Dear Editor:
I am writing in response to an opinion piece run in last week's edition of The Elm which called for an American boycott of the upcoming summer Olympics in Beijing. Let me preface my concerns by saying that China's human rights record, as evidenced by recent events in Tibet and a continued relationship with the Sudanese government, is less than stellar.
A USA boycott of the Beijing Olympics would not change that. Isolating China as a bad guy, as through an Olympic boycott, would likely have the following effects: 1) create a newly radicalized state unwilling to entertain the concerns or criticisms of the international community and 2) fix none of the problems that such action is aimed to address. For better or worse, the sleeping dragon has awoken, and China has risen to such prominence on the world stage that it simply cannot be ignored or threatened by such low-level bullying tactics. If situations such as Tibet and Darfur are to be effectively addressed, it must be through friendly relations that treat China as central part of the solution rather than the evil mastermind.
On another note, it would be a shame for the USA to miss out on the Olympic Games. This event is one centered on international peace and brotherhood, something that in this age of increased tensions and hostilities is as important as ever. For a country that considers itself to be a world leader to miss out on such an opportunity to foster peaceful relations would be a mistake. That in mind, I advise that the USA go out and beat China on the basketball court rather than avoid the games altogether.
-Laura Reiter '10
Dear Editor:
Last week, I read an article by a Josh Ackerman about the Mixed Martial Arts club. I do not know what meeting he has ever been to. I am a member and go regularly and have no idea who he is. Many of the comments he made about activities at the practices were sometimes completely untrue. In speaking with the head of the club, James Shelberg, he said that Josh had merely sparred with him outside of a practice one day. I believe to completely base an entire newspaper article on such a limited perspective is risky. I hope in the future he thinks carefully about what he submits and actually attends a meeting before he writes about a topic.
-Cole S. Eshbach '09
Dear Editor:
I was disgusted by Ms. Keavney's article, This is Not a Pregnant Man, not insomuch as I shared the writer's aversion to the trans community, but rather that I was repulsed by her callous disregard and complete lack of understanding for the difficult and painful process of identifying a non-biologically dictated gender and embracing it as one's own.
According to Keavney, the transitioning process is "arduous," "counterintuitive," "not really a good idea and not very healthy." The transitioning process is, in fact, arduous; but what exactly does this speak to, other than the overwhelming desire and unwavering commitment of transitioning individuals to their new, more comfortable sexual identities and the subsequent lifestyle? And exactly how "unhealthy" can a process be when it alleviates a person's personal and psychological discomfort in what they feel is the wrong body in order to pursue a full and happy life? And to whom is the idea of transexualism truly counterintuitive-the average cisgender individual who was fortunate enough to be biologically assigned their subconscious sex? To people so far removed from the LGBT realm their opinions on the matter can only be spoon fed to them by the media, transexualism may very well seem as unnatural as Keavney implies. To those struggling emotionally and psychologically on a daily basis to pinpoint the source of their tremendous anxiety and discomfort, however, the conventionally "natural" has failed and taking the medical initiative to reshape their existence is the only opportunity they have to be content. If "biological sex is not a flaw and it is not a disfigurement," then why are natural born hermaphrodite infants medically altered at some point in their first six years to adhere to one sex or the other?
Additionally, Keavney accuses the "transgender logic" of "carrying on the ages-old tradition of allowing what's between one's legs to dictate one's behavior." Transexualism (which is the correct term for Beatie's activity, as opposed to the author's misuse of 'transgender'), for those people actually familiar with anyone transitioning from female to male or visa versa, is obviously in no way an attempt to fulfill "archaic gender norms." Rather, the trans community has found a way to play with what exactly it means to be male or female in order to find a unique and individual means of self-expression and identity. Archaic gender norms are actually enforced when articles like Keavney's dictate a strict gender binary which polarizes society into only two acceptable and inevitably stereotypical roles. In reality, it is the very construction of this stark dichotomy of which the trans community is born: while society is functioning on a stringent black or white, he or she gender binary, the trans community is escaping and eluding these labels in beautiful shades of grey.
-Jessica Hobbs '09
Dear Editor:
It came to the attention of the brothers of the Kappa Alpha Order that an article might be printed in this week's Elm criticizing our spiritual founder, Robert E. Lee, and we asked that this letter be printed in that event.
Like many historical figures, Robert E. Lee's legacy is debatable (as are the legacies of men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom owned slaves but thought that the citizens of this country were entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".) Should any organization associated with them, such as Washington College, be similarly criticized? If you are going to damn all men associated with the Southern cause and slavery in general, then maybe start with the founders who allowed slavery to exist in this country. Did Lee fight for the South because he believed in slavery? No. In truth, Lee made an agonizing decision to fight for the South and dreaded the prospect of civil war, but felt he had no choice but to fight for his home: Virginia.
Prior to the Civil War, as historian Shelby Foote has noted, Americans said "the United States are", rather than "the United States is." The United States had existed for less than a century when Lee made his decision, and throughout this period its existence as a nation had been tenuous. Robert E. Lee, just as Washington and Jefferson before him, legitimately saw Virginia as his country, and this was his basis for fighting for the South. Calling Robert E. Lee a traitor is easy; actually understanding the complexities of the period and the context in which he fought requires more intelligence.
When me and my pledge brothers were initiated by our African-American President George Best and in the sight of our African-American brother Jason Brown, both of whom our still among our dearest friends, we revered Robert E. Lee's qualities of chivalry, manhood, and honor. In looking at history, you can not apply today's moral standards to things that happened in the 1860s. Was the South's cause wrong? Yes, obviously, slavery is and was wrong, and no KA would tell you any different. Does that mean every man associated with the Southern cause was an evil, maniacal despot and that Southern soldiers, most of whom did not hold slaves, should automatically be denigrated as racists? Robert E. Lee fought for the South because, in his view, Virginia, and not the United States, was his country, and many other Americans made the same choice.
-Brian Taylor '08 & Eddie Raleigh '08
300 Washington Avenue, Chestertown, Maryland 21620 | 410-778-2800 | 800-422-1782