Spring Break
An open letter to my white LGBT siblings
Abstract:
This letter will be angry. I won't apologize for any vitriol or confrontation here. I don't believe that we can have honest public discussions without being confrontational.
My anger comes from hearing, with dismay, about a party last weekend themed "Cowboys and Indians....
- Displaying 1 - 31 of 31
William
posted 6/04/08 @ 4:18 PM PST
As a gay student I'm completely offended by the barometers lack of integrity and investigative reporting. This paper has demonized an individual student who is native american himself. Not only is the entire article completely un-factual it is also used to fight the writers own personal agenda. Michael in his ranting intends to evoke a call to action in the LGBT community against one of their own members.
To the writer:
Leave it to you to tie every supposed injustice in with the gay and lesbian community. You attack the integrity of a fellow student without any supportive information. In-fact the student in question didn't host the party, nor did he come up with the theme. This article should be withdrawn, and a public apology should be issued for this reporters lack of reporting.
The student in question has indian heritage on both sides of his family. His ancestors were brought along the trail of tears, and his great grandmother denied her heritage out of white fear. Six people who attended the party are of native american decent, and five are gay.
Our party was about childhood nostalgia not about racism. You should spend your time fighting real crimes against humanity.
Am I to understand that since you wrote this article you now will attack the frats for their pimps and hoes parties? Maybe on Halloween you'll stop a five year old boy in an indian garb to call him racist. What about luaus and fiestas? Are those for any reason less racist? Will you as well issue a call to action to the gay and lesbian community for such parties?
To the writer:
Leave it to you to tie every supposed injustice in with the gay and lesbian community. You attack the integrity of a fellow student without any supportive information. In-fact the student in question didn't host the party, nor did he come up with the theme. This article should be withdrawn, and a public apology should be issued for this reporters lack of reporting.
The student in question has indian heritage on both sides of his family. His ancestors were brought along the trail of tears, and his great grandmother denied her heritage out of white fear. Six people who attended the party are of native american decent, and five are gay.
Our party was about childhood nostalgia not about racism. You should spend your time fighting real crimes against humanity.
Am I to understand that since you wrote this article you now will attack the frats for their pimps and hoes parties? Maybe on Halloween you'll stop a five year old boy in an indian garb to call him racist. What about luaus and fiestas? Are those for any reason less racist? Will you as well issue a call to action to the gay and lesbian community for such parties?
Jennifer
posted 6/04/08 @ 8:10 PM PST
I was completely in shock and appalled when I saw this article in the Barometer today.
The person who wrote this article clearly does not have these facts straight. This party was for myself and my good friend for our birthdays. The person that this article is attacking was a GUEST at the party. I, myself am an Asian-American female. At the party, there were guests of all different races and ethnicities. How could you say that our cowboys and Indians party was had to be racist? This party wasn't made to be a mockery of anything, I completely agree with William above, would you be calling a kid "racist" for dressing up like a cowboy or an Indian for Halloween? In your article, you call out my party as being a "cliche" theme. So that means that it's been done before, hasn't it?
Next time, get all your facts straight about the situation before you go off, pointing your finger, and blaming the wrong person.
The person who wrote this article clearly does not have these facts straight. This party was for myself and my good friend for our birthdays. The person that this article is attacking was a GUEST at the party. I, myself am an Asian-American female. At the party, there were guests of all different races and ethnicities. How could you say that our cowboys and Indians party was had to be racist? This party wasn't made to be a mockery of anything, I completely agree with William above, would you be calling a kid "racist" for dressing up like a cowboy or an Indian for Halloween? In your article, you call out my party as being a "cliche" theme. So that means that it's been done before, hasn't it?
Next time, get all your facts straight about the situation before you go off, pointing your finger, and blaming the wrong person.
Douglas
posted 6/04/08 @ 9:18 PM PST
Bravo to the Barometer and to this letter writer for highlighting was so often goes hidden. Everyone marginalized in this society must work together to ensure that everyone else who is marginalized is treated with dignity and respect. Thank you, Mr. Farris, for your anger and love of a better world.
Linnaea
posted 6/04/08 @ 9:25 PM PST
First off I think you should look up exactly who Michael Faris is before you go off and say that he's a homophobic man.
Second of all, it doesn't matter if the people at the party were of Native American descent or not. Think of it this way, if you were queer in some way and you went around telling people that such and such was so gay, and aren't you such a stupid little faggot, etc, etc, etc... wouldn't you be using these words in a derogatory manner and perpetuating homophobia in your neighborhood, city or whatever? You could go around saying that it's okay for you to call things gay (meaning stupid) because you're gay yourself or your best friend is, but if some random person passing you hears you say that they aren't going to know that you aren't just being homophobic and you are therefore perpetuating homophobia in all of the nation. In the same way, if you are Native American or are of that ethnic descent you can't go around having Cowboy and Indian themed parties and posting pictures and stuff all over everywhere online because what people see is that you're being racist. It doesn't matter if there is a larger issue of racism other places, or if you think that Michael is fighting his own personal agenda. Everyone needs to be fighting for everyone else, otherwise we aren't ever going to get anywhere as a society. White and Black and Brown and Tan and Rainbow and every other color people should all be fighting for each others causes and everyone should be working to make all the oppressed minorities less oppressed. All gay people aren't white, all white people aren't gay. There is plenty of blending in everything we are all people and we have to take care of each other.
Second of all, it doesn't matter if the people at the party were of Native American descent or not. Think of it this way, if you were queer in some way and you went around telling people that such and such was so gay, and aren't you such a stupid little faggot, etc, etc, etc... wouldn't you be using these words in a derogatory manner and perpetuating homophobia in your neighborhood, city or whatever? You could go around saying that it's okay for you to call things gay (meaning stupid) because you're gay yourself or your best friend is, but if some random person passing you hears you say that they aren't going to know that you aren't just being homophobic and you are therefore perpetuating homophobia in all of the nation. In the same way, if you are Native American or are of that ethnic descent you can't go around having Cowboy and Indian themed parties and posting pictures and stuff all over everywhere online because what people see is that you're being racist. It doesn't matter if there is a larger issue of racism other places, or if you think that Michael is fighting his own personal agenda. Everyone needs to be fighting for everyone else, otherwise we aren't ever going to get anywhere as a society. White and Black and Brown and Tan and Rainbow and every other color people should all be fighting for each others causes and everyone should be working to make all the oppressed minorities less oppressed. All gay people aren't white, all white people aren't gay. There is plenty of blending in everything we are all people and we have to take care of each other.
William
posted 6/08/08 @ 10:29 AM PST
Originally posted byLinnaea
First off I think you should look up exactly who Michael Faris is before you go off and say that he's a homophobic man.
Second of all, it doesn't matter if the people at the party were of Native American descent or not. Think of it this way, if you were queer in some way and you went around telling people that such and such was so gay, and aren't you such a stupid little faggot, etc, etc, etc... wouldn't you be using these words in a derogatory manner and perpetuating homophobia in your neighborhood, city or whatever? You could go around saying that it's okay for you to call things gay (meaning stupid) because you're gay yourself or your best friend is, but if some random person passing you hears you say that they aren't going to know that you aren't just being homophobic and you are therefore perpetuating homophobia in all of the nation. In the same way, if you are Native American or are of that ethnic descent you can't go around having Cowboy and Indian themed parties and posting pictures and stuff all over everywhere online because what people see is that you're being racist. It doesn't matter if there is a larger issue of racism other places, or if you think that Michael is fighting his own personal agenda. Everyone needs to be fighting for everyone else, otherwise we aren't ever going to get anywhere as a society. White and Black and Brown and Tan and Rainbow and every other color people should all be fighting for each others causes and everyone should be working to make all the oppressed minorities less oppressed. All gay people aren't white, all white people aren't gay. There is plenty of blending in everything we are all people and we have to take care of each other.
Your right we do have to take care of each other... was Michael... a gay instructor being a mentor? Was he taking care of the well being of an OSU student? No, I think you have completely disregarded the fact that a student has been verbally attacked and marked as bigot. How comfortable do you think he feels walking around campus? Were all in this together... Michael if he had such a problem with this party should have come up to the accused student, and spoken with him.
Now we have someone who's receiving hate mail, and considering transferring to another school. I'm sure stoning should also be displayed on the OSU student code of ethics. The Barometer didn't even post a counter article, which would have at least shown both sides of the story. Michael completely tried to have the accused be the embodiment of racism. A physical tangible person that we can all hate together. GO LGBT COMMUNITY TEAR HIM APART!!!
There are still segregated proms in the south, but Michael and his cohort Renee like to persecute all for the sake of political correctness. You know what? I don't think I wanna be called white anymore... I think that is to politically incorrect... How about European American? I think that is less offensive.
MICHAEL HAS A SERIOUS PROBLEM
I think that his pusillanimous attempts to bring down a student should be addressed by the school. If they are not I might call a news station, so the rest of the country sees how this university treats it's paying students.
James
posted 6/04/08 @ 9:27 PM PST
Take a look at this link...
http://oregonstate.edu/cla/english/faculty/faris
What is Michael Faris, a faculty member at Oregon State University, doing peeping a 19 year old's facebook page and writing a slanderous article about something he merely glimpsed online. I find this appalling and grossly distasteful. It is no secret that at the University level, one of the greatest challenges for instructors is to connect with and impact students' lives. It takes great effort and strain to create a trust between the instructor and the student, especially when class sizes reach up into the hundreds. Still there have been a lot of instructors that have been able to accomplish just that at Oregon State. Of course that doesn't describe all the instructors at OSU, there are some who go through the motions and are no more excited about teaching a subject then a student is about learning a subject. With that said, never in my time at Oregon State, until today, have I witness an instructor completely step out of line and break the trust between student and teacher in such a public and distasteful manner. Michael went online, peeped a students profile on facebook, and then wrote a hurtful article about that student in the school paper regarding an event that Michael did not even attend. Since when does writing an article more fit for the tabloids than for a school paper outweigh the importance of establishing relationships with students and impacting their lives. This is unacceptable behavior by a member of the Oregon State faculty. I suggest those who feel the same way write the Dean of the English department and the President of OSU expressing your concern with the outlandish behavior of this particular instructor.
On another note why is the Barometer printing stories using facebook as the sole means for information. This is 'lazy reporting' to the must extreme usage of the phrase, step away from your computers and go find a real story or at least fill the space with an AP article... leave 'rumorville' to the tabloids.
http://oregonstate.edu/cla/english/faculty/faris
What is Michael Faris, a faculty member at Oregon State University, doing peeping a 19 year old's facebook page and writing a slanderous article about something he merely glimpsed online. I find this appalling and grossly distasteful. It is no secret that at the University level, one of the greatest challenges for instructors is to connect with and impact students' lives. It takes great effort and strain to create a trust between the instructor and the student, especially when class sizes reach up into the hundreds. Still there have been a lot of instructors that have been able to accomplish just that at Oregon State. Of course that doesn't describe all the instructors at OSU, there are some who go through the motions and are no more excited about teaching a subject then a student is about learning a subject. With that said, never in my time at Oregon State, until today, have I witness an instructor completely step out of line and break the trust between student and teacher in such a public and distasteful manner. Michael went online, peeped a students profile on facebook, and then wrote a hurtful article about that student in the school paper regarding an event that Michael did not even attend. Since when does writing an article more fit for the tabloids than for a school paper outweigh the importance of establishing relationships with students and impacting their lives. This is unacceptable behavior by a member of the Oregon State faculty. I suggest those who feel the same way write the Dean of the English department and the President of OSU expressing your concern with the outlandish behavior of this particular instructor.
On another note why is the Barometer printing stories using facebook as the sole means for information. This is 'lazy reporting' to the must extreme usage of the phrase, step away from your computers and go find a real story or at least fill the space with an AP article... leave 'rumorville' to the tabloids.
Craig Hawley
posted 6/04/08 @ 9:50 PM PST
OMG get a thicker skin. I am so sick of wimps being offended by everything. Are you serious Cowboys and Indians offends you. Get a life.
I could care less if your letter is full of vitriol. It is also full of wimpy politically correct crap.
If you are a student , you had better stay one for life. Because if that offends you , the real world outside of college is going to down right make you crazy.
Get over your self. In America we all have the right to be wrong , and it is nice to see you exercising that right. LOL!!!!!!!
I could care less if your letter is full of vitriol. It is also full of wimpy politically correct crap.
If you are a student , you had better stay one for life. Because if that offends you , the real world outside of college is going to down right make you crazy.
Get over your self. In America we all have the right to be wrong , and it is nice to see you exercising that right. LOL!!!!!!!
Craig Hawley
posted 6/04/08 @ 10:04 PM PST
FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
Proud To Be White
Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans,
Hispanic Americans,
Cuban Americans,
Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans,
Arab Americans,
Native Americans, etc.
..And then there are just -
Americans.
You pass me on the street
and sneer in my direction.
You Call me 'White boy,'
'Cracker,' 'Honkey,'
'Whitey,' 'Caveman,'
...And that's OK.
But when I call you Nigger,
Kike, Towel head,
Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey,
Beaner, Gook, or Chink,
..You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot
of violence against you,
so why are the ghettos the most
dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Hispanic History Month.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Asian History Month.
You h ave Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Kawanza.
You have the NAACP.
And you have BET.
If we had WET
(White Entertainment Television)
...We'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day
...You would call us racists.
If we had White History Month
...We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites
to 'advance OUR lives,
...We'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
a Black Chamber of Commerce,
and then we just have the plain
Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund that only gave
white students scholarships
...You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly-proclaimed
Black-only Colleges in the US ,
yet if there were 'White-only Colleges'
...THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million-Man March,
you believed that you were
marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights,
..You would call us racists.
You are proud to be black,
brown, yellow and red,
and you're not afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride
...You call us racists.
You rob us,
carjack us,
and shoot at us.
But, when a white police officer
shoots a black gang member
or beats up a black drug-dealer
who is running from the LAW and
posing a threat to ALL of society
...You call him a racist.
I am proud.
...But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only
whites
can be racists?
Proud To Be White
Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans,
Hispanic Americans,
Cuban Americans,
Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans,
Arab Americans,
Native Americans, etc.
..And then there are just -
Americans.
You pass me on the street
and sneer in my direction.
You Call me 'White boy,'
'Cracker,' 'Honkey,'
'Whitey,' 'Caveman,'
...And that's OK.
But when I call you Nigger,
Kike, Towel head,
Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey,
Beaner, Gook, or Chink,
..You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot
of violence against you,
so why are the ghettos the most
dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Hispanic History Month.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Asian History Month.
You h ave Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Kawanza.
You have the NAACP.
And you have BET.
If we had WET
(White Entertainment Television)
...We'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day
...You would call us racists.
If we had White History Month
...We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites
to 'advance OUR lives,
...We'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
a Black Chamber of Commerce,
and then we just have the plain
Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund that only gave
white students scholarships
...You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly-proclaimed
Black-only Colleges in the US ,
yet if there were 'White-only Colleges'
...THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million-Man March,
you believed that you were
marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights,
..You would call us racists.
You are proud to be black,
brown, yellow and red,
and you're not afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride
...You call us racists.
You rob us,
carjack us,
and shoot at us.
But, when a white police officer
shoots a black gang member
or beats up a black drug-dealer
who is running from the LAW and
posing a threat to ALL of society
...You call him a racist.
I am proud.
...But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only
whites
can be racists?
R.M. Anthony
posted 6/04/08 @ 10:34 PM PST
Originally posted byCraig Hawley
FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
Proud To Be White
Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans,
Hispanic Americans,
Cuban Americans,
Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans,
Arab Americans,
Native Americans, etc.
..And then there are just -
Americans.
You pass me on the street
and sneer in my direction.
You Call me 'White boy,'
'Cracker,' 'Honkey,'
'Whitey,' 'Caveman,'
...And that's OK.
But when I call you Nigger,
Kike, Towel head,
Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey,
Beaner, Gook, or Chink,
..You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot
of violence against you,
so why are the ghettos the most
dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Hispanic History Month.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Asian History Month.
You h ave Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Kawanza.
You have the NAACP.
And you have BET.
If we had WET
(White Entertainment Television)
...We'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day
...You would call us racists.
If we had White History Month
...We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites
to 'advance OUR lives,
...We'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
a Black Chamber of Commerce,
and then we just have the plain
Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund that only gave
white students scholarships
...You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly-proclaimed
Black-only Colleges in the US ,
yet if there were 'White-only Colleges'
...THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million-Man March,
you believed that you were
marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights,
..You would call us racists.
You are proud to be black,
brown, yellow and red,
and you're not afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride
...You call us racists.
You rob us,
carjack us,
and shoot at us.
But, when a white police officer
shoots a black gang member
or beats up a black drug-dealer
who is running from the LAW and
posing a threat to ALL of society
...You call him a racist.
I am proud.
...But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only
whites
can be racists?
Amen
The Man
posted 6/05/08 @ 2:34 AM PST
Because thanks to the extremely widespread history of racism from "whites", the world has become hyper-sensitive and constantly watches and waits to be offended. While every other so-called "racial" group has plenty of racism, white people have been noted the most for it, thanks to the apparent domination of the world by "whites" in the past, and in the present.
The entire idea of "race" is ridiculous to me. How does someone's skin tone, or accent, or any of these things make them any different? We are all part of the human race, and that is all that should matter. We should not make our groups, we should not make our races, we should not make any of this. We are all one and the same, we are not so different.
The line of race is far too deep and needs to be lifted away. When I have a black friend, I do not think, "he is black," I think, "he is my friend." When I have an asian friend, I do not think, "he is asian," I think, "he is my friend." When I have a homosexual friend, I do not think, "he is homosexual," I think, "he is my friend." With all of these, I may think, "he looks different than myself," but I will also think, "he is the same as me. He has a body. He has a brain. He has a soul."
It is foolish to draw such lines to race, nationality or otherwise. It is foolish to make draw such distinction. We are all humans, we are all part of this Earth.
All of this is so deeply embedded into us to be racist, or to be multi-culturally obsessive. Perhaps this is only my thoughts, perhaps they are even incorrect, but when I go out and eat with Indians, I do not think much different about it. When I go out and eat with Mexicans, I do not think much different about it. I am eating food, I am with other humans, I see no difference. Being multi-culturally obsessive draws too much into the idea of "difference". While this may be needed by some, who were raised only surrounded by their own social/cultural groupings, to most, it should not be an issue.
I have been surrounded by a fair amount of people from/with different nationalities, races, orientation and beliefs, so it's hard for me to draw so many lines as them being different from myself. So, I could even be incorrect with my own psychology, perhaps I cannot relate properly to those coming from a background lacking in multi-culturism. I'm quite possibly wrong with many of my own points and beliefs. So, I encourage you to take what I say as non-offensive, and just as my personal opinion, which can be changed or swayed to be more open to other sides of understanding than my own. In fact, I encourage you to do so, for as much as I try to put myself in other's shoes, many times I miss their actual reasonings and the reason for their views.
We think, therefore we are.
The entire idea of "race" is ridiculous to me. How does someone's skin tone, or accent, or any of these things make them any different? We are all part of the human race, and that is all that should matter. We should not make our groups, we should not make our races, we should not make any of this. We are all one and the same, we are not so different.
The line of race is far too deep and needs to be lifted away. When I have a black friend, I do not think, "he is black," I think, "he is my friend." When I have an asian friend, I do not think, "he is asian," I think, "he is my friend." When I have a homosexual friend, I do not think, "he is homosexual," I think, "he is my friend." With all of these, I may think, "he looks different than myself," but I will also think, "he is the same as me. He has a body. He has a brain. He has a soul."
It is foolish to draw such lines to race, nationality or otherwise. It is foolish to make draw such distinction. We are all humans, we are all part of this Earth.
All of this is so deeply embedded into us to be racist, or to be multi-culturally obsessive. Perhaps this is only my thoughts, perhaps they are even incorrect, but when I go out and eat with Indians, I do not think much different about it. When I go out and eat with Mexicans, I do not think much different about it. I am eating food, I am with other humans, I see no difference. Being multi-culturally obsessive draws too much into the idea of "difference". While this may be needed by some, who were raised only surrounded by their own social/cultural groupings, to most, it should not be an issue.
I have been surrounded by a fair amount of people from/with different nationalities, races, orientation and beliefs, so it's hard for me to draw so many lines as them being different from myself. So, I could even be incorrect with my own psychology, perhaps I cannot relate properly to those coming from a background lacking in multi-culturism. I'm quite possibly wrong with many of my own points and beliefs. So, I encourage you to take what I say as non-offensive, and just as my personal opinion, which can be changed or swayed to be more open to other sides of understanding than my own. In fact, I encourage you to do so, for as much as I try to put myself in other's shoes, many times I miss their actual reasonings and the reason for their views.
We think, therefore we are.
Originally posted byCraig Hawley
FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
Proud To Be White
Someone finally said it.
How many are actually paying attention to this?
There are African Americans,
Hispanic Americans,
Cuban Americans,
Mexican Americans,
Asian Americans,
Arab Americans,
Native Americans, etc.
..And then there are just -
Americans.
You pass me on the street
and sneer in my direction.
You Call me 'White boy,'
'Cracker,' 'Honkey,'
'Whitey,' 'Caveman,'
...And that's OK.
But when I call you Nigger,
Kike, Towel head,
Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey,
Beaner, Gook, or Chink,
..You call me a racist.
You say that whites commit a lot
of violence against you,
so why are the ghettos the most
dangerous places to live?
You have the United Negro College Fund.
You have Hispanic History Month.
You have Martin Luther King Day.
You have Asian History Month.
You h ave Black History Month.
You have Cesar Chavez Day.
You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.
You have Yom Hashoah.
You have Kawanza.
You have the NAACP.
And you have BET.
If we had WET
(White Entertainment Television)
...We'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day
...You would call us racists.
If we had White History Month
...We'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites
to 'advance OUR lives,
...We'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,
a Black Chamber of Commerce,
and then we just have the plain
Chamber of Commerce.
Wonder who pays for that?
If we had a college fund that only gave
white students scholarships
...You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly-proclaimed
Black-only Colleges in the US ,
yet if there were 'White-only Colleges'
...THAT would be a racist college.
In the Million-Man March,
you believed that you were
marching for your race and rights.
If we marched for our race and rights,
..You would call us racists.
You are proud to be black,
brown, yellow and red,
and you're not afraid to announce it.
But when we announce our white pride
...You call us racists.
You rob us,
carjack us,
and shoot at us.
But, when a white police officer
shoots a black gang member
or beats up a black drug-dealer
who is running from the LAW and
posing a threat to ALL of society
...You call him a racist.
I am proud.
...But, you call me a racist.
Why is it that only
whites
can be racists?
Nunley
posted 6/04/08 @ 10:10 PM PST
The thing is, virtually no one would have even known about the party if this column hadn't been printed. Hence, the party is innocuous. Michael obviously has his opinion about it, but this kind of piffle has little or no effect on anybody. If he wants a party to be more representative, perhaps someone should host a Mayan party where they pretend to sacrifice people. Or is that another part of the "White Privilege" paradigm?
When Michael gets out of college where "feelings" are of the utmost importance perhaps he'll learn not to concern himself with trivial matters.
When Michael gets out of college where "feelings" are of the utmost importance perhaps he'll learn not to concern himself with trivial matters.
Ryan Larson
posted 6/04/08 @ 10:52 PM PST
You're ridiculous. This party was not meant to be racist at all.
Go get off your ass and get a life.
Go get off your ass and get a life.
Tasia
posted 6/05/08 @ 1:01 AM PST
You wanted confrontation... you got it!
I held higher standards for The Barometer up until I came across this article. Did you not have any better ideas hours before deadline that you had to take a "facebook break" and dig some dirt (where it didn't need to be dug) there? Or was this just the icing on the cake that you needed in order to spice up your previous homophobic piece? Sure stereotypical images of cowboys and indians were portrayed at this THEMED party, but what about fiestas and lu'aus and all those other themed parties? Why didn't you step up and say something then? And HALLOWEEN?? Alert the media: we are all being racist!
I will give you one point though. Half of it because you began by saying that you wanted confrontation and you had to have been knowledgeable enough to know that this would strike up something. And the other half of the point because I agree with what you said about minorities needing to teach Americans. But tsk tsk in having to offend people on your way to making the message. Minus half a point! Doesn't that make you racist in a way?
Optimistically thinking, this article was good. It rallied the troops I'm sure, and it reminded us minority and gay people to keep fighting the the fight against people like you and remarks like those!
I held higher standards for The Barometer up until I came across this article. Did you not have any better ideas hours before deadline that you had to take a "facebook break" and dig some dirt (where it didn't need to be dug) there? Or was this just the icing on the cake that you needed in order to spice up your previous homophobic piece? Sure stereotypical images of cowboys and indians were portrayed at this THEMED party, but what about fiestas and lu'aus and all those other themed parties? Why didn't you step up and say something then? And HALLOWEEN?? Alert the media: we are all being racist!
I will give you one point though. Half of it because you began by saying that you wanted confrontation and you had to have been knowledgeable enough to know that this would strike up something. And the other half of the point because I agree with what you said about minorities needing to teach Americans. But tsk tsk in having to offend people on your way to making the message. Minus half a point! Doesn't that make you racist in a way?
Optimistically thinking, this article was good. It rallied the troops I'm sure, and it reminded us minority and gay people to keep fighting the the fight against people like you and remarks like those!
The Man
posted 6/05/08 @ 2:14 AM PST
While this person does raise quite a few interesting, and even correct reasonings/points, their actual "point" of this letter is fairly ridiculous, along with the cause of their outrage. This person is obviously reading far too much into the "Cowboys and Indians" party theme, in regards to the accusations of racism and hate. I highly doubt whoever thought up the party had planned it out in such detail as the writer of this letter did.
It is fairly obvious that Michael Faris, the writer, is fueled by much more than just this lone event. But, frankly, he is, I'm sure, the only one who thought it through to such extents of racism. This is a time when many people, especially those at places such as OSU, with such a huge focus on multi-cultural events, pro-homosexuality, and global understand, become hyper-sensitive to anything that could be taken as racism, hatred or bigotry. People may not think of, realize or even mean something as racism or hate, and may simple just need a light push in the right direction, not letters of rage and disgust. Even to the people's comments to this letter, perhaps this person just needs someone else to say that he's looking too much into it, and that it wasn't meant as such?
As a note, I am a Native American(originating from a reserve near Toronto, Ontario), and I personally did not find the "Cowboys and Indians" theme mentioned in this letter personally offensive. While it does have it's negative connotations, it does not seem something to become so livid and up in arms about, especially not with more important happenings in the world going on. If anything, perhaps the more deep-rooted issues that even cause any of this should be talked about, in both the person hosting the "Cowboys and Indians" party, and in the writer of this letter who is outraged(and even to those who responded to it.)
Now, my personal critique of this is that it is, indeed, fairly offensive, especially to those who are homosexual, or are pro-homosexual, and that the writer of this letter should be more considerate of other's beliefs, regardless of his own. No one can truly convince other's of anything by attacking or offending, if anything, that will convince the other person to strengthen their resistance, or even completely block you out.
One needs to think thoroughly before letting all their opinions or rage come out to the public. Not every thought you have will be right, and most of your thoughts should not be heard by anyone. We, as humans, are offensive by nature and need to think before we speak. Many thoughts and beliefs I kept to myself I found in later life to be wrong, and highly offensive.
Sure, this may be a "free" country, but just because you're allowed to voice your opinion, does not mean you should. If you do choose to voice your opinion, you should never be oppressive. You must always be open and understanding, even, and especially, to your enemies. Without understanding, you cannot convince the world of truth. Without understanding, you are no different than the person who offends you.
I am half-asleep at this moment and cannot make any striking points to this letter or it's respondants. I doubt anyone really cared to read my opinion on this, but if you did, and managed to understand it, complete kudos to you.
It is fairly obvious that Michael Faris, the writer, is fueled by much more than just this lone event. But, frankly, he is, I'm sure, the only one who thought it through to such extents of racism. This is a time when many people, especially those at places such as OSU, with such a huge focus on multi-cultural events, pro-homosexuality, and global understand, become hyper-sensitive to anything that could be taken as racism, hatred or bigotry. People may not think of, realize or even mean something as racism or hate, and may simple just need a light push in the right direction, not letters of rage and disgust. Even to the people's comments to this letter, perhaps this person just needs someone else to say that he's looking too much into it, and that it wasn't meant as such?
As a note, I am a Native American(originating from a reserve near Toronto, Ontario), and I personally did not find the "Cowboys and Indians" theme mentioned in this letter personally offensive. While it does have it's negative connotations, it does not seem something to become so livid and up in arms about, especially not with more important happenings in the world going on. If anything, perhaps the more deep-rooted issues that even cause any of this should be talked about, in both the person hosting the "Cowboys and Indians" party, and in the writer of this letter who is outraged(and even to those who responded to it.)
Now, my personal critique of this is that it is, indeed, fairly offensive, especially to those who are homosexual, or are pro-homosexual, and that the writer of this letter should be more considerate of other's beliefs, regardless of his own. No one can truly convince other's of anything by attacking or offending, if anything, that will convince the other person to strengthen their resistance, or even completely block you out.
One needs to think thoroughly before letting all their opinions or rage come out to the public. Not every thought you have will be right, and most of your thoughts should not be heard by anyone. We, as humans, are offensive by nature and need to think before we speak. Many thoughts and beliefs I kept to myself I found in later life to be wrong, and highly offensive.
Sure, this may be a "free" country, but just because you're allowed to voice your opinion, does not mean you should. If you do choose to voice your opinion, you should never be oppressive. You must always be open and understanding, even, and especially, to your enemies. Without understanding, you cannot convince the world of truth. Without understanding, you are no different than the person who offends you.
I am half-asleep at this moment and cannot make any striking points to this letter or it's respondants. I doubt anyone really cared to read my opinion on this, but if you did, and managed to understand it, complete kudos to you.
Nick
posted 6/05/08 @ 3:38 AM PST
Craig -
You are seriously not helping this at all.
That said,
We were not intending to offend anyone, but apparently we did. We were having fun. It was a small themed party. The only reason Michael heard about this party was because of the albums posted on facebook. For some reason, as a gay student as OSU, I am apparently expected to be PC at all times. Sorry, but fuck that. I have been to three different Cowboy & Indian parties in the last couple of years. The first two were frat parties (one of which campus security supervised, and they watched my underage ass drink beer after beer). So now, there is a house party (OFF CAMPUS), and this guy is pissed. Wonder why? Maybe because this time it was hosted by someone in the gay community? He probably could have talked to us about it after the party, but instead he decided to write about it in the Barometer. That is strange to me, considering we were friends on facebook, as were at least 2 other "queer" students at the party (PS - I hate the term queer). By the way Mike, I am NOT your "sibling". You are not my brother, and you never will be.
You are seriously not helping this at all.
That said,
We were not intending to offend anyone, but apparently we did. We were having fun. It was a small themed party. The only reason Michael heard about this party was because of the albums posted on facebook. For some reason, as a gay student as OSU, I am apparently expected to be PC at all times. Sorry, but fuck that. I have been to three different Cowboy & Indian parties in the last couple of years. The first two were frat parties (one of which campus security supervised, and they watched my underage ass drink beer after beer). So now, there is a house party (OFF CAMPUS), and this guy is pissed. Wonder why? Maybe because this time it was hosted by someone in the gay community? He probably could have talked to us about it after the party, but instead he decided to write about it in the Barometer. That is strange to me, considering we were friends on facebook, as were at least 2 other "queer" students at the party (PS - I hate the term queer). By the way Mike, I am NOT your "sibling". You are not my brother, and you never will be.
Craig Hawley
posted 6/06/08 @ 7:36 PM PST
You say I am not helping this at all. That is your opinion Nick and we all know what opinions are. According to my old Drill Se argent , opinions are like derrieres. Every one has one and most of them stink. LOL!
I beg to disagree. Your party and the theme is not what is killing my country , but butt kissing political correctness is.
I don't go out of my way to offend anyone. I speak the truth and if that offends then to damn bad.
I have been called plenty of racists names. I used to live in D.C. , and it is mostly black. Hell one time I went to an all black McDonald's and they refused to serve me.
But not once did I respond in kind or get bent out of shape.
People only have the power to offend that you give them. I never give them that power over me. And yes I will speak out about this BS stuff that cheapens real racism.
I hope the Washington REDSKINS ( my team for thirty years ) never give into these idiots.
There are real cases of discrimination and racism that are not being addressed and I have no patience for these ultra thin skinned people.
Someone somewhere will be offended because you woke up this morning Nick. You can live your life in terror of offending them or you can be a decent person and if someone chooses to be offended over some stupid party theme then that is on them.
I was born in India and have traveled the world. I get along great with everyone. Everyone except those people who make it their mission in life to bitch about everything and everybody.
Man Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling over in his grave watching the royal butt kissing that is America now.
So I disagree with you and I guess my opinion is as valid as yours.
Now see people that cave in to political correctness can't fight back against what I just said.
But if you said your opinion was as valid as mine I might say HELL NO.
I would rather have that any day than this hypocritical butt smooching we have today.
If this post offended anyone , GET OVER IT AND YOURSELF!
I beg to disagree. Your party and the theme is not what is killing my country , but butt kissing political correctness is.
I don't go out of my way to offend anyone. I speak the truth and if that offends then to damn bad.
I have been called plenty of racists names. I used to live in D.C. , and it is mostly black. Hell one time I went to an all black McDonald's and they refused to serve me.
But not once did I respond in kind or get bent out of shape.
People only have the power to offend that you give them. I never give them that power over me. And yes I will speak out about this BS stuff that cheapens real racism.
I hope the Washington REDSKINS ( my team for thirty years ) never give into these idiots.
There are real cases of discrimination and racism that are not being addressed and I have no patience for these ultra thin skinned people.
Someone somewhere will be offended because you woke up this morning Nick. You can live your life in terror of offending them or you can be a decent person and if someone chooses to be offended over some stupid party theme then that is on them.
I was born in India and have traveled the world. I get along great with everyone. Everyone except those people who make it their mission in life to bitch about everything and everybody.
Man Teddy Roosevelt must be rolling over in his grave watching the royal butt kissing that is America now.
So I disagree with you and I guess my opinion is as valid as yours.
Now see people that cave in to political correctness can't fight back against what I just said.
But if you said your opinion was as valid as mine I might say HELL NO.
I would rather have that any day than this hypocritical butt smooching we have today.
If this post offended anyone , GET OVER IT AND YOURSELF!
Originally posted byNick
Craig -
You are seriously not helping this at all.
That said,
We were not intending to offend anyone, but apparently we did. We were having fun. It was a small themed party. The only reason Michael heard about this party was because of the albums posted on facebook. For some reason, as a gay student as OSU, I am apparently expected to be PC at all times. Sorry, but fuck that. I have been to three different Cowboy & Indian parties in the last couple of years. The first two were frat parties (one of which campus security supervised, and they watched my underage ass drink beer after beer). So now, there is a house party (OFF CAMPUS), and this guy is pissed. Wonder why? Maybe because this time it was hosted by someone in the gay community? He probably could have talked to us about it after the party, but instead he decided to write about it in the Barometer. That is strange to me, considering we were friends on facebook, as were at least 2 other "queer" students at the party (PS - I hate the term queer). By the way Mike, I am NOT your "sibling". You are not my brother, and you never will be.
Austin Miller
posted 6/05/08 @ 1:05 PM PST
As a member of the LGBT community on campus I am disgusted at the blatant personal attack published in the barometer under a banner of moral superiority. To all but name a single student at campus and charge them with racism and moral destitution is libelous, and the school administration should be embarrassed that it was committed by a member of their own staff. I find it offensive and an embarrassment to myself that Mr. Faris takes it upon himself to speak for "our kind" as a whole and I expect nothing less than public apology out of him.
Party Nazi
posted 6/06/08 @ 9:53 AM PST
People, can't you see? We need to change our ways! No more toga parties, for the Greeks are surely offended. No more ABC parties (anything but clothes), because the homeless would die for wardrobes like ours. No more highlighter parties - Yukio Horie, the inventor of the highlighter, would surely be offended because he obviously never would have imagined people using highlighters in such a dirty way (AND he was Japanese). Don't even talk to me about cocktail parties, rock and roll parties, 50's parties, 60's parties, 70's parties, 80's parties, patriotic parties, luaus, fiestas, mardi gras parties, Halloween or Christmas parties, because all of those surely offend SOMEONE.
Damn college kids and their themes.
Damn college kids and their themes.
Scott Schmitz
posted 6/06/08 @ 7:00 PM PST
I think it's good that people are talking about how they feel about this, so I will do the same. I don't agree that they are 'racist' for having a Cowboy and Indians themed party. I don't however think that the people who themed the party really took into consideration that your own actions affect others, even if it seems like just a simple party.
I think the intention was to have a good time, but people in our community are offended. If you walk down the street and ask a Native American about how they feel about it, it might give you a better idea of what kind of struggles that group have encountered. In anything you do, I would consider what the repercussions will be. Before you do anything, think about it. For example, even calling them Indians may be offensive if they would rather be called Native American.
As far as people who are marginalized they should be more aware of what they are doing. Recently the Student values were released and they are:
* Learning
* Excellence
* Social Responsibility
* Diversity
* Respect
* Inclusiveness
* Community
* Adaptability
* Accountability
* Integrity
I think people should keep in mind that OSU students find these values important. Keep all of these in mind even if you are planning a party, publishing an article in the Barometer, or having discussions.
I think the intention was to have a good time, but people in our community are offended. If you walk down the street and ask a Native American about how they feel about it, it might give you a better idea of what kind of struggles that group have encountered. In anything you do, I would consider what the repercussions will be. Before you do anything, think about it. For example, even calling them Indians may be offensive if they would rather be called Native American.
As far as people who are marginalized they should be more aware of what they are doing. Recently the Student values were released and they are:
* Learning
* Excellence
* Social Responsibility
* Diversity
* Respect
* Inclusiveness
* Community
* Adaptability
* Accountability
* Integrity
I think people should keep in mind that OSU students find these values important. Keep all of these in mind even if you are planning a party, publishing an article in the Barometer, or having discussions.
Scott Schmitz
posted 6/06/08 @ 7:06 PM PST
I think it's good that people are talking about how they feel about this, so I will do the same. I don't agree that they are 'racist' for having a Cowboy and Indians themed party. I don't however think that the people who themed the party really took into consideration that your own actions affect others, even if it seems like just a simple party.
I think the intention was to have a good time, but people in our community are offended. If you walk down the street and ask a Native American about how they feel about it, it might give you a better idea of what kind of struggles that group have encountered. In anything you do, I would consider what the repercussions will be. Before you do anything, think about it. For example, even calling them Indians may be offensive if they would rather be called Native American.
As far as people who are marginalized they should be more aware of what they are doing. Recently the Student values were released and they are:
* Learning
* Excellence
* Social Responsibility
* Diversity
* Respect
* Inclusiveness
* Community
* Adaptability
* Accountability
* Integrity
I think people should keep in mind that OSU students find these values important. Keep all of these in mind even if you are planning a party, publishing an article in the Barometer, or having discussions.
I think the intention was to have a good time, but people in our community are offended. If you walk down the street and ask a Native American about how they feel about it, it might give you a better idea of what kind of struggles that group have encountered. In anything you do, I would consider what the repercussions will be. Before you do anything, think about it. For example, even calling them Indians may be offensive if they would rather be called Native American.
As far as people who are marginalized they should be more aware of what they are doing. Recently the Student values were released and they are:
* Learning
* Excellence
* Social Responsibility
* Diversity
* Respect
* Inclusiveness
* Community
* Adaptability
* Accountability
* Integrity
I think people should keep in mind that OSU students find these values important. Keep all of these in mind even if you are planning a party, publishing an article in the Barometer, or having discussions.
Caitlin
posted 6/07/08 @ 12:13 AM PST
I feel that this has been taken too far. I'm not sure how Mr. Farris came across this photo album, but I would think that an English professor would take the time to research a subject before having a article published with his name on it. This article has obviously had the opposite affect then the writer had intended. Unfortunately this is the caliber of articles that the OSU community has come to expect from the Barometer. I understand that this was an editorial, but the legitimacy of the claims should have still been checked. Especially since the members of this party obviously recognized that they were being targeted.
And here is food for thought: if a western themed party is considered racist what about other themed parties?
Gangsta' and ho parties (which have become so popular)
Fiestas
Luau (which are held campus wide by OSU during the spring term)
Mardi Gras
I think that instead of accusing someone publicly of racism, we should work together to insure that people are unintentionally hurt by such event. I am sure that if Mr. Farris had emailed this student about his pictures this entire unfortunate event could have been avoided.
And bringing the student's sexuality was completely uncalled for. Being gay himself, Mr. Farris should have know that.
Mr. Farris-
Please do not use the Barometer for personal vendettas again in the future, it lowers the integrity of the paper. And we all know that the Barometer does not need that.
To the Barometer-
Please run fact checks! I can't tell you how many times that stories that are printed in your paper are that are misleading or all together incorrect. And a spell check once in a while couldn't hurt either.
And here is food for thought: if a western themed party is considered racist what about other themed parties?
Gangsta' and ho parties (which have become so popular)
Fiestas
Luau (which are held campus wide by OSU during the spring term)
Mardi Gras
I think that instead of accusing someone publicly of racism, we should work together to insure that people are unintentionally hurt by such event. I am sure that if Mr. Farris had emailed this student about his pictures this entire unfortunate event could have been avoided.
And bringing the student's sexuality was completely uncalled for. Being gay himself, Mr. Farris should have know that.
Mr. Farris-
Please do not use the Barometer for personal vendettas again in the future, it lowers the integrity of the paper. And we all know that the Barometer does not need that.
To the Barometer-
Please run fact checks! I can't tell you how many times that stories that are printed in your paper are that are misleading or all together incorrect. And a spell check once in a while couldn't hurt either.
Cait
posted 6/07/08 @ 12:15 AM PST
I feel that this has been taken too far. I'm not sure how Mr. Farris came across this photo album, but I would think that an English professor would take the time to research a subject before having a article published with his name on it. This article has obviously had the opposite affect then the writer had intended. Unfortunately this is the caliber of articles that the OSU community has come to expect from the Barometer. I understand that this was an editorial, but the legitimacy of the claims should have still been checked. Especially since the members of this party obviously recognized that they were being targeted.
And here is food for thought: if a western themed party is considered racist what about other themed parties?
Gangsta' and ho parties (which have become so popular)
Fiestas
Luau (which are held campus wide by OSU during the spring term)
Mardi Gras
I think that instead of accusing someone publicly of racism, we should work together to insure that people are unintentionally hurt by such event. I am sure that if Mr. Farris had emailed this student about his pictures this entire unfortunate event could have been avoided.
And bringing the student's sexuality was completely uncalled for. Being gay himself, Mr. Farris should have know that.
Mr. Farris-
Please do not use the Barometer for personal vendettas again in the future, it lowers the integrity of the paper. And we all know that the Barometer does not need that.
To the Barometer-
Please run fact checks! I can't tell you how many times that stories that are printed in your paper are that are misleading or all together incorrect. And a spell check couldn't hurt either.
And here is food for thought: if a western themed party is considered racist what about other themed parties?
Gangsta' and ho parties (which have become so popular)
Fiestas
Luau (which are held campus wide by OSU during the spring term)
Mardi Gras
I think that instead of accusing someone publicly of racism, we should work together to insure that people are unintentionally hurt by such event. I am sure that if Mr. Farris had emailed this student about his pictures this entire unfortunate event could have been avoided.
And bringing the student's sexuality was completely uncalled for. Being gay himself, Mr. Farris should have know that.
Mr. Farris-
Please do not use the Barometer for personal vendettas again in the future, it lowers the integrity of the paper. And we all know that the Barometer does not need that.
To the Barometer-
Please run fact checks! I can't tell you how many times that stories that are printed in your paper are that are misleading or all together incorrect. And a spell check couldn't hurt either.
Craig Hawley
posted 6/07/08 @ 12:38 AM PST
Sorry Nick I think I am helping whether you do or not. What we don't need is more of this politically correct poison seeping into our culture.
Go Washington Redskins.
Be a real American , offend somebody. LOL!
It is something like teenagers. When they get to that age if they are your best friend as a parent you5r not doing your job.
Offending someone is not the end of the world. And some people need to be offended.
So have your theme parties and if someone gets offended , they'll live.
Otherwise someday I'll be saying something as stupid as I am offended that your not offended that people were offended about an Indian and Cowboys party. LOL!
Go Washington Redskins.
Be a real American , offend somebody. LOL!
It is something like teenagers. When they get to that age if they are your best friend as a parent you5r not doing your job.
Offending someone is not the end of the world. And some people need to be offended.
So have your theme parties and if someone gets offended , they'll live.
Otherwise someday I'll be saying something as stupid as I am offended that your not offended that people were offended about an Indian and Cowboys party. LOL!
FUJBLLR
posted 6/07/08 @ 1:11 AM PST
Was this article violently attacked by a thesaurus of some kind? Just wondering.
But hey, I understand your plight man- those arrogant thesauruses think that they can just stick their unwanted synonyms in any damn hole that they see (hello entitlement issues). Though I suppose, being the thesauruses that they are, perhaps they just aren't able to accept the "no means no-and ONLY no" rule as an accurate one (you know- given their knowledge of synonyms for "no" and all).
But silly thesaurus: The word "No" is not automatically interchangeable with all suggested synonyms (e.g. "absence", "negative", "void", "veto"). Plus- since "No" is so clear and concise... there is no need to muddy the message in a sea of stupid synonyms.
Bottom line is that bigger is NOT always better (although clearly the "big is best" rule still applies to penis size, debt, houses, meals, Americans, BMI's and SUVS) and using fancy words DOES NOT make you any smarter.
It's just a transparent way to disguise what you really wanted to say (e.g. "Please look at my vocabulary, it is spectacular. Bask in the glow!","I am a very smart writer with many words at my disposal- do you see?", "O'doyle RULES" and/or "I'm smarter than the reeeeeeader. Suck it reader.").
The super fancy words only impress stupid people. Smarter people can spot thesaurus abuse.
But hey, I understand your plight man- those arrogant thesauruses think that they can just stick their unwanted synonyms in any damn hole that they see (hello entitlement issues). Though I suppose, being the thesauruses that they are, perhaps they just aren't able to accept the "no means no-and ONLY no" rule as an accurate one (you know- given their knowledge of synonyms for "no" and all).
But silly thesaurus: The word "No" is not automatically interchangeable with all suggested synonyms (e.g. "absence", "negative", "void", "veto"). Plus- since "No" is so clear and concise... there is no need to muddy the message in a sea of stupid synonyms.
Bottom line is that bigger is NOT always better (although clearly the "big is best" rule still applies to penis size, debt, houses, meals, Americans, BMI's and SUVS) and using fancy words DOES NOT make you any smarter.
It's just a transparent way to disguise what you really wanted to say (e.g. "Please look at my vocabulary, it is spectacular. Bask in the glow!","I am a very smart writer with many words at my disposal- do you see?", "O'doyle RULES" and/or "I'm smarter than the reeeeeeader. Suck it reader.").
The super fancy words only impress stupid people. Smarter people can spot thesaurus abuse.
kokopelli
posted 6/08/08 @ 11:14 AM PST
Wow, bravo, hallelujah, for a well written and a delicate issue that most of often the rest of us ignore easily. Michael has been a respectful community activist and taking a stand against an enormous discourse, it's a lesson for all of us. I learned about white priviledge, people of color can and are racists towards other poeople of color, dominant mayority and people in power deciding what the "indians" should look like. I'm not surprise by the sensitive letters but... in the words of the only indian president in mexico "el respeto al derecho ajeno es la paz." --Benito Juares.
Michael Faris
posted 6/08/08 @ 12:21 PM PST
I came here to check in on the responses to my column, hoping to find critical questioning of what I had argued. Unfortunately, I found a series of ad hominem attacks and comments that don't address what I argued here.
First, I would like to express appreciation to those who have raised questions about the argument of the column.
Below, I will address the claims made in the above comments.
Before I do this, though, I want to make something clear about what I wrote in this column. In the above comments I read that I called people racists or that I resorted to personal attacks. This column did no such thing. I wrote, "I believe that for a white person to host a party themed "Cowboys and Indians" is racist." No where in this sentence does it state that I believe that someone who holds this party is racist. I wrote that the ACTION of holding this party is racist. If we break down the above sentence, the subject is "to host a party," which is an action.
This is a subtle distinction, but one that needs to be made. I don't believe that calling someone racist does any good, as we are all affected by institutional racism and prone to racist acts when we do not think critically about our actions.
Nor was this meant to be a personal attack: I was not attacking the personhood of who hosted this party or the people who attended. I was attacking and critiquing an ACTION. It is imperative, I believe, to keep this distinction in mind.
Now, to address these comments:
THAT I WAS INACCURATE ABOUT WHO HOSTED THE PARTY. Unfortunately, I was misinformed about who hosted the party, and I apologize for the inaccuracy. Whoever hosted the party, this column was not meant as a personal invective against that individual. It was not a personal attack against an individual. It was attack on an action.
Who hosted the party ultimately doesn't affect my argument. To summarize my argument:
• To host a cowboys and indians party is a racist act because it repeats a stereotype of Native Americans created by white institutional power
• Therefore, you should not host or attend a cowboys and indians party
• This is especially harmful if hosted by marginalized groups because it hurts the opportunity to build alliances with people of color.
CLAIMS THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR WERE AT THE PARTY, SO IT IS OKAY. This implies that people of color cannot do things that are against their own interests. This implies that people of color cannot harm other people of color, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Linnaea makes a good parallel: a gay person could go around saying "that's so gay," meaning "stupid," which is harmful to gay people because of the equation gay=wrong.
CLAIMS THAT THIS IS ABOUT CHILDHOOD NOSTALGIA AND SO IS OKAY. This implies that something from our childhood must be innocent and cannot be built out of institutional racism. It certainly is innocent on the child's part to partake in games of Cowboys and Indians. A child can't know any better if there aren't resources around to inform them about the historical and representational problems with this game. However, just because it was innocent for someone as a child, doesn't make it innocent once one is an adult and is responsible for their actions.
CLAIMS THAT THIS IS JUST ABOUT GAY PEOPLE. Tyler asks if I think that if a person is gay they must do everything in their power to show they are friends with other minority groups. No, I do not believe this, and I never said this. I stated that queer folk should do everything in their power to build alliances with other marginalized groups. I don't care who someone is friends with. But I am not saying this is true of gay people qua gay people. It is true of all people. Ultimately, my argument is that if marginalized folks are going to combat a racist, homophobic, sexist, classist, ableist system, that we need to build alliances, and that racist actions are harmful to alliance-building.
CLAIM: THAT IF IT'S RACIST TO DRESS AS AN INDIAN, IT MUST BE RACIST TO DRESS AS A COWBOY, BUT SINCE NO COWBOYS ARE ANGRY, THE PARTY CAN'T BE RACIST. Perhaps this requires a clear definition of racism. Racism is a form of oppression. Oppression occurs when a group lacks institutional power, there is a power disparity, their dignity is maimed by institutional power. Do white cowboys lack institutional power? Because white people have institutional power as white people, and because whiteness is never maligned by institutional power, there isn't racism against white people. I don't mean to say that one can't individually discriminate against white people, but it's not racism. Cowboys generally aren't maligned by our culture, and cowboys have generally been allowed the privileges to represent themselves in institutions.
Here I am not saying that it's okay to dress up as cowboys, nor am I saying that it's not okay. To be honest, I am not sure. But the argument doesn't hold that just because white cowboys don't have a problem with the party, that there isn't a problem with the imagery of Indians.
CLAIMS THAT I AM A PEEPING INSTRUCTOR. I admit that I was hesitant to write this column because of the power difference between myself as an instructor and students at Oregon State University. James makes the point that this column could hurt teacher-student relationships. I agree that this is a possibility. It was a risk I felt was worth taking, and I'd like to expand on this a bit.
To focus solely on the instructor-student relationship serves to hide the various other ways that we are in relation to each other: residents of Corvallis, residents of Oregon, residents of the United States of America, members of various marginalized or non-marginalized groups. It also neglects that I am an alum of Oregon State University and have an investment as an alum and a former member of the student body. The claim that this could harm student-teacher relations also neglects that it could help student-teacher relations in some situations: I have had students thank me for writing this as well as students write here that they disagree.
Furthermore, the use of the term "peeping" is an interesting choice. This word implies that I was looking into a private arena, like a bedroom, a personal letter, a diary, etc. Facebook is not a private arena. It is public. The images I refer to came up on my feed because I am Facebook friends with some of the attendees. These images are accessible to a wide variety of people, who through the network of Facebook can view the images. More accurate than "peeping" into a private space would be reading something public: a magazine, a newspaper column, a poster on campus. Posting the images on Facebook is akin to posting them in the library quad, though the accessibility is not quite that large.
CLAIM: THAT THE PARTY WAS NOT MEANT TO BE RACIST. I never stated that it was. I was talking about ethics. Ethics is about effects, not about intent. What is the effect of such parties? I did not once in my column conjecture about the intent of the party.
THAT I AM ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT. I am not asking this at all. I do not espouse political correctness. First, let's define "politically correct." In my experience, it's something used by folks to make things more tolerable, such as "strategic redeployment" instead of "troop withdrawal." I am not about making things more tolerable in general. I am arguing for restoring dignity. This column was about people's right to dignity and self-determination and self-representation.
THAT THERE WAS A PERSONAL AGENDA IN THIS COLUMN. There was no personal agenda in this column. I have no personal misgivings against any of the attendees or hosts of the party. This is a political agenda: to call attention to an action I (and many others) read as racist in order to draw attention to it and ask that we start work to build coalitions amongst marginalized groups.
I want to repeat that this was not an attack on the personhood of those at the party. This was an attack on an action (the party) and a call to action: to engage in anti-racist work.
IN CLOSING. Perhaps it is important here to call attention to public discourse. What does it mean to be in dialogue in public? I prefer a model proposed by Jeffrey Escoffier, in which he argues that there are four aspects of dialogue we need to accept:
1. We are not immutable: we change, our ideas change, and our identities change.
2. There is no universal interpretation; we all interpret or misinterpret based on a variety of factors. Additionally, everything in public is up for criticism.
3. We must accept that there will be conflict, and that we will feel pain and hurt.
4. Questions will always be re-opened. We will always need to be in dialogue. (from "American Homo," page 200).
I appreciate those whose comments here have attempted to critique the ideas argued in my column. I welcome more of those. Some of the comments on this column have resorted to ad hominem attacks or to other fallacious reasoning.
So, it seems incumbent upon those who disagree to focus on my arguments made in the column. If you disagree, it might help for me to once again repeat my summary of my argument:
• To host a cowboys and indians party is a racist act because it repeats a stereotype of Native Americans created by white institutional power
• Therefore, you should not host or attend a cowboys and indians party
• This is especially harmful if hosted by marginalized groups because it hurts the opportunity to build alliances with people of color.
First, I would like to express appreciation to those who have raised questions about the argument of the column.
Below, I will address the claims made in the above comments.
Before I do this, though, I want to make something clear about what I wrote in this column. In the above comments I read that I called people racists or that I resorted to personal attacks. This column did no such thing. I wrote, "I believe that for a white person to host a party themed "Cowboys and Indians" is racist." No where in this sentence does it state that I believe that someone who holds this party is racist. I wrote that the ACTION of holding this party is racist. If we break down the above sentence, the subject is "to host a party," which is an action.
This is a subtle distinction, but one that needs to be made. I don't believe that calling someone racist does any good, as we are all affected by institutional racism and prone to racist acts when we do not think critically about our actions.
Nor was this meant to be a personal attack: I was not attacking the personhood of who hosted this party or the people who attended. I was attacking and critiquing an ACTION. It is imperative, I believe, to keep this distinction in mind.
Now, to address these comments:
THAT I WAS INACCURATE ABOUT WHO HOSTED THE PARTY. Unfortunately, I was misinformed about who hosted the party, and I apologize for the inaccuracy. Whoever hosted the party, this column was not meant as a personal invective against that individual. It was not a personal attack against an individual. It was attack on an action.
Who hosted the party ultimately doesn't affect my argument. To summarize my argument:
• To host a cowboys and indians party is a racist act because it repeats a stereotype of Native Americans created by white institutional power
• Therefore, you should not host or attend a cowboys and indians party
• This is especially harmful if hosted by marginalized groups because it hurts the opportunity to build alliances with people of color.
CLAIMS THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR WERE AT THE PARTY, SO IT IS OKAY. This implies that people of color cannot do things that are against their own interests. This implies that people of color cannot harm other people of color, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Linnaea makes a good parallel: a gay person could go around saying "that's so gay," meaning "stupid," which is harmful to gay people because of the equation gay=wrong.
CLAIMS THAT THIS IS ABOUT CHILDHOOD NOSTALGIA AND SO IS OKAY. This implies that something from our childhood must be innocent and cannot be built out of institutional racism. It certainly is innocent on the child's part to partake in games of Cowboys and Indians. A child can't know any better if there aren't resources around to inform them about the historical and representational problems with this game. However, just because it was innocent for someone as a child, doesn't make it innocent once one is an adult and is responsible for their actions.
CLAIMS THAT THIS IS JUST ABOUT GAY PEOPLE. Tyler asks if I think that if a person is gay they must do everything in their power to show they are friends with other minority groups. No, I do not believe this, and I never said this. I stated that queer folk should do everything in their power to build alliances with other marginalized groups. I don't care who someone is friends with. But I am not saying this is true of gay people qua gay people. It is true of all people. Ultimately, my argument is that if marginalized folks are going to combat a racist, homophobic, sexist, classist, ableist system, that we need to build alliances, and that racist actions are harmful to alliance-building.
CLAIM: THAT IF IT'S RACIST TO DRESS AS AN INDIAN, IT MUST BE RACIST TO DRESS AS A COWBOY, BUT SINCE NO COWBOYS ARE ANGRY, THE PARTY CAN'T BE RACIST. Perhaps this requires a clear definition of racism. Racism is a form of oppression. Oppression occurs when a group lacks institutional power, there is a power disparity, their dignity is maimed by institutional power. Do white cowboys lack institutional power? Because white people have institutional power as white people, and because whiteness is never maligned by institutional power, there isn't racism against white people. I don't mean to say that one can't individually discriminate against white people, but it's not racism. Cowboys generally aren't maligned by our culture, and cowboys have generally been allowed the privileges to represent themselves in institutions.
Here I am not saying that it's okay to dress up as cowboys, nor am I saying that it's not okay. To be honest, I am not sure. But the argument doesn't hold that just because white cowboys don't have a problem with the party, that there isn't a problem with the imagery of Indians.
CLAIMS THAT I AM A PEEPING INSTRUCTOR. I admit that I was hesitant to write this column because of the power difference between myself as an instructor and students at Oregon State University. James makes the point that this column could hurt teacher-student relationships. I agree that this is a possibility. It was a risk I felt was worth taking, and I'd like to expand on this a bit.
To focus solely on the instructor-student relationship serves to hide the various other ways that we are in relation to each other: residents of Corvallis, residents of Oregon, residents of the United States of America, members of various marginalized or non-marginalized groups. It also neglects that I am an alum of Oregon State University and have an investment as an alum and a former member of the student body. The claim that this could harm student-teacher relations also neglects that it could help student-teacher relations in some situations: I have had students thank me for writing this as well as students write here that they disagree.
Furthermore, the use of the term "peeping" is an interesting choice. This word implies that I was looking into a private arena, like a bedroom, a personal letter, a diary, etc. Facebook is not a private arena. It is public. The images I refer to came up on my feed because I am Facebook friends with some of the attendees. These images are accessible to a wide variety of people, who through the network of Facebook can view the images. More accurate than "peeping" into a private space would be reading something public: a magazine, a newspaper column, a poster on campus. Posting the images on Facebook is akin to posting them in the library quad, though the accessibility is not quite that large.
CLAIM: THAT THE PARTY WAS NOT MEANT TO BE RACIST. I never stated that it was. I was talking about ethics. Ethics is about effects, not about intent. What is the effect of such parties? I did not once in my column conjecture about the intent of the party.
THAT I AM ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT. I am not asking this at all. I do not espouse political correctness. First, let's define "politically correct." In my experience, it's something used by folks to make things more tolerable, such as "strategic redeployment" instead of "troop withdrawal." I am not about making things more tolerable in general. I am arguing for restoring dignity. This column was about people's right to dignity and self-determination and self-representation.
THAT THERE WAS A PERSONAL AGENDA IN THIS COLUMN. There was no personal agenda in this column. I have no personal misgivings against any of the attendees or hosts of the party. This is a political agenda: to call attention to an action I (and many others) read as racist in order to draw attention to it and ask that we start work to build coalitions amongst marginalized groups.
I want to repeat that this was not an attack on the personhood of those at the party. This was an attack on an action (the party) and a call to action: to engage in anti-racist work.
IN CLOSING. Perhaps it is important here to call attention to public discourse. What does it mean to be in dialogue in public? I prefer a model proposed by Jeffrey Escoffier, in which he argues that there are four aspects of dialogue we need to accept:
1. We are not immutable: we change, our ideas change, and our identities change.
2. There is no universal interpretation; we all interpret or misinterpret based on a variety of factors. Additionally, everything in public is up for criticism.
3. We must accept that there will be conflict, and that we will feel pain and hurt.
4. Questions will always be re-opened. We will always need to be in dialogue. (from "American Homo," page 200).
I appreciate those whose comments here have attempted to critique the ideas argued in my column. I welcome more of those. Some of the comments on this column have resorted to ad hominem attacks or to other fallacious reasoning.
So, it seems incumbent upon those who disagree to focus on my arguments made in the column. If you disagree, it might help for me to once again repeat my summary of my argument:
• To host a cowboys and indians party is a racist act because it repeats a stereotype of Native Americans created by white institutional power
• Therefore, you should not host or attend a cowboys and indians party
• This is especially harmful if hosted by marginalized groups because it hurts the opportunity to build alliances with people of color.
William
posted 6/09/08 @ 8:09 PM PST
Originally posted byMichael Faris
I came here to check in on the responses to my column, hoping to find critical questioning of what I had argued. Unfortunately, I found a series of ad hominem attacks and comments that don't address what I argued here.
First, I would like to express appreciation to those who have raised questions about the argument of the column.
Below, I will address the claims made in the above comments.
Before I do this, though, I want to make something clear about what I wrote in this column. In the above comments I read that I called people racists or that I resorted to personal attacks. This column did no such thing. I wrote, "I believe that for a white person to host a party themed "Cowboys and Indians" is racist." No where in this sentence does it state that I believe that someone who holds this party is racist. I wrote that the ACTION of holding this party is racist. If we break down the above sentence, the subject is "to host a party," which is an action.
This is a subtle distinction, but one that needs to be made. I don't believe that calling someone racist does any good, as we are all affected by institutional racism and prone to racist acts when we do not think critically about our actions.
Nor was this meant to be a personal attack: I was not attacking the personhood of who hosted this party or the people who attended. I was attacking and critiquing an ACTION. It is imperative, I believe, to keep this distinction in mind.
Now, to address these comments:
THAT I WAS INACCURATE ABOUT WHO HOSTED THE PARTY. Unfortunately, I was misinformed about who hosted the party, and I apologize for the inaccuracy. Whoever hosted the party, this column was not meant as a personal invective against that individual. It was not a personal attack against an individual. It was attack on an action.
Who hosted the party ultimately doesn't affect my argument. To summarize my argument:
• To host a cowboys and indians party is a racist act because it repeats a stereotype of Native Americans created by white institutional power
• Therefore, you should not host or attend a cowboys and indians party
• This is especially harmful if hosted by marginalized groups because it hurts the opportunity to build alliances with people of color.
CLAIMS THAT PEOPLE OF COLOR WERE AT THE PARTY, SO IT IS OKAY. This implies that people of color cannot do things that are against their own interests. This implies that people of color cannot harm other people of color, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Linnaea makes a good parallel: a gay person could go around saying "that's so gay," meaning "stupid," which is harmful to gay people because of the equation gay=wrong.
CLAIMS THAT THIS IS ABOUT CHILDHOOD NOSTALGIA AND SO IS OKAY. This implies that something from our childhood must be innocent and cannot be built out of institutional racism. It certainly is innocent on the child's part to partake in games of Cowboys and Indians. A child can't know any better if there aren't resources around to inform them about the historical and representational problems with this game. However, just because it was innocent for someone as a child, doesn't make it innocent once one is an adult and is responsible for their actions.
CLAIMS THAT THIS IS JUST ABOUT GAY PEOPLE. Tyler asks if I think that if a person is gay they must do everything in their power to show they are friends with other minority groups. No, I do not believe this, and I never said this. I stated that queer folk should do everything in their power to build alliances with other marginalized groups. I don't care who someone is friends with. But I am not saying this is true of gay people qua gay people. It is true of all people. Ultimately, my argument is that if marginalized folks are going to combat a racist, homophobic, sexist, classist, ableist system, that we need to build alliances, and that racist actions are harmful to alliance-building.
CLAIM: THAT IF IT'S RACIST TO DRESS AS AN INDIAN, IT MUST BE RACIST TO DRESS AS A COWBOY, BUT SINCE NO COWBOYS ARE ANGRY, THE PARTY CAN'T BE RACIST. Perhaps this requires a clear definition of racism. Racism is a form of oppression. Oppression occurs when a group lacks institutional power, there is a power disparity, their dignity is maimed by institutional power. Do white cowboys lack institutional power? Because white people have institutional power as white people, and because whiteness is never maligned by institutional power, there isn't racism against white people. I don't mean to say that one can't individually discriminate against white people, but it's not racism. Cowboys generally aren't maligned by our culture, and cowboys have generally been allowed the privileges to represent themselves in institutions.
Here I am not saying that it's okay to dress up as cowboys, nor am I saying that it's not okay. To be honest, I am not sure. But the argument doesn't hold that just because white cowboys don't have a problem with the party, that there isn't a problem with the imagery of Indians.
CLAIMS THAT I AM A PEEPING INSTRUCTOR. I admit that I was hesitant to write this column because of the power difference between myself as an instructor and students at Oregon State University. James makes the point that this column could hurt teacher-student relationships. I agree that this is a possibility. It was a risk I felt was worth taking, and I'd like to expand on this a bit.
To focus solely on the instructor-student relationship serves to hide the various other ways that we are in relation to each other: residents of Corvallis, residents of Oregon, residents of the United States of America, members of various marginalized or non-marginalized groups. It also neglects that I am an alum of Oregon State University and have an investment as an alum and a former member of the student body. The claim that this could harm student-teacher relations also neglects that it could help student-teacher relations in some situations: I have had students thank me for writing this as well as students write here that they disagree.
Furthermore, the use of the term "peeping" is an interesting choice. This word implies that I was looking into a private arena, like a bedroom, a personal letter, a diary, etc. Facebook is not a private arena. It is public. The images I refer to came up on my feed because I am Facebook friends with some of the attendees. These images are accessible to a wide variety of people, who through the network of Facebook can view the images. More accurate than "peeping" into a private space would be reading something public: a magazine, a newspaper column, a poster on campus. Posting the images on Facebook is akin to posting them in the library quad, though the accessibility is not quite that large.
CLAIM: THAT THE PARTY WAS NOT MEANT TO BE RACIST. I never stated that it was. I was talking about ethics. Ethics is about effects, not about intent. What is the effect of such parties? I did not once in my column conjecture about the intent of the party.
THAT I AM ASKING FOR PEOPLE TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT. I am not asking this at all. I do not espouse political correctness. First, let's define "politically correct." In my experience, it's something used by folks to make things more tolerable, such as "strategic redeployment" instead of "troop withdrawal." I am not about making things more tolerable in general. I am arguing for restoring dignity. This column was about people's right to dignity and self-determination and self-representation.
THAT THERE WAS A PERSONAL AGENDA IN THIS COLUMN. There was no personal agenda in this column. I have no personal misgivings against any of the attendees or hosts of the party. This is a political agenda: to call attention to an action I (and many others) read as racist in order to draw attention to it and ask that we start work to build coalitions amongst marginalized groups.
I want to repeat that this was not an attack on the personhood of those at the party. This was an attack on an action (the party) and a call to action: to engage in anti-racist work.
IN CLOSING. Perhaps it is important here to call attention to public discourse. What does it mean to be in dialogue in public? I prefer a model proposed by Jeffrey Escoffier, in which he argues that there are four aspects of dialogue we need to accept:
1. We are not immutable: we change, our ideas change, and our identities change.
2. There is no universal interpretation; we all interpret or misinterpret based on a variety of factors. Additionally, everything in public is up for criticism.
3. We must accept that there will be conflict, and that we will feel pain and hurt.
4. Questions will always be re-opened. We will always need to be in dialogue. (from "American Homo," page 200).
I appreciate those whose comments here have attempted to critique the ideas argued in my column. I welcome more of those. Some of the comments on this column have resorted to ad hominem attacks or to other fallacious reasoning.
So, it seems incumbent upon those who disagree to focus on my arguments made in the column. If you disagree, it might help for me to once again repeat my summary of my argument:
• To host a cowboys and indians party is a racist act because it repeats a stereotype of Native Americans created by white institutional power
• Therefore, you should not host or attend a cowboys and indians party
• This is especially harmful if hosted by marginalized groups because it hurts the opportunity to build alliances with people of color.
I say that you still have not apologized to the student you supposedly didn't attack, or mark as a bigot. I cannot believe that you would defend that you didn't attack a student personally. I cannot believe that you try to disregard everything said because apparently people's opinions lack correlation to your article...even though they have validity. I still maintain that if you had a problem with this party you could have approached the issue in a much more respectful manner. Hell, if you would have just attacked the principle of the party, and not a singular individual I might not be so up in arms with you right now. YOU did attack a singular person... I believe that you used this article as a form of therapy to deflect frustrations you have with a certain friend of yours. A certain friend that was once interested in the person that you so willing ATTACK. You project your anger so very obviously on this person. Michael you could have taken issue with our party along with so many other parties that happened here throughout the year. You however choose this one, and only this party. Why were you quiet so long if such themed parties are offensive to you and others? Three cowboy and Indian parties were held this year... why only our party? Why only our group? Why only this person? You have a vendetta... You have blatantly projected your anger on a singular student, and still defend yourself. Maybe I assume too much, but its nothing that you haven't done before. Your credibility, and argument would have been much more respected/sound if you would have left a certain student alone. I can agree with you to a degree ... I can understand some of your points, but they're all tainted now. You knew two other white gay males that attended the party, and yet they are granted amnesty because you "had" mutual friends. You are a teacher that means you are responsible for the well being of your employer's students. You are supposed to challenge your students and make them think, but what you've done is placed a dunce cap on your victim. I believe in constructive criticism. I believe in apologizing when you're wrong. I believe that you should never ever make a student feel like they have to transfer schools. Thanks for tainting someone's college experience because of your personal insecurities.
Below are excerpts from your article which prove the butchery of one...
Yes, I believe that for a white person to host a party themed "Cowboys and Indians" is RACIST. (Yes Michael this is calling the person in question racist because you thought he hosted the party. You just do it in a round about way)
At the very least, I would hope that YOUR selfishness would make YOU see that in order to fight our society's demonizing of queerness, YOU need the alliances of as many people as YOU can.
I cannot be surprised when white queers like YOU choose to throw parties with racist imagery.
At the very least: YOU'RE queer. YOU'VE been forced to be creative with YOUR sexuality. At least be creative with YOUR parties. "Cowboys and Indians"? It's a cliché! It's as trite as the heterosexism YOU should be combating.
And YOU, as white, as part of the dominant paradigm (as much as YOU might deny it because of YOUR gayness), are implicated in this when YOU throw a party themed "Cowboys and Indians."
At a time when people of color and queers need each other to battle systemic oppression, YOU dress up as a "savage," YOU dress up like a "squaw."
I am sure that YOU would say your party is ironic, that YOU knew these representations were racist, but YOU did it out of absurdity. I would reply that YOU are refusing to deal with YOUR white privilege.
I am sure that YOU would say that this party is okay because some people of color attended and dressed up in this parody of Native American garb. I would reply that this claim ignores that people of color can be implicated in racism against other people of color.
(If those aren't personal attacks then what are they?)
RW
posted 6/10/08 @ 12:30 AM PST
"If those aren't personal attacks then what are they?"
They might be the plural use of the word 'you'.
I'm just sayin'...
They might be the plural use of the word 'you'.
I'm just sayin'...
Annie
posted 6/10/08 @ 1:31 AM PST
My reply to your open letter to all your, "white," "LGBT" siblings, will be angry. I won't apologize for any confrontation from my side either. And since, in your opinion, there is no way to have an honest public discussion without being confrontational... here goes.
As you stated in your introduction to your article, you do not know much about this themed "Cowboys and Indians" party, other than of course that a visibly white student at OSU hosted it. Well, I commend you on your inept research abilities and hope that journalism isn't your aspiration in life. For the student you so eloquently speak of is Native American, of the Oklahoma Cherokee tribe.
I suspect you will say that the host's cultural background has little to do with perpetuating negative stereotypes. I guess we will see as my rebuttal forges on.
You then go on to say, Mr. Farris, that you do not "know a lot about who attended this party other than the host, as well as a few people I recognized in Facebook pictures." I must say again that your investigative skills are astounding and is Facebook now considered empirical evidence? Since we already know how good you are at telling people's ethnicity just from looking at them.
Maybe I could help you out with your examination of this situation and this "host" that you speak of. The host of this party was actually not the "Queer, white," gentleman that you speak of. However, this person did attend, along with other Gay, Caucasian, Native American, African American, Vietnamese, Chinese, Sri Lankan, Hispanic, Hawaiian and other folks with combinations of race and nationality.
The fact that the party happened at all in your opinion is abhorrent, and I can see where you are coming from. Placing your poor reporting skills aside, I believe perpetuating negative stereotypes is an abomination as well. However, is it really abhorrent to you? Given that you are attending a school with deep seeded stereotypes of it's own? You are attending a school whose fraternities and sororities throw "Pimp's and Hoe's" parties, or "Black and White" parties, or "Dude Ranch / Bunny Ranch" parties, or "Tennis Geek / Hooker Sheik" parties, Toga parties, Hawaiian Luaus, the list could go on. Yet you say nothing about these parties being abhorrent. Isn't that interesting?
Is the real problem here that this supposed host is Gay? That this person should "know" better because they themselves come from a minority population that fights negative stereotypes? You say in your article that you are "concerned with the connections between white gay identity and representations of minorities by white culture," but you fail to support this statement with the body of your article. You seek to unify, but in reality you are being very divisive.
Everyone can agree that our society needs to educate people as a way of combating negative stereotypes. However, you Mr. Farris, did not take this opportunity to teach others. You didn't even comment on the beautiful, traditional clothing that was being worn at this party, which many people were proud of (clearly not dressing like "savages" or "squaws," which THEY might take offense to). Instead you have lead readers to believe that this host was racist and that you have the best interest of the school, your fellow white LGBT siblings, and our culture as a whole at heart. When in reality it seems as though you have a personal vendetta against this host. If not, then this article would have and could have taken a very different tone. Anyone reading it can see that you are coming off as an uneducated person campaigning, camouflaged under the guise of being self-righteous.
As you stated in your introduction to your article, you do not know much about this themed "Cowboys and Indians" party, other than of course that a visibly white student at OSU hosted it. Well, I commend you on your inept research abilities and hope that journalism isn't your aspiration in life. For the student you so eloquently speak of is Native American, of the Oklahoma Cherokee tribe.
I suspect you will say that the host's cultural background has little to do with perpetuating negative stereotypes. I guess we will see as my rebuttal forges on.
You then go on to say, Mr. Farris, that you do not "know a lot about who attended this party other than the host, as well as a few people I recognized in Facebook pictures." I must say again that your investigative skills are astounding and is Facebook now considered empirical evidence? Since we already know how good you are at telling people's ethnicity just from looking at them.
Maybe I could help you out with your examination of this situation and this "host" that you speak of. The host of this party was actually not the "Queer, white," gentleman that you speak of. However, this person did attend, along with other Gay, Caucasian, Native American, African American, Vietnamese, Chinese, Sri Lankan, Hispanic, Hawaiian and other folks with combinations of race and nationality.
The fact that the party happened at all in your opinion is abhorrent, and I can see where you are coming from. Placing your poor reporting skills aside, I believe perpetuating negative stereotypes is an abomination as well. However, is it really abhorrent to you? Given that you are attending a school with deep seeded stereotypes of it's own? You are attending a school whose fraternities and sororities throw "Pimp's and Hoe's" parties, or "Black and White" parties, or "Dude Ranch / Bunny Ranch" parties, or "Tennis Geek / Hooker Sheik" parties, Toga parties, Hawaiian Luaus, the list could go on. Yet you say nothing about these parties being abhorrent. Isn't that interesting?
Is the real problem here that this supposed host is Gay? That this person should "know" better because they themselves come from a minority population that fights negative stereotypes? You say in your article that you are "concerned with the connections between white gay identity and representations of minorities by white culture," but you fail to support this statement with the body of your article. You seek to unify, but in reality you are being very divisive.
Everyone can agree that our society needs to educate people as a way of combating negative stereotypes. However, you Mr. Farris, did not take this opportunity to teach others. You didn't even comment on the beautiful, traditional clothing that was being worn at this party, which many people were proud of (clearly not dressing like "savages" or "squaws," which THEY might take offense to). Instead you have lead readers to believe that this host was racist and that you have the best interest of the school, your fellow white LGBT siblings, and our culture as a whole at heart. When in reality it seems as though you have a personal vendetta against this host. If not, then this article would have and could have taken a very different tone. Anyone reading it can see that you are coming off as an uneducated person campaigning, camouflaged under the guise of being self-righteous.
William P.
posted 10/17/08 @ 12:39 PM PST
I was referred to this article through a family member that was at this party. Even though one of my relatives was at this party does not give him favoritism and I will keep my comment short and simple after briefly explaining my life history.
In my line of work I am required to be fair and even handed in all my dealings because so much is at stake between the relationship of foreign countries and the US. I have had diplomatic dealings between Israel and Palestine as well as its neighboring countries Jordan and Egypt. I have been to Rwanda and seen the mass graves and the bloodied streets that are evidence of how racism can lead to genocide. With that being said here is my comment:
Racism is ugly. It is not ugly in the sense that most people know it in America as and emotion filled ignorance and 'old fashioned' thinking. Racism is so vile that when you have seen a true act of it you wonder how another human being can have those feelings or portray those acts to his fellow brother. It is sickening. The raw hate can be felt and the bile in your stomach will rise, your mouth goes dry and your eyes can not avert themselves from the atrocious scene taking place. This feeling will stay with you and you will feel its pain even at the smallest encounters with racism or a racist.
The 'Cowboy and Indian' party that is mentioned in this article was not a racist event. This party was merely a gathering of students who wanted to have fun, not slander a race. Frankly I find more offense in a 'Golf Pros and Tennis Hos' party for the simple fact that its title has a derogatory remark in it, but again I know these parties are not done out of hate or ignorance. If this party was such an offense to Native Americans how come more people did not take notice of it before? It is simply due to the fact that, again, this party was not offensive. Someone who can view this party as a racist event is grasping at thin air.
The fact that Mr. Faris does not know the distinction between racism and recreation is a great disappointment to the standards that instructors are held to at OSU. Mr. Faris' self-righteous statements and ignorant ramblings should not have even reached this newsletter. The fact that he states his lack of knowledge of what happened at the party, who was involved and why the party was being held should have be a clear indication that this letter should not have made the cut. Lack of facts and understanding of the subject is nothing more than gossip. If he wanted to write and article about racism he should have done so with out personally attacking a group of students for his own personal gains and reasons. This lack of professionalism should not be coming from an instructor of a university, it sets a poor example for our youth.
Mr. Faris should be made to write a statement of apology for the lives that he has knowingly damaged with his article.
-William P
In my line of work I am required to be fair and even handed in all my dealings because so much is at stake between the relationship of foreign countries and the US. I have had diplomatic dealings between Israel and Palestine as well as its neighboring countries Jordan and Egypt. I have been to Rwanda and seen the mass graves and the bloodied streets that are evidence of how racism can lead to genocide. With that being said here is my comment:
Racism is ugly. It is not ugly in the sense that most people know it in America as and emotion filled ignorance and 'old fashioned' thinking. Racism is so vile that when you have seen a true act of it you wonder how another human being can have those feelings or portray those acts to his fellow brother. It is sickening. The raw hate can be felt and the bile in your stomach will rise, your mouth goes dry and your eyes can not avert themselves from the atrocious scene taking place. This feeling will stay with you and you will feel its pain even at the smallest encounters with racism or a racist.
The 'Cowboy and Indian' party that is mentioned in this article was not a racist event. This party was merely a gathering of students who wanted to have fun, not slander a race. Frankly I find more offense in a 'Golf Pros and Tennis Hos' party for the simple fact that its title has a derogatory remark in it, but again I know these parties are not done out of hate or ignorance. If this party was such an offense to Native Americans how come more people did not take notice of it before? It is simply due to the fact that, again, this party was not offensive. Someone who can view this party as a racist event is grasping at thin air.
The fact that Mr. Faris does not know the distinction between racism and recreation is a great disappointment to the standards that instructors are held to at OSU. Mr. Faris' self-righteous statements and ignorant ramblings should not have even reached this newsletter. The fact that he states his lack of knowledge of what happened at the party, who was involved and why the party was being held should have be a clear indication that this letter should not have made the cut. Lack of facts and understanding of the subject is nothing more than gossip. If he wanted to write and article about racism he should have done so with out personally attacking a group of students for his own personal gains and reasons. This lack of professionalism should not be coming from an instructor of a university, it sets a poor example for our youth.
Mr. Faris should be made to write a statement of apology for the lives that he has knowingly damaged with his article.
-William P
- Displaying 1 - 31 of 31
Tyler
posted 6/04/08 @ 2:41 PM PST
masking hate mail with the premise of fighting rascism is sick...this letter is obviously an attack against the members of this party for no real reason
are cowboys across the nation "outraged" that they have been portrayed during this party? ropes, handguns, cowboy hats... wearing these things does not make you racist!!
i am sooo sick of people trying to find racism where it isn't...living in today's society we see plenty of true racism, so why not focus on where the real problems are and not on some kids having a party.
Micheal Farris: Don't think that people cannot see your clear homophobic agenda while writing this...are you trying to say that since a person is gay they must do everything in their power to show they are friends with other minority groups??
why must it be an 'us vs. them' situation???
this is true garbage and im ashamed my school paper would allow it