Racism in the Review Staff

To the Editor:

The "Heard Here Rating System" in last week's Review was FUCKED UP.

Multiple ways of being "fucked up" exist. One, that would apply to last week's rating system, is racist. The use of fortune cookies with taglines that begin, "Confucius say:Š" is obviously contributive to the distortion and misappropriation of Asian culture, and insensitive to Asian peoples' struggles against these faulty representations.

My guess is that all your staff, including editors, columnists and writers are white. Well, all of them except two, maybe - and I'll bet they're upset. Oh shit! That'd be me! I'm one of the two people of color on the Review staff. Well, I'm telling you, as a person of color and as an Asian American: STOP BEING RACIST.

You should know: fortune cookies are American inventions, racist imitations of wrongful perceptions of Chinese mysticism.

The use of the cookies is a minor offense compared to your use of the religious/philosophical scholar Confucius. To imagine Confucius saying, "Pass the opium - this shit blows," is not funny. It's just plain ignorant.

You, as white people, have white privilege, enabling you to laugh at the desecration of a cultural icon. Do you know opium's colonial history? Its importation into China, by the British, in order to rob Chinese of their will?

Once again, racism may be funny to you. That's probably because you're white. But other people have to deal with it every moment of their lives. Don't contribute to that by promoting it in a paper that you want everyone to read. I like the Review. It kicks the Grape's teeth in. DON'T BE LIKE THE GRAPE.

--Adrian Leung, College Senior

Wahoo Weariness

To the Editor:

I am writing to expand on the comments I made in Adrian Leung's story of Nov. 3, "Wahoo Owner Now a Trustee."

I am a baseball fan. Ever since I came to this area in 1992 and Len and JoAnne Podis took my husband, Scott, and me to the old lakefront stadium, I have been in love with this game - its angles and arcs, its grace and grit. I think my affection for the Cleveland Indians is enhanced by the memories of those hard years before the team began to win. But I have never loved Wahoo - that buck-toothed, red-faced mascot. Often when I see the insignia, it looks to me like an image of someone "giving the bird," as we used to say. The name of the team is weird enough, the sign of a mistaken identity; but the mascot I find especially irksome. Native Americans and others have protested the use of this image for years now; what puzzles me is the persistence with which local fans cling to it. I suspect that the image is now so popular, so ubiquitous that people don't really see it, let alone object to it. This caricature has come to mean something like "all of us around here" - "the Tribe." Some will argue that, really, the image is harmless. But I contend that it's time to rethink it.

There are those who will defend Wahoo on the grounds that it honors "Indians" or even a particular Native American player, but I doubt it. For one thing, many Native Americans don't feel honored by the logo. For another, it is possible to see the use of Wahoo as an extension of a European-American habit of covering up violent encounters with a commemorating name. Richard Grounds, an historian of Native American religions, has argued that when and where European Americans had managed to displace or wipe out Native Americans, they frequently gave an "Indian" name to the place, such as Tallahassee or Winona. Grounds argues that, instead of being an honor, such naming practices deny the history and violence of the encounter.

This argument might also be extended to the habit of giving American vehicles "Indian" names; as Amitav Ghosh notes, Winnebagos, Cheyennes, Dakotas and Pontiacs now traverse the land while the people from whom those names have been borrowed are relegated to reservations. And I think we can use Grounds' argument to think about the use of Native American terms for team names (Braves, Redmen, Redskins, Indians): such mascots tend to put a benign face on histories of violence and displacement. Instead of honoring Native Americans, these logos and mascots cover up a history some of us would rather forget.

And while many adults claim to know better than to think that Wahoo represents "real" Indians, I maintain that such caricatures do have an impact on us. Perhaps one example will suffice: My 5-year-old son was given a pair of socks with the Wahoo insignia for his birthday. I tried to explain to him why I didn't like the mascot but left the choice of wearing them up to him. He put them away for a while, I suspect out of respect for my authority rather than any real commitment to the issue. A few months later he pulled the socks out and protested to me, "But Mom, this is what Indians look like!" I am afraid that the caricature of Wahoo has already become part of the way he imagines Native American people and culture, despite my attempts to teach him otherwise.

From my point of view, it's time for Wahoo to go.

--Laurie Hovell McMillin, Assistant Professor of Rhetoric and Composition

Talking to Trustees

An Open Letter To Peter Goldsmith:

I publicly request that as the dean of Oberlin College students, you invite Larry Dolan to Oberlin College to take part in a forum with students discussing the Cleveland Indians logo.

Some students are concerned about the racist nature of the logo which Mr. Dolan endorses and his presence on our board of trustees. Perhaps if he were to meet with concerned students about the issue, they could convince him that this logo does not coincide with the progressive history of the institution that he now serves as trustee.

I look forward to your reply, and hope you use either the Review or another public forum to let the student body know how you have proceeded in this matter.

--Joshua Rosen, College Senior

Goldsmith the Liar

An Open Letter to Peter Goldsmith:

You state that you are against having co-ed rooms because they would hurt our enrollment of international students. This assertion does not seem particularly plausible, and a letter in the Review two weeks ago asked you to provide the data that you used to reach it. You have failed to do so, which leads me to the conclusion that the data do not exist and that you are lying to justify your lack of action. As dean of students, I call on you to do one of two things: explain yourself and show the data that proves your case, or admit that you are lying and explain why. In either case, I would like you to fulfill your duty to students by relaying to the trustees and president that, as shown by a referendum last year, the clear majority of students on this campus favor optional co-ed rooms. Please find out the opinions of the people who are responsible for making the co-ed room decision and their reasoning, and relate this to the community via the Review and the Grape.

I am not happy to hold the opinion that my dean of students is a liar. It undermines my confidence in your integrity, your commitment to students, your understanding of issues at this college and your ability to perform your job. I would welcome the chance to change it.

I was also disturbed by the identity of our newest trustee, the owner of the Cleveland Indians with their nationally-criticized racist logo. I am surprised that you, as one who purports to speak for the sensitivities of minority groups, has not taken some action on this issue.

It is my understanding that this semester the meeting of trustees was held in L.A. instead of Oberlin. Needless to say, this would make it difficult for the trustees to communicate with the students about the state of the college and our vision for its future. Given that these people hold seemingly absolute authority over the direction that this college moves, it would be appropriate for you invite Mr. Dolan to the campus to talk with concerned students, and publicly inform him of student concerns about his logo and the negative stereotypes it perpetuates.

--Ben Ezinga, College Senior

Insulted SIC Attempts to Correct Misinformation

To the Editor:

In Jeff Harvey's article, "Sex. Are you Getting Enough?" in the Grape's Nov. 8, edition, the author managed to personally insult two Sexual Information Center counselors while additionally denigrating the organization as a whole. He proclaims that, "Oberlin is a small college, with a limited number of organizations, so the fact there is one based solely around sex speaks volumes, especially considering the relatively limited amount of time that we devote to it." Harvey does not, however, go on to explain what these "volumes" are. In addition, I'm not sure how he came up with the idea that so little time is devoted to sex. It is precisely this type of ignorance that generates a need for an organization such as SIC. Perhaps we can talk about what really speaks volumes. The fact that SIC's budget was severely cut this year by the Student Finance Committee despite the fact that SIC provides essential services to the Oberlin College community?

Harvey continues his thought with, "There isn't even an organization devoted completely to football." I'm not sure that Harvey even deserves a response to this statement, but I'll indulge him with one anyway. We are lucky that Oberlin College has a resource like the Sexual Information Center. Harvey implies that it is superfluous and that its goal is to provide recreation for those involved (similar to a football club). Perhaps I am not one to say that SIC is a more important organization than would be one dedicated to football; I do, however, feel completely confident in stating that SIC's role on this campus strives to serve all students while it is clear that a football team would not.

I find it interesting that Harvey chose not to include the questions he asked the two SIC counselors when he came to the office. They were, "Do you consider yourselves to be perverse?" and something along the lines of, "Do you get off on hearing people's crazy sexual stories?" Needless to say we were shocked at the questions asked of us. Harvey implied that we were sex-crazed students who had set up an organization in order to find out what sort of sexual acts were being performed by other students. This is so far from the truth that it was difficult to even respond.

Perhaps I should take a moment to explain exactly what it is that SIC does so that Harvey's interpretation of the organization should not become everyone's. The Sexual Information Center is an organization that provides information on sexuality and sexual health while at the same time respecting individuals' own choices regarding their sexuality. We provide safer sex supplies and pregnancy tests at-cost. We possess a fairly comprehensive library consisting of books and pamphlets. We do dorm raps, we teach an EXCO and manage to keep the Sexual Information Center office open for more than 30 hours each week. SIC counselors work for the organization between approximately six and 12 hours each week (and some of us work 30 hours!). We do not get paid nor do we receive any academic credit for our work. We do it because it is important to us. And regarding Harvey's snide remark at the end of his article, "If you would like to hear more interesting quotes from the staff of the SIC, you can drop Jeff an e-mail," I have one request for the Oberlin College community: If you have questions, comments or concerns regarding our organization email us at OSIC@oberlin.edu and not Jeff Harvey, Grape columnist extraordinaire.

On behalf of the Sexual Information Center:

--Laura Paley, College Senior, SIC Counselor

Radicalizing the Real Activists

To the Editor:

Although I prepared myself theoretically for the inevitable reactionary backlash of the Democratic Party nationally against the Nader campaign, I was shocked to see how people believed it. Too many people yelled at me that "A vote for Nader was a vote for Bush." I talked in detail about this with a friend who informed me that she forgot to request an absentee ballot, but if she had done so, she would have voted for Gore. I wonder how many other Lesser Evilites are out there who failed to vote. Remember, to forget to vote is just as much a vote for Bush as a vote for Nader could ever be. Hard to believe, isn't it? She didn't believe it. Neither actually adds one to Bush's total, and neither adds one to Gore's total. The only difference is the vote for Nader is a vote against the two party system. It threatens the very structure that the Democrats need to survive. That is why they spent $30 million in swing states on anti-Nader campaigns, ignoring Bush these last two weeks. That is why they set up fraudulent "Nader traitor" sites in which the Democrat on the other end forgets to vote for Nader. If Nader had gotten 10 to 15 percent of the vote, that would be something the media could not ignore. It would be something that would create great rifts in the AFL-CIO between the rank and file who would like to break from the Democrats and the union leadership with the fat salaries who get invited to all the Democrats private dinners. The union membership would rise up and demand that the AFL-CIO run its own presidential candidate in 2004. The unions have a $100 million they could spend on the election and have a membership of tens of millions whose vote they would already have won. The emergence of such a labor party is what makes destroying Nader's campaign Al Gore's number one priority (winning the election is number two). Everyone told me that they would vote for Nader if Ohio weren't a swing state. Another great line of the Gore campaign. Did anyone stop and think that the distinction between swing state and non-swing state is a fabrication of the polls? In no state (not even Florida) is the election decided by just one vote. That means that your strategic vote for Gore is just as useless as one for Nader. Eventually the people I was talking to realized the swing state distinction was arbitrary; the moment that Ohio ceased to be a swing state.

Any reactionary out there who destroyed the posters describing the real nature of Al Gore, why were you so mad to see them? Was it because you thought them slanderous? You could have asked us to verify our sources. Was it because you were worried about the effect it would have on the election? No, Bush had already gained such a lead in Ohio that the more honest members of the Gore campaign voted for Nader. I think it is because the Democrats told you to be mad, because the New York Times had front page articles attacking Nader for four consecutive days, and because you have rooted for the Democrats for so long that any insult to them seems like an insult to your family. Whatever these attacks mean, I know they have only accomplished one thing; the real activists around the nation have become radicalized in a way that could only have come from the experience of struggle.

--Ted Virdone, Socialist Alternative, College Junior

A Call to Dog-Raping Democrats

To the Editor:

This is a general letter to all of Al Gore's supporters on this campus, from a fervent adherent to Ralph Nader's candidacy.

Congratulations on winning the popular vote for the Presidency - it really was a fine, fine piece of work to pull that together. Unfortunately for you and the rest of this nation, your candidate did not win the electoral vote. This surely is an indication of two things: the ability of us Greens to conduct a proper insurgency, and that Al Gore and all of you are colossal losers. Allow me to elaborate.

First, the Greens. We are dedicated to the complete and utter dismantling of the capitalist system. We think, and have research to show, that the economic system of this country directly contributes to racism, sexism, homophobia, bad grammar, political corruption, grassroots vomiting and alien abductions. Although Mr. Nader has several million dollars in investments, shut the fuck up this does not indicate a conflict of interest! Although Mr. Nader has several million dollars in investments, he is a superb human being who will sacrifice along with the rest of us during the economic catastrophe which would surely follow his election. He is verily an angel.

The result of our campaign, perfectly in line with our intentions, is that Al Gore failed to win a handful of votes in a single state which determined the outcome of the race. If our 375 supporters in Florida had voted Democratic, then the balance would have been tipped in that direction. But, since Democrats are subhuman mass-murdering racist sexist dog-rapers with small penises and stinky breath, our Florida Greens decided to vote Nader. This gave George W. Bush the slim lead he got, which in turn got him Florida's 25 electoral votes and won him the leadership of the free world. Which brings me to my next point:

Democrats suck. What a bunch of two-timing, whiny, self-indulgent, wimpy, rhetoricizing hypocrites! I mean, really! To expect us to believe that they stand for women's rights, a living wage, affirmative action and the annihilation of the oppressive, bourgeois, family structure when all they do is shake hands with babies and kiss elderly women on the tuckus is vapidity etched in living flesh. Not to mention unadulterated evil. They want to create "jobs, jobs, jobs" and more "unprecedented prosperity." They should have goals more like our next one after this campaign, which is to seize power in a coup d'etat and then shatter the economy with socialist policies, which would reduce everyone in the world to utter penury and, paradoxically, make them more sympathetic to our leftist cause. You see, people are brainless sheep to be led by their noses while you sodomize them. That's the way both Mr. Nader and I feel: hence it is indisputable truth.

Speaking of brainless sheep, enjoy your four years of fascist dictatorship under Mr. Bush, courtesy of yours truly. We of the Green Party won't have time to: we'll be too busy plotting the Violent Revolution.

--S. Andrew Smith, Conservatory Senior

The Liberal Betrayal

To the Editor:

The strongest weapon in the arsenal of the two party system is lesser evilism. The Democrats use lesser-evilism as a club to beat back genuine movements and struggles from below. Particularly in this election, we saw the arguments of lesser evilism emerge stronger than before due to the candidacy of Ralph Nader.

Nader's campaign helped expose the liberal professors and students on this campus for who they really are: the most loyal, obedient, servile defenders of the Democratic Party via lesser-evilism. Between elections, these same liberals attempt to maintain credibility by criticizing things like Clinton's 1996 Welfare Reform Act, the 1994 Crime Bill, the effective Death Penalty/Anti-Terrorism act. Or, in some cases, they ignore these acts as simply aberrations from the larger good that Democrats do.

While liberals whine and moan about the faults of Clinton and even Gore, they do so to provide a left cover for these candidates. That way, when elections come along and the people's anger at the Tweedledee and Tweedledum candidates crystallizes into a genuine left alternative, they can save the Democratic candidates with appeals like: "We agree with all your grievances, we're on your side. Clinton has been wrong on some things. BUT, we CAN'T break from the Democrats NOW!... we need to stop Bush." Thus, when push comes to shove, when it comes to choosing between the two evils offered up by the two-party system, the liberal Democrats around the country and here in Oberlin rush to defend the Democratic candidate against the horrible Republican. No attacks by a Democratic administration could be great enough to compel these people to break from the Democratic Party. Welfare deform, more police on the streets, a million more in prisons, which Clinton and Gore have presided over still do not constitute the need to intransigently oppose BOTH parties of big-business.

Nothing offends these "allies" of the movement more than the audacious act of a left wing challenger to channel the anger and discontent into a powerful movement from below. While the Democrats defend the liberal section of big-business and the ruling class in this country, Nader stands up for the interests and aspirations of the workers, oppressed and the youth. He was the only candidate worth voting for in this election. A vote for Gore or any Democrat perpetuates the establishment and strikes a blow not against the two party system, but against the independent movement that is developing.

--Benjamin Arenburg, College Senior