Events and dialogue leading up to the voting on the peace resolution by the University Assembly on Friday have been largely civil and have been channeled into organized meetings designed for debate. Bush has a large podium on which to state his case, in addition to international attention, and those who disagree with him have largely used their “inside voices” to contest. Bush was quoted by the Associated Press following massive protests against an invasion of Iraq saying: “Size of protest, it’s like deciding: ‘Well I’m going to decide policy based up on a focus group.’” Bush should remember that he was not elected dictator and thus is still held accountable by the people.
Now, keeping in mind our respectfully-kept disagreements in Oregon, let me turn your attention to the other side of the country: the ominous East Contest. Consider the reasons that Toni Smith, an individual representing her own opinion, has received such a strong response to her quiet, respectfully-disrespectful protest against American foreign policy.
Somebody out there may be asking: “Who is Toni Smith?” For a quick recap, Smith is the college basketball player from Manhattanville College who, during the playing of the national anthem before every game, has turned her back to the American flag. For those who may be confused, Smith’s act doesn’t provide solace to Saddam Hussein, nor does she, by virtue of her protest, intend disrespect to veterans nationwide. However, once her skewed stance was noticed, many began to openly criticize her for disrespecting the flag “(that is) a symbol of everything that’s good about America,” as Jerry Kiley told Newsday this week. Soon, people began to boo her when she shot free throws or had the ball and small “protests” took place outside the gym.
The disparity between Smith’s treatment and the overall apathy surrounding the University’s peace resolution is shocking. Hardly any pro-war supporters showed up for the meeting. Only one person, though he opposed the war, spoke out against voting on a resolution. The pitiful attempt to disrupt the meeting by a small group who chanted “USA! USA! USA!” was drowned out by the cheering of those in favor. Unlike the peace resolution, Smith’s refusal to salute the flag was an individual act of protest; she did not gloat over her opinion to anyone nor did she request feedback on whether her interpretation of what the flag “means” is the correct one (and who says there is one?).
One can conclude that the reasons for the hostility revolve around Smith’s refusal to face the flag. Those who contested her stance against the flag are those who rally around nationalism as if everyone in the country holds similar views on what “America” — which in any case consists of more countries than just the United States — stands for. One such protester told The New York Times: “You can disagree with the government’s policies but not the symbols that every American should stand for.”
There are no symbols or unifying interpretations that “every American should stand for.” Many groups and persons have been oppressed under governments and persons allegedly upholding the values of “America.” Where are the protests against certain Southern states’ continued use of the Confederate battle flag? The Confederate flag represents a time of slavery and apartheid in America. Although we’ve legally abolished those forms of injustices, the fallout from slavery still continues to this day.
Maybe it is time to, as Smith has done, turn our backs to the American flag– not in disrespect, but in acknowledgment that this country does not stand for liberty and justice for all, save a small minority. In our search for liberation and peace abroad, maybe we should instead turn our eyes back on ourselves and reevaluate the real international threat.