5 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/27/17 11:13pm)
Hello, welcome to my new column! Here, I will be talking about culture, Middlebury culture, of which there is undoubtedly much to appreciate. As the editorial this week discusses, our community’s ethos is special and beautiful. It is one of diversity, intellectual rigor and curiosity, and physical health to name a few. However, we are far from perfect. Despite the pristine facade of our limestone buildings, we have infrastructural flaws in our culture that need to be talked about more often and casually (not only in formal debates and when our name is in the headline of every media outlet).
All those wonderful aforementioned things that I listed are either conditional or vague enough that they belie the reality of our culture. There are toxic aspects to our space. We are diverse in our academic offerings and our individual interests but ultimately this community is too white, too rich, and too heteronormative. We are academics in ways that make us top candidates for the Fulbright but it is hard for us to connect with the real world and we discourage conversations about emotions--esotericism and pretension do nothing to push our community forward. Many of us are also super healthy but our varsity letters or daily workouts tend to create a culture of athlete privilege and body shaming.
This is pretty harsh criticism, but it is necessary. I want us all to look at our culture critically and think about each of our individual roles because I believe in our capacity to continuously improve and grow. My experience here has been transformative and I care about this community. We need a dialogue that intentionally includes our shortcomings. We are often a little too proud of ourselves, perhaps even delusional due to pride (and privilege) and way more complacent than I would prefer.
This column will serve, on a bi-weekly basis (I do have a life outside of the Middlebury culture y’all), to provide critical thoughts on our cultural fabric and suggestions for our future. Just like this column’s namesake, Migos, I want to do this for the culture. I don’t want us biting from mainstream Nescac culture — let’s set it for others to follow. All my opinions that I will put forth are developing ideas that I am sharing publicly so that they can be discussed. My goal is not to indict; rather, it is to constructively, respectfully criticize and propose a path for growth.
This work will take everyone of all identities and experiences, but some groups of people historically do way too much labor in generating meaningful change and we must acknowledge that. Our culture must come under a critical eye and so must each of us on an interpersonal level. You cannot believe in your own growth and then shut down when you are called out. Own your own improvement. I believe it is the duty of each of us for the betterment of our community.
First up will be a series of articles talking about “bro culture.” Next week, will be the first piece: a thorough analysis of the word “savage,” which has gained exorbitant popularity and been embedded in the culture on this campus. Thanks for reading and stay tuned.
(02/26/15 1:45am)
Happy Black History Month! As part of the United States Bicentennial in 1976, the U.S. government recognized Black History Month, which was formerly unacknowledged throughout most of the country. President Gerald Ford’s announcement was intended to urge all citizens to honor the achievements of blacks in America.
I begin with this exclamation to emphasize that February has significance beyond romance and a much appreciated long weekend — thank you, George Washington. February is also a time to especially recognize the accomplishments of African-Americans throughout history. This is an obvious statement, but right now Black History Month requires special emphasis. Given the condition of our country, this national commemoration needs to be taken up with renewed vigor. America is currently facing ethnic polarization that requires serious attention. Celebrating black history is not the solution to America’s racial strata, but perhaps it can mitigate some of the tension.
As we know, Black History Month lives on today; however, it exists subconsciously. This is somewhat understandable because to “honor” can be a vague term. How exactly are people supposed to demonstrate their acknowledgement of black accomplishments? Should every American memorize the names of black inventors during February? Well not quite, but public forums (especially on college campuses) about what it means and has meant to be black in America would be appropriate. Marches in town or even public recitations of speeches from the Civil Rights movement would also be effective ways to honor black history.
This kind of active commemoration would benefit America as a whole, and hopefully help the American mind become more aware of the current racial dichotomy. Understanding the past allows one to better assess the present and anticipate the future. Thus, by consciously recognizing black history and understanding the achievements of black men and women, perhaps we can more adeptly address race issues.
Racial tension in America today is not too different from that which segregation perpetuated 50 years ago. The situation is not as conspicuous, but ethnic stratification does exist in this country. Most of those in the top strata are white, and the lower strata are dominated by nonwhite groups. White privilege is still present and impoverished black communities throughout America are underserved. There is systematic racism, which has its origins in slavery and later manifested itself through “white flight” that unfairly favors white citizens. Slavery put African-Americans at a disadvantage because blacks were forced into the lowest class of society. Then instituted segregation and its underlying forms, like white flight, furthered the inequality of conditions. Blacks were stuck in communities with worse housing, job opportunities, education and resources. Moreover, we have yet to attain the ideals propagated and sought after by Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X. For this reason, Black History Month has more significance in American life now than ever before. We need to look to our country’s history and recognize that the great intellectuals and achievers would be slightly underwhelmed by the insubstantial progress that has been made.
In the past year specifically, a much larger percentage of black men have been incarcerated, frisked and shot at. That is not because black men are inherently criminals; it is quite clearly not nature. A systematic flaw is latent and it must be confronted to put an end to the kind of headlines that dominated the later part of 2014. Events that occurred in Ferguson, Staten Island and Cleveland, whether a product of racial profiling or not, highlight an unjustifiable trend in America. Addressing these issues will take more than public policy and definitely more than Black History Month. However, the racial tension we see today is the reason why black history must be taken more seriously. If you do not understand your past, you are bound to repeat it.
I look forward to the day that we do not need a designated month to especially appreciate the contributions of black men and women. This being said, that time has not come yet and this celebration in February is very much necessary. It is necessary for blacks, whites and all Americans to honor and acknowledge the achievements of African-Americans throughout history.
(01/22/15 1:13am)
The Hebdo attacks in Paris were heinous and unjustifiable. Acts of terrorism are tactless and cowardly because they use murder to convey beliefs. Killing the people you disagree with is not especially difficult. Conversely, it is hard to challenge opinions and address conflicts through speech, writing and protest. The Muslim extremists’ actions were irrefutably wrong in many ways; they infringed on freedom of expression, murdered, and kidnapped.
A proper response to the Hebdo satirical cartoon would have perhaps been for a prominent Muslim cleric to write a piece and request that The Guardian publish it or make a globally broadcasted speech. In such a response, the cleric could explain how it is incredibly offensive to mock the Prophet Muhammad or even depict him at all. I envision the cleric’s response also including a detailed summary of Islam. This would inform the non-Muslim global community and provide context for those ignorant of how Hebdo’s satire was offensive. This sort of peaceful, adept reaction to Hebdo’s crude humor would convey the same message as the terrorist attacks without murder and terror throughout France.
Extremism is an isolated ideology because it condones extreme acts of violence against those with differing opinions: the infidels. It is a selfish and disgusting mindset. Fanatics believe their principles should be unanimous throughout the world. Instead of striving to better society, fundamentalists strike down pluralism and proclaim their beliefs as dogma that everyone should agree with. Extremists despise people with other values because they threaten their own egos and certainty.
The crimes we saw in Paris are how fanatics respond to mockery and opposition. To preserve the freedoms and order we cherish, the global community must continue to denounce these egregious acts as it has already. The cartoonists did not die in vain; people around the world are standing in solidarity to condemn the violence and defend freedom of expression. This movement is essential to protect our rights to “the pen” and show how peaceful, tactful actions convey a message much better than brutality.
However, I am wary of what else may come out of the “Je suis Charlie” development. I fear that there will be further subjection and marginalization of Muslims. It begins with the extremists, who really do more harm for their cause than good. People are even more inclined to resent the beliefs of extremism after terrorist attacks. The masses associate anyone of that religion/political party/ethnicity with the radicals and direct animosity at them.
My concern is that “Je suis Charlie” can simultaneously create anti-Islam sentiments. Subconsciously, people will side with Charlie and vilify Islam. The situation is by no means binary but it could unwittingly be interpreted that way. The entire Muslim community will be labeled anti-free speech and ostracized for the actions of a few fundamentalists. It is not unfathomable because it has been done to other groups throughout history — after WWII there were Japanese internment camps throughout America. It is important to recognize that Islam has nothing to do with what occurred in France, but rather it was a result of twisted ideologues.
Islam is the world’s second most popular religion, but probably the most misunderstood and stereotyped. This is a product of terrorism carried out by the outliers within the religion. The majority of Muslims denounce the attacks and, while they found the cartoon offensive, still advocate for free expression. Islam is also not the first or last religion to have heinous and violent extremists wreaking havoc. Islamic fundamentalism today actually resembles the Crusades of the Middle Ages a bit. The Latin Roman Catholic Church sought to seize land from the infidels, proclaiming spiritual immunity, etc. to all who joined the Crusade. Al-Qaeda promised the young Saudi men who carried out 9/11 similar ethereal pleasures. It is not that Islam, Christianity, or any other religion is inherently cruel; it is the monster within certain people.
Given the proliferation of Muslim extremism in the past decade, it would behoove people to learn more about Islam. The stereotypes perpetuated in media can be dispelled by proactively seeking a better understanding of the religion. Only the outliers (good or evil) make it into the headlines so they should not be the basis from which opinions are formed. The “Je suis Charlie” movement is an excellent and appropriate response to the Hebdo events provided that it does not marginalize and isolate the Muslim community.
(11/19/14 11:51pm)
Millions of years ago our common ancestor with chimpanzees made an extraordinary decision. It gradually took its knuckles off the ground and began to walk on two legs. Of course, this was not actually a conscious decision. Evolution selected for this occurrence because, for some arcane reason, it was more advantageous to be a biped than a quadruped. That’s one conclusion, but it’s not very satisfying so I’m going to pretend you’re interested and delve further.
Our quasi-chimp ancestor abandoned invaluable traits that benefit chimps. Those seemingly innocuous animals are much stronger than humans. They are also masters of climbing, which is an excellent evasion skill. With strength and the ability to evade predators, chimps do okay for themselves in the competitive animal kingdom. Thus, a frail biped must have some uncanny ability because evolution doesn’t make mistakes. Nature wouldn’t select for our bipedal predecessor if it couldn’t survive in its environment.
The transition from four to two feet brought about anatomical changes that may explain the bipedal advantage. Our early ancestor, known in science as Australopithecus afarensis, developed protruding butts, arched feet, and Achilles tendons. All these traits are lacking in chimps and superfluous in the process of walking. However, they are essential for running. Butt muscles give us power when we run, our foot structure allows for balance, support, and comfort, and Achilles let the foot flex freely throughout our gait. Furthermore, by standing upright, we began dissipating heat much more efficiently. We resided in a very hot climate several million years back and the sun’s rays struck the entire back of all our quadruped friends. But we, as bipeds, only felt the sun’s heat on our shoulders and heads. We were able to stay cooler much better and body temperature regulation is also crucial to running. This leads to the next clue: we can sweat and other animals cannot. Sweating is our homeostasis when our body temperature is getting too high, but all other animals have to inefficiently pant out the heat. It’s much easier to run if you can sweat than if you can’t.
In order to synthesize these random features into a meaningful claim, I’ll need to mention two other remarkable differences between Australopithecus afarensis (us) and chimps. Archeologists have found that as we stood erect our heads and jaws shrunk, our brains grew, and we began eating meat. Our new diet that included meat gave our brains nutrients for it to grow. Meat is also not as tough as the roots and herbs chimps eat so we no longer needed big heads and jaws to chew through those veggies. To eat meat we had to kill the meat, but archeological digs have determined that we did not create weapons for another million years.
The answer is persistence hunting. We chased animals over vast distances until they passed out. Our butts, Achilles, stature, sweat glands, and feet all enabled us to run very efficiently. We are better at distance running than any other animal. Running was the bipedal secret that gave birth to what distinguished early-man from its chimpanzee counterparts.
We evolved to run and use that skill as a predatory technique to help get meat, which made us more human than we could ever imagine. Our brains grew and our heads shrunk because of what we ate but we could only eat meat because we could kill prey by running them to death. Running is essential to our evolutionary history; it is part of our genetic code. There’s something undeniably natural and cathartic about going out for a few miles in the morning or a nice jog at sunset. Running is part of how we came to be and continued to thrive; it made us human.
Artwork by TAMIR WILLIAMS
JOSH CLAXTON '18 is from Summit, N.J.
(10/29/14 5:58pm)
A year and a half ago I decided to take a gap year. The term “gap year” invariably implies backpacking through some countries, picking up the local tongues and doing some pro-bono work. I did a bit of that, but was never one of those hostel-hoppers you find in European cafes. Instead, I chose to do a fifth year of high school (a.k.a. a post-graduate year) in Jordan at a school called King’s Academy.
Fast-forward a year and a half later to here at Middlebury. Since my arrival, I’ve had several discussions about the Israel-Palestine conflict. It’s in the news often, especially after this past summer, and when it enters the domain of conversation, people become pretty impassioned. I am undoubtedly among the zealous people who are moved by the situation. In Jordan, the topic was always relevant and many of my friends were of Palestinian descent. There was understandable frustration with Israel’s existence; my Palestinian friends’ families immigrated to Jordan because of what occurred between 1947 and 2000. Much of the animosity was towards policy like the occupation and the general treatment of Palestinians in Israel, which I will get into later.
In America, we cannot truly empathize with the Palestinian struggle. Many other ethnic groups have been forced out of home countries or have fled to avoid oppression; the Jewish people are a perfect example. However, the specific suffering in Palestine is unique in its own right and we (here in the U.S.) can’t imagine how it feels to live in Gaza right now. But before talking facts and morals, about whose side to take, and how peace can be achieved, the approach to discussing the conflict needs to change. The common labels of “pro-Israel” or “pro-Palestine” are aggravating. Everyone with some interest in the Middle East identifies as one or the other, which is incredibly counter-productive to peace. To consider oneself pro-Israel connotes an absolute anti-Palestine mindset. It’s the mindset of ultra-conservatives in Israeli government like Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who care less about Palestine or its people. They rather believe in the triumph of Israel and the eradication of anything that may inhibit Israel’s climb to hegemonic status.
Similarly, to be pro-Palestine implies a degree of extremism, believing that Israel shouldn’t exist at all. Groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah preach this rhetoric and commit themselves to the destruction of Israel rather than focusing on Palestinian sovereignty and equality. The radicals on both sides perpetuate hatred and polarize the situation in a horrendous way. Thus, to label oneself pro-(either nation) is to align with the morally reprehensible ideals of radicals. Confining oneself to such a single set of beliefs creates a precedent of obstinacy that inhibits diplomatic and political progress. To be obvious and idealistically frank, the goal should be peace and equality for the people, not one country over another because both have a right to exist.
There is an intricate and controversial background to what is now geographically Israel and Palestine but it’s not too essential in analyzing the current conflict. Regardless of how you feel about the history, Israel has been thoroughly established over the past sixty years and it’s not going anywhere. The same way Palestinians aren’t going to stop fighting to get their land back. Therefore the discussion needs to be in the present tense, about the policies and issues of today.
The match-up right now is unbalanced to say the least. Israel’s a big grizzly bear and Palestine is a squirrel throwing acorns. The death toll from Gaza this past summer was about 2,200, and about 2,100 of which were Palestinian. Moreover, to quote the political analyst recently brought by Justice for Palestine, Josh Ruebner, “Israel administered a sort of collective punishment” in Gaza that took nearly 1,500 civilian lives and demolished Palestinian infrastructure. Hamas is a dangerous threat to Israeli civilians and enemy of Israeli defense, but the military answer should not be the destruction of 531 Palestinian villages. This demolition left innocent Palestinians homeless, seeking any refuge available. UN schools were made available as safe havens but those were later bombed, too.
Israel is becoming increasingly more brutal with its treatment of the Palestinians. Those within Israel suffer from a segregation and inequality that is analogous with the former apartheid in South Africa. Those in the occupied territories seek sovereignty, but are denied freedoms of assembly and speech. This injustice should not be tolerated by the global community because if left unaddressed, what remains of Palestine will continue to shrink and nationhood will always evade its people.
Our lecturer from last week, Josh, advocated for an intense series of boycotting, divestment, sanctions to punish Israel for its unjust treatment of the Palestinians. I’m not sure that’s a bad idea because many of Israel’s policies have been utterly unacceptable. Israel is gradually annexing remaining Palestinian land, similar to Russia’s efforts in Crimea. America should criticize Israel the way it did to Russia. Perhaps if Israel’s greatest ally, America, turns its back towards them in the form of divestment, etc. we’d see more Palestinian integration and equality and a big step towards an autonomous Palestine. In turn, Israel could worry less about fighting Hamas as they treat Palestinians better because that mitigates Hamas’s case for battle.
Ultimately, extremists cannot be reasoned with, and the radicals on both sides will always demand more concessions from the opposition. I still have hope though, as everyone should, that a solution can be reached. As our generation comes to power, I envision new, progressive political parties working towards a single state. We, as future leaders, should not fight for Israel or Palestine but for justice, equality and an end to the violence.
JOSH CLAXTON '18 is from Summit, N.J.