinks no matter who it's to. I guess that would eliminate him for any kind of elective office since the key there is telling people what they want to hear. John

Quoting bkjazfan: I read his first book and the title escapes me now. I followed him in the 80's and early 90's and he was accused by some as being inauthentic, a sell out, the usual derogatory stuff. What I like about Richard is he takes the deep subjects head on and doesn't equivocate. He has thought them through and says what he thinks no matter who it's to. I guess that would eliminate him for any kind of elective office since the key there is telling people what they want to hear.

John

If by "elective office" you mean politicians, I guess you're right. Whether you call it diplomacy or political maneuvers it would be very difficult or impossible to be absolutely honest all the time. Sometimes it's better to refrain from saying things that may be inflammatory or just counterproductive. But you worded your comment in a way that requires a little more elaboration. There is a wide range between what I describe as applied to an otherwise honest politician, to more extremes forms in which people (politicians or not) may say only what the audience expects or demands. There are many possible

Ocean, Hello! Essentially Richard's views are the same now as they were 25 years ago. His positons on the Catholic Church, Mexicans being happier than Americans, race, what have you, have not changed one iota. I have heard the Irish nuns teaching him English about 10 times. The same with the crucifix and the barren cross. Where he got some heat was his views on affirmative action. He turned down a position at a prestigious univerrsity because he felt they were just filling a quota. In his own personal way he had a coherent but detailed explanation why he felt it was inappropriate and that he didn't warrant it. In the 80's and early 90's that put him in bad stead with some younger Hispanics. John

Thanks to KH and RR for an interesting conversation. I generally enjoyed this DV, but do think more push-back was called for at times. It had the flavor of a cocktail party chat; RR would deliver a "good line" about X, then move on to another before the first could be fully explored. As an adoptee (from infancy) who knows nothing about his biological parents, my genetic and cultural heritage are a mystery. I suppose it is liberating in a way. I've never felt that this lack of information robbed me of my identity. But that's just me. I do think that if my adoptive parents had been closer adherents to traditions of their own cultural heritage and tried to impress them upon me, I may have felt more of a need to discover my own "true" roots.

Richard Rodriguez's book BROWN: The last discovery of America is a book that I attempted to get 30 college students to read two years ago. Most of them read it, or at least made an attempt. Why did I want them to take up what has happened and is happening with the melding and blending of cultures, languages and bloodlines? Because that's our nation's future, if there is going to be a future. This process started nearly 500 years ago with Mexico during Montezuma's reign when Hernan Cortes' unwelcomed conquistadors landed. The Europeans were not "white" but olive,tan,pink,light yellow and Galic pale. The two people's languages were as foreign from eachother as Chinese is from English. Yet, today in Mexico there's even been some language blending as there has been dietary blending --from IslamicCatholic Spain to AngloAmerica.
The Mexicans were not "red" but dark slate, olive, copper, tanned leather. Today Mexicans appear in every shade of flesh, maybe one day, people will see how being "brown" is very American. More of Richard on bloggingheads!

Yes, Americans are sad. Collectively, we take copious drugs because we are in denial about our sadness and drugs help to distract, mitigate, or temporarily dispel our sadness. To make matters worse, prescription medications are pushed at us hourly on TV and street drugs are still considered by the young, and those with more money than brains, to be "cool" and "edgy" and empowering. Street drugs promise the ultimate in "instant gratification", and God knows, Americans are addicted to instant gratification. There are many reasons, from simple to complex, for the sadness but it is there. Our access to instant information --more often than not videos and reports of human misery of every description--and a loss of connection to any sense of community have to be major factors. We are suffering overwhelm in an unprecedented way. Coping skills for conflict and emotional pain are not taught, and in many cases, are not known or understood. I could go on and on, but that's because each new assault on any nurtured sense of peace of mind becomes cumulative. The older I get, the more I realize that this life truly is "a veil of tears." Richard is amazing and insightful. I resolve to read

I have only watched the first couple segments, but I must chime in that yes, Richard is a GREAT BH guest. The man just emanates compassion and kindness in a way that is truly inspiring. When I think of the Christian ideal, it's pretty close to Richard's demeanor (ironic considering how many Christians would hate his liberal ideals let alone his sexual preference.) When he spoke about the Church as being "his church", it showed one of the elements of the faithful that I actually admire. So far, great diavlog.

Thanks guys. Glad you enjoyed my twisted sense of humor. Maybe the only answer for Mickey to prevent the Mexican takeover of Bloggingheads is for all the 'heads to start a union!!! For the record, "I see black people" (when Glen and John McWhorter made their first appearance) is still the gold-standard for funniest comment ever, in my opinion. So I believe Nate still holds the record (apologies if it was another commenter.)

maybe tom cruise can try this line out next time: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/167...2:02&out=12:11

Fascinating conversation. Material that lingers and deepens. Thank you. Richard Rodriguez talks about exploring what the feminine version of church/faith might look like. Bloggingheads should set up a conversation between Rodriguez and Sister Joan Chittister on this very topic. Please.

Quoting nikkibong: maybe tom cruise can try this line out next time:

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/167...2:02&out=12:11

Heh. One problem, though: no one who is morose spends any time jumping on couches.

Just wanted to thank Kerry for having Richard on. I have been a huge fan of his since I first read Hunger of Memory in high school. I don't get to say many nice things about Barack Obama, but I thought he had a great line when he was asked what kind of puppy his family was going to get: "Our preference would be to get a shelter puppy, but obviously a lot of shelter dogs are mutts like me." When ever people have asked me what I consider myself (a littler like when Richard asked Kerry if she identified herself 'white') I've always told people I was a 'mutt'. With all due respect to Richard, I think 'mutts like me' is a much better formulation than 'brown'.

Hey Conn, you have been dogged many times in the forum... So mutt it is. Happy New Year.

Hegemony, european hegemony in particular, seems to be the dodge in current discussions of race and culture. the white/black template is a particular cover-up of the imposition of cultural, religious, and economic reality, by the victor over the vanquished. blurring cultural heritage does not sharpen world view. history, while not the same as the past, offers many points of view of the past, often obscuring as much as it reveals. hegemony, inho, is the major actor in our common human past, yet no one talks about it, and it's implications in current and future events.
many people on this planet, dress, worship and speak in a manner not of their fore-bearers! various cultural groups arguing with one another about which language, of their group's particular conqueror, should prevail, is interesting. Kerry's little dance around whether she calls herself white was interesting! i guess she was saying that she is a hipper version of white, than the german-nordic iowa whites, a paler shade of white?? to me, an european-american by any other name is just as sweet, be they common or elite!

Since Rodriguez got into the whole "brownness" discussion I'll bring this up: So a somewhat crazy aunt of mine forwarded me a stupid e-mail about Michael Richards (from Seinfeld) and how white people can't show "pride" without being seen as racist, and how black people can call us honky but we can't use the N-word and how all the minority cultures get holidays and history months etc., except for the poor white man. Sob, sob. I began to group reply just how ridiculous the whole thing was based on the fact that A.) "white pride" as an expression has been tied to the Klan, Aryan movements etc. for several years, so whether you like it or not that's the association that a person risks by using it, B.) "Pride" movements typically are reactions by the oppressed people, and seeing how, leaving aside delusions re: affirmative action, white people have never been oppressed in ANY way in this country (or any other), based on their skin color, there has never been a need for a Pride movement, C.) Michael Richards never went to court regarding his racially tinged explosion (contrary to the claims of the e-mail), and D.) that like

I agree. White was invented by "whites" to oppress "non-whites." Whiteness is inherently a doctrine of racial supremacy and has little, if anything, to do with skin color or genes. Most ethnic markers are based on language, religion, historical experience, geography, art, etc. The larger the category, the blurrier and more meaningless the putative cultural/ethnic content. For example, identifying as a "white" (European) or an "Asian." These categories refer to vast land masses with hundreds of languages, several regions and vastly dissimilar historical experiences. We need "whiteness" in this country as a category solely to reduce discrimination and enforce civil rights violations against non-whites. But outside of that legal context, it's a ridiculous category. Richard R. asked the right question of Kerry: "Do you consider yourself white?" She stumbled over the answer because (I'm guessing) she didn't want to identify as post-racial or non-white, but on the other hand, hadn't quite rejected the mythology of "whiteness" that we've all grown up with.

Quoting bkjazfan: Oh, I haven't watched the entire diavlog with Richard Rodriguez but have noticed he is pricking the bubbles of political correctness at a rapid fire rate. There are his views on Obama's race, people callling themselves white, the word gay for homosexuals and these are just in the first 6 minutes or so. How refreshing it is listening to a commentator who isn't bound by our contemporary speech codes.

What makes you think that Richard was violating any PC "speech codes"? I think your comment shows that you haven't grokked how PC etiquette works. Nothing that Richard said is contrary to it. Some fans of PC might disagree with Richard's impression of the word "gay", but practically none of them would be offended by it. If you are familiar with the original meaning of "gay", how can you avoid seeing the irony in a headline reading "Gay Teens at Risk for Depression"?