Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (April 10, 1992)
' RAINBOW COALITION Columbus brought oppression By Marcela Juarez The other day, I asked a class mate of mine what he thought about the Quincentennial cele bration. He looked at me and said indifferently, “Oh, you mean the anniversary of Columbus’ discover ing America?” Not exactly. What exactly is the Quincentennary, what does it cele brate and who is celebrating? Being a Chicana, a nationality created by the mesh of two countries, Mexico and Spain, and brought up in another, the United States, the subject of theQuin centennary has been of some interest to me. However, I cannot understand why it would not be of interest to the Anglos who live in the very land that Columbus supposedly “discovered.” It is ironic that at one time, I, too, would have said that Columbus dis covered America, for that is defi nitely what I was taught growing up in Lincoln. Now, after two years of college and a little less ignorance, the Quin centennary signifies four things for me: 1) manifest destiny — the greed of the Spanish kingdom to rule the entire world, 2) the almost complete wiping out of an indigenous people through warfare and the introduction of smallpox and other diseases in the Americas, 3) the loss of the scientific advancement of a people way ahead of their time and 4) the creation of the mestizo people, an oppressed people up to this very day, whether it be by First-World countries or simply by their Anglo peers. I do not deny my Spanish/Euro pean heritage, but I choose to see my ancestors and my own history realis tically. The Quincentennary stands for 500 years of oppression, not dis covery. The Americas and its peoples were in existence for thousands of years before the Spanish powers ever came to rule. / think it is only fair that. being such a populous group, in the United States. Mexican-Americans have the rifht to know the true history of their people and the formation q£_this COHWfrV._ The conquerors of the Americas were the first immigrants, and the colonists who crossed the Atlantic in the Mayflower were the first “wet backs.” The Europeans robbed the indigenous people of the Americas of their gods, their countries’ natural wealth and their dignity. The Europe ans forced them into slavery and had the audacity to judge them as half human, blasphemous creatures. It was Spain that benefited and became the greatest world power in the late 16th and early 17lh centuries. Manifest destiny continued in the history of the United States. Mex ico’s northern territories were stolen, and then the Mexicans and Native Americans were portrayed as savage beings killing defenseless settlers. During Spring Break, I attended the National Association forChicano Studies Conference in San Antonio, where I participated in a protest of the infamous Alamo. The description of the events that occurred at the Alamo are very biased. We do not hear that the Mexican people were the very ones to build the Alamo fort to protect their land (and it was their land). Nor does it tell us that the Mexican fighters were hardly trained militarily, but were peasants fighting against skilled soldiers. I think it is only fair that, being such a populous group in the United Slates, Mexican-Americans have the right to know the true history of their people and the formation of this coun try. The exploitation of the Mexican people continued and continues into this very century in the form of cheaply paid hard labor that is the only source of income offered to Mexican immi grants. The U.S. government thought it was doing us a favor with the “Brac ero” program in the 1940s, allowing Mexicans working in the United States to receive full citizenship. I think my ancestors would have preferred their land and homes to a piece of paper saying they were U.S. citizens when no real rights came along with that citizenship. To me, the Quincentennial cele bration is a hypocrisy. This summer the Summer Olympics will take place in Barcelona, Spain, along with fes tive parades of the Nina, the Pinta and the Santa Maria, portraying Colum bus as a heroic figure. They will not disclose that by the end of his lifetime Columbus was discredited. Now, the Americans of full-Euro pcan descent are making a futile at tempt to compensate for their con quest and exploitation of the indige nous people. However, the American government does not realize that 20 years of affirmative action will not make up for 500 years of the injustice and oppression. It is a tragedy that minority stu dents on the UNL campus cannot even be represented equally in terms of faculty, staff and administrators. Perhaps one day, we may have a true celebration of discovery when we all realize that all people are created equal and are treated with respect for their individual differences. Juarez is a sophomore graphic design and Spanish major and the vice president of the Mexican-American Student Association. Travelers must adapt to host culture It was with dismay that I read Manjit Kaur’s column in the April 3 Daily Nebraskan (“English not a for eign language”). The column displayed a complete lack of respect, courtesy and common sense. When a person travels to a foreign country to study, teach or work, common sense and courtesy suggests that it is the traveler’s responsibility to adapt to her host culture rather than the host nation’s responsibility to adapt to her. The answer to the question: “Why do international leaching as sistants have to learn the American culture when the American leaching ' assistants do not learn our culture?” is obvious to any rational person. When in Rome, do as the Romans do. If I were in your country, Manjit, I would not complain that I had to learn your language or adapt to your culture. Should 260 million Americans learn and adapt to your culture (and that of every other international student) so you don’t have to make the effort to fit into a country in which you are a guest? I also come from an English-speak ing country. I was bom and educated in Canada, and 1 am a Canadian citi zen. When I travel to another country I believe it is my responsibility to adapt to their way of doing things. If I could not or did not want to do this, I would not go to that country. Certainly, I agree that accents are relative. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having your own way of speaking (it makes the world interest ing) but if an individual’s accent or dialect precludes understanding her, then it is her responsibility to make the effort to be understood. It is too bad, Manjit, that you have had such an unhappy time here. It is unfortunate but true that prejudice and discrimination exists in the United Slates (as well as every other country in the world). It is also true that lan guage proficiency, accent and skin color are confused by some but differ completely in terms of their relevance. However, I respectfully submit that no one has forced either of us to be in this country. Our presence here is a privilege, not a right. We certainly have a right to free speech here as we do in our respective home countries, but we have no right to demand that the people here bend over backward to accommodate us. Alternatively, we can return to our homelands to escape the monocultural, racist, U.S.A. in order to enjoy the tolerance, freedom and multiculturalism of our home lands. Well, perhaps I can’t, but you can. Stephen Duff postdoctoral research associate biochemistry Poetry critique off the mark I have a problem with Mark Baldridge’s review (“Reputable poet’s good works buried within mediocre poems,” DN, April 6) of the Joy Harjo/Laura Tohe poetry reading held at the Lied Center on Sunday night. I think he missed the point, the tone, the mood of the whole event. I attended the reading — I was inspired by the messages, imagery and heart of the writing of these women; I was soothed and transported by their voices in combination with their words. They performed as human beings and writers, making adjustments, re sponding to the audience (the Lied should provide a microphone next time). Baldridge criticized Harjo for “flubbing” up—he didn’t seem to notice that she was reading to us from memory, making eye contact with the audience vs. having her eyes glued to the page, so yes, she did misspeak some lines and then correct herself. She began reading to us from a work-in-progress and stopped to look for another draft. While Baldridge interpreted all this as disorganization, I saw as repre sentative of the writing process, alive and dynamic, and something that humanized Harjo — she writes, revises, writes more, doesn’t know what will become of the work, but knows she does think and feel these things and wants to put them down, pass them along to us. Although he heard these women telling us the importance of story- - telling in their cultures and their lives and how it influences their writing, Baldridge ignored this fact when he critiqued the poetry. It is the passing down of stories, within the families, and from them (the readers) to us, the continuation of a strong oral tradition, the union of the natural and mystical with the daily, the relaying of experience, that is the point here. And I benefit from hearing what is part of the common experience of the Native American in America — cultural alienation, life on the reservation, the Navajo language itself. It is not necessary for literature to be wildly experimental or full of such so phisticated verbiage that I am sent to the dictionary, for it to have an impact and be of value to my life. The reading was a positive experience for me, and I came away with more than I brought in. Pam Weiner staff member English Department i Poor grammar mars image mere seems to oc a need tor a review of basic grammar. In your March 20 issue, three English stu dents expressed their views on the opinion page. Each had sentence struc ture and/or punctuation errors. This detracted from the message and causes me concern. Where is the high standard of excellence that has been traditional at the University of Nebraska? If stu dents are admitted with limited gram mar skills, shouldn't this be remedied by the time they arc juniors and sen iors? The article on the front page, “Requirements may change,” ad dresses entrance requirements. Great! _ ... However, what image will the pres ent students project as educated per sons in their own identities, and as graduates of the University of Ne braska? Dorothy McNaught Afton, IA Judge exposed true colors I am writing in response to Janclle Hergolt’s letter (“Writer should seek facts before judging judge,” DN, April 7). Because Ms. Hergou’s major is broadcasting, she should know that, when you have an opinion column, that’s what should go in it, your opin ion. Now, I believe that Mr. Green did the best, with the information that he got, on disclosing his feelings on how Judge Orville Coady conducted himself in a court case. To say that Mr. Green would have to know the judge, or had to have been present in the courtroom, to have been able to gel the full story, is silly. That is like saying that in order to really know why the Los Angeles Police Depart ment beat the hell out of Rodney King, we all would have had to know the officers, or been at the scene of the crime. Come on, now, let’s be real! The judge meant exactly what he said. Ms. Hergott did a marvelous job of sugarcoaling it, but if he really meant something else, he should have said it. Furthermore, the use of the word “nigger” is not only insulting to me, but in bad taste. Coady should not only be booled off of the bench, but should have to spend an ample amount of time in Omaha’s ghetto. I don’t think he would go around using the word nigger just as a figure of speech. I don’t care how many black friends the judge has, you can always sec someone’s true colors when you least expect it. After all, aren’t people of the law supposed to be friendly to everyone, in order to keep progress ing? I am not going to read into the obvious statement that Coady made. I choose to take that as it came, racist and degrading. Really, Coady shouldn’t be complaining about the criticism he is gelling. After all, “sometimes, you just have to cat crap.” Tahnee Markussen freshman general studies 'koftkl/DN Judge’s comments ‘personification’ of racism problem The recent issue of a judge’s racist comments about “niggers” has alerted me to the fact that it’s going to take something drastic for society to change its views about people of color. People have written the Daily Nebraskan in response to Sean Green’s column (“Judge won’t digest punishment,” DN, April 6) and I can fully understand Coady’s son, Nalhanial, being upset with Green, but I can also understand that he is in a state of denial that his father is a racist. Well, maybe he isn’t a racist. Maybe the “N” word was forced into his head and out of his mouth against his will by some unknown demon, and it wasn’t in fact he who said it. But anyway, Nalhanial Coady stated that two of the five wit nesses defending his father were African-American. Well, blacks can be ignorant and gullible as well as whites. Have you ever heard of the faithful slave or the classic racist phrase, “Some of my best friends are black”? If I as an African-American and others like myself find it degrad ing, insulting and upsetting when a black person says “nigger, why is it assumed that we will say, “Oh, well, a distinguished white person — a judge — didn’t mean to say nigger, when he actually did, but it slipped out accidentally, but he meant to say something different’’? Nathanial Coady stated “nigger” and “would have to eat crap” were simply products of the papers making the story a seller. This may be true. However, when African Americans and other people of color have reason to know that the media perpetuates stereotypes of so-called minorities, people complain that we aresexaggerating. I don’t care how the newspapers may have twisted and distorted anything about the incident, be cause the official court transcript, as well as the judge’s own admis sion, shows that he did say “nig gers” and “would have to eat crap” within the same breath. Had a black judge, or any other distinguished person of color said anything whatsoever that degraded a while person, we all know that a little “vacation” without pay would not be their “penalty.” Jane He Hergott stated about Green, “If Green had gathered all the information (as journalists should), he would know that the judge’s intention was to motivate the individual to take advantage of his opportunities to improve him • self.’5 She sounds more like a pub lic defender than a journalist her self, because she virtually gives Coady a paragraph (or two) ex plaining to readers the inference of what he was saying, or what she believed he meant to say. Hergott states that the judge “wept — not for himself, but for the African-Americans he had of fended and the reputation his fam ily would have.” Well, to you, Ms. Hergott, and others who may not know, here’s some food for thought: African-Americans have wept streams of tears for more than 300 years and continue to do so; the oppression that was and continues to be brought upon myself and my people has caused us to weep those tears. We cannot go back and trace our African history; our knowl edge of our culture is lost We . don’t know our mother tongue and we will never experience the rich ness of our true culture and heri tage that existed centuries and centuries and centuries ago. So, you see, as I said before, many African-Americans have shed the tears of hurt, frustration and anger for years and years and years. Judge Coady’s tears were not the tears of African-Americans, they were his tears that are now gone and will not come back. Judge Coady wept, because at the time he spoke those words, he realized that he was a personification of the racism inherent in this society. Judge Coady made a mistake, but no matter what the intent, he has lost respect of members of the African-American community who actually thought that he was on their side. Kimberly Spurlock sophomore news-editorial and broadcasting
