Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, November 14, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
Erin White
Lola Yang
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
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.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
DIRECT ACTION FOR PALESTINE | OP-ED
Occupation is not an innovation
ANIK JOSHI | COLUMN
LEAH ADELMAN | OP-ED
The problem with trying to end ‘forever war’
The right to ride
A
ll
three
of
the
last
presidents
have
emphasized
the
need
to
draw
down
American
involvement beyond American
borders. President George Bush
ran an isolationist campaign and
his
administration
proceeded
to
embrace
neoconservatism
and nation building. President
Barack Obama decried Bush’s
wars as a senator, but once he
was elected, he amped them up
to the point where there were
troops in more countries when
he left office than when he came
in. President Donald Trump also
ran an isolationist campaign and
has embraced some of that in
the White House. He also called
Bush’s decision to go to war in
Iraq “the single worst decision
ever made.” President Trump is in
charge of the military and could
choose to bring the troops home.
However, he probably will not
– despite running on it – for the
same reason America has stayed
in the Middle East for as long as it
has. While us being in the Middle
East is problematic, us leaving
does more damage and that is the
paradox of the forever war.
The “forever war” has many
problems, but one major success
has been that Americans have
been kept safe in a way that they
weren’t before. Since 9/11, there
have been no attacks on that scale
because of the global security
apparatus that we helped build
and then deploy. American power
doesn’t just protect us – it protects
civilians in the Middle East as
well as civilians all over the world
because of the deterrence factor.
If Trump decides to withdraw
troops and history is any guide,
it could be followed by an even
bigger deployment.
The closest parallel to Trump’s
pulling out of Syria before fully
finishing the job is Obama’s
pulling out of Iraq in 2011. At
the time, Obama was anxious to
fulfill a campaign promise, and
he acted quickly to draw down
the troop presence until it had all
but evaporated by December 2011.
In Iraq, there was still work to be
done – just like there is in Syria –
but domestic political desires and
a general American weariness
towards Middle East involvement
outweighed
that.
However,
Obama did end up redeploying
troops to Iraq in one of the crueler
twists of irony. Today, ISIS is at
one of its lower points, but just
like in Iraq, it is not done yet. In all
likelihood, this will not be the end
of American troops in Syria and
rather than losing ground now
and having to fight for it again,
we would be better served staying
there and maintaining our gains.
In addition to problems when
we stop engaging, there are issues
when we choose not to engage
at all. There is no other nation
that has both our values and
our resources – in other words,
there is no other nation that can
police the world as well as we
do. If we decide to draw down
our foreign involvement out of
some misplaced desire to let the
world go on as it would, then the
world would be a much more
brutal place. Though there are
occasional exceptions, American
involvement abroad is generally
a positive, and when we stay out,
bad things tend to happen, such as
the Rwandan genocide that took
place in the 1990s.
During that genocide, President
Bill Clinton made a decision to
avoid involvement because of the
political blowback from the Battle
of Mogadishu in Somalia. As a
result, we watched hundreds of
thousands of people die between
April and July of 1994. Us not
being involved didn’t make things
better. In fact, it made things far
worse for the people who were
left to fend for themselves during
one of the bloodiest episodes in
human history.
President George H.W. Bush
once said that America is more
than a country on the roll call
between Albania and Zimbabwe,
and he was right. We have a duty
to uphold freedom, human rights
and liberty and to help others
who do the same. If we fail to do
so, people will be victimized all
over the world. While some may
say those beyond our borders are
not our problem, they are wrong.
When we don’t act to prevent
problems abroad, they come home
to roost, and that tragedy should
be avoided at all costs.
Anik Joshi can be reached at
anikj@umich.edu.
E
very time I buckle my
bike helmet, I wonder
if it will be my last
ride. I commute to class by
bike and train on the road
as a competitive cyclist, and
each day I worry if my safety
precautions will be enough.
In the past year, two of my
teammates have been struck
by vehicles and injured while
they
were
following
the
rules of the road. Without
asking for it, I’ve become an
advocate for cyclists and bike
infrastructure.
We love to hate cyclists.
They’re on the road with the
cars, taking up space and
making it harder to drive.
We love to tell stories about
irresponsible cyclists running
red lights or making it hard
to pass. It is unfortunate that
we generalize this group of
road users and fail to bring
up
in
these
conversations
the
staggering
number
of
irresponsible
drivers
that
make roads equally unsafe
spaces.
Despite
the
fact
that
cyclists are doing good for the
world by reducing traffic and
greenhouse gas emissions, I
can put up with people who
choose to see the negatives of
road users on bikes. What I
cannot put up with, however,
are those who are unwilling
to support the efforts to make
roads safer and more effective
for community users. The new
two-way protected bike lane
on East William Street is a
step forward for everyone.
Recently, I was infuriated
when the driver of my Uber
mentioned his distaste for
the road changes. He said he
doesn’t like these types of new
accommodations for cyclists
because it makes the roads
narrower and reduces parking
space.
He
was
concerned
the narrower roads would
cause more drivers to hit one
another. While I’m sure he
did not mean to, what he was
implying was that he favored
the protection of vehicles over
the protection of human lives.
Bike
infrastructure
saves
human lives — I, personally,
am unconcerned with a few
extra cars getting dented.
What if the money used
on this bike lane installation
was
instead
used
to
fix
other roads? Yes, that could
happen, but if we are talking
about the issue of potholes
and disintegrating roads, we
should also think about the
damage to a road done by a
person on a bike versus that
by that same person in a motor
vehicle. The cyclists of Ann
Arbor are paying taxes just
like everyone else, yet they
are not doing nearly the same
damage to roads.
People make jokes about
how entitled the pedestrians
are in Ann Arbor. They love
to make fun of the idea that
pedestrians
walk
in
front
of cars and are asking to
be killed. I laugh at these
jokes here and there, but I’m
worried about how this humor
may actually affect how we
think about driving. Drivers
often think they own the
roads and that if something
bad occurs, it’s because any
pedestrian or cyclist involved
was unpredictable or stupid.
While we should all be alert on
the road, the person with their
hands on the wheel should not
assume that the other road
users are trying to get killed.
The way we think about
pedestrian safety is closely
linked to that of cyclist safety
because these two groups
both
comprise
vulnerable
road users, meaning they have
little or no external protection
in the event of a collision.
Crosswalks,
sidewalks
and
well-known
right-of-
way laws help make Ann
Arbor a pedestrian-friendly
community.
Meanwhile,
cyclists exist in a gray space.
The pavement they use as
transportation is designed for
and shared with vehicles much
larger and more powerful than
them.
The lack of parking in
Ann Arbor is a disaster. The
traffic in Ann Arbor is a
disaster. The road quality in
Ann Arbor is a disaster. The
new bike lane is incentivizing
biking as a safe and effective
mode of commuting for the
community. There are people
who are hesitant to mount
a bike because they know
the
threatening
nature
of
motorists. People die all the
time
while
following
the
rules of the road because of
irresponsible
drivers.
But
better
bike
infrastructure
means more people on bikes,
which means fewer in cars.
And fewer cars means a better
experience for people who
live and work in Ann Arbor –
including those who continue
to drive.
L
ast Sunday, a group of
students organized an
event at the University
of Michigan’s Ross School of
Business called Israel Summit
at Michigan to celebrate Israel.
The
summit’s
stated
goals
were to “decrease anti-Israel
sentiment on campus” and to
“present Israel as the positive
world contributor it is.”
Members of Direct Action for
Palestine and Students Allied
for
Freedom
and
Equality
stood in protest against the
event, taking issue with both
of its stated goals. We marched
to
draw
attention
to
the
problematic nature of the event
and to raise awareness of the
ongoing
settler
colonization
and military occupation of
Palestine. After marching, we
stood outside the summit with
signs that read “Free Palestine”
and “Occupation is not an
innovation.”
Despite being careful not
to disrupt the actual events
of the day and following the
University’s protest guidelines,
the Division of Public Safety
and Security used lies and
intimidation to shut down our
protest in violation of our First
Amendment rights. DPSS said
the event was private, but the
event was promoted as open to
all – not to mention, we were
outside the event. They also
said that only those registered
could be there, but as students,
we have the right to enter any
building we normally have
access to during the daytime.
At another point, they said only
students could be there, but
as members of the University
community, we can bring guests
to campus. Finally, one officer
repeatedly
threatened
an
individual with a misdemeanor
charge
for
covering
their
face with a scarf, but under
Michigan state law, covering
one’s face is legal except when
committing a crime. As a
Palestinian, the individual was
protecting their identity to
avoid ending up on a blacklist
that could inhibit travel to their
historic homeland. The officer’s
threat led them to expose their
face, putting them at risk.
We are disturbed that DPSS
would infringe on our right to
free speech so blatantly and
in violation of the University’s
own guidelines.
Why did we protest an event
focused on celebrating how
Israeli citizens and companies
have
contributed
positively
to
the
world?
We
believe
that
the
technological
and
entrepreneurial contributions
by
Israeli
companies
are
inseparable from the settler
colonization
of
historic
Palestine, the occupation of the
West Bank, the siege of Gaza
and violations of Palestinian
human rights. Israel’s success
is built on the oppression of
Palestinians, and Palestinians
are excluded from participating
meaningfully in Israeli society.
While Israelis enjoy a growing
standard of living, cutting edge
urban infrastructure and access
to internationally recognized
institutions of higher learning,
Palestinians are losing their
homes in demolitions, having
their olive trees burned and
are only offered inadequate,
inconsistent internet access,
which is controlled by Israel.
The disparities are stark.
One summit attendee argued
that we misunderstood the
conference,
highlighting
a
summit speaker who founded
PeacePlayers International, an
organization that uses sports to
“inspire young people to create
a more peaceful world.” We
support building relationships
between Israeli and Palestinian
children and see both groups as
victims of Israel, but ultimately,
Palestinian
children
cannot
be held accountable for the
conflict, and “positive attitudes”
will not alleviate the inequality
of Israel’s apartheid regime.
We do not know whether
PeacePlayers
International
ensures safe travel to and from
playing sites for Palestinian
participants. Regardless, any
Palestinian traveling from the
West Bank must travel across
a segregated road system that
forces them to take circuitous
routes where they are subject
to harassment by soldiers. And
what about the children stolen
from their homes in night raids
and held in detention? How
do they get to the basketball
court? We are skeptical of
any program that calls for
peace without also calling for
justice. Likewise, though the
Israel Cancer Research Fund
– whose Chicago Executive
Director, Allyson Greenfield,
was a speaker – contributes to
fighting cancer, Palestinians
in
Palestine
often
cannot
access medical care since most
hospitals are on the other side
of checkpoints. These require
hard-to-get medical permits
issued by Israel as well as
arduous travel as a result of
Israel
illegally
establishing
Jewish-only settlements in the
West Bank.
In addition to not sharing in
the spoils of Israel’s economy,
Palestinian lives represent the
cost of Israel’s “innovations.”
The militarization of Israeli
society has fueled the creation
of numerous security-focused
start-ups. The links between
military service and security
businesses
have
attracted
global investors interested in
Israel’s military and security
technology. But, the technology
that Israelis are celebrated for
is used against Palestinians
and “tested” on them. Israel has
also made it clear that it is more
than willing to sell weapons and
surveillance tech to anyone and
everyone, even for the purposes
of genocide and the persecution
of LGBTQ people.
We
stand
against
the
portrayal of Israel as a positive
force in the world while it
systematically
dispossesses,
displaces
and
terrorizes
Palestinians.
Celebrating
Israel’s
accomplishments
downplays that Palestinians
living in the West Bank and
Gaza
lack
access
to
basic
resources,
normalizes
the
legalized discrimination and
exclusion faced by Palestinian
Israelis
and
disguises
that
Israel’s wealth and power on
the global stage have come at
the cost of Palestinian self-
determination.
The summit’s stated goal
of
decreasing
anti-Israel
sentiment
on
campus
goes
directly against DAP’s goal of
advocating for a free Palestine.
Israel is directly responsible for
Palestinian living conditions,
and it is our duty as members
of
an
American
university
community
to
hold
Israel
accountable, given the close
ties between the two countries.
That
the
University
would sponsor such an event
demonstrates their disregard
for Palestinian students and
community members. We will
not stand by in silence. We
will not stop critiquing Israel
loudly and in public as long as
it threatens the existence of
Palestinians and Palestine. We
will continue to spread the word
about the military occupation of
Palestine. We will continue to
call on the University to divest
from companies profiting off of
the suffering of Palestinians.
Direct Action for Palestine is a
coalition of students, grad students,
faculty and community members that
organizes for Palestinian liberation.
They can be reached at dapumich@
gmail.com.
CHERYN HONG | COLUMN
No, this doesn’t justify cultural appropriation
A
round Halloween, our
campus
was
buzzing
with the crucial question
that plagued everyone the entire
month of October: What will my
Halloween costume be? As these
conversations went on, posters
were also put up throughout
dorms
and
common
areas
suggesting how to avoid cultural
appropriation
with
costumes.
While I assumed that costumes
that feed into blatant stereotypes
are no longer a consideration, I
have seen a handful of costumes
on social media that do this,
including
people
wearing
“Indian” headdresses and dressed
as Japanese geishas.
My stomach drops every time
I see those costumes and I always
ask myself: Why? Coming from a
South Korean background, I have
never seen a costume mimicking
my culture. I have even showed
pictures of “Asian” costumes to
my family whom were natively
born in Japan and South Korea,
and they didn’t find anything
wrong with it. So, why am I so
furious about something that
has no direct relation to me? My
anger stems from getting teased
for my bento lunch boxes and my
family members dressing up in
traditional Korean garb when I
was a kid, and now, years later, all
the things I was teased for are a
trend that everyone wants to take
part in.
According to American poet
Fatimah
Asghar,
“cultural
appropriation
occurs
when
members of a dominant group
take elements and symbols of
another culture for their own
economic or social gain while
simultaneously
devaluing
and
silencing the bodies, opinions
and voices of the oppressed
culture.” This definition sets a
standard and clear understanding
as to the significance of cultural
appropriation and what it means
to
various
Americans.
The
disconnect between my family
members born in East Asian
countries and me, who grew
up in the United States, reflects
upon the dichotomy of how
cultural appropriation is received
among people of color. However,
this difference should not be a
justification for acts of cultural
appropriation as the standard
of disrespect is dictated from
historical inequalities and not the
opinions of any non-white person.
In 2018, a high school senior
wore a traditional Chinese qipao
to prom, stirring controversy on
Twitter and resulting in backlash.
However, she also received a lot of
support from natives in East Asia.
Hong Kong cultural commentator
Zhou Yijun is quoted in The New
York Times saying “it’s ridiculous
to criticize this (the prom dress) as
cultural appropriation. From the
perspective of a Chinese person,
if a foreign woman wears a qipao
and thinks she looks pretty, then
why shouldn’t she wear it?” Most
of the people who were offended
were people who identified as
Asian Americans and those with
cross-national identities.
Evidently, not all people of color
recognize cultural appropriation
in the same light as others. For
example, East Asian countries that
extend to — but aren’t limited to
— China, Japan and South Korea
have had instances of blackface
on national television. Adored
K-Pop groups have acclaimed
to
get
“away
with
cultural
appropriation”
as
they
draw
much of their inspiration from
Motown bands. The difference
between East Asian and American
cultural appropriation of Black
culture comes to a disconnect
in awareness. East Asia is far
more
racially
homogeneous,
and thus certain stereotypes
about Black culture and African
Americans
persist,
explaining
the inappropriate instances of
blackface and mockery. The U.S.
on the other hand is a country that
has a more diverse population,
and while ignorance may be the
case for certain acts of cultural
appropriation, the country also
has a horrific history with how
minority
groups
have
been
treated.
This could be one way why
cultural appropriation is arguably
more of a prevalent issue in
the U.S. as it is because of our
historical context and systemic
oppression that is unique to
the country. Black Americans
have historically been exploited
and victimized by institutions.
Professor Mia Moody-Ramirez,
director of graduate studies at
Baylor
University,
emphasizes
how
costumes
that
involve
blackface go back to minstrel
shows
in
the
1800s,
where
white Americans appropriated
African American culture for
profit. It now perpetuates ill-
mannered stereotypes of being
“lazy, unintelligent and criminal
in
nature.”
These
historical
events that continue to affect
these minority groups shouldn’t
be mocked or mimicked, as
many
inappropriate
costumes
perpetuate negative stereotypes
and gloss over the prevailing
issues they encounter.
It is integral to note that
cultural appropriation can be
inappropriate and rightfully offend
certain marginalized groups. The
weight of cultural appropriation
and why it is inappropriate and
disrespectful is dependent upon
the history of America. So, while
there remains a mixed reaction
from different people of color, and
further obfuscates why certain
people of color get offended, an
important variable to keep in mind
is the context of what is being
appropriated and what the bigger
picture looks like.
Leah Adelman is a junior in the
Ford School of Public Policy and can
be reached at ladelman@umich.edu.
Cheryn Hong can be reached at
cherynh@umich.edu.