O
n Monday, Jan. 16, I
attended
the
keynote
Martin Luther King Jr.
Symposium event at
Hill Auditorium. And
while I was there to
see
Amy
Goodman
and Issa Rae, I was
really
struck
by
a
version of the U.S.
national anthem that
was performed by two
graduate students.
The song, originally
written in 1844, is
titled “Oh Say, Do You
Hear?”
Performed
to
the tune of the national anthem
to which most of us stand up
without hesitation at sporting
events,
this
version
contains
lyrics that refer explicitly to the
United States’s history of bondage
and slavery, and even points to
the irony and the violence of
American exceptionalism. This is
an exceptionalism that demands
that we, as Americans, regard
ourselves as citizens of the land of
the free, even while millions of our
fellow citizens remain enslaved.
Here is the first verse of this
revised version of our national
anthem:
Oh, say do you hear, at the dawn’s
early light,
The shrieks of those bondmen,
whose blood is now streaming
From the merciless lash, while
our banner in sight
With its stars, mocking freedom,
is fitfully gleaming?
Do you see the backs bare? Do you
mark every score
Of the whip of the driver trace
channels of gore?
And say, doth our star-spangled
banner yet wave
O’er the land of the free, and the
home of the brave?
When juxtaposed with our
national anthem, what is the
impact of these lyrics? How does
our response differ from the song
that we know so well? Imagine,
if you will, that after we watched
Harbaugh and the Big Blue Gang
run out onto the field, we all stood
up and sang along to this song.
Would we even sing along? Or
would we be too embarrassed,
too humiliated, by this song that
functions both as our national
anthem and as a cruel reminder
of our past and as a song, heard
in the present, which demands
that we confront our past and ask
ourselves how far we have truly
come. Would we even stand? Or
might this song actually prompt
us to action? Maybe on good days,
days when our culture has done
well, days when our culture has
worked to eradicate the growing
wealth
disparities,
to decrease the more
than 2 million people
living in cages in this
country. … Maybe on
these days, we could
hear the celebratory
song. But not every
day. Every day cannot
be a celebration.
I once saw a Reddit
post about smoking
weed that made this
analogy: Weed is like
your vacation house, and at first
you go there once a week, once a
month and then you start going
there every day, a couple times a
day, maybe. And once you do this,
you have begun to try to make
your vacation house your everyday
house. Very quickly, then, the
vacation house loses its appeal.
(In other words, the celebration,
the vacation, stops being a positive
thing entirely. It becomes a
moment of denial, a moment in
which one refuses to confront the
world in front of them, instead
opting to live in a fabricated,
imagined world in which we can
vacation all night long and sing
“Hail to the Victors” — a song
that does nothing but “celebrate”
in a, I would argue, similarly
destructive way).
Immediately, the lyrics of this
version call to our attention the
violently compliant nature with
which we, as a culture, examine
ourselves as Americans. These
lyrics make two things clear: first,
that while we deem our national
anthem to be a quintessentially
American
song,
the
opening
lines of this version allude to the
inherently exclusionary nature of
the song, indeed, of the idea that
one is an American. Who, then, is
fit to wear the priceless badge of an
American? Whose history, whose
country, does our national anthem
celebrate? For it is a song that
ignores the history of the country
that it claims to celebrate. But what
is a country — indeed, who are any
of us, what is anything at all —
without its history?
Instead of the country itself,
our national anthem celebrates
an idealized, racialized vision of
America that only can function
on the bloody backs of millions of
enslaved people.
I must say, though, that I
was really impressed that this
performance took place here,
at the University of Michigan.
Sitting
in
Hill
Auditorium,
looking at the same stage upon
which King himself once stood
to give two lectures in 1962, I
felt the University beginning to
confront its own filthy history
and that of the United States at
large. It was the most radical
administratively
approved
moment I have witnessed in
Ann Arbor.
President Mark Schlissel was
there, as was Robert Sellers, the
Chief Diversity Officer and Vice
President for Equity and Inclusion
at the University, and numerous
other big-time faculty members
and administrators. The biggest
head honcho missing from the
event
was
Coach
Harbaugh.
Imagine that, if he came out, and
if, perhaps, our fight song played.
No, that could not happen. That
would be too contradictory. That
would put us into a position of
two kinds of consciousness, one
right after the other. The first “Go
Blue!” consciousness that is, to
quote Frank Ocean’s truth-telling
mother, “Sluggish, lazy, stupid, and
unconcerned.” A consciousness
which celebrates blindly, which
contentedly
cheers
without
actually considering at all the full
scope of what is being cheered.
And
then
the
second
consciousness, which probes itself
and those conscious beings around
it, which seeks to contextualize
itself and its country within a
much broader, more inclusive
framework.
At least for a moment, this
seemed to be the consciousness
of the University. May we hope
that this moment demonstrates
the
direction
in
which
our
administrators will lead us in the
days, months and years to come.
D
o you remember how, for
many Americans, Nov.
9 (the day following the
election of Donald Trump), was
marked by feelings of extreme
bewilderment,
disbelief,
fear,
sadness and resolve to do more —
to not be complacent in a regime
of racism, to work doubly hard
for civil rights for all, to protect
and
empower
one
another,
and to get involved in civic
life and civil disobedience and
volunteering? These resolutions
were so prevalent, among both
liberals and moderates, as well
as even a few Trump voters
who realized the pain of their
marginalized friends. They were
almost ubiquitous that second
week of November. It is now days
into the Trump administration,
and I’m asking you resolution-
makers: What have you done to
fulfill
these
well-intentioned
passionate promises to do better,
to be better, to make change?
What have I done?
It is so easy to talk about
politics.
I
tweet
about
my
frustrations about the political
climate at least once per day, but
confronting my tendency to talk
rather than act is difficult. Social
media can be a really powerful
tool
for
organizing
meetups
and changing cultural norms.
(Think: changing profile pictures
to reflect support for marriage
equality
and
organizing
the
Women’s
March
on
Washington this January, both
primarily via Facebook).
There
is
some
evidence
to support this form of “thin
engagement”
also
sometimes
termed “slacktivism” as a method
for
involving
traditionally
uninvolved
communities
in
civic life, as well as promoting
offline action from simply more
acceptance and visibility of the
LGBTQ community to putting
boots on the ground. For example,
social networks have contributed
extensively to the structure of the
Black Lives Matter movement,
giving staying power, personal
narrative and structure to an
online and offline phenomenon.
Black Lives Matter, however,
and similar movements with an
online presence are of a different
order of coordinated magnitude
than a Facebook post you push
out to your typically like-minded
friends or a snarky Tweet shared
with a sympathetic audience.
The latter are not meaningful
actions. Confusing these brief
exchanges for something that will
productively, actively contribute
to safer lives for Americans is
dangerous — it makes you feel
like you’ve done something; it
allows you to pat yourself on the
back as a budding activist, and it
ultimately will leave no minds
changed and no lives improved.
Hillary
Clinton
won
this
election’s popular vote by nearly
3 million votes. I’m not here to
relitigate the election, but I am
here to say that nearly 3 million
more Americans of voting age
are dissatisfied with the overtly
discriminatory
and
nearly
kleptocratic
administration
that just took office. If you
consider yourself a member of
this dissatisfied bunch (and you
don’t need to be a Democrat or
a liberal to do so), you’re not
alone. Collective action is more
important now than ever before.
If
you
made
yourself
a
promise on Nov. 9, consider
that the follow-through on that
promise is not just for yourself
but for the millions of non-
white, non-heterosexual, non-
cisgender, non-male, non-able
bodied,
immigrant,
Muslim,
lower-income and uninsured
people (and every intersection
between
these
groups
and
more). When you express your
disdain for Trump or for any
of the -isms or -phobias he
espouses without taking action,
you are not keeping good on
these promises and you (and I)
are betraying those who need
us. We are betraying each other.
As former President Barack
Obama stated back in 2014, “When
citizens are free to organize and
work together across borders to
make our communities healthier,
our environment cleaner, and
our world safer, that’s when real
change comes.” He also noted
at his recent appearance in Ann
Arbor the famous Brandeis quote,
“the most important office ... is
that of the private citizen.”
Let’s not be lazy in 2017. Let’s
recognize the role that each one
of us individually plays in our
democracy. We are citizens and
our civic action matters and it
starts at home, with you and me.
You should be informed about local
and state politics — this is a place to
make a change for the people you
know and see every day. Educate
others if you can — invite them
to accompany you to city council
meetings, get to the polls or call
your
representatives
together.
Talk with your family members
and friends with whom you agree
and disagree and learn, while
standing up for others. You should
be donating your time, if you are
able, to both local organizations,
regional
chapters
of
national
organizations
and
national
organizations
themselves
that
fight for women, against systemic
racism, against homophobia and
transphobia and for fair, just civil
rights for all and an independent
press. Do it with friends if you
want. If you have the means to
donate money, you can do that too.
And if you do all of that, or
some of that, or any of that, it may
become easier to sleep well at
night. You can’t fight fascism on
Facebook alone. But if you involve
yourself in civic life, if you honestly
commit yourself to a cause, if you
keep good on your promise to the
millions of people who need it, feel
free to keep posting.
Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Monday, January 23, 2017
Go beyond what is ‘doable’
MILES MCGRUDER | COLUMN
A
fter about four and a half
months
of
downtime
following
a
rocket
explosion during test
operations,
SpaceX
returned to flight on
Jan. 14.
The
aggressive
timeline
SpaceX
brings to the table is
contrary to the other
major space launch
companies.
Most
of these companies
respond
extremely
conservatively
to
the great risk of space launch. For
instance, the European company
Arianespace has been launching
their Ariane 5 rocket since before
I was born in 1997. The costs
involved in each mission are so
high that most companies would
not dare endanger mission success
in attempt to make improvements.
This is obviously not the case
with SpaceX, as it has released
consistent and notable revisions to
its Falcon 9 rocket. Thus, SpaceX
has achieved great successes in a
short time frame relative to the
rest of the aerospace industry,
where projects often take decades
to complete.” It has also, of course,
fallen short of the incredible
reliability of Arianespace and
other more traditional companies.
SpaceX is a classic example of
when people or organizations are
left with a choice. They can take
the most reliable possible course
of action until forced to change,
or they can embrace inherently
riskier
constant
change
and
improvement. The reliability route
is clearly the road most traveled. I
venture so far as to say the reliable
road is the only sensible path to
take for any person or group that
values their well-being mentally
and physically. We can only take
the path of constant change when
something other than the well-
being motivates us. This could
be to fulfill a mission, for sheer
enjoyment (strangely) or else
something of the like. Based on
its recent actions I am
confident SpaceX is in a
stage where it remains
guided by the goal of
its founder, Elon Musk,
the creation of a self-
sustaining
civilization
on Mars. It requires
incredible discipline to
maintain loyalty to one’s
original cause. Perhaps
this is even impossible,
change being the only
constant.
The evolution of a company
from
young
and
mission-
driven
to
experienced
with
different motivations seems like
an inevitable one. Over time,
everyday operations cause things
to slowly change and sight of the
original goal is lost. The weight of
short-term needs soon outweighs
the grandeur of the original vision.
The original, ideal ending is simply
brought down by human nature
itself: People in general default
to doing what they need to do to
survive optimally. We concentrate
on the money, the fame, the power,
the pleasure, whatever we meet
on the way to the end goal and
become distracted. From here the
vision is done and the once-vibrant
company, club, group or whatever
it may be becomes something
it was never meant to become.
Whether the response is dismay
or acquiescence it seems the result
cannot be helped.
We see this common effect play
out slowly in our everyday lives.
We see it in our schooling, work,
even hobbies. It takes a constant
effort to counteract the negative
change in attitude and remain
fresh. I have seen individuals
switch jobs frequently to avoid
succumbing to boredom. People
switch majors if the one they are
pursuing
becomes
something
they do not like. In schools, and,
of course, here at the University of
Michigan, countless organizations
exist
and
are
continuously
created
that
ultimately
help
people
counteract
the
slow
negative change. Nonetheless, it is
extremely difficult to stick to the
plan long term.
This leads to the inevitable
question: Is it at all worth
trying to stick stubbornly to the
outcome originally envisioned?
It seems it would be necessary
to align the stars in such a way
that the natural tendencies for
survival that break down grand
plans instead help those plans
along. If so, great sacrifices are
needed to achieve whatever the
original goal was. It is honestly
probably better to let things run
their course and be a part of
the constant cycle of nascent
hope and jaded maturity. I, of
course, being relatively young,
want to believe it is possible to
break the cycle.
For no reason but this, I hope
SpaceX succeeds. I hope Elon
Musk gets his self-sustaining
civilization on Mars because I
want to see an exception to the
rule ultimately succeed. I want
to see that some “crazy” desire
like wanting humans to live on
Mars can be achieved despite
sounding like a mission destined
for failure. This would not only
be another example of sticking
to the vision of a major project
in history, it would be a glaring,
modern example that sticks in
people’s minds. The successful
return to flight is just one small
step on this excruciatingly long
and difficult journey, but I wish
them the best.of a major project
in history, it would be a glaring,
modern example that sticks in
people’s minds.
REBECCA LERNER
Managing Editor
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
EMMA KINERY
Editor in Chief
ANNA POLUMBO-LEVY
and REBECCA TARNOPOL
Editorial Page Editors
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.
Carolyn Ayaub
Caitlin Heenan
Jeremy Kaplan
Max Lubell
Alexis Megdanoff
Madeline Nowicki
Anna Polumbo-Levy
Jason Rowland
Ali Safawi
Kevin Sweitzer
Rebecca Tarnopol
Ashley Tjhung
Stephanie Trierweiler
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
What have you done?
MADELINE NOWICKI | OP-ED
Deconstructing celebration
ISAIAH ZEAVIN-MOSS | COLUMN
Isaiah Zeavin-Moss can be reached
at izeavinm@umich.edu.
MICHELLE SHENG | CONTACT MICHELLE AT SHENGMI@UMICH.EDU
Madeline Nowicki is a senior
editorial page editor.
ISAIAH
ZEAVIN-
MOSS
MADELINE NOWICKI
Miles McGruder can be reached at
mmcgrude@umich.edu.
MILES
MCGRUDER
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 felt the
University
beginning to
confront its own
filthy history and
that of the United
States at large.