4
Thursday, June 22, 2017
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
OPINION
T
he
founders
of
the
United States created our
country on many guiding
principles, the first being freedom
of speech and the press. Despite it
being a value settled centuries ago,
it is a concept that contemporary
society still grapples with today.
Specifically, the limits of free
speech
are
contested
when
discussing
mainstream
media,
speakers on university campuses,
and
words
considered
hate
speech.
I argue that those with political
or capital power tend to reap the
benefits of free speech more so than
oppressed groups. This is evident
when evaluating state legislations
punishing students who protest
speakers and prominent media
figures
saying
controversial
phrases.
The Michigan Daily Editorial
Board recently highlighted two
Michigan bills that give public
institutions the power to disrupt
peaceful
assembly
given
the
correct circumstances and punish
students for participating in these
assemblies. State senators produced
these bills because of the many
instances of students preventing
controversial speakers from doing
events on campus. The bills look
to preserve free speech; however,
by doing so they restrict peaceful
assembly and protest, another
avenue of free speech.
The
instances
that
have
sparked this argument are mainly
those such as events with Milo
Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter at
Berkeley. These events ended with
violence and fear at the university,
an outcome most people agree
should be avoided. Personally,
I don’t feel that violence is the
answer to fighting these ideas.
On
the
other
hand,
many
protesters were not those who
simply disagreed with Milo or
Coulter’s political stances, but
rather
felt
similarly
attacked
and unsafe by their messages.
Yiannopoulos has a history of
prejudice, whether it be from
his racially-motivated attacks on
Leslie Jones, or his denunciation
of a transgender student. For
these
reasons,
students
often
feel threatened by prejudice and
bigotry being preached on their
own campus. Therefore, I very
well could be privileged not to feel
compelled to violence, as it could
feel like self-defense. Of course I
don’t condone violence, but I have
not had to endure the conditions
that make violence seem necessary.
Violence has obviously been the
catalyst behind these bill, as it not
only looks to improve free speech,
but also safety. But a byproduct of
the bills is restricting the free speech
of the ones who feel threatened the
most. Ultimately, it protects the
powerful speakers who already have
political capital, and dismisses and
punishes the oppressed who stand to
lose the most.
This also stands true when
evaluating how uses of “free speech”
are
treated
among
celebrities,
notably Bill Maher and Kathy
Griffin. Recently, both comedians
sparked controversy by pushing the
boundaries of acceptable free speech.
Bill Maher referred to himself as a
“house n*****” in a slavery joke on
his show Real Time With Bill Maher.
Kathy Griffin posted a photo with a
violently decapitated Trump head.
While both were distasteful
jokes, society criticized Kathy
much more vehemently than they
did Maher. In fact, in the YouTube
video in which Bill discusses
the incident with Ice Cube and
Symone Sanders, the comments
are filled with praise for Maher and
hatred for Sanders and Ice Cube’s
criticisms.
After Sanders notes that the
history of house slaves is not only
black but primarily female, one
commenter goes as far to say,
“Symone Sanders is a disgusting
racist who is in no position
to
lecture
others
on
racism.
Hypocritical, disgusting, racist,
horrible person.” This comment
has seventy-seven likes.
The video itself also has four
thousand more dislikes than likes.
While I grant that Ice Cube is far
from the posterchild for prejudice-
free America, the video speaks to
the pass that Maher gets because
of his political capital. Not only is
he free from criticism, those who
object to his use are condemned.
On the other hand, CNN fired
Kathy Griffin and many claim
her career to be over. While she
did make a very insensitive joke
toward a sitting president, it
sparked a much fiercer blowback
that Maher’s incident did. Both in
the name of comedy, although only
Maher is free from criticism. I love
Bill Maher and watch him weekly,
but it clear that he is benefitting
from privilege that grants him more
free speech power. And although
Griffin is a powerful woman, she is
a woman nonetheless and has been
afforded far less room to push the
societal boundaries of free speech
The
free
speech
incidents
surrounding university campuses
and comedians have showcased
how
the
free
swpeech
of
disenfranchised groups in America
are put behind others. There
can be arguments over which
jokes are tasteful, or what form
of protest is appropriate, but we
shouldn’t punish those already at
a disadvantage in society. If you
value free speech and its principles,
value everyone’s free speech.
—Brennan Pope
NISA KHAN
EDITOR IN CHIEF
SARAH KHAN
EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR
DAYTON HARE
MANAGING EDITOR
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at
the University of Michigan since 1890.
Free speech for the disempowered
BRENNAN POPE| COLUMN
P
reserving
and
marking
the sites of ancient Native
American burial mounds,
which are prevalent in the Midwest
where ancient tribes such as the
Adena lived until 1 A.D, is crucial
for acknowledging the depth of the
scars colonialism has left on our
society. However, a simple marker or
plaque beside a mound can only do
so much — a deeper understanding
of different indigenous cultures is
needed if we are to truly empathize
with and respect people who lived
here before Europeans laid their first
camps.
Imagine this situation: an Adena
mound is located on the construction
site of an office complex. The
contractor has bought all the supplies,
has
promised
their
employees
work and has promised their client
an office building. Construction
commences, and in the process of
digging out the basement someone
finds a skull. Federal law requires the
contractor to call law enforcement
and establish a crime scene. Then a
coroner works with ethnoforensics
specialists to excavate, halting the
project for, say, a year.
By the time they finish, the
contractor has to pay his builders
for the work they were shorted and
is eager to speed along the building
process so the client doesn’t hire
somebody else for their next job.
Ethnoforensics say some remains —
some tools, an arm or a leg — might
still be there, but they extracted what
they could to comply with the law in
a timely manner.
The land on which the mound
once sat is then partially covered
with an office building, and the other
portion has been flattened to create a
clean-cut lawn. The remains found
in the mound are safe inside a local
historical society, guarded by the
meticulous hands of conservation
specialists
in
a
temperature-
controlled room, but the land from
whence it came bears no mark of the
objects ever being there. And nothing
marks the site that was once a sacred
tomb.
Something kind of similar (kind
of) happened in 2012 with Richard
III of England, whose remains were
found under a church parking lot.
I don’t think construction workers
knew what they were building on
when they were laying pavement, but
the fiasco became a media sensation,
and now there are memes about it.
It’s funny when the thing being
defiled is perceived by the dominant
culture as larger than life — has the
privilege of, well, royalty.
It’s not so funny when the people
whose legacy is being defiled are
the ancestors of a demographic
that has been, and continues to
be, consistently undervalued and
mistreated by dominant American
culture. So, what should we do about
it?
One option is a plaque. A memorial.
More extensive museums. But,
surprise, it’s not that simple.
When I visited Shrum Mound, I
could obviously see it, but I couldn’t
feel the depth of its meaning in my
own bones the way I could in St.
Paul’s Cathedral. I needed a better
translation of Adena culture than
what the plaque could give me.
Because of this, my visit to Shrum
Mound in some ways felt trivial. I
saw a giant bulge in the earth, but I
didn’t know quite what to make of it.
It’s impossible to connect with these
ancient communities when there
are no markers, but even when there
are markers, I can’t glean as much
as I need from them to feel any such
connection.
What I know I share with the
Adena people is the land. Without
conflating
indigenous
people
and “nature,” which can be a
dehumanizing and dangerous thing
to do, I’ve been trying to learn more
about the landscape I’ve dwelled
upon all my life, as I know it offered
powerful
resources
to
ancient
communities who hunted, gathered
and farmed on it. My new field guide
about wildflowers in Ohio will give
me a Westernized, classification-
focused
education.
Though
I
can’t say for sure, it’s likely a much
different understanding of local flora
than what the Adena had. Still, it’s a
start.
Flipping through its sturdy pages,
I take note of which are native and
which were introduced from abroad
(mostly Europe), as those are the
plants the Adena most likely used. I
learned the Oswego people used the
red-flowered plant Monarda didyma,
a type of mint, for tea (the plant is
now colloquially called Oswego Tea).
Though I’m not familiar with its red
flowers, I see the light purple blooms
of its relative, Monarda fistulosa,
everywhere around here. That plant,
colloquially named Wild Bergamot,
has been cultivated for European
commercial teas. I haven’t yet
made the tea, but I hope to try it
soon and taste what the Adena
might have.
—Regan Detwiler can be
reached at regandet@umich.edu.
The first settlers, part three
REGAN DETWILER| COLUMN
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily’s Summer Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.