Columnist advocates facism in a new century?
I don’t imagine Jessica Derleth would describe herself as an opponent of democracy, but she may not realize how closely her opinion column (ODE Sept. 19, ” ‘public displays’ and ‘venus opinion traps’ Destroy Discourse”) mimics arguments for fascism from the last century. Where democracy has been lost, its opponents have often employed rhetoric of order, decorum and sanitation. Derleth does likewise. She describes her experience at a parade for President Bush’s second inauguration, where protesters “shouted obscene language while families and children attempted to peacefully watch the parade.” Derleth couches the rhetoric of order in think-of-the-children terms.
Even the title on Derleth’s article is a sneaky bit of Orwellian doublespeak. Stripped of its artful language, ” ‘public displays’ and ‘venus opinion traps’ Destroy Discourse” could be easily recast as “Free Speech Destroys Free Speech.”
Derleth assures us she supports expression. “I think everyone has the right to protest, but these people were taking things too far,” Derleth says, noting also that the actions of the protesters “were completely unnecessary.” Advocates of fascism often claimed the citizens had gone too far in exercising their freedoms and called for a strong leader who could restore society to its former greatness and civility. That restoration is a bit less complicated if free speech is viewed as an unnecessary vulgarity.
Free speech is often vulgar. Democracy is often messy. We can change all that. We can sanitize and disinfect, but the bits of rubbish we will sweep from the streets will be our liberty.
Paul Hood
Graduate Teaching Fellow
‘Mainstrem America’ degrades minorities
As the tragedy in New Orleans deepens, people are discussing the role of racism in how the emergency was managed. An example, I keep hearing is that the term “refugee” demeans the displaced.
In broad terms, some people most certainly are seeking refuge, so what’s the problem? Supposedly, “refugee” implies a fleeing from one’s country, which associates hurricane survivors with foreigners, and therefore exacerbates apathy and disconnection regarding their plight.
What should disturb us is racism toward actual refugees, which makes the previous point valid.
The association between foreign refugees and U.S. citizens of a minority race is only degrading when we leave unchallenged the less human status of non-American refugees. Must we remind ourselves that hurricane victims are citizens in order to feel an urgency about their well-being? Is their suffering dissimilar to that of refugees from the tsunami, or Rwandangenocide? For that matter, is the grief of a child dependent on whether she was orphaned by U.S. fire against Iraqi insurgents, or the subway bombings in London?
Constant reminders that the darker faces on TV belong to U.S. citizens makes sense, considering what the marginalized have known for centuries: “American” implicitly equates with white, moneyed, English-speaking, Christian, heterosexual, able-bodied, male patriots. If I was left in the floods of Katrina pleading for help, I’m sure I’d emphasize any connection I had to “mainstream America.” Let’s not forget, however, that rallying support behind a red, white, and blue banner feeds xenophobia, blinding nationalism and global racism.
Lucas Spiegel
Eugene