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.

