Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Room 300, Erb Memorial Union
PO. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online Edition:
www.dailyemerald.com
Wednesday, February 13,2002
Editor in Chief:
Jessica Blanchard
Managing Editor:
Jeremy Lang
Editorial Editor:
Julie Lauderbaugh
Assistant Editorial Editor:
Jacquelyn Lewis
Editorial
Olympics not
the place for
patriotic zealots
(U-WIRE) LONG BEACH, Calif. — The
Winter Olympics are upon us. Friday night
we were witnesses to an opening ceremony
that was poignant and exciting. President
George W. Bush tried to portray himself as
a man of the people, sitting in the stands
among America’s athletes and even speak
ing to one athlete’s mother.
The Olympics are the greatest showing of
athletic prowess that the world knows. But
the coverage of the events on NBC show
that this is more America’s Olympics. This
is wrong.
On the rebound from Sept. 11, Ameri
cans feel that we need to show we are still
the top nation in the world in all aspects.
We are.
But the Olympic Games should not be
looked at as some sort of showcase of
America’s superiority. The Olympics
should be a showcase of the athleticism of
the greatest athletes of all nations.
With medal counts and human inter
est stories about American athletes, NBC
is trying to show that America is still the
best. This remains to be seen though and
when the final medal count is tallied, it
is doubtful that America will be on top.
The Olympics are a showcase for ama
teur athletes from all nations, not just ours.
It is important that Americans recognize
the Olympics not as America’s games, but
as the world’s games.
The mish mash of patriotism and rheto
ric only helps to detract from the idea that
the Olympics were built on: that the world
can come together as one for 16 days and
everyone will be happy.
At the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin,
Adolf Hitler hoped his German team would
solidify the superiority of the so-called Aryan
race. American hero Jesse Owens proved
Hitler wrong, winning four gold medals.
The situation now is much different, but
somewhat the same. In both circumstances,
the host nation is at a great turning point and
is trying to show its national unity and supe
riority on the track or the ice or the slopes.
But there is no place on the track or slopes
or ice for national superiority. There is only
room for honest competition between the
best athletes in the world. A showing of the
physical and mental potential and dedica
tion that everyone can strive for.
The Olympics should not be America’s
attempt to display any sort of overt superi
ority, but to bring to light the fire of athleti
cism that resides in all athletes.
The Olympic Games are the best chance
for our world to come together as one, un
hindered by preconceived notions and
armed only with power and wits of the
world’s greatest athletes.
This editorial is courtesy of the California State University
at Long Beach’s campus newspaper, the Daily Forty-Niner.
Letters to the Editor and
Guest Commentaries Policy
This editorial represents the opinion of the Emeraid
editorial board. Letters to the editor and guest
comm? tiled to
250 words and guest commentaries to 550 words.
Please includecontact information.
Tfce Emerald reserves the right to edit
Idrspace. grammar and style. •
Letters to the editor
ODE shouldn’t play name game
I was greatly puzzled at the editorial note
prior to Brian Stubbs’s guest commentary
on Feb. 7 (Abortion supporters must use
facts, logic to persuade, ODE). Exactly how
is it “standard newspaper” practice to call
those who hold to a pro-life position “anti
abortion”? Whoever creates the “standard
newspaper practice” clearly doesn't think
about the issues, but likes to begin the dia
logue with slick rhetoric that places pre
conceived notions into the reader's mind.
For example, being pro-life does and al
ways will mean being pro/for the life of the
fetus/child. If there was a method of abor
tion that terminated pregnancy but kept a
fetus/baby alive someone with a “pro’’-life
position would support that.
When the Emerald or any editorial force
sways an opinion by using a new name like
anti-abortion, or even more absurd, “anti
choice,” they are not sticking to the issues
but playing off of human emotion and a
cultural distaste for perceived oppression.
Not only do these names not accurately
represent a pro-life position, they change
the argument to one where we are not even
arguing about the same things.
Pro-life simply means for the life of the
child, period.
Mike Alverts
Eugene
Emerald shows bias again
In reference to “Abortion supporters
must use facts, logic to persuade” (ODE,
02/07), doesn't it seem a bit ridiculous
for the Emerald, before printing a guest
commentary, to qualify the author's
word selection, in this case objecting to
the term “pro-life”?
Moreover, isn't it a back-handed slap to
the guest writer? If the Emerald wants a
wide range of viewpoints to appear on its
letters page, the Emerald would be well ad
vised to treat its commentators better.
Would the Emerald describe the other
side as “pro-abortion?” Of course not; they
use "pro-choice," which is not the linguistic
opposite. In fact, on Jan. 23, Emerald writer
Ben Hughes used the clearly biased phras
ing "anti-choice"—in a news article, no less.
The fact is, “pro-choice” is no more
semantically descriptive than the term
"pro-life," to which the Emerald so no
tably objects. Even then, “pro-choice”
is less descriptive, because it leaves the
point of contention out of the discus
sion, viz. abortion.
Especially when using loaded words
such as “progressive” and “diversity” as a
matter of routine, the Emerald is in no posi
tion to criticize others’ self-applied politi
cal designations. Instead of being the unbi
ased journal of record that it purports to be,
the Emerald once again reveals itself to be
liberal by default.
William W. Beutler
editor emeritus
Oregon Commentator
Let’s... roll?
I have the highest respect for the Office
of the Presidency, but (President George
W.) Bush is now besmirching that office
and insulting the intelligence of the Amer
ican public by saying “Let’s Roll.” It’s not
exactly “When in the course of human
events ...” or “Ask not what your country
can do for you, but what you can do for
your country ...” I’m sure his speech writ
ers can come up with something better. A
truly strong president has no need for a
catch phrase.
Chuck Slothower
freshman
pre-journalism
The lesson behind‘Black Hawk Down'
On Oct. 3,1993, U.S. forces en
tered the Somali capital of Mo
gadishu to capture key officials
of one of the main warring clans. The
mission was a fiasco, as 18 American sol
diers and more than five hundred Soma
lis were killed that night.
The event, the subject of the recently
released Hollywood film “Black Hawk
Down” raises an important question. So
malia is a country characterized by fac
tionalism. The running joke is that if
there are four Somalis in a room, there
are probably six rival clans present. Yet
when the two U.S. Black Hawks went
down, an entire city seemed to drop its
internal differences and attack the very
forces that were there to feed them.
Why? Did the Somalis rampage simply
out of an inherent hatred for outsiders?
Few populations, least of all among
the formerly colonized, warmly embrace
foreign involvement in domestic affairs,
and the Somalis are no different in this
regard. But there were specific factors
that set the stage for the distinct fury in
Mogadishu that day.
One important factor was the massacre
of July 12. Three months prior to the
downing of the Black Hawks, the United
Nations and United States decided to put
pressure on the Habr Gidr, one of Soma
Guest Commentary
Ian
Urbina
lia’s main ethnic clans. The Washington
Post described the event as a “slaughter”
in which “a half-dozen Cobras pumped 16
TOW missiles and 2,000 rounds of cannon
fire” into a gathering of elders, intellectu
als, poets and religious leaders, “first
blowing away the stairwell to prevent any
one from escaping.” Not only did the
move turn many Somalis against the Unit
ed Nations, but it was also counterproduc
tive, since the meeting's purpose was to
consider a U.S.-initiated peace plan.
The broader context leading up to the in
tervention is also important to consider.
Many Somalis distrusted the U.N. and then
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali
who previously, as an Egyptian official, had
been a backer of notorious Somali dictator
Siad Barre. Furthermore, one of the sym
bols of the West for average Somalis was the
International Monetary Fund, whose aus
terity measures had hit hardest on the
weakest in society. Farmers lucky enough
to escape drought had little market to turn
to. Many watched their children starve. As
desperate migration from the countryside
increased, young men arrived to cities with
little more than an acute sense of anger to
ward so-called Western solutions.
It didn't help that the country was
awash in arms. In Mogadishu, it was al
most easier to buy a machine gun than
lunch. For years, the United States kept
Siad Barre propped up with $50 million in
annual arms shipments.
None of these factors lessens the tragedy
of the American and Somali lives lost
when those Black Hawks went down, but
there may be lessons to learn.
Short-term stabilizing relationships
with repressive leaders have long-term
destabilizing consequences, especially
when these relationships are bought with
weapons. The United States must begin
taking human rights more seriously as it
chooses its friends, and begin supporting
the United Nations in its efforts at interna
tional small arms controls. This would be
a reversal from the role the United States’
gun lobby played at last year's U.N. arms
control convention.
Above all, Somalia was a lesson in the
danger of ignoring failed states, and politi
cal and monetary policies which con
tribute to their demise.
Ian Urbina is a doctoral student in history
at the University of Chicago.