Farley, you're still wrong
Bear with me, this is gonna be a long one. It is leading somewhere though.
During my stay at Vanderbilt, there were certainly a few race-related incidents. And in an ironic twist, I was actually against the extreme liberal side in most of them.
First was the whole incident with the Homecoming Court in 2001, the female side of which contained only caucasian faces. There was a protest march to Kirkland Tower and a huge hubbub. In the end, the man crowned king was a minority, and the girl crowned queen, who I believe would be technically classified as a dwarf, was in a greater minority than African-Americans, Hispanics, or even Arab-Americans in this country. But then what do I know?
Then of course there was the bathroom graffiti laced with racial epithets (the n-word and so forth) found on the 10th floor of Towers or some b.s. like that. Boy did that ever cause a fracas. Never mind that the word "fag" has been written on a stall on the main floor of the Stevenson Math Building since my freshman year. I assume it's still there. And yet the gay community didn't get in an uproar over that one. Nevertheless, it spawned the infamous "Anti-Hate: Not In My Community" campaign whose double negative was an endless source of amusement. It also inspired an Unexpectedly Sober song called "Never Again".
Perhaps the most well-known incident was the debate over the name change of Confederate Memorial Hall to simply Memorial Hall. Okay. Works for me. As my great U.S. History teacher Philip Bigler once commented, "If you change the name, you change the reality." The Daughters of the Confederacy (and presumably the Sons, Fathers, Cousins, etc.) were not pleased with the name change. Voicing a counterargument in favor of the name change was a math professor named Jonathan Farley. He wrote a rather infamous article in The Tennessean (reprint shown here) in which he made some good points and some not-so-good ones. My very good friend and renowned roommate Jeff Woodhead, in an article commemorating the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, decried some of Farley's not-so-good points as violent in nature.
Okay, by now you're all probably wondering, "why in the hell is he writing about all this stuff?" Well, almost 3 years after this incident, Dr. Farley is back, according to Jeff's post yesterday afternoon. He is calling for Jeff to retract his statements in January of 2003. Jeff, in response, is laughing that famous laugh of his. As always, we can't help but join in.
Dr. Farley is guilty in his article of over-generalizing, and as we all know, broad sweeping generalizations never work. Listen to his words: "Here is how one slave owner exercised his 'rights'" (emphasis added). Thank you Dr. Farley, for demonstrating that certain slave owners were assholes. I would be willing to bet that the same slave owner didn't fire a single shot for the Confederacy. Most of the soldiers didn't own slaves - they were too poor for that. One of such soldier would be my own great-great-great-grandfather, who died fighting for what he believed was a just cause. (Incidentally, why don't presidents fight the war? Why do we always send the poor? Good questions, System of a Down.)
Do I think the Confederacy was right? Of course not. But I think President Lincoln's plan of amnesty would have worked far better than what we ended up with (damn you, John Wilkes Booth). Far better than what Farley proposes.
Professor, you might be interested to know that I too had a habit of flipping off dirty ol' Nathan with his crazy tongue as I drove up north 65. I even shifted into the right lane to do so, so that no driver would misconstrue my gesture. I too am angry at the atrocities many white men inflicted upon your race over the generations. I choose to rebel against their attitudes by looking upon you not as African-American, but simply American, or even better, simply human. At least I try my damnedest to.
I understand, Dr. Farley, that there have been several hateful comments printed against you. I wish I could expunge them all, but we have this pesky little thing called free speech. I respect you for exercising yours, for standing up and voicing a rather unpopular opinion. However, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge Jeff's right to have exercised his. Also, try to recognize the difference between when your article is cited to arouse hatred, and when it is used to promote peace and harmony.
Jeff doesn't ask you to retract your comments. He acknowledges and refutes them. Extend him the same courtesy.
Song lyric of the day:
"What happens next?
I'm so perplexed
How we can rise
When we can't look past our eyes..."
- Unexpectedly Sober, Never Again
During my stay at Vanderbilt, there were certainly a few race-related incidents. And in an ironic twist, I was actually against the extreme liberal side in most of them.
First was the whole incident with the Homecoming Court in 2001, the female side of which contained only caucasian faces. There was a protest march to Kirkland Tower and a huge hubbub. In the end, the man crowned king was a minority, and the girl crowned queen, who I believe would be technically classified as a dwarf, was in a greater minority than African-Americans, Hispanics, or even Arab-Americans in this country. But then what do I know?
Then of course there was the bathroom graffiti laced with racial epithets (the n-word and so forth) found on the 10th floor of Towers or some b.s. like that. Boy did that ever cause a fracas. Never mind that the word "fag" has been written on a stall on the main floor of the Stevenson Math Building since my freshman year. I assume it's still there. And yet the gay community didn't get in an uproar over that one. Nevertheless, it spawned the infamous "Anti-Hate: Not In My Community" campaign whose double negative was an endless source of amusement. It also inspired an Unexpectedly Sober song called "Never Again".
Perhaps the most well-known incident was the debate over the name change of Confederate Memorial Hall to simply Memorial Hall. Okay. Works for me. As my great U.S. History teacher Philip Bigler once commented, "If you change the name, you change the reality." The Daughters of the Confederacy (and presumably the Sons, Fathers, Cousins, etc.) were not pleased with the name change. Voicing a counterargument in favor of the name change was a math professor named Jonathan Farley. He wrote a rather infamous article in The Tennessean (reprint shown here) in which he made some good points and some not-so-good ones. My very good friend and renowned roommate Jeff Woodhead, in an article commemorating the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, decried some of Farley's not-so-good points as violent in nature.
Okay, by now you're all probably wondering, "why in the hell is he writing about all this stuff?" Well, almost 3 years after this incident, Dr. Farley is back, according to Jeff's post yesterday afternoon. He is calling for Jeff to retract his statements in January of 2003. Jeff, in response, is laughing that famous laugh of his. As always, we can't help but join in.
Dr. Farley is guilty in his article of over-generalizing, and as we all know, broad sweeping generalizations never work. Listen to his words: "Here is how one slave owner exercised his 'rights'" (emphasis added). Thank you Dr. Farley, for demonstrating that certain slave owners were assholes. I would be willing to bet that the same slave owner didn't fire a single shot for the Confederacy. Most of the soldiers didn't own slaves - they were too poor for that. One of such soldier would be my own great-great-great-grandfather, who died fighting for what he believed was a just cause. (Incidentally, why don't presidents fight the war? Why do we always send the poor? Good questions, System of a Down.)
Do I think the Confederacy was right? Of course not. But I think President Lincoln's plan of amnesty would have worked far better than what we ended up with (damn you, John Wilkes Booth). Far better than what Farley proposes.
Professor, you might be interested to know that I too had a habit of flipping off dirty ol' Nathan with his crazy tongue as I drove up north 65. I even shifted into the right lane to do so, so that no driver would misconstrue my gesture. I too am angry at the atrocities many white men inflicted upon your race over the generations. I choose to rebel against their attitudes by looking upon you not as African-American, but simply American, or even better, simply human. At least I try my damnedest to.
I understand, Dr. Farley, that there have been several hateful comments printed against you. I wish I could expunge them all, but we have this pesky little thing called free speech. I respect you for exercising yours, for standing up and voicing a rather unpopular opinion. However, I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge Jeff's right to have exercised his. Also, try to recognize the difference between when your article is cited to arouse hatred, and when it is used to promote peace and harmony.
Jeff doesn't ask you to retract your comments. He acknowledges and refutes them. Extend him the same courtesy.
Song lyric of the day:
"What happens next?
I'm so perplexed
How we can rise
When we can't look past our eyes..."
- Unexpectedly Sober, Never Again
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home