4 Opinions

Black History Month degrading and unsatisfactory

BY JERRED BLANCHARD
Staff Writer

The Pioneer Log, February 25, 2011

Black History Month is probably the most backward way I can think of to eliminate racism. Although it is in praise of a race, the mere fact that it blatantly points out racial history reinforces the separation of black and white people. This distinction need not exist, and according to Morgan Freeman during a 60 Minutes interview, Black history is American history. Can we not celebrate the achievements of Langston Hughes or Martin Luther King Jr. in March? Can we not celebrate the achievements of Bill Evans or Steven Spielberg in February? Theyre not black, so they cant be included in black history month, right? Wrong. This is ridiculous, because dedicating a single month of the year to black history provokes a tendency for people to assume that black history is separate from other history. It is not, and the more we call people black and white, the worse off our countrys racial situation becomes. Do not get me wrong, the month is fantastic for the youth of the nation. Children need an opportunity to learn about people of all races, religions and creeds and their contributions to our society. It might even promote multiculturalism in communities, rather than simply celebrate a race, but

I do not think that the aim of Black History Month is still relevant. Maybe it made sense in 1926, when Carter G. Woodsen decided to create a Negro History Week. Back then, there was still segregation and rampant racism throughout the country and it made sense to force racists to recognize the achievements and humanity of black people. The week was a step in the right direction. However, today we cannot point out differences in race in hopes of eliminating racism. I want to celebrate the achievements of Charles Mingus in December and, hell, maybe even in July, too. This month is steeped in irony and arrogance. Why do white people feel so proud that they need to give the poor blacks their own month? It seems like a charity act, which is fucking condescending and fails to acknowledge that a people and a countrys past should be revered as one entity, and not separated into two divided points of focus. The alienation and estrangement that happens to African Americans during Black History Month is unfair and the month is handled in such a haughty and quick-paced manner that it tends to degrade the very people is seeks to tribute. Boo, I say, boo! Moreover, a sickening part of the month is the near elimination of the African heritage that is so

important to black people around the world. Black history month tends to honor a bunch of black American celebrities while forgetting about the rich cultural gifts that the African nation gave our American nation. Why is fried chicken served in the Bon for Black History Month instead of traditional West African dishes? Fried chicken is an American food and Langston Hughes is an American poet. Therefore, we are labeling a month with the word black and only talking about Americans. Heres an idea: if you want to honor a race, think about why you want to honor them and what part of that people as a race you find commendable. Nothing in this world sets a black man apart from a white man to the point where their histories must be at odds. We are one human race, and the plight that has befallen black people is a disgusting historical mistake. We need to remember this with something less degrading than the shortest month of the year. By the way, February is also National Cherry Month, National Childrens Dental Health Month, National Snack Food Month and Return Shopping Carts to the Supermarket Month. I dont celebrate any of those during February, either. People usually care more about George Washington Carver than some poor hobos shopping cart,

ILLUSTRATION BY KATE OWENS

which I find unfair to grocery store owners. I mean, why do we have to magnify blackness while there are much more important things to worry about? Were giving black people much less than they deserve while creating an unfortunate di-

chotomy between races. Black history month is an insincere Were sorry, coupled with an accidental Fuck you, and I dont really want to be part of a society that condones this.

CLASSIFIED

Sales Career Unique opportunity for college grads in exciting automobile industry. Grow with the #1 product and #1 dealer. We offer training, benefits, salary incentives, high income opportunity and advancement potential. Call Sales Manager for appointment Landmark Ford, Inc. (503) 639-1131

Vegetarianism badass, not bourgeois: a rebuttal

BY ERIN RUPRECHT
Backdoor Editor

Two articles featuring vegan-friendly restaurants appeared in last weeks Piolog. One, a restaurant review of Hungry Tiger Too, praised the extensive vegan menu the restaurant provides as an alternative to its meatier fare. The other review extolled the all-vegan Red & Black Caf as an example of a successful anarchist business model. Yet, somewhat suspiciously, this review neglected to mention the restaurants allvegan menu. Perhaps this is because the author stated in his other article published last week that being vegetarian fits into the clich of the white middle class environmentalist and is fueled by niche-market corporate advertising. Why, it would seem that what we have here is a case of cognitive dissonance! Apparently, LC vegetarians, in order to stop yourselves from exluding what the author perceives to be bourgeoisie snobbery, you must whip out your dental floss and begin sewing socially conscious stenciled patches to your clothing immediately! Or, as the article would seem to suggest, pay $68 for a six-course prix-fixe dinner at Beast. The claim that vegetarianism and veganism is bourgeois are a complicated criti-

cism. Given that the author fails to fully explain the context in which he would like the word to be taken, I will attempt to address the accusation from multiple angles. To the monetary interpretation of the word, I submit this: at Market of Choice, antibiotic-free, vegetarian fed local chicken breasts cost $5.99 a pound, but a pound of local organic tofu costs only $2.50. Granted, the vegetarian and vegan specialty products do seem a bit more bourgeois with things like Vegenaise costing almost $6 a jar, and Amys frozen burritos priced at $2.79 apiece. These products, however, are not intrinsic to vegetarianism, and my friends who come home to a meal of a $0.55 can of beans and a bowl of instant rice after working 9-5 at their minimum wage service industry jobs would more than resent being called bourgeois. Its possible, though, that the term was meant to address the disgust expressed by vegetarians at the sight of butchered animals. I admit, I am extremely privileged to live in a country that isnt war-torn, a country where one does not risk seeing a human corpse around every corner, but this makes me, as well as most of the population, sickened at the sight of blood and loss of life. Its the reaction of empathy.

For vegetarians, this empathy extends to all beings with nervous systems so similar to our own that they can suffer and feel pain in the same ways that we can. Thus, to a vegetarian, the sight of a butchered animal represents its cruel and unjust murder for the sake of filling the greedy and socially constructed desires of overweight Americans. Is vegetarianism really more the result of niche-market corporate advertising when billboards for Double-Downs and Baconators (slogan: Meatatarians Unite!) plague the interstates? I believe the bourgeois criticism more accurately applies to the slew of omnivores who react squeamishly to an unflattering display of their murdered meals-tobe. Theyre the ones ignorantly alienating themselves from the reality of their food. The term bourgeois also carries with it definite connotations of the Western lifestyle. Vegetarianism easily eludes this element of the criticism, as the first cultures documented to possess a moral aversion to eating animals were Hindu, Buddhist and Jainist groups. In fact, a 2006 Hindu-CNN-IBN survey shows that 40% of the Indian population is vegetarian. Many other countries, too, show vegetarian populations comparable to that of the United States (still a mea-

ger 2.8%). While the diverse foods available to Americans and the presence of accepting countercultures may make it easier to be a vegetarian in the U.S., the moral aversion to eating meat does not belong only to middle-class culture. To finish this response, I would like to remind readers of last weeks quoted assertion by radical environmentalist Lierre Keith, who stated that industrial agriculture is much more damaging than livestock production. This ignores the glaring detail that 80% of the corn grown in the US is used for livestock production and only 12% is consumed by humans (EPA). Also, despite the soy-munching habits of vegetarians, a survey by the United Soybean Board showed that 26.367 metric tons of soybeans went toward livestock production in 2009, while only 6.972 metric tons went toward human food production. Radical vegans also pied Lierre Keith in the face when she went to talk on her book The Vegetarian Myth. I believe the author of last weeks article can learn something from this occurrence: if you want to build a vibrant, radical and anarcho-leaning community, dont estrange the vegetarians and vegans. Well stop inviting you to Food Not Bombs gatherings.

Word on the Hill:

BY JULIA STEWART AND BEAU BROUGHTON

Every Wednesday Julia and Beau set out with a fresh question for yall.

If you were an alum donor with $1 million, how would you want the school to spend it?
Zina Noel (12) Sam Roisten (12) Cari Coe (IA professor) Rodney Monheit (12) & Aaron Gillham (Dovecote) Tyler Reese (11) Sean Weinstein (12)

Half in SAAB grants to students and half in a permanent Sellwood Shuttle.

Get the ball rolling on a particle accelerator.

A long term exchange program with developing countries based around agriculture.

Start a fermentation sciences brewery.

I think its wack that people designate where the money goes when the school knows best.

I would keep some of those teachers around that are retiring who may not want to.