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.

