Cartoon portrays Kashmir conflict in inaccurate,
prejudiced manner
Jason Liu’s cartoon was hilarious (Viewpoint, May 28).
Sadly, it was funny for all the wrong reasons. I wondered how a
two-minute doodle could manage to be so inaccurate and offensive at
the same time. My first issue is with the drawing itself. In this
“political” cartoon, Liu depicts two men, representing
India and Pakistan, poised to throw nuclear bombs on each other.
The Indian is depicted as an crazed fanatic with a beard and
turban. All that is missing is a sign around his neck reading
“I’m a terrorist.” Lurking behind the figure is
the shadowy form of a man, labeled “Al-Qaeda?” This is
where things take a bizarre twist. I guess Liu has no time to watch
the news, being so occupied creating his master-works. In the past,
India and Pakistan have gone to war over the disputed region of
Kashmir. Why would al-Qaeda, a Muslim extremist group, be
supporting Hindu India, in a conflict with Muslim Pakistan? Come
on, at least read the news reported in your own paper before you
start to scribble down whatever comes to mind.
There is a larger issue here: the treatment of this conflict in
all media, including the Daily Bruin. I have never seen such
condescension in mass media. Whenever this paper prints a story
about the escalation over Kashmir, it cannot help but use the
phrase “the two nuclear-armed nations.” The U.S. is
never referred to as “nuclear armed” in a story about
the war. It seems as though people think that the leaders of these
countries have their fingers on the button, like two children ready
to brawl in the schoolyard. It’s as if we are asking
ourselves, “Who do these lawless third world countries think
they are, the U.S.?” When did we decide that we were the only
ones allowed to have weapons of mass destruction? When were we
bestowed the honor of being the world’s moral compass?
Liu and the Daily Bruin are symptoms of the larger disease, but
that doesn’t mean they don’t have a responsibility to
the truth.
David Bhattacharyya Third-year Business
economics
Social justice must come through
non-violence
I was appalled when I attended the rally for AB 2115, the
measure to ban the use of American Indian mascots. When the speaker
told the listeners to remember the Watts riots and the 1992 riots
and to keep that image in mind with respect to their cause, the
only thing that I could think of was the spirit of change in 1967.
When people wanted change, it was through peace and mobilization of
people around peaceful ideas. Inspired by brilliant thinkers and
masters of social protest like Mahatma Gandhi and marching to the
beat of John Lennon and others, the youth believed that through
huge demonstrations of peace they could wage war on social
injustice. But that was then and this is now. At the AB 2115 rally,
for example, the speakers threaten to hunt down their opposition
via the Internet.
Violence is not the answer in this civilized society. Rosa Parks
chose to disobey the law, but she was not violent, which is a most
elegant example of the potential for social change. Protesters
speak out against the perpetuation of racial stereotypes yet
violence only begets more narrow-mindedness and stereotypes. After
1992, racism was high and the Los Angeles community still
hasn’t shaken the assumption that an individual must be
violent and dangerous if his skin is dark.
The 1992 riots helped perpetuate the racial stereotype of an
angry, violent African-American.
Violence in the name of the American Indian movement will have
similarly negative results. I can’t help but see hypocrisy in
liberals threatening violence in the social realm over mascots but
protesting violence when it comes to defending our nation against
terrorists.
Remember that the high tide lifts all boats; noble and peaceful
actions bring everybody up and violence in the name of social
change only oppresses and holds us down. Save your arms and fury
for when a war has to be waged, like in response to Sept. 11, but
“no man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece
of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by
the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as
well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own
were” (John Donne). Violence brings us all down. Human life
is too precious to waste for poorly-laid plans that can only cause
more problems against which to fight.
Sarah Conley First-year Economics
Mascot names are part of collective
heritage
I would like to commend Ian Eisner for his article on Indian
mascots (“School mascots not insulting,” Viewpoint, May
22). I agree with the notion that those names are not derogatory
and that in fact all this controversy surrounding the subject is
the result of overly sensitive politically correct people trying to
make something out of nothing. With the exception of the name
“redskin,” most of the Indian names used are neither
derogatory nor demeaning.
Many people accuse Americans of allowing the use of Indian
names, but the United States is not the only place where Indian
names are used for mascots. Many Latin American countries use
Indian names to represent their soccer teams. The Mexican soccer
team is commonly known as the “Aztecs,” even though
few, if any of the people on the team are in fact of Aztec
heritage. Similarly, the Peruvian soccer team is known as the
“Incas” when Peru is in fact a diverse country
consisting of blacks, whites, mestizos as well indigenous people of
diverse heritage. Likewise the Uruguayan soccer team is known as
the “Charruas” when the country’s population
consists mostly of blacks, whites or of those mixed ethnicity.
The reason these countries, as well as many local sports teams
in the United States, employ Indian names is because they are part
of our collective heritage. It is the same reason the Cowboys play
in Dallas, the Knickerbockers play in New York, the Padres play in
San Diego and the Fighting Irish play in Indiana. The names are
used to honor those who have had a significant impact in our
history.
The bottom line is that these names are not meant to
“pillage” or “rape” anyone’s culture.
By using these names we are recognizing our past and present. If
that offends people, we could eliminate those names that are deemed
“offensive,” but where do we draw the line? Catholics
might want the Padres to change their name. Irish people might want
Notre Dame to change its mascot, and New Yorkers who are offended
by being called a “knickerbocker” would want the Knicks
to change their name.
All these groups, from Native Americans to Catholics, deserve
the same amount of respect. Doing away with Indian mascots would
not be the end of this issue, but rather the beginning of a
negative cycle of eliminating names that are deemed
“offensive” by groups that have good intentions, but
are ultimately wrong.
John C. Diaz Second-year Political science
Labeling sports stars along ethnic lines is
backwards
In response to the article by Mayar Zokaei, I felt a need to
acknowledge a good message as well as a bad one (“Sports
History Disregards Ethnic Accomplishments,” Sports, May 30).
I think it is great to acknowledge pioneers of anything, be it
Jackie Robinson as the first African American to play Major League
baseball or Valentina Tereshkova as the first woman in space.
However, this message is not as “black and white” as it
may seem.
As Mayar Zokaei instructed us, if we look at the “Iraqi
linebacker” that is what we will see. Rather than
differentiating Audie Attar by his excellent play, size, skill,
determination, or energy, we pick him out because of his ethnicity.
How does this lead to an end to racism in sports or in the rest of
the world? Yesterday a friend told me he liked the Sacramento
Kings because they were diverse and had white players as well as
black, unlike the mostly black Lakers. That is completely crazy.
Root for the Kings because you like the way they play or because
you are from Northern California, or even because you hate the
Lakers, but please don’t ever tell me you like a team because
of their skin color.Â
We now live in a time when ethnicity does not restrict the
participation of people in sports (except golf, but that’s a
whole different story). So why do children have to pick role models
with the same skin color? Don’t idolize Hideo Nomo
because he is Japanese. When you do that, you take away all of his
hard work. You take away all of his accomplishments. Until we
stop focusing on the fact that Audie Attar is an “Iraqi
linebacker,” he will just be the token Middle Easterner on
the team, the exact same way Jackie Robinson was viewed by
people who did not want him in baseball. It is this mentality that
perpetuates segregation in society, and has slowed the integration
of society as a whole.
Benjamin Arnold Third-year Sociology