|
WW
welcomes
letters to the editor via mail, e-mail
or fax. Letters must be signed by the author and include
the author's street address and phone number for verification.
Preference will be given to letters of 250 words or less.
Editor's note:
Is "nigger" a word that should be flushed down the toilet?
Do African Americans have license to use the word, but not
whites? Is John Callahan a Catholic-bashing racist?
Such is the discussion that has been taking place since
the publication, two weeks ago, of a Callahan cartoon that
pictured the pope adressing a crowd, singing, "I'm a rock
n' roll nigger." The panel was captioned, "The pope turns
out to be a Patti Smith fan."
The response was swift: dozens of voice-mail messages,
a heated two hours on Lars Larson's show on KXL, a tamer
discussion on Eugene Rashad's KBOO program and, last week,
the spray painting of our front window with the graffito
"Hate speech has a price."
Clearly, the vast majority of our readers didn't understand
Callahan's cartoon, which sought to find humor in the pope's
recent embrace of rock stars by imagining him to be a fan
of rock and roll's favorite bad girl. Nor did many know
of Smith's most controversial song, in which she seeks to
embrace the n-word as a synonym for outsider, declaring
that status for herself and others (Jesus, Jackson Pollock,
her grandma).
Even among those who understood the cartoon, many failed
to see the humor and instead were pained by the publication
of
perhaps the ugliest word in the American vernacular.
We asked you to write, and here's what you said.
GROW UP
The Callahan cartoon piece in your
Willamette Week edition of April 26, 2000, demonstrates
once again the sickness and the ignorance of people like
Callahan in America. While Callahan may have thought that
ridiculing a race of people and the head of the Catholic
Church is fun in his sick and warped mind, most right-thinking
people do not see things that way. Perhaps sensitivity training
is what this bigoted fool is begging for.
Wretched bigots such as Callahan are quick to label what
does not look like them as bad, but inside that wretched
soul of his, he is dying to be like the very ones he is
ridiculing. Callahan, get a life and grow up--you might
find it invigorating and actually get to like being an adult!
P. Agabi
Gresham
TURN OFF THE CARTOONS AND SAY YOU'RE SORRY
Your
consistent publication of racist, homophobic and anti-feminist
cartoons by Callahan must stop. Your promotion of Callahan's
latest piece of bigotry, the pope using a notoriously racist
term to denigrate black people, is not surprising, given
your record, but it is disgusting.
Unfortunately, decades after the civil-rights movement,
we are still fighting institutionalized racism. It is supported
by those who run the capitalist system and perpetuated,
in part, through the media. Obviously, you feel free to
add to that legacy and to promote discrimination.
It is an interesting fact that you as an editor can't tell
the difference between daring, cutting-edge humor and promotion
of hate. I doubt if your readers or your advertisers endorse
your promotion of ugly stereotypes and injustice.
You owe a front-page apology to all of us, the majority--African
Americans, the elderly, people with disabilities, Latinos,
Native Americans, Asians, whites, sexual minorities, Jews,
women and men--who want to live in a just society.
Adrienne Weller
Freedom Socialist Party
ROCK 'N ROLL SNIGGER
Ordinarily, I am not
too impressed by Callahan's work--not because I find it
offensive (I'm a First Amendment kind of person), but because
it just usually isn't all that funny. When I saw the "Pope
as a Patti Smith fan" panel, however, I almost fell on the
floor laughing. My take on it was not so much that it was
a sendup of the pope embracing rock stars, but that it illuminated
the strange reality that all kinds of people you never would
have suspected are closet Patti Smith fans. It seemed to
me a very timely cartoon, as Patti had just played the Crystal
Ballroom the week before, and despite the presence of the
ubiquitous body-pierced twenty-somethings, there were, like
me, many normally staid middle-aged people rocking out.
The cartoon was so on-point that I wondered if Callahan
hadn't been there taking notes (I didn't see him, but it
was crowded). So beware, you never know if the soccer mom
standing next to you really has a dark and wild side.
As to the issue of racism, it stands to reason that only
the ignorant take offense. Patti Smith is about as anti-racist
as they come. (Hell, she named her children "Jesse" and
"Jackson.")
Doris J. Brook
Northeast Alameda Street
JUST CUT IT OUT
No doubt many, many people
on all sides of the debate about John Callahan's "Pope"
cartoon [Callahan, WW, April 26, 2000] can
come up with endless arguments pro and con and somewhere
in the middle. For me, it is a simple matter; the "N" word
and other derogatory words do not belong in our vocabulary.
To claim artistic or comedic license is just an excuse for
bad behavior, some kind of justification for hateful rhetoric.
To say that some African-American people use the "N" word
is no justification and certainly doesn't make its use OK.
It is an ugly word, a hurtful word, a shameful word with
a long history of violence, regardless of who uses it. It
serves no purpose, has no value. It demeans us all.
Callahan could have chosen any other line from a Patti
Smith song and still depicted the Pope as a fan. Choosing
to use a line with the "N" word was unnecessary and just
plain wrong.
For Willamette Week to publish it does a grave disservice
to our community.
Linda Davidson,
Troutdale
DRAWING FIRE
I fail to see the humor in your
Callahan cartoon (page 3) in the April 26, 2000, Willamette
Week. That cartoon was blatantly irresponsible, insensitive
and very offensive to all African Americans. Whoever gave
the final approval for this cartoon to circulate amongst
85,000 people needs to be terminated. At minimum, your organization
owes the African-American community an apology for being
irresponsible, insensitive, offensive.
Carlos Ivie
Southwest Lincoln Street
LET ART BE
John Callahan is an entertainer
worth defending [Letters, May 3, 2000]! As a commentator
on American culture (using only one panel a week, even!)
he makes us talk and think about things that are usually
deemed offensive or taboo. In this case, are folks offended
because a white cartoonist uses the "N-word," or is it because
the Catholic people's pope is depicted as using the "N-word"
[Callahan, April 26, 2000]? I'll bet most folks didn't
get the Patti Smith feminist/punk reference and just reacted
to that damn word.
Would columnist H.V. Claytor stir up the same offense if
he used this word in one of his hip-hop pieces? Would a
film reviewer quoting Black and White or WhiteBoyz
stir up such a reaction for using the "N-word?" Personally,
I do not use this word, out of respect for my fellow
human beings. But should we also strike the word "niggardly"
from the dictionary? Do we hamper our country's artists
and entertainers by limiting their vocabulary?
Art makes us think and remember. The ancient Mesopotamian
and Buddhist swastika has been forever stricken due to Nazi
appropriation...the "N-word" is definitely in a similar
class due to the hateful past of white America. But even
if popular culture and common sense damns the "N-word,"
should we protest when our country's artists and writers
choose to use it to make us think? I would love to see this
sensitive topic handled in a run of Curtis cartoons,
but I doubt it would happen. I applaud WW for running
such daring comics as Callahan and Red Meat!
Philip Simon
Southeast Morrison Street
RUNNING OFFENSE
As an American, I took great
offense at the Callahan cartoon that was run in your April
26 edition of Willamette Week. As an African American,
I thought the days and ways of slavery, lynchings and the
common usage and slanderous terms used in Patti Smith's
lyrics were long gone.
Willamette Week needs to take responsibility for
what it runs. To run something that references "Jimi Hendrix
was a nigger, Jesus Christ and Grandma, too. Jackson Pollock
was a nigger. Nigger, nigger..." is absolutely appalling
and is extremely offensive.
WW should take more responsibility to review the
nature of Callahan's antics.
Roserria Roberts
Fairview
DRAWING PRAISE
"Sticks and stones may break
my bones, but names can never hurt." God bless "politically
irreverent" John Callahan. I love that damn cripple, even
when he twists and tweaks my own sensibilities! And to his
detractors, in French: Pardonnez-moi, mais avez-vous
un porc-épic coincé entre les fesses?
Bill Bagby
Milwaukie
WW LOW ON FACTS
For an article claiming to
be concerned with the facts on genetic engineering (GE),
Philip Dawdy's "Freak Foods" (April 12) sure misses the
target.
Dawdy begins with the outlandish claim that "the Babylonians
first sowed corn 7,000 years ago." He's wrong on all counts:
Corn is from the Americas. And Babylonians didn't sow anything
7,000 years ago (since Babylon didn't emerge until 5,000
years ago).
Then Dawdy presents the Bt corn-Monarch caterpillar concern
as if it's anti-GE activists' only basis for alarm. This
is hardly the case. Other studies, such as those at NYU,
University of Kansas and OSU (as well as Monsanto's own
data on BST-injected cows) also show evidence of GE-related
hazards. While the merits of each study can be debated,
would the U.S. EPA, the Japanese government, and European
Community be issuing data call-ins and tightened regulations
based merely on emotionalism?
Dawdy then quotes enviro-turned-industry apologist Patrick
Moore as an authority on anti-GE extremism. Too bad Dawdy
didn't check Moore's background: Aside from his bogus claim
to be a "Greenpeace founder" (Greenpeace was founded by
Jim Bohlen, Paul Coate and Irving Stowe--Patrick Moore was
only an early member), Moore also lobbied for Canadian timber
giants like Macmillan Bloedel and Interfor. He's far from
being a credible source on anti-GE activism!
Finally, to prop up his point that progressive activists'
"track record isn't perfect," Dawdy makes a cryptic reference
to Noam Chomsky being "dead wrong about Pol Pot." If he's
suggesting Chomsky didn't think Pol Pot was such a bad guy,
Dawdy would be dead wrong about Chomsky (who called Pol
Pot's Cambodian revolution one of the worst cases of genocide
in the modern era). And I'd call Dawdy's "Freak Foods" one
of the worst cases of 'fact-icide' in that issue of Willamette
Week.
Andrew Butz
Northeast 22nd Avenue
PHILIP DAWDY RESPONDS: Mr. Butz is correct that
corn is from the Americas; I apologize for the error and
for being off 2,000 years on my Babylonian reference. As
to his claim that Chomsky was not wrong about Pol Pot, I'd
have to disagree. In a 1977 Nation article and in
his 1979 book After the Cataclysm, Chomsky essentially
argued that accounts of atrocities in Cambodia should not
be trusted and that Westerners ought to give the Pol Pot
regime a chance.
FOOD FOR CRITICAL THOUGHT
Your claim that
activists concerned about food quality are self-satisfied,
illogical, and misguided, while benevolent corporations,
who are simply trying to create new farming techniques,
are misunderstood, is false ["Freak Foods," April 12, 2000].
Critically analyzing activists' weakest arguments while
passively accepting the weak, illogical arguments of research
scientists and corporate representatives indicates a bias
in favor of GE corporations. This is the same semi-truthful
reporting WW has accused The Oregonian of
engaging in, while touting itself as the area's "alternative."
I request critical thinking be applied in your Science section.
Nestor Cordova
Southeast Hawthorne Boulevard
SUVS ARE LIKE CARS, ONLY MORE SO
The last
thing I want to do is to defend the SUV or its relative
"the big-ass truck." However, I would like to point out
that the evils of these vehicles are exactly the same as
those of smaller cars. It's not that SUVs bring a new set
of problems to the world. Whereas commuting one person per
car is arrogant, commuting one person in a vehicle the size
of a moving-truck is the height of arrogance (especially
if your motivation is your safety at the direct expense
of the person you might collide with!).
Automobiles stink, they're the noise of the city, they
kill, they're the premier contributor to global warming,
and they take an inordinate amount of space. It's not just
SUVs; all automobiles do this to varying degrees. And they
don't even go very fast during the hours when most people
use them.
While I merely chuckle at the ads for a car cruising on
the wide-open road, I feel nauseated at the image of an
SUV splashing down a pristine creek in the forest. I can't
help but to think that these marketing tactics work in large
part because people crave escape from the harsh realities
of a car-centered society. People like the convenience of
the automobile, but it would be much better if there were
not so many other vehicles in their way, if the air was
cleaner, etc.
The way I see it, you can't complain about traffic and
its related problems if you're a part of it. OK, bigger
is worse, but the real problem is that too many people drive
too often. There are alternatives. And the more people use
the alternatives, the more convenient they will become.
Personally, I feel like shit when I start and finish each
day lined up in traffic. Hmm, maybe if I only drove an SUV,
stop-and-go traffic up Burnside would seem like driving
up a small stream in the Hells Canyon Wilderness Reserve.
Nils Andermo
Southwest King Avenue
SUV MYOB
I own a full-size K-5 Chevrolet Blazer.
I have put 1,400 miles on it since Oct. 30, 1999. The problem
is not SUVs, it is that people use them inappropriately.
Our family likes to ski; that is when it comes out of our
"Snout House" garage. But I'll say three things about this
whole issue ["SUV LUV," WW, April 19, 2000].
First, I take MAX to work every day, and Ross Williams
is right: I pollute less than a Honda that is driven daily
to work the same number of miles. (Of course, the pollution
I am responsible for by riding MAX, namely electricity,
is foisted off on Eastern Oregon where the population has
no political clout.)
Secondly, there always have been and will continue to be
economic inequities in society, so don't insult me with
the "I can afford the SUV and you can't" crap. As a matter
of fact, if I can afford an SUV and buy a "rice burner"
instead, I am neglecting my duty by not doing what I can
to ensure my family's safety. So all the amateur social
engineers can go to hell if they head-on me. If I am going
to be in a collision, I want to be in my "Mashed Potatoes
and Gravy," and not in a "Sushi and Rice."
Finally, crude oil and its byproducts are directly responsible
for making this country the world leader that it is. I think
it's appalling that a segment of society attacks the very
reason that they are so comfortable. I have enough money
for a one-way ticket to where this flag doesn't fly, and
I'm ready to spend it. What a joke. And by the way, I'm
not apologizing for either my snout house or my SUV.
Dick Schmidt
Aloha
Editor's Note: Schmidt works for the City of
Portland's Bureau of Environmental Services.
HONKIN' & HUGE
I was tickled pink to read
your article on the SUV issue ["SUV LUV," WW, April
19, 2000]; it's somewhat of a pet-peeve of mine. I never
noticed any troubles with traditional pickup trucks or vans,
but in recent years I've noticed some disturbing things
about some larger SUVs and trucks: They're huge and obnoxious.
I propose our city enact an "obnoxious vehicle fee" of a
significant amount, to be paid when the vehicle is registered
to local residents. This would apply to trucks and SUVs
over a size to be determined and not necessary for commercial
use.
There would be a sliding fee, determined by how far the
wheel wells extend beyond the main body of trucks, as these
can be a real pain for other drivers trying to see around.
I can attest to many situations jeopardizing somebody's
safety because of a monster truck blocking one's view.
Our city is getting more congested, and parking tougher.
Obnoxious vehicles are not the source of these troubles,
but they certainly don't help. If other Oregon cities suffer
from these problems, they may choose their solutions. Some
of us use local roads and try to mind our business and keep
our impact to a minimum. Shouldn't we encourage that?
Penalize the road hogs. They're a plague.
Chris Clady
Southeast 12th Avenue
NO LUV FOR WW
As I sloshed through your SUV-bashing
cover story ["SUV LUV," April 19, 2000], I don't remember
reading a more arrogant, pompous and self-righteous sermon.
Is that what passes for journalism these days?
"The single largest crime... against the environment."
Driving an SUV? And it's not an attributed quote, it's the
"journalist's" own statement. Amazing.
If you had wanted some balance, you might have mentioned
the following: There are many more pickup trucks and luxury
vans and mini-vans out there than SUV's, and watch out...pickup
trucks are trucks. Have you seen some of those multi-wheel,
jacked-up, king cab, V-10, gas-guzzling Tools of Satan?
Some of those usually-empty utility vehicles can drive over
an SUV.
Why not mention the nitro-burning funny cars, stock car
racing, private planes, luxury fishing boats, motor homes,
traffic metering signals, or the other wasteful and unnecessary
things that burn our gas and pollute our air?
I was impressed with the blatant attempt to indict the
way of life of a class of people. Do you want class envy
to start some new class warfare?
Try the economic argument next time, not some class-snobbery
angle. Talk about diminishing resources and the demand-supply
curve. Use education, not ridicule. Just because someone
else makes a choice you don't like does not make it wrong.
There are worse crimes.
Stick to the music reviews. Making fun of the music other
people like is something you do better. And we know it isn't
journalism.
Mark Gindin
North Hereford Avenue
LOSE THE CAR, FIND YOUR DRIVE
Patty Wenz's
article ["SUV LUV," WW, April 19, 2000] deftly tiptoed
around the most important way to assuage one's guilt about
driving a gas-guzzling, air-polluting vehicle: Stop driving.
Period.
I sold my car 10 years ago, after deciding that it cost
too much to own and wasn't so enjoyable in the first place.
This decision was carefully thought out, since it raised
a host of other issues, particularly where I would live
and how much time I had to devote to certain activities.
I found that riding a bike took less time than driving a
car because I could ride around the congestion; but
planning my trips suddenly became important. How's the weather?
What extra clothing should I carry? Do I need plastic bags
for books? Do I have time to change clothes between activities
if needed? And since time was now more carefully considered,
what activities were most important for me to spend
my time on, for myself, my family and community?
Ten years ago, I drove a car. I also worked at a job I
detested, because the money and the benefits were too good
to pass up, or so I thought at the time. After I sold the
car and bought a bicycle, my world suddenly opened up. As
I became attached to the freedom of bicycle travel--and
accepted the risks involved with it (since, let's face it,
you are more exposed on a bike)--I became more open
to taking risks in other parts of my life. I quit my awful
job, and learned how to do things I was interested in. I
became a bike mechanic. I went back to school. I'm finishing
my college degree. I cannot ever think of any aspect of
my life as "dead-end" ever again.
It seems like an awful lot to attribute to getting out
of my car, but one single act is often all that is required
for real change to begin.
Beth Hamon
North Commercial Avenue
BLAME IT ON FREE WILL
The biggest problem
with Patty Wentz's cover story "SUV LUV" [WW, April
19, 2000] is that it reduces social and environmental problems
associated with SUVs to issues of individual choice. Taken
in isolation, individual choices aren't that significant.
What is significant is how our choices 1) combine with those
of others and 2) fit into the social contexts in which they
are made. So long as SUVs remained the specialty vehicles
they were intended to be, their social-environmental impact
was negligible. The problems detailed in the article stem
from thousands of people choosing to use these vehicles
as transportation. Our fossil fuel- and auto-dependent economy
already poses social and environmental problems. Expanding
SUV use is like throwing gas on a bonfire.
On a personal, ethical level, there is a certain logic
to balancing "bad" choices with "good" ones. On a broader,
material level, this logic doesn't hold. Giving money to
Doernbecher Hospital doesn't change the fact that accidents
involving SUVs are more likely to result in fatalities than
those involving smaller vehicles. Recycling doesn't make
SUVs more fuel-efficient or pollute less.
All of us who choose to remain in society make ethical
compromises, often on a daily basis. However, there are
compromises that result from having to live in a dominant
culture that doesn't share your values, and then there are
compromises that result from choices you control. As Ms.
Wentz's article makes clear, for the vast majority of us,
owning and driving an SUV is a matter of taste, not necessity.
Shaun Huston
Lake Oswego
GUILT-FREE SUV
Guilt-schmildt. "Addicted"
drivers and SUV owners need not spend a day in conscience-court.
I applaud Patty Wentz for tackling our love affair with
SUVs, and particularly for mentioning the Kyoto Global Warming
Treaty in the left margin ("SUV LUV", April 19, 2000). However,
she fell short of solving the problem of guilt, which is
surprisingly simple.
If you can't say N-O to the C-A-R, or you L-U-V your S-U-V,
stop feeling GUILTY. Write your senator today, and press
them on the issue of global warming. It's underway: The
past decade was the warmest of the millennium (1,000 years
proxy data), and included seven of the 10 warmest years
in the instrumental record (120 years).
Global warming can be costly: Participants at the World
Economic Forum voted in climate change as humanity's greatest
challenge (Geneva, February 2000). It can be deadly when
perturbed: It is now accepted within the scientific community
that abrupt global climate shifts of 5-10 degrees Fahrenheit
can occur within a period of five to 20 years. This has
occurred many times--most recently 12,900 years ago due
to unusually high fluxes of glacier melt-water.
The American infrastructure makes it difficult for many
of us to live without a car. Furthermore, without governmental
involvement, the market-driven approach to curbing carbon
dioxide emissions taxes those with a conscience. As major
infrastructural changes and market incentives are necessary
to foster the necessary long-term changes, the best way
to end this problem is with top-down governmental involvement.
Guilt-be-gone! (Senator letters available at www.kyotonow.org.)
Philip Orton, MS Ocean Physics
Oregon Graduate
Institute
UNWANTED EMISSIONS
I am going to have an involuntary
protein spill if I hear one more greener-than-thou cry about
SUVs ["SUV LUV," April 19, 2000]. So before I get to rambling,
let's get a few things perfectly clear. I ride my Harley
year round (rain or shine) so believe me when I say the
most dangerous vehicle on the road is one where the driver
(and it doesn't matter if it's a mini Cooper or a Freightliner)
is doing anything (reading, shaving, putting on make-up,
talking on the phone) that is more important to that person
than driving. Paying attention does not cost anything
until you don't.
SUVs, while not called that until a few years ago, have
been around since 1938. So they are not a new thing. The
biggest SUVs are no bigger (length by width) than your mom's
LTD station wagon. Which makes the rest of them about the
same size or smaller than the VW bus so many "Hippies" loved
to drive.
As for the emissions problem, several months ago I read
an article in The Oregonian that auto makers and
gasoline manufacturers are going to be required to drastically
cut the emissions on all vehicles. The amazing thing is
that all vehicles will have a 90 percent drop in the amount
of pollutants they produce by the reformulation of gas.
Thats right, our fuel will burn cleaner!
Now for the elitist aspect of the article. So the rich
were hiding away in their homes and fancy restaurants, and
we the common folk never saw them? Bulldung! Was
the BMW line of cars just released? How about Mercedes Benz?
Or Rolls Royce? It sounds to me like jealousy. So in closing,
let me say, "Get over it!"
John S. Thomas
Southeast Knapp Street
THE TRUEST POVERTY
The article on SUVs was
an interesting psychological view of most of us ["SUV LUV,"
April 19, 2000]. It seems like our consumption-based culture
leaves us all feeling frustrated and defensive, as we are
compelled to consume more than we need, or even really want.
Sometimes we all look like a bunch of crazy "anti-monks,"
forcing ourselves to buy more and more in spite of the moral
hardship, the sacrifice of our sense of rectitude and contentment,
involved in the consumer lifestyle. We look kind of pathetic,
really, which is why I can't believe that anyone thinks
that all who object to SUVs and other guzzlers are envious
of their owners. Au contraire, I can't help seeing
in their motivations the ones I want to eliminate in myself:
the fearful, defensive, I-can-only-afford-to-think-about-me
attitude that seems like the truest poverty. If I ever see
you down at the wrecking yard, shirt off and sweat flying,
while you dismantle that SUV for scrap with your own two
fists, then I'll admire your power, your freedom and your
true wealth.
Jacqueline Boury
Northeast 29th Avenue
WHO'S DRIVING SUV LUV?
Your recent cover story
on SUVs ["SUV LUV," April 19, 2000] focused on individual
buying decisions. But following the money reveals another
factor in the SUV boom. In 1999, 55 Senators voted "no"
on an amendment recommending that the Transportation Department
study the feasibility of raising fuel-economy standards
for SUVs and other vehicles in the "light truck" category.
This continued a trend begun in 1995 of barring federal
agencies from even studying this topic.
On average, the senators who voted against studying the
feasibility of higher fuel economy standards have received
$41,630 in PAC and large individual contributions of $200
or more from the auto lobby over a six-year period. That's
more than twice the average amount, $19,090, received by
senators who voted to support the study. Since 1995, General
Motors, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler and the United Auto Workers
have given more than $8.8 million in contributions to federal
candidates and political parties. Environmental PACs have
been outspent by nearly 6 to 1.
Higher fuel-economy standards for SUVs could be met using
current technology resulting in significant reductions in
greenhouse gas and hydrocarbon emissions. But the auto industry
is making big bucks now on SUVs and doesn't want the expense
of meeting higher standards.
The environment and our battered roads lose because of
the short-term profit motive of car companies. Too many
members of Congress don't have the courage to force automakers
to put those concerns over profit. So, in addition to evaluating
the choices of individuals buying SUVs, let's evaluate the
role of campaign contributions in the decisions of lawmakers.
Janice Thompson, Moira Bowman
The Money in Politics
Research Action Project, North Lombard Street
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Willamette Week | originally
published May 10,
2000
|
