A Sin And A Shame: Soul Voyeurism* And Harlem “Gospel Tours” [Racialigious]
By Guest Contributor Fiqah, originally published at Possum Stew
Some background: for most of my adult life, I have been a fugitive from religion, the monotheistic “Big Three”, anyway. (Sorry, any faith doctrine that includes an interventionist, anthropomorphic, masculine god/godhead is prolly gonna earn some side-eye from me.) Because my sociopolitical views and general life philosophy are widely regarded as “radical,” the decision to not participate in often conservative organized religion was a sensible and organic one. The Bébé Fiqah trauma that led to my adult decision to be an unrepentant heathen/sinner/whateverthehell is all a very loooooong story that nobody wants to hear, so I’ll sum up by saying that until recently outside of weddings, baptisms, mitzvahs, and funerals, Grown-Up Fiqah rarely darkened the doorstep of any house of worship.
However, when one of my elderly neighbors, a very dapper Georgia born-and-bred gentleman, invited me to come to his Southern Baptist church here in Harlem last fall, I accepted. I was going through a particularly difficult time emotionally, and while the choir was sorta weak (sorry, I’m Southern, and we have standards for this kinda thing), I found the service overall to be very spiritually uplifting and healing. I was delighted by the sermon, as well as the inclusive spirit of the congregation. (”All are welcome” is the credo of just about every Southern Baptist church, but in many places, certain”children of God” - non-Christians, LGBTIQ people - are most emphatically NOT welcomed.) I decided that maybe dropping in to Church every now and again wouldn’t be so terrible.
This morning, I attended services at another Southern Baptist church here in Harlem with my buddy J. who never misses a Sunday. In spite of the late summer swelter, I happily donned my Sunday best, pearls and good heels and headed on over to Church. In retrospect, I should have said some kinda prayer asking for patience and composure before I stepped out of the door. Because what awaited me at church would have tested even the most forgiving soul.
You see, J. and I were seated in one of the balcony pews, along with several Italian tourists. European and Asian tour groups and buses are a common sight on Sundays in Harlem. As annoying and ubiquitous as they are, for the most part, church tourists are ignorable. Well, this group must have been especially rude, because several members of the group spent much of the service talking. Talking. In spite of being shot admonishing looks by several parishioners and being approached by one of the ushers, the conversation, though lowered to murmuring, continued. The only time it seemed to stop was when the choir led the church in a song, when the tourists watched the choir and the other attendees with that peculiar mixture of fascination, fear and envy that White people in spaces of color often seem to have. As they watched us, my friend and I watched them, swaying all wrong, clapping off beat and basically turning what was a joyful but sacred experience into a spectacle for their entertainment.
I did my very best to remain silent and non-responsive. And I was good. I really was.
Until devotional.
I had just bowed my head, closed my eyes, and was just about to connect one-on-One with the Lord…when the cell phone of the woman sitting behind me went off.
And she answered.
“Oh, I don’t even believe THIS shit!” I said. J.’s eyes flew open, and she covered her startled gasp with her hand.
“Fiqah. I know…but….God,” she whispered anxiously, waving her hand at the ceiling to indicate God’s presence. An elderly woman sitting right in front of me had turned around to glare at me for cussin’ in the Lord’s house. My friend’s a long-time member of her church, so embarrassing her (and myself) further was not an option, but I was pissed.
“Unless that is God on the line she needs an ass-whooping. Jesus be an electrified fence,” I grumbled, frowning and closing my eyes as J. stifled her laughter.
Later at brunch, we talked about what had gone down. Both of us had attended church in Harlem, so we both knew that the tour groups were common. It wasn’t the first time we noticed tourists – whose presence alone is disruptive – acting out in Church. We had both also noticed that the groups seemed to be getting larger, testimony to the appeal of these tours for Asian and European tourists as well as to the drawing power of good gospel music. J. feels ambivalent about the gospel tours because as annoying as they are, no tour group member ever neglects the collection plate. My own feelings about them were firmly in the negative category. I couldn’t quite put my finger on why I have such a visceral dislike of these gospel tours until today, when I decided to gather some information about them so that I could better understand their appeal. Here, an excerpt from an account by a White tourist from London** who went to a Harlem church specifically for the music:
I meet Tim Rawlins at the Memorial Baptist church choir practise. He’s rare proof of the fact that white men can sing gospel. He says I’ve got to surrender to the music – feel it – and forget I’m English.
That statement, which positively reeks of cultural fetishizing, gave me a headache. Forget you’re “English” (read: White and proper) and “surrender” (is it attacking you?) to the wild, untamed Black Black Blackity Blackness of the music. Hallelujah, let the Othering begin.
Tim: “What I like about gospel music, is that it breaks from that old European tradition which separates intellect and reason from feeling and really in Gospel music you feel with great thought and you think with great feeling…”
Ummmm…as much as I love traditional gospel music, it has never teased an elliptical statement outta me, so I wasn’t quite sure how to respond to that. Luckily, the author knew just what to infer from it.
That probably means loosening up physically too. When the elderly women start to practice I find myself entranced watching the soloist, Lonnie Gray. She’s 77 years old but she’s out there, her face enraptured, her hips swaying, moving with the rhythm – feeling it.
At this point, I’d had quite enough, so I ventured off to other parts of the interwebs to sift around for tour information and possible articles. I discovered that this issue was one that Black churches in Harlem had been facing for almost two decades. The tours, while often disruptive, are revenue generators, with prices ranging from $45-$99 dollars per person, and many including an “authentic” (sigh) soul food brunch. It’s for this reason that the general consensus amongst many of Harlem’s Black church clergy seems to be that the gospel tours are a necessary evil.
Church attendance has dropped significantly across all denominations in the past half century in the United States. Churches are financially reliant upon the generosity of their donor base, which has historically been their congregation. As tax-exempt entities, religious organizations are able to (presumably) expend their funds on capital expenses, such as building renovations. This piece from 1996 gives an excellent overview of the tension. Meanwhile, this quote from it sums up just about everything that I find objectionable about these tours:
“It’s something exotic,” says Nelson Motta, a Brazilian journalist who promotes visits to Mount Moriah in his native country. “Seeing the black people in the church, the feeling is warm.”
In other words, it’s Church Time at the Apollo. Good grief. I repeat: Jesus, be a fence.
Churches have been recognized for centuries as both places of worship and sanctuary in countries with substantial Christian populations. This was also true of Black churches in the U.S. The roots of Black Southern Baptist churches in the United States can be traced all the way back to the earliest days of the slave era. The first Black churches were organized by free blacks in the North and Southeastern United States. Gospel music’s call-and-response style, which is common in many different styles of music throughout the African diaspora, was often employed openly during worship and clandestinely by slaves as resistance.
Organizers of slave rebellions and escapes often sang gospel “work” songs in the field with double entendre lyrics in earshot of slave masters and overseers, whose presence was constant. (Following Nat Turner’s Rebellion the state of Virginia passed a law that required that a White minister be present at Black congregations.) The gospel work songs often included instructions, directions, and even times of day. The genius employed in this “hiding in plain sight” method was more often than not missed by slave owners, most of whom did not consider the intellect of the Negro to be sophisticated enough to grasp anything beyond the most basic concepts. (As Dave Chappelle once famously stated in one of his early comic specials: “It doesn’t happen often, but when racism works in black people’s favor . . . it’s fucking sweet.”)
Following slavery’s abolishment, the Black church remained a vital part of the social fabric of African-American communities. In addition to worship and religious ceremonies, church “socials”, dances, bake sales and other informal gatherings were common in the American South during the Jim Crow era. The connections between Black-led civil rights movements and the organizations that grew from them and Black churches is well-established. Civil Rights era protesters often sang gospel songs during rallies and marches, and rallies, marches and sit-ins were frequently planned in churches on non-worship days.
Outside of the South, many congregations remained largely divided along racial lines. White members of Protestant churches often expressed concern over what they viewed as improper exuberance found in Black churches. The notion that the style of worship found in Black American churches was somehow vulgar and inauthentic persisted long after the abolishment of slavery, and was far from confined to any denomination. Mahalia Jackson, arguably one of the best gospel singers ever recorded, was regarded by many of her upper and upper-middle class Black contemporaries as an embarrassment. (Yes. Mahalia. Jackson. I know…)
“Negro spirituals” were rarely included in hymn books outside of Black churches, and have only recently been recognized as acceptable expressions of faith through song by many denominations. In spite of the rich faith diversity within Black Chrisitan communities, Black worship and Black gospel were widely regarded as odd at best and sacrilegeous at worst. The fact that the only exclusively American musical forms – blues, jazz and rock-and-roll – emerged from traditional Black gospel music has lent it a sort of global validity. (Although I will note here that even the stunning Gospel at Colonus, a gospel play based on Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus that was considered for the Pulitzer Prize for drama, opened to an initially chilly reception a mere twenty years ago on Broadway.) The beauty and singularity of gospel music is openly praised by the contemporary mainstream. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on who’s asking) this acceptance has meant an increasingly secular appreciation (or appropriation…once again, depends on who’s asking) of traditional gospel music. It has also helped transform places of worship into stages, where both resident gospel choirs and congregation members are put on display for (oft-times) White tourists:
“This is not a buck-and-dance show,”says the Rev. Calvin Butts of Abyssinian Baptist Church, one of Harlem’s most politically powerful ministers [whose] church has resorted to passing out a flier to visitors, explaining how to behave during the service. Congregants complain that tourists annoyingly turn their cameras on the devout at prayer and snap away whenever a shout arises from the church’s “Amen” comer.
This manner of blatant disregard of church protocol and behavior evidences a lack of respect for the sacredness of the proceedings. The offense here is multi-layered: a.) the proceedings are not taken seriously, b.) the participants are regarded as exotic curiousities and c.) there is an underlying assumption that the presence of (often) White European tourists is “welcome.” The unexamined sense of entitlement that accompanies the idea of White people being welcome in any space is the factor that makes these tours possible. (I’m fully convinced that if 100 casually-dressed and snap-happy Black Americans rolled up into a Lutheran church on a Sunday in Haarlem, the ensuing outrage at their gall would cause an international incident…but I digress.)
Tourist groups in Black churches violate both outer (the church) and inner (the congregation members) spiritual space. The concept of the church as a sanctuary, as a sweet, soul-sustaining and necessary respite from earthly troubles and oppression, is blown to smithereens by the transgressive presence of these tourists, no matter how benignly they view themselves. Never mind messy polemical discussions, ”Jesus and the money changers” versus “The Church is a business” blah blah BLAHHH. If the devout are prevented from fully connecting with the divine by disruptive interlopers, then the spiritual imperatives must trump the financial ones.
*“Soul voyeurism” is a term I derived from the Newsweek article entitled “Soul Voyeurs Invade The House of God” by Gregory Beals and Kenneth L. Woodward.
** The author of this account first attended a Black Baptist church in Harlem as a “drop-in” – not a regular attendee – and then was invited to attend a choir rehearsal. Attending a rehearsal to enjoy the music, IMO, is fine. The tone of the piece is troubling nonetheless.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
dersk wrote:
Well, it’s not all that much different than the hordes of tourists that invade European cathedrals constantly. It’s too bad that most Europeans can’t come up with a word other than ‘black’ to describe the difference between gospel and the hymns they’re used to (maybe ‘joy’ would be a good one, I dunno).
But don’t get mad at the tourists; almost all tourists are by nature rude and intrusvie. Get mad at whoever’s letting them in – and charging admission. The reverend turned them into customers.
Or (my solution, as an atheist) don’t go to church. But if you did go to Haarlem (I live 10km away), I expect they’d expect snaps at St. Bavo’s, but that’s the main cathedral.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 8:27 am ¶
jen* wrote:
“Unless that is God on the line she needs an ass-whooping. Jesus be an electrified fence,”
Exactly. (And lol)
I cannot imagine having worship disturbed in such a way. You’re exactly right that it is offensive on multiple levels, and I can’t even really put into words why I’m so pissed about this.
When I visited Vatican City, it was a Sunday, and the place was bustling inside and out. Thousands of tourists all over the place (including me). But there was a sacred space already designated for those parishioners who were there to worship, and many people (guards, docents, I dunno) around to curtail inappropriate behavior – not to mention the signs.
The buffer area between the tourist and the congregation seemed to help maintain an air of reverence, but I couldn’t help thinking that it might’ve been nicer to be there when there were no services taking place. And I’m not even Catholic.
The blatant disrespect of these tourists (in Harlem) makes it seem as though they believe they are on some type of exotic safari, instead of visiting a sacred place. And we’re not even talking about a place that was already set up as an attraction, as the Vatican has been.
Meanwhile, I’m 100% with you on this: if 100 casually-dressed and snap-happy Black Americans rolled up into a Lutheran church on a Sunday in Haarlem, the ensuing outrage at their gall would cause an international incident. I believe that for real.
It boggles my mind that someone could decide to “promote” this soul voyeurism thing. I’m left shaking my head with nothing else to say.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 9:06 am ¶
Jen wrote:
While I agree with you that watching religion (and the history of the people involved) being turned into a tourist spectacle is a hideous thing, I do take issue with this paragraph:
“This manner of blatant disregard of church protocol and behavior evidences a lack of respect for the sacredness of the proceedings. The offense here is multi-layered: a.) the proceedings are not taken seriously, b.) the participants are regarded as exotic curiousities and c.) there is an underlying assumption that the presence of (often) White European tourists is “welcome.” The unexamined sense of entitlement that accompanies the idea of White people being welcome in any space is the factor that makes these tours possible. (I’m fully convinced that if 100 casually-dressed and snap-happy Black Americans rolled up into a Lutheran church on a Sunday in Haarlem, the ensuing outrage at their gall would cause an international incident…but I digress.)”
I hate to America-bash, but you guys do this sort of thing ALL THE TIME. And it has nothing to do with colour – I’ve seen black Americans, white Americans, Americans of all colours, treating churches in Europe and temples in Asia like they were theme parks.
Like the guy who wouldn’t take his shoes off in a Buddhist temple in Bangkok “because my feet might get dirty”. Or the woman who kicked up a massive fuss about wearing a traditional sarong to enter a Hindu temple in Bali. Or the guy who walked around Notre Dame in Paris, video taping the entire place AND NARRATING IT. “Aaaaanddd here we have the priest, he’s wearing a funny dress…”
Much like the churches you talk about, these places of worship also need the money the tourists bring in (fun fact: the upkeep of such Gothic piles like Notre Dame and Chatre is not covered to any useful extent by the French government or the Vatican) but these same tourists often apparently fail to recognise that the other people in there, the ones who aren’t yelling at each other in loud US accents, are using these places for their original purpose: contemplation of god. Oh, look at that girl in the funny headscarf! Let’s get a shot of her? I wonder if you can buy one of those Buddhas in the gift shop? Are those pews for sale?
I’m quite sure that the appropriation and comodifcation of the Harlem Gospel scene is horrid and disturbing to watch, but please don’t kid yourself that Americans – of all colours – aren’t doing exactly the same thing overseas.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 9:15 am ¶
Brooke wrote:
Just a side note first – assuming your first paragraph’s “Big Three” includes Judaism, the Torah does NOT use only masculine words to describe G-d, despite what the English translation would have you believe!
Thanks for the rest of your article, I’m aghast at the idea of a church service being turned into a tourist attraction. It seems like a particularly blatant “othering” action, one that violates on both the spiritual and the personal levels. That quote about “seeing the black people in church, the feeling is warm,” just boggles the mind. I’m surprised by the ambivalence that your fellow churchgoers and clergy seem to have, from your account, although I understand that the money issue really throws a wrench in things.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 9:40 am ¶
Lola wrote:
As someone who grew up atheist I’m always very cautious about being respectful when in religious spaces. I think the solution here is to not allow tourist in during service or to have more ushers to enforce proper polite behavior. I’m also very conscious of the Ugly American stigma and try not to be that person.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 10:57 am ¶
EKSwitaj wrote:
Jen*, it’s hardly just Americans who behave that way in temples in Asia. I’ve seen plenty of Europeans doing it too.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 11:07 am ¶
CParis wrote:
Jen says: I hate to America-bash, but you guys do this sort of thing ALL THE TIME. And it has nothing to do with colour – I’ve seen black Americans, white Americans, Americans of all colours, treating churches in Europe and temples in Asia like they were theme parks.
This!
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 11:28 am ¶
SociologicalMe wrote:
This is horrifying. It’s true what other commenters have said about tourism in European churches- I visited Notre Dame and couldn’t believe they allowed tourists in during worship services. The lack of respect just floors me, and I’m a lifelong athiest.
But the racist side of the phenomenon I had no idea about until this post. What an amazing sense of entitlement. Ugh.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 11:56 am ¶
n wrote:
Suppose thats what we all get for trips to the Vatican, Buddist temples, Indian temples etc to see the statues and altars and colorfully dressed monks,eh?
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 12:00 pm ¶
Brooke wrote:
@dersk – I think there is room to be mad at the tourists as well as the people letting them in. The tourists aren’t in a Catch-22 situation where their existance depends on income. Tourists aren’t off the hook because someone let them in to the building. They have their own responsibility to behave appropriately if the clergy decides to invite them in.
@Jen – Isn’t there a way to discuss how this happens in other places without it turning into an example of the oppression olympics (or a tourism olympics, in any case!)? Your comment strikes me as a, “Well, it happens elsewhere too, so stop complaining.”
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 12:06 pm ¶
elise.anne wrote:
i am a member of the oldest black baptist church in minnesota, and we’re located close to a christian college. we often have white students visit as an assignment. it’d be one thing if they just visited, but most when introducing themselves say that they are there for a class, and then sit in the front and obviously take notes, and then never come back again. quite a few leave out before the sermon is done because it is longer than their anticipated 1 hr 15 mn service.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 12:10 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
Great piece. I don’t love the Lord, but those tourists would have received the nastiest side eye. I would have gently grabbed cell phone ladies arm. I know the Churches need (want) the money, but the ushers needs to step their game up.
Well, it’s not all that much different than the hordes of tourists that invade European cathedrals constantly
Actually, it is very different. I have toured European cathedrals. (1) They’re largely empty; (2) they generally have tourist hours as their principal functions at this point in history are to serve as architectural wonders save the occasional prominent wedding/coronation. (3) because the main event of a cathedral is typically the building, the services are on off days or in a chapel.
The Harlem churches are Church. They are not architectural wonders…regular Sunday services. In fact, the building is usually irrelevant, “teh emotional blacks flippin around like in the Blues Brothers” is what they come to see.
I toured a Shinto shrine and they limited tourist access to behind a barrier and kept folks quiet.
Jen-Don’t deflect, don’t take this personal. The point of this article was to focus on how parishoners (people, not the building) in American Black churches have become a tourist freakshow. We have heard ad infinitum about the Ugly American and nobody’s “kidding” themselves.
Was not a big fan of Rev Butts’ destruction of objectionable CDs but amen to him calling out the buckdance show for what it is.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 12:14 pm ¶
n wrote:
I have no problem with the use of the word “black” to describe the music or songs, it is “black” and that is an important part of it for black people. Owning their creation.
Neither do I have a problem with people appreciating the different worship styles that afro-descended people have or being in a space that allows them to worship more demostratively than in some other churches. Those are legitimate points and positives, IMO.
Now,t reating church as a spectacle or a cultural zoo IS a problem. Appreciating the difference sin cultural expression isn’t, IMO.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 12:59 pm ¶
jen* wrote:
EKS – I didn’t actually say that. but that’s ok.
elise – wow. They come and sit in front for an assignment – and then leave before it’s over?? That just sounds rude. [I still can't believe it's an assignment. What kind of class must this be? "Let's view black people in their natural environment - Church!" ::shudder::]
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 1:59 pm ¶
F wrote:
I think this is a trickier issue than it may seem. There is no doubt that a tourist visiting another person’s place of worship, no less observing people engaged in religious activities, should be as intrusive and respectful as possible. I remember that when my family and I visited Turkey, we went to Friday prayers in the Blue Mosque (we’re Muslim). My sister, mother and I were right at the back with the other women, in front of the windows, and it was incredibly uncomfortable that there were tourists outside the windows, peering in and snapping pictures, particularly as we bent or knelt over to pray. I was confused as to why they felt the need to photograph everyone in prayer – I understand that it’s a closed off thing that many non-Muslims may not get to observe and that they might be curious – but to me it seemed that they should respect the sanctity of the moment and confine their curiosity to touring the Mosque outside of prayer time.
At the same time, there are religious services I would like to attend as an observer. As a child, I once went to a Christmas Eve mass and I found it beautiful and fascinating. I’ve always wanted to visit one of Jimmy Carter’s Sunday School classes at Maranatha Baptist Church, which I know that a lot of tourists go to. I would hope that if I attended these, quietly and unobtrusively, that I would not be negatively affecting the people who are there to worship or making them feel as though they are a spectacle. I also think that even a tourist on a bus tour to visit a church as you described can obtain greater understanding, appreciation and awareness for others if they approach their visit in the right way and don’t merely seek to have stereotypes confirmed, or to be entertained. And added revenue also contributes a lot to places of worship.
My solution would be this – to encourage tourists to attend but to present is more than just a spectacle, or entertainment. For example, I wondered why the Mosque couldn’t put up a video screen or something outside or in a small theatre for tourists to watch prayers, and to present it after a short film presenting the history of the Mosque or the significance of the prayer, or to put it in context some other way. Similarly, in terms of the church in the article, perhaps tourists could be allowed to visit outside of times of worship, could have a ‘brunch’ combined with a q&a sessions or talks about the Church and the community, complete with a church group doing a small singing performance, or something. This is by no means perfect and my suggestions are just random, but what I mean is, allowing tourists to visit, and capitalising on their curiosity, but presenting what is there in such a way that leads to greater awareness and understanding, and moves away from merely spectacle, so that both parties are enriched by it.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 3:28 pm ¶
F wrote:
Sorry, as NOT intrusive as possible!!
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 3:29 pm ¶
Danny wrote:
Wow, that’s really rude for people to do that during a religious service. I agree that the ushers ought to do something about it. Probably have to find other ways of dealing with the tour groups.
I had a similiar experience as Elise.Anne. Back then I went to a Chinese Church (honestly, the (Asian mainly) ethnic-oriented churches are more like social outings-charity work and denomination doesn’t mean much). We too had students, mostly bible colleges, come in for assignments or because they felt a special calling. It’s not the same as the tourists.
Most of them were alright, though some behave like Elise.Anne described it, just left after the service ended. Some of them were obviously dissapointed as something. For a lot of them, I noticed that the exotic seeking quickly died down because there were too many similarities with the churches they went to. The main differences were language, food and demographic make-up, everything else was pretty much the same. I want to describe the church’s intellectual environment was unique but that’s a different topic.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 3:36 pm ¶
Irene M. wrote:
“Soul voyeurism”?! Scout out new churches, fine. Visit churches because they are pretty or interesting, fine. Interrupt the service and behave like an entitled asshole instead of privileged visitor?! I’m speechless.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 4:04 pm ¶
Melanie wrote:
A few weeks ago I went to see a Bluegrass group from Finland. They said “Our next number will be a Gospel number. Everybody dance!” I don’t think they understood why everyone gasped!
Just because people get “caught up in the spirit” doesn’t mean that they’re dancing. Cultural confusion abounds even amongst Americans.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 5:32 pm ¶
Kaonashi wrote:
Thankfully, some of the churches in Harlem don’t allow tourists inside during service hours because of behavior you’ve just described. I’m not particularly religious, but I don’t care if it’s a church, temple or mosque; it’s a place of worship. Sit down, STFU, turn off the phone, listen to the sermon and for the love of all things holy, please don’t allow your children to yell or run up and down the aisle. It is not playtime.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 5:34 pm ¶
Ange wrote:
Reading this article reminds me of going to James Cleveland’s church back in the mid 80s and noticing this phenom whenever there was a blactor or blactress in the house, particularly one who was currently on TV.
I’m looking at you, Kevin Hooks and Daphne Maxwell.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 5:46 pm ¶
Nappy Mind wrote:
In Brazil, I was encouraged to attend a Candomblé service for a fee but I didn’t because I thought it would be too voyeuristic. Likewise, I didn’t photograph the children we visited in their school in a favela. It seemed inappropriate to treat children like props.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 6:35 pm ¶
Jen wrote:
@Brooke I certainly wasn’t saying “so stop complaining”. I was saying “so you might want to stop acting like you’re the only person whose religious worship is being comodified.” In fact, the paragraph I quoted seemed to indicate a complete unawareness of the behaviour of US tourists in Europe and Asia etc.
@gatamala I wasn’t deflecting and I noted that I had no issue with the substance of the piece – I was picking up on the fact that she seemed unaware that her own countrypeople behaved like this abroad. Perhaps those Asian and European tourists got the idea that it was ok from American tourists doing the same in their countries?
I thought this para said it all:
“Tourist groups in Black churches violate both outer (the church) and inner (the congregation members) spiritual space. The concept of the church as a sanctuary, as a sweet, soul-sustaining and necessary respite from earthly troubles and oppression, is blown to smithereens by the transgressive presence of these tourists, no matter how benignly they view themselves. “
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 7:17 pm ¶
Lleeo wrote:
That was incredibly rude of those tourists to be talking during church services, especially that one woman who actually answered her phone and started talking on it!
However, while I agree with everything that’s been said about turning places of worship (and the people who use them) into zoos and exotic creatures, I also hope that different religious organizations around the world can come up with creative solutions to accommodate curious tourists.
IMO, it’s a positive thing to have someone from a different culture be curious about your religious and cultural heritage and have a desire to view some of its rituals firsthand. I had a friend in high school who was Cherokee and I remember asking her once if it would be okay for me to attend one of the festivals that she and her community were attending to celebrate their clan. I wasn’t allowed to attend, and I respected that, but I enjoyed listening to her describe it later.
I also wanted to comment on what elise.anne brought up: it’d be one thing if they just visited, but most when introducing themselves say that they are there for a class, and then sit in the front and obviously take notes, and then never come back again.
I have to admit something here and I’d like to get some other input from any of you; I took an Anthropology of Religion course a few terms ago and was given an assignment similar to this. I ended up dropping the course early on before the assignment was due (since I already had a full course load) BUT I’m thinking of taking the class again when I have a lighter load. Basically, we’re asked to go to a religious festival or gathering and to observe it and take notes, etc. and now I’m wondering the best way to complete an assignment like this without offending someone. If it was Christian church of some kind, I would probably sit at the back so I wouldn’t disturb anyone while taking notes and I wouldn’t leave early but… I don’t know.
And, F, I really enjoyed some of your suggestions for solutions:
My solution would be this – to encourage tourists to attend but to present is more than just a spectacle, or entertainment. For example, I wondered why the Mosque couldn’t put up a video screen or something outside or in a small theatre for tourists to watch prayers, and to present it after a short film presenting the history of the Mosque or the significance of the prayer, or to put it in context some other way. Similarly, in terms of the church in the article, perhaps tourists could be allowed to visit outside of times of worship, could have a ‘brunch’ combined with a q&a sessions or talks about the Church and the community, complete with a church group doing a small singing performance, or something. This is by no means perfect and my suggestions are just random, but what I mean is, allowing tourists to visit, and capitalising on their curiosity, but presenting what is there in such a way that leads to greater awareness and understanding, and moves away from merely spectacle, so that both parties are enriched by it.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 7:28 pm ¶
Tracey wrote:
Jen,
One of the problems I have with your comment is that it suggests the writer was ignoring other parts of the world where this sort of thing occurs. However, no where did I see the writer try to suggest that in a global context this sort of thing only occurs in black churches. This piece is about a particular tourist industry within the U.S., specifically Harlem. Your comment is suggesting that by focusing on their experiance and this particualr tourist industry, the writer somehow implied that this occurs no where else.
Nothing in the paragraph you pulled suggests that. Yes, this type of thing is not uncommon in the world, and it is not uncommon in the U.S. I can think specifically of Native American ceremonies that are treated in the same manor, especially by academics. However, this piece was not about that nor did it dismiss those occurences. To me your comment implies that people are not permitted to write about their own experiances of particualr instances of vouyerism, priveledge and discrimantion without going into a global context that addresses everyone’s problems. I do not see how the writer is obligated to mention what happens elsewhere when writing about their own experiances and a particular industry, especially when they did not imply that this happens only in this context. The example about black tourists disrupting a Lutheran service shows that this would not work the other way in this instance within the U.S. It does not imply that black American/European tourists do not behave disrespectfully in places of worship elsewhere.
I think the piece was excellent and I never knew that there where fomralized tours to observe black people in church. I think the entire idea is creepy and othering, especially because it places the observation on the actual people and their behavior in what is a time of worship, not a zoo.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 9:23 pm ¶
Jen wrote:
@Tracey well, we’ll have to agree to disagree then. At no point did I suggest that Fiqah shouldn’t be permitted to write about her own experiences, only that there seemed to be an attitude of suprise and an ignorance that this was going on anywhere else in the world, and perhaps, the reasons it was happening in Harlem. No derailing intended. I thought it was a great piece, but perhaps I read the intent wrong.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 10:33 pm ¶
Jen wrote:
@Tracey Also, sorry just noticed this:
“The example about black tourists disrupting a Lutheran service shows that this would not work the other way in this instance within the U.S. It does not imply that black American/European tourists do not behave disrespectfully in places of worship elsewhere.”
Er, I believe Fiqah was talking about Haarlem in the Netherlands, not the US in that instance.
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 10:34 pm ¶
F wrote:
Thanks Lleeo!
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 10:45 pm ¶
Katie wrote:
Wow, those tourists sound unbelievably obnoxious. Did somebody forget to tell them that god is watching how they act at church? Even if they’re not religious, it is still phenomonally disrespectful to the congregation. You mentioned there is an economic incentive for churches to accept these tours, so I think a great solution might be imposing stiff fines for innapropriate behavior, or maybe charging an additional security deposit that you only get back if you behave.
I actually think visiting other churches and places of worship can be a wonderful experience. But you have to be not only respectful, but GRATEFUL for the opportunity.
@Lleo-
When visiting other churches as an assignment, I would suggest pay attention, but DON”T take notes. Try to linger after church, talk to people, express your interest in learning about this religion, if someone feels like talking to you at legnth, obviously mention you are working on a paper, but emphasize why you chose that particular church, and how excited and grateful you are to have the chance to learn more about it.
Go back the next week, again, pay attention, but don’t take notes. Write up your notes after you leave.
If it was a positive experience for you personally or spiritually, go back after your assignment is over. You don’t have to go back every week or convert, but if your experience was good for your soul, or you were able to feel a sense of community, you could stand to gan alot more than a grade from this assignment.
There is a book, which I have not read and so I guess I cannot really recommend it, called “How to be a Perfect Stranger: the Essental Religous Ettiquette Handbook” which might be worth taking a look at.
Here are the reviews on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/How-Perfect-Stranger-Essential-Religious/dp/1594731403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1253676650&sr=1-1
Posted 22 Sep 2009 at 11:35 pm ¶
AGH wrote:
Mt. Moriah was my grandparents’ church (Granddaddy was head of the Deacon Board for as long as I can remember, and died two years ago; Grandma stopped attending after his death.) I saw firsthand the Brazilian tourism’s beginnings as a a child, and was really offended even then. I wondered why a Sunday church service was offered as a tourist attraction, and why the groups were allowed to just get up and leave before the sermom (I mean, if I had to sit there, so should they!), or snap photos like they’re at the frickin zoo! To be fair, there were a few people who remained til near the end of service, but not many. And yes, even as a ten year old, I knew it was for the money, which disturbed me.
(It was a sad day when the tourist groups began to outnumber the congregation..)
A religious service, any religious service, should not be commidified. You wanna see the building, admire the architecture and artistry, fine. You wanna hear gospel music? Watch the documentary “Say Amen, Somebody” on the bus on the way to Sylvia’s to get your fish and grits on! Why are these tours still around? Blech
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:06 am ¶
Nicole M wrote:
I agree the tourists were obnoxious, rude, and disrespectful. But if you commercialize the churchgoing experience to make money off of tourists without educating/reminding them about their responsibilities as guests and having ushers or their tour guide take responsibility for policing them, how can you be surprised when they act like, well…tourists?
Yes, they should know better. But the framework is set up for them to be entertained, so they are going to act like you are there to entertain them.
And no churchgoer should *have* to be the one to lean over and reprimand the tourist, but wouldn’t a quick “excuse me, are you trying to ruin this service for everyone who comes here every Sunday? Because you are.” be a more productive reaction than sitting there swearing to yourself? And then talk to your pastor and let him or her know much much this distresses you?
It may not be fair, but in this case it seems like, being the injured party, you need to step up, deal with the economic reality of church-tourism and work with your church to find a solution.
My apologies for sounding preachy if you are already being pro-active about it.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 3:19 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:
Wow! Thanks to everyone for your feedback. I really appreciate it, and I love the discussion happening here.
@jen*: Precisely, and great example with the Vatican, by the way. My initial reaction to this particular tourist group on this particular Sunday was visceral and hard to articulate. I figured out later that this was a classic insult-to-injury situation, wherein this particular tour group was in a place of worship that they didn’t take seriously AND some members of said group had no qualms about illustrating this through their bad behavior. So much disrespect. Anyway, thanks for commenting. (RE: your handle – is it an asterisk…or a scrubbing bubble?
)
@gatamala, Kaonashi, Tracey: Thanks very much for your intelligent feedback. Co-signs squared. You don’t have to agree with the message, but you DO have to let folks worship. Tracey and gatamala, thank you both for your further clarification of points I made in this piece. I definitely appreciate it.
@Brooke: The monotheistic Big Three to which I referred were Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (listed here in order of emergence). The conscious erasure of the feminine – or even the gender-neutral – from notions of the Divine is something that all three faiths have in common, I think. That’s another discussion though. Yeah, that quote from the Brazilian journalist gave me such a headache. I’m not sure if there are formal arrangements between tour group companies and certain churches with regard to fees, but I have observed tourists’ generosity with the collection plate first-hand. I see how this would make it hard to turn people away on principle. My friend’s church is smaller than the ones that are typically on the Gospel Tour circuit, and tourists in groups – as opposed to individual tourists – are a fairly new thing there. SIGH. I don’t suppose there’s any one easy solution to this problem.
@Lola, SociologicalMe: Thank you both for commenting. It’s been my experience that atheists tend to be extremely respectful in sacred spaces. I think a lot of people who adhere to a specific faith doctrine could learn a lot about mutual respect from live-and-let-live variety atheists.
@elise.anne, F, Irene M. and Lleo: You all raised SUCH interesting points! Irene M., I want to put your comment on a poster and stick it on my buddy’s church door. While I’m all for promoting cultural exchange, the idea of attending worship services as an assignment and with a notebook makes me really uncomfortable. If you want to know more about something, it’s a much better idea to engage congregants who indicate that they are interested in this kind of exchange, AFTER services. F., how awful to have people peeking in on you as you prayed – ugh. I also appreciate your suggesting that people visit on non-worship days, but, as gatamala pointed out, visiting outside of service days wouldn’t really work. Nobody’s there to see the pretty buildings. Ah, well.
@NappyMind: I faced this exact same dilemma many years ago while living abroad (West Africa). I was invited by a friend to attend a small ceremonial gathering. This friend, like many people in West Africa, is a devout Muslim who also observes traditional faith practices (I don’t like the word “animism” but there it is). I declined, because my presence as a.) a foreigner and b.) a non-follower would have been objectionable, even if it was not necessarily objected TO. When it was over, I asked him about it, and he told me everything he could. Not the same as being there, I know, but rule number one when you are abroad is to accept the fact that you will not be welcomed into every space. And why should you be? Oh, and I totally feel you about snapping pics. I’ve found that if you want to take pictures of people and not have that icky, Subject-Other, “National Geographic” feeling, approach them. Get their names, and get their permission before you take their picture.
@Melanie: LOL! I have to say that sometimes painful cultural missteps yield hilarious anecdotes. The secularization of gospel music has lent to this kind of confusion, and its also worth noting that gospel, folk and country music are only a few degrees removed from one another. A wince-worthy moment, no doubt…but understandable.
@Katie: Thanks so much for the book recommendation! I’ve added it to my now embarrassingly long Amazon queue. I appreciate your solutions-oriented approach.
@AGH: Wow. There’s a few members of the church I attend who left Mt. Moriah for the same reason. That makes me so sad. Oh and this
is the quote of the week. Just great.
@dersk, n, Cparis, and Nicole M: Please see jen* (#2) and gatamala’s (#12) responses for succinct explanations of the differences between cathedral and gospel tours. Nicole M. and dersk, these tours have been operating for nearly two decades now. The industry emerged from the desire of foreign tourists to see a particular style of worship and hear a certain type of music – not the other way around. In other words, Black churches in Harlem on Sunday have BEEN popular destinations for lone tourists; the only difference now is that churches are now able to benefit financially from group tours. If the interest in observing the spectacle of Black gospel/worship dried up overnight, then the tours themselves would swiftly follow. Nicole M., while I appreciate your suggestion that I be more proactive and bring my concerns to the minister, I just would like to reiterate that this was NOT my church. I was in attendance as the guest of a long-time member, who would hold considerably more sway than I would with her church’s clergy members. Likewise, as I mentioned in the piece, my friend and I had both encountered tour groups before, and for the most part, they didn’t behave objectionably. I understand that some of the more vocal members of her are kicking up a row, so maybe there will be some changes.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 11:10 am ¶
Fiqah wrote:
Jen. A few points.
From your first comment –
NOWHERE in this post did I state that Americans don’t do this abroad. As gatamala explained, the Ugly American is a cliched trope. Americans who travel internationally are often acutely aware of this trope, and many of us go out of our way to not be perceived in this way. I also didn’t say that Black people aren’t guilty of culturally-offensive behavior while abroad. I’m not even sure why you mentioned “all colours.” I suspect you’ll explain why.
From your second comment -
I’ve lived and travelled in West and North Africa and Western Europe. Avoiding interactions with the more obnoxious brand of American tourist is a specialty of mine, so it’s safe to say that I know how to identify them at a distance.
The “fact” that I seemed unaware of my “own countrypeople” behaving this way abroad? Is this actually a fact, or a series of assumptions you are making based on your own perceptions of Americans? I believe it is the latter. Oh, and you were definitely deflecting. Finally, this -
Yes. I get it. It’s a global issue, and one I’d be aware of if I wasn’t an obnoxious, semi-literate, culturally-chauvinistic monoglot American who had never travelled outside of her state lines. One problem: outside of “obnoxious” and “American,” none of that applies to me. Assumptions and generalizations are dangerous things.
I agree with you on one point, Jen. There IS ignorance here.
But it’s not mine.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 12:02 pm ¶
elise.anne. wrote:
@Lleo
@Katie
A great question with a great answer. If we are all being honest, I have had an assignment to visit another culture’s worship service, too. I dont know if I did it well or not, it was a while back.
But I think Katie’s suggestions were great. I think the best thing is to truly act as a church visitor, not student. And come back once or twice if it was positive.
During the visitor welcome time, many white visitors (some there for assiggment, some not) say “I love the music!” or “I wish my church worshipped like this!”. My husband and I make a point to greet every white visitor, because we are white, and we always share with them that this church and its blessed saints are so much more than just different music or a show; that they should return and discover who the people really are and the riches of the church that are above and beyond music.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 1:08 pm ¶
Davina wrote:
On topic: I had absolutely no idea that gospel tours existed. While I can understand that churches depend on the revenue it brings in, I just find it completely disrespectful. Fair enough for tourists to visit churches and cathedrals – but no way during a service.
I don’t know if I feel this way because I was brought up very Catholic (Mass on Sundays and sometimes on weekdays, never mind Benediction and Confession and all the rest) and the congregation are very devout. If somebody answered their mobile during Mass… I just can’t imagine it. My mum would flip.
Off topic: Somewhat related:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8270556.stm
Yup, Julia Roberts wore a bindi once. She’s totally ‘Hindu-friendly’. Totally.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 4:48 pm ¶
Jen wrote:
@Fiqah I apologise. I thought you were coming across as the Ugly American and obviously I was wrong.
Posted 23 Sep 2009 at 7:41 pm ¶
HonoriaG wrote:
I’m Swedish and here “gospel tours” are a well known part of going on a tourist trip to the US. I’m raised in the church (not very common around these parts) and though I appreciate the complications of religious tourism, it’s mainly the racial aspects of the tours that make me cringe. You would not believe the language educated white people in Sweden will use about black american churches – the quotes above about “warmness” don’t begin to describe it. I think many white Swedes use the US as some kind of racial theme park, where it’s safe to fetishize people of color. We are (somewhat) aware of race issues in our own country, but all most of us see of America are movies and TV shows that show a glossy, “uncomplicated” and suspiciously well lit version of the US. We are absolutely bombarded with American TV shows, movies etc every day, and it leads us to believe that we understand american culture – when all it really means is that we get well versed in the cliches of mainstream culture without any kind of counter image.
Black people in Sweden are associated with poverty, segregation and other issues for white people to be concerned about (not saying this is not another side of racism) and as a white person here, you do run the risk of being accused of racism. In front of your TV that is not the case – there it’s all sassy best friends and magical negroes. A lot of Swedes see a trip to the US pretty much as walking around inside a Hollywood movie, and act accordingly. This is only one of the many reasons for me as a white Swede to be deeply *deeply* embarrassed on behalf of my countrymen.
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 4:34 am ¶
sofie wrote:
i think jen’s original comment does bring up a useful point– while we usually discuss the privilege that white europeans have claimed in the rest of the world for centuries through colonialism and the legacy that left particularly in america, there is a new type of privilege that americans (of all colors) often proclaim for themselves when abroad. if we take this out of the context of “well you do this too so who are you to complain” it is a very necessary point to consider– how the privileged attitude of holding citizenship from the world’s superpower may negatively affect the way we all (i mean americans) treat the cultures/religions of citizens of less powerful and or economically developed nations…
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 5:57 pm ¶
Adrianna wrote:
You had me laughing out loud . I swear you should really consider comedy Fiqah! I can’t even believe that they allow tourist to do this. what do they think this is the zoo!
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 10:20 pm ¶
Joy wrote:
Another great Racialigious article! Wow, I didn’t really know these kinds of tours existed. [Maybe it's cause I'm in the south
] I can’t imagine ever acting this way in a place of worship.
People of other cultures or countries often visit churches I attend, but since they are almost always of the same denomination, we already have a kind of automatic bond and when they snap photos or video parts of the service I think it’s ok because it’s kind of like extended family taking pictures at a gathering.
@Lleeo – Not to make a blanket statement of all (black) Christian churches, but I think as long as you are respectful during services (as you would be at your own church or a comparable event) that you will find some members who are open to talking with you and explaining aspects of their religion/denomination/service.
I find most of the Christian churches I’ve visited – whether my denomination or not – to be friendly or at the very least politely tolerable of visitors. So, I would definitely encourage you to go.
I hope you enjoy the class if you take it – it sounds interesting.
Posted 24 Sep 2009 at 11:11 pm ¶
Lleeo wrote:
@Katie, elise.anne., and Joy: Thanks for your great input, guys! I think social assignments like the one I was assigned to are often very tricky to figure out how to navigate because so many different factors and contexts are often involved. I will remember your suggestions if I ever take the course, or something similar to it, again!
And, yes, @Joy, I’m an English major but social anthropology and sociology in general have always fascinated me. I love learning about different cultures and social practices. It actually makes me sad to think that I probably won’t be around if we ever discover how to visit other planets with sentient species, haha.
Posted 25 Sep 2009 at 4:48 pm ¶
chicagorose wrote:
Jen wrote:
“@Fiqah I apologise. I thought you were coming across as the Ugly American and obviously I was wrong.”
You might want to think about how you came across, as the *condescending*, *arrogant*, *never wrong*, *typical* European. We have stereotypes too. Because that was some kind of derailing. It took away from my enjoyment of the article. She’s talking about my culture, my ancestry, my roots, something I can relate to, and you basically shat all over it in your race to defend your own. Because we NEED you to remind us that we are American and lacking in grace. Kind of ironic, considering the lack of tact you used to drive home however valid a point you felt you were making don’t ya think?
Posted 29 Sep 2009 at 5:38 am ¶