|
Letters to the Editor
Sleeping through history
In Joe Palmersheim’s recent article (“The New Bell-Bottoms?,” Sept. 23) he explains that “Patriotism is just another fad…part of me thought it might last…I was wrong.”
Dictionary.com describes patriotism as “One's love and devotion to a country.” I was just wondering, when has anyone considered love as a ‘fad’? I certainly do not.
Joe goes on to say how if the U.S. does, in fact, go to war with Iraq, that we will somehow “piss off the rest of the world,” and that he doesn't want this to happen. Would the future threat of chemical and biological warfare suit him better? Or maybe Joe prefers the threat of nuclear war, considering that we have proof that Saddam Hussein has nuclear capability, but just cannot obtain the resources needed for a nuclear bomb. Oh, that makes me feel much safer resting my head at night!
And as for the third paragraph, I think Joes comment, “it won't be them (‘old people’) going off to war — it will be you and me, the young people.” Where do I begin with this? Well, Joe, have you enlisted lately? I have not, and I don't plan on being drafted anytime, even during a war. Further, has Joe forgotten that the ‘old people’ he talks about have faced many wars which were hand-to-hand combat based warfare, not the ‘press of a button’ warfare that we have become accustomed to. World War I (53,000 dead) and II (292,000 dead), the Korean War (33,000 dead), Vietnam (47,000 dead), and the Gulf War (148 dead), just to name a few. So please, don't talk about how it won’t be them going to war, I think they have experienced enough.
I think Joe’s memory of his history class faded. Just like a fad.
Marc Lysne,
CNA Major
In defense of HURL
The mornings grow a little cooler, frost forms on our windshields at night, the Vikes are 0-3, yep fall is in the air. This signals several things. First of all, its time for the U.S. to bomb Iraq again. Secondly, UND should be here soon so we need to get ready to protest the racist mascot. And finally, we must bash yet another Human Relations professor. Last year, Tamrat Tademe was our victim. This year, it is Julie Andrzejewski.
I have had Julie for Human Relations courses in the past. On many occasions, we have had rather heated discussions in class about white privilege, the School of the Americas, U.S. Arms sales to Indonesia, the UND mascot issue, and countless other REAL issues. I said some very nasty and thoughtless things in Julie’s class. Never once was I interrupted. I stated my opinion without fear of what she or anyone else thought, and my views were respected, whether they were right or wrong.
I am glad MGM courses are mandatory here at SCSU, and should be elsewhere. Understanding the roots of oppression is vital. As a white male, I experience white privilege. I had no idea of such a concept before I attended SCSU. I had always seen oppression through my own eyes, and having privilege distorts that image. Having had professors like Julie, Tamrat, Jesse Benjamin, and Gary Cheeseman, I have been able to see multiple sides of oppression. I do not agree with the statement that this university “is a place of discrimination against its own residents.” As a matter of fact, I see SCSU as an institution on the front lines of the issue of discrimination, and fighting hard.
Hal Kimball,
Junior, Management Major
Human Relations Minor
Get the facts
Regarding the concerns about The University of North Dakota's “Fighting Sioux” moniker, let's review the most complete survey done on the subject.
“Asked if high school and college teams should stop using Indian nicknames and mascots, 81 percent of Native Americans respondents said no.”
Source: Sports Illustrated, March 4, 2002, page 69.
Research: Peter Harris Research Group, Inc.
Glenn Mitzel,
UND Alumnus
Government is good
In a recent column, Scott Bushee suggested that “the only thing (the government) does is create laws. . .which tell us what we can and cannot do. . .(and) uses violence. . .to enforce it’s mandates.
Yes, it’s true that the government creates laws which forbid some activity, but I can’t believe Scott believes that’s all they do. Perhaps Scott doesn’t realize it but the government provides services too. I’m willing to bet that Scott knows someone who has benefited from government services, perhaps even himself. For example, I’ll bet he likes driving his car on the roads that the government has provided for him. I’ll bet that he knows someone who is enjoying financial aid for their college education. I’m sure he’s heard of people that get medical services that the government paid for. There are even programs that would help him get legal advice about the ticket for underage drinking.
Scott claimed the he could point out where the violent enforcement of laws comes into play with his underage drinking story (I wonder if it’s an autobiographical story and he’s just pissed off at losing $200?) By following his story I can definately see where the violence happened. Possibly when he got the ticket, but I don’t think his being violent counts, we need violence from “government or it’s agents.” Sure, there’s nothing violent about not paying the ticket, however, paying it would have ended the situation. There’s no violence in blowing off the court date, either, but you know, had you gone you might have been able to reduce your fine Scott, you might have even been able to get the whole thing thrown out. Now that the warrant has been issued due to your irresponsibility there may very well be violence towards you, especially if, as you suggested, “you resist (arrest).”
Mike Hutchens,
Mass Comm. Major
End to racist mascots
Like a few of my colleagues have recently decided to do, I feel that I also must weigh in on the issue of American Indian mascots. As you all may know, last year the University Chronicle decided to continue the use of these offensive depictions of American Indians. This year the board policy is better, but not perfect.
In order for the editorial board to create a perfect stance on this issue, we must first look outside of the university. We need to look at the issue for what it is, not for the way the media handles it.
This is an issue of latent discrimination and racism towards American Indians that, given the place and time, would not be tolerated against any other marginalized or minority group. The various mascots such as Cleveland’s baseball team or Washington’s football team are horrible racist caricatures of American Indians that exist solely because ignorant people believe that it is OK to mock that which they do not understand. By the way, look up to the last sentence; see how easy it is to refer to the teams without acknowledging their offensive mascots.
So, I would humbly suggest that the University Chronicle editorial board get over themselves! Stop putting your relatively obscure college newspaper at the forefront of the debate. There is an issue of discrimination here that is completely unrelated to the way that the University Chronicle's sports staff chooses to write about it. Instead, I would propose that the University Chronicle actually take a look at the reasons that the debate over their coverage of UND started.
The mascot issue is not just about UND. It is, however, about the destruction and misrepresentation of the culture of the indigenous peoples of this continent. This issue is obviously important to the university community or we would have never seen anything about it in print. So, why would the University Chronicle not bother to address the issue itself instead of a single instance of the issue?
Allow me to take a moment to do the editorial board a favor and address the issue for them. It is very simple, if you are doing something that hurts people and furthermore offends those around them you stop doing it.
The continued use of offensive American Indian mascots leads only to the objectification and dehumanization of American Indians. To put it into context, any college student that has taken a human relations or history class knows that dehumanization or marginalization of a group of people is simply a tool used to oppress them. It is very hard for one human to hate another human for no reason whatsoever. On the other hand, it is much easier for a human to hate an offensive cartoon depiction of another human.
The conclusion, continued use of offensive American Indian mascots and team names leads to oppression, marginalization, hate, bigotry and racism. In other words, as human beings we must avoid becoming the racist, hateful, bigots that we and all other good rugby shirt-wearing Americans purport to hate. We, as human beings, have to stand up and say that we will no longer tolerate these hateful mascots.
Gordie Loewen
|
|
|
|
|
|
