T
oday,
in
many
households
throughout the Bay Area, football
jerseys are being
set aflame. This is not
necessarily
an
earth-
shattering
revelation
for avid sports fans, as
a
good-ol’-fashioned
jersey
burning
has
become an off-season
staple in recent years,
a tradition akin to a
bonfire in the fall. But
this is a unique case.
The
passion
of
this
situation
runs
even
deeper than the vitriol that the city of
Cleveland displayed in 2010 when Lebron
James decided to take his talents to South
Beach. This is not a city reacting to the
scorn of a jilted lover; rather, this is an act
that has transcended even the ironclad
bonds of team loyalty and penetrated the
core of our collective patriotism, leading
many to question what it means to be an
American.
On Aug. 26, San Francisco 49ers’
quarterback
Colin
Kaepernick
refused
to
stand during the national
anthem
performed
at
a
preseason
football
game against the Green
Bay
Packers.
Instead,
Kaepernick
elected
to
sit as a peaceful protest
to what he views as the
unfair treatment of African
Americans in this country.
“I am not going to stand up
to show pride in a flag for
a country that oppresses
Black people and people of
color,” Kaepernick claimed
after the game.
This statement immediately generated
immense backlash and led to many people
criticizing Kaepernick as un-American and
ignorant. They insisted that the refusal
to stand was an insult to members of the
armed forces. While the quarterback did
receive support from many of his fellow
NFL players, some of whom have since
adopted similar pregame gestures, he also
took into consideration the opinions of his
critics.
After
speaking
with
former
Staff
Sgt. Green Beret and current NFL long
snapper Nate Boyer, Kaepernick has since
decided to kneel during the anthem as
a show of respect to military tradition.
Despite this compromise, the criticism has
only intensified, as many groups like the
Santa Clara Police Officers’ Association
have expressed their displeasure with
Kaepernick’s actions.
Both sides of this debate have had
powerful reactions. There is no doubt that
the men and women of our armed forces
deserve more thanks and respect than we
as a nation could ever give them, and I am
aware of the fact that issues pertaining
to patriotism and national pride are very
emotional ones. At the same time, it’s hard
not to see the irony in a peaceful protest
being deemed as “un-American” or that
the person participating in it should be
considered ignorant for doing so.
The truth is that peaceful protests
are every bit as American as apple pie.
For generations they have served as a
fundamental tool in the American citizen’s
arsenal
of
democracy,
bringing
about
change and sparking important national
discussions on topics such as race, gender
and the right to unionize.
In fact, the history of the state of
Michigan is deeply intertwined with
that of the peaceful protest. One of the
first sit-down strikes in the history
of America occurred in 1936, in Flint,
when autoworkers peacefully protested
against General Motors and eventually
gained recognition of the United Auto
Workers as bargainers for GM’s employees.
Furthermore, here at the University of
Michigan, the first teach-in in history was
held in 1965 to protest the war in Vietnam.
These events are two of the most important
actions in the history of our state, and still
only represent a fraction of our nation’s
many great peaceful protests.
Despite the prominence of these protests
throughout history, there has been a strange
tendency by the media to treat this type of
action as some unheard-of occurrence,
when in reality this situation is not even
entirely new to the sports world. From a
historical perspective, Kaepernick has
some very distinguished
company. In his 1972
autobiography “I Never
Had It Made,” Jackie
Robinson — one of the
most iconic heroes in
the history of American
sports (and a former
member of the armed
forces himself ) — stated
plainly, “I cannot stand
and sing the anthem. I
cannot salute the flag;
I know that I am a black
man in a white world.”
These
words
came
from
a
man
who
experienced the evils of racism firsthand on
his way to breaking baseball’s color barrier.
While great strides have certainly been
made since Robinson’s time, turning the
news on just about any given day provides
a sobering reminder that his statement still
rings true today. There may be a Black man
in the White House, but this is still a white
world. With this in mind, it is important
that we have a true, open discussion about
the realities of racism in this country, and
Kaepernick has helped to reenergize this
conversation through the nonstop media
coverage that has surrounded his protest.
While his actions have rubbed many
people the wrong way, part of the beauty
of being American citizens is that we have
freedom of speech, and as a result we are
often forced to deal with situations that
make us uncomfortable. As individuals, we
rarely grow in situations in which we are
comfortable, and I believe that this goes the
same for our society as a whole. In my eyes,
the tensions and disagreements that our
society is currently facing are signs that we
are on the precipice of progress.
While Kaepernick’s critics may not agree
with his actions, I certainly hope that they
will respect his right to speak his mind and
will make an earnest attempt to understand
the position that he is coming from.
Kaepernick is continuing a long tradition
of peacefully pushing for much-needed
changes in society, and there are few things
more American than that.
—Jeff Brooks can be reached
at brooksjs@umich.edu. I
live in an apartment in
a
subdivided
house
in
Kerrytown — which is to say
that
despite
the
slanted
floor and lead
paint
(I
had
to
promise
my
mom
I
wouldn’t chew
on the window
sills),
the
amenities are
surprisingly
good.
The
house
must’ve
been
beautiful when it was first built in
the late 1800s, and certain features
remain, namely a spacious living
room and a big kitchen. When
my roommates and I first moved
in a year ago, I decided I’d take
advantage of the latter.
Part of this is a matter of personal
preference. Eating in, on average,
is less expensive than dining
out. There’s the added benefit of
dictating your own serving size and
adjusting recipes to your own tastes.
I also just happen to enjoy cooking.
It’s fun and relaxing for me.
Enter: meatloaf.
I can’t tell you why, but making
a meatloaf puts a smile on my
face. There’s an unparalleled
satisfaction
that
comes
from
mixing
together
eggs,
breadcrumbs,
ground
meat
(turkey, beef, pork … you name
it), spices, herbs and sauces. It’s
ingredient teamwork, and the
result is hearty, juicy and filling.
Our apartment dynamic is
also
meatloaf-esque.
Matt,
Casey and I are indiscriminate
ingredients that come together
to make something great. The
likelihood of a nursing student
from Oakland, Calif., a pre-med
kinesiology student from Grand
Rapids, Mich., and a public
policy student from Los Angeles
who met during Welcome Week
their freshman year becoming
close friends and living together
is just as crazy as someone,
eons ago, realizing meat could
somehow be more delicious in loaf
form. But it just works.
Meaty
analogies
about
friendship aside (there is more
to me than a love of meatloaf ),
cooking
in
our
Kerrytown
kitchen is important to me
because it brings us together at
the end of the day.
Our experiences are vastly
different.
Matt
conducts
clinicals in the hospital, Casey
works in a lab on North Campus,
and when I’m not doing policy
reading,
I’m
writing
these
sentimental columns. But the
few times a week when we are
able to gather, cook a meal
together, sit down at our kitchen
table and talk about anything —
from classes to politics to funny
Facebook videos to existential
crises — those times are among
my most cherished.
Those are opportunities for
us to decompress, to bond and to
grow. The significance of home-
cooked meals in our lives is no
anomaly. Eating dinner with
family is associated with better
dietary patterns, job and work
productivity and psychological
well-being.
My
takeaway?
Long
live
meatloaf.
—Michael Sugerman can be
reached at mrsugs@umich.edu.
Opinion
SHOHAM GEVA
EDITOR IN CHIEF
CLAIRE BRYAN
AND REGAN DETWILER
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITORS
LAURA SCHINAGLE
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Friday, September 16, 2016
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds. Letters
should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550 to 850
words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to tothedaily@
michigandaily.com.
I found happiness in meatloaf
Over the past year or so, and
especially
recently
with
the
University of Chicago dean of
students’ letter, trigger warnings
and safe spaces have become a
widely debated topic on campuses
across the country. Like every
issue these days, it too has become
politicized
along
extremely
polarized party lines. I’m here to
argue that truth exists on both
sides, and in these truths we can
find a clear justification for trigger
warnings and safe spaces that are
so hotly contested.
Social
conservatives
argue
that
justifications
for
trigger
warnings and safe spaces reflect
a general coddling of college
students, while liberals argue
we should respect the traumatic
experiences of people in general
—
especially
those
exhibiting
symptoms of PTSD or who fall
into marginalized social groups.
Though I don’t agree that
college students are being coddled
with safe spaces and trigger
warnings, there’s something to
be said for the argument that
our generation is more openly
emotional than generations past.
Millennials are often described as
sensitive, empathetic and open to
change — some argue too much so.
Maybe this is true because of
what Princeton professor and New
York Times opinion writer Christy
Wampole
calls
“the
emotive
spectacle” in her new book of
essays,
“The
Other
Serious:
Essays for the New American
Generation.”
Wampole
writes,
“There seems to be an emphasis
on showing people in the process
of feeling strong emotions.”
Wampole suggests that maybe
this emphasis “works in lieu of
audience members experiencing
real emotions themselves.” I’ll be
the first person to tell you that
my generation’s habit of assigning
emotionally difficult interactions
to the realms of texting (versus
speaking face-to-face) has a dulling
effect on emotions. But I’d like to
offer a slightly different argument:
With the media millennials have
been faced with most of their
lives — a large portion of which
is likely to have been emotionally
focused — it’s likely this generation
is at least more aware of a wider
sample of emotional experiences
across demographic groups than
generations past.
Wampole mentions, “All of this
is staged to toy with our mirror
neurons.
Somebody
wants
to
use empathy against us.” Here
Wampole suggests that mass media
outlets know we’ll feel affected by
these accounts and images of the
affected person. They’re using
people’s emotional experiences
to draw the consumer in, to get as
many clicks as possible.
Perhaps
millennials,
to
a
greater extent than any preceding
generation,
have
been
made
the commodities of mass media
outlets owned by big corporations
and
media
conglomerates.
But maybe there’s something
redeemable in this kidnapping of
our mirror neurons. Maybe the
influx of emotional images has
made us, at least in part, more
empathetic in very real, very
deep ways that can allow us to
better understand one another
across demographic groups.
I say this all only to highlight
that, yes, our generation is more
openly or outwardly emotional
than
prior
generations.
The
origins of this could be in mass
media’s
emotive
spectacle,
it
could be in Facebook or it could
be a revolt against less emotional
previous generations that are seen
as oppressive (of such emotions,
of
marginalized
populations).
An effect could be that we’re too
sensitive of each other’s emotions
at times. But I argue these
occasions are the exceptions and
not the rules.
So when it comes to trigger
warnings, one may ask: What is
it people are asking to be warned
about, exactly? What is it people
are asking to be kept safe from?
Groups that come to mind, which
can intersect with one another,
are
the
LGBTQ
community,
people of color, Muslims who walk
to class in the morning only to find
the words “stop Islam” written
on the Diag. These are all groups
that face different but interwoven
systems of oppression that often
manifest themselves in distinct
events that can be traumatic for
some. To claim trigger warnings
and safe spaces are unwarranted
delegitimizes these experiences
for marginalized groups. To
borrow from a recent piece
by
Daily
columnist
Clarissa
Donnelly-DeRoven, if someone
says they’re hurt, you don’t get
to tell them they’re not.
It is also crucial to consider
who, exactly, is speaking out
against
trigger
warnings
and
safe spaces. At the University
of
Michigan’s
2016
Spring
Commencement
ceremony,
Michael Bloomberg spoke out
against
safe
spaces,
trigger
warnings and code words, saying,
“Microaggressions
are
exactly
that: micro.” It’s worth noting
that Bloomberg is a white male
who grew up in a middle-class
Boston suburb which was more
than 75 percent white. During
Bloomberg’s time as mayor of New
York City, he ran an administration
that was, according to Federal
District Judge Shira Scheindlin,
“deliberately indifferent” toward
discriminatory
stop-and-frisk
policing. Today, Bloomberg is
worth more than $48 billion.
I’d say it’s clear that Bloomberg
is hardly one to talk about how
universities
might
approach
creating a welcoming and inclusive
campus for marginalized groups.
Another recent example whom
I mentioned previously is the
University of Chicago’s dean of
students,
John
“Jay”
Ellison.
Ellison, also a white male, is the
son of an epidemiologist and
spent most of his childhood in
Georgia (and some of it in a small
community in Minnesota that
is more than 80 percent white).
Here he eventually served as
a police officer for four years
before finishing his education
at
Southeastern
University,
which
the
Harvard
Crimson
describes as a “Bible college in
rural Florida.” While I’d like
to avoid stereotyping, Ellison’s
background makes me doubt the
validity of his criticisms of safe
spaces and trigger warnings.
Yes,
millennials
are
too
sensitive, but we are a generation
that is considerate of others.
Because of globalization, we
are more connected than ever.
Many of these sensitivities aim
to respect experiences of our
friends
across
demographic
groups
who’ve
experienced
hardship
at
the
hands
of
systematic oppression built over
centuries. And that is something
honorable.
Regan Detwiler is a co-editorial
page editor of The Michigan Daily.
Carolyn Ayaub, Claire Bryan, Roland Davidson,
Regan Detwiler, Caitlin Heenan, Jeremy Kaplan,
Ben Keller, Minsoo Kim, Payton Luokkala, Kit Maher,
Madeline Nowicki, Anna Polumbo-Levy, JasonRowland,
Kevin Sweitzer, Rebecca Tarnopol,
Ashley Tjhung, Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
“The truth
is that
peaceful
protests are
every bit as
American as
apple pie.”
MICHAEL
SUGERMAN
REGAN DETWILER | OP-ED
Justifying our compassionate generation
The land of the free
IN CHAN LEE
email in chan at tokg@umich.edu
JEFF
BROOKS
MICHAEL
SUGERMAN