Thursday
Editor in chief: Jack Clifford
Managing Editor: Jessica Blanchard
Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: ode@oregon.uoregon.edu
EDITORIAL EDITOR: MICHAEL J. KLECKNER opededitor@journalist.com
harm
The Confederate flag debate is keeping
some potentially productive people
out of trouble by shifting then minds
from genuine problems to safely be
nign “issues.” While the country teems with
political questions begging answers, a few
folks down in the Southern states seem to
think that evil embodied is flying atop their
state capitals. Well, maybe, but we might as
well let it fly for the time being, as its relative
harm is minimal.
A quick, critical gander at the debate
shows that this topic is both useful and
ridiculous: useful because racism is a dis
turbing problem; ridiculous because the
Confederate flag is the wrong tree, and a lot
of seemingly intelligent people are barking
at the bottom. The fact that so many protest
ers have worked themselves into a tizzy over
this absurd debate can only make the federal
government as happy as a clam in high tide.
If citizens’ time is occupied with inconse
quential nonsense, no one will step back
and see the larger picture.
Opponents of the Confederate flag — com
posed, as you might imagine, of members of
the African-American community along with
academics of the NPR variety—claim that the
flag represents slavery, hatred and everything
else wrong in Dixie. The other side — a com
fortably homogenous crowd of white individ
uals — insists that the flag symbolizes its
grand Southern heritage. That, in a proverbial
nutshell, is the playing field, the teams and
the general extent of the controversy.
And all of it is horribly misguided. The
debate’s appeal is similar to a blind boxing
match: interesting as a perverse curiosity,
but without much intellectual substance.
Opponents of the flag overlook the fact that
most slaves were imported
not by the Confederacy,
but under the dubious aus
pices of the much-revered
Stars and Stripes. More
over, the United States has
been the purveyor of many
more atrocities than were
ever committed at the
hand of Jeff Davis and the
short-lived Confederate
States of America. Indian
reservations, the intern
ment of Japanese-Ameri
cans and — let’s face it —
just about every war since
1848 in which this country
has been involved have all
been based on racist beliefs
and headed by those in
Washington, not Rich
mond. Racial segregation,
specifically in the South,
continued for many years
after Lee surrendered at
Appomattox, and students
from Louisville to New Or
leans recited the Pledge of
Allegiance throughout
these years. Beyond these comparisons,
though, the notion that abolishing a piece of
cloth could halt racism in its tracks is about as
flimsy as relying on the Ten Commandments
to stop school violence.
Granted, the Confederate flag is an impor
tant symbol for many contemporary racists,
who have adopted it as representative of
their own half-witted ideology. Boy George
would have more influence at a Ku Klux
Klan rally than these hayseed pundits exert
in modern politics, however. The genuine
threat to liberty resides more with the club
of Rich White People in Washington than it
ever will with a group of good ol’ boys in
South Carolina. If racism is a real concern,
you might have a word, for example, with
those who create policy for the Immigration
and Naturalization Service. That’s racism in
a very active, tangible sense, carried out in
the name of the United States of America.
In the other delusional comer, those who
advocate the flag as a piece of historical beau
ty have yet to portray themselves in the
brightest light. Mississippi resident Justin
McNamee was quoted in a recent Associated
Press article as saying, “What that flag means
is freedom.” Sure. Keep voting and drinking
beer, buddy; you’re doing your government
an incalculable favor. Flags in no way repre
sent freedom, and this man’s reasoning mir
rors that of people who pad around with
‘Free Burma-Myanmar/TIbet/Etc.’ patches on
their backpacks. Free them from what, and
unto whom? Shifting control of a country
from one government to another is anything
but a liberation.
Digressions aside, governments are not con
cerned with the liberty of their citizens. Va
clav Havel (president of the Czech Republic,
ironically) put it quite succinctly when he
said that our political systems serve people
Bryan Dixon Emerald
only to the extent necessary that people will
serve them, and Edward Abbey was right
when he noted that freedom begins between
the ears. Political flags of any persuasion —
not merely the Nazi or Confederate flags — are
symbols of repression. All of which is impor
tant only if you choose to vest as much of
yourself in an abstract symbol as those on
both sides of the Confederate flag debate.
My suspicion is that both the NAACP and
the white establishment could, if they so de
sired, find more important projects on
which to spend their time. Instead, they’ve
succeeded only in drawing an outrageous
number of people into an inane, one-dimen
sional squabble.
Aaron McKenzie is a columnist for the Oregon Daily
Emerald. His views do not necessarily represent those
of the Emerald. He can be reached at
awmckenzie@yahoo.com.
Letter to the editor
Activists do more than protest at Johnson Hail
Thank you, Jeremy Lang, for producing a mostly
balanced update of the issues surrounding last year’s
protest [“Old issues, new strategies,” ODE, April 4].
Yet I am compelled to remark that the Emerald, re
sembling most University students I have encoun
tered, still lacks much more than a “Mason West
ian” understanding of activism (see West’s column
in the April 11, 2000, Emerald).
By focusing only on the most visible and radical
activists, you deny the prolonged, behind-the-scenes
work of those who use different tactics in different
situations. Hundreds of students, faculty and staff
on this campus have been working for years to make
the University more diverse, to stop racism, to end
sexism, to win fair contracts, to make the campus
safer, to hold our representatives responsible, to reg
ister people to vote, and many other underreported
efforts. So please don’t say “activism has been in a
slump since last year.”
This is not to excuse the countless students on the
political left who have verbally bludgeoned me and
others for the tactics we used. I won’t apologize for
the events of last year. Without the Human Rights
Alliance there would have been no discussion of
sweatshops on this campus — bottom line.
All of us working against oppression and ex
ploitation need to work together to create a better
society. “Divide and conquer” is an old and very
effective strategy. Those who seek to oppress and
exploit now only have to focus on the latter; we
divide ourselves.
Chad Sullivan
senior
history/jazz studies
‘Free trade’ favors only corporations
Guest Commentary
Would you sup
port an agree
ment that forces
the government
to pay multi-national corpora
tions not to poison citizens
and destroy natural re
sources? Sound far-fetched?
In 1997, Canada banned a
gasoline additive, MMT, that
was found to cause adverse
neurological effects similar to
Parkinson’s disease. Five days
later Ethyl Corporation, a U.S.
company responsible for ex
porting die additive to Cana
da, filed a claim for compensa
tion because of lost potential
profits. Canada agreed to lift
the ban and pay $13 million
for legal fees and lost profits.
In 1996, a Mexican state de
clared a toxic-waste storage
owned by U.S.-based Meta
clad Corporation an environ
mental hazard and ordered
the site shut down. The result:
Mexico had to pay Metaclad
$16.7 million.
And after Santa Monica’s
municipal wells were con
taminated and closed, Califor
nia enacted a law to phase out
MBTE, the carcinogenic gaso
line additive responsible for
the contamination. Soon after,
Canadian-based Methanex
Corporation, the producer of
MBTE, filed a claim against
California for $1 billion.
These claims and the result
ing settlements were made pos
sible by the North American
Free Trade Agreement. NAFTA
grants foreign investors the
ability to file a claim against a
country if the ability to make a
profit is impeded. The cases are
decided in secret by anony
mous tribunals. The proceed
ings and findings are not dis
closed to the public unless both
the investors and government
allow it.
“Free trade” agreements also
dismantle environmental and
health regulations by resulting
in a “race to the bottom.” Multi
national corporations are “free”
to move their operations to
countries with the lowest
wages and weakest environ
mental, safety and health laws.
In order to compete, the other
countries must lower wages
and dismantle regulations. Pro
ponents of “free trade” justify
this by claiming it allows “less
developed” countries to com
pete more effectively, and
therefore it reduces poverty.
The statistics say otherwise.
For example, the United Na
tions reported the number of
Mexicans in poverty increased
47 percent from 1994 to 1997.
Economists like to say there
is no such thing as a “free
lunch.” Yet, they tout “free
trade” without recognizing the
costs. Free trade does not exist.
Citizens are paying via lower
real wages, increased taxes, de
creased governmental services
and environmental degrada
tion. By allowing corporations
to externalize health and envi
ronmental costs, wealth and
power are transferred from the
public as a whole to the
wealthy minority.
Sound bad? It’s about to get
worse. On April 18-22, nego
tiators from 34 countries will
meet in Quebec to continue
discussion of the Free Trade of
Americas Agreement, often
referred to as “NAFTA on
steroids. ” It will incorporate
many of the provisions from
NAFTA, the WTO and the
failed Multilateral Agreement
on Investment into one agree
ment and will cover all coun
tries in the Western Hemi
sphere except Cuba.
Since late 1999, trade minis
ters have been meeting secretly
to negotiate FTAA details. Not
even members of Congress
have been allowed to know ex
actly what is being written.
However, more than 500 corpo
rate representatives have ac
cess to FTAA/NAFTA expan
sion documents. Who do you
think is really running our
country?
A coalition of groups, in
cluding the Campus Green
Party, will be providing an
FTAA teach-in Saturday,
April 14, from 10 a.m. to 2
p.m. in Grayson Hall. It’s free,
and unlike the negotiations in
Quebec, everyone is invited.
John W. Herberg is an environmen
tal studies post-baccalaureate stu
dent and a member of the Campus
Green Party.