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.

