The Lumberjack



Students Serving The Cal Poly Humboldt Campus and Community Since 1929

Category: Opinion

  • My beef with killing the meat industry

    My beef with killing the meat industry

    Eliminating the meat industry would do more harm than good to our planet. The idea that animal agriculture is completely unethical and impractical is false.

    The media does a fine job of antagonizing the meat industry, and we all know about the documentaries that reveal the ugly truth behind factory farming, such as Food, Inc. But have you ever thought about what would happen if we put an end to animal agriculture all together?

    “Agriculture cannot be sustainable without animal agriculture,” said Dr. Frank Mitloehner, Animal Science professor at UC Davis. “That is something I’m sure of.”

    For instance, livestock grazing is used as a tool to stimulate soil production, which in turn removes carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. When herds trample through pastures, they oxygenate soil while pushing down seeds that ultimately promote healthy land restoration. Also, excrement produced along the way fertilizes soil. If managed correctly, livestock distribution can be beneficial to the environment.

    “Soils of the world must be part of any agenda to address climate change, as well as food and water security,” said Dr. Rattan Lal, professor of Soil Science at The Ohio State University.

    Animal parts that are not consumed, such as bones or fat, do not get wasted in the Netherlands. Renewable products from soaps to heart valve replacements are sourced from slaughtered pigs.

    The Dutch eat about a third of the pig “and the rest is exported to all kinds of countries in Europe and the rest of the world,” said Christien Meindertsma, a Dutch artist who is known for using raw materials in her work.

    The truth is that we need to reduce our inherited carbon footprint habits: transportation, dieting and consumerism. The global food production and consumption, namely beef, produce more greenhouse emissions than all of transportation combined. In addition, eating less meat could reduce the risk of heart disease and other health-related issues.

    In extreme cases of either a world full of meat eaters or vegetarians, moderation is the middle ground. Following one extreme over the other will not reduce global warming. We can start by agreeing that livestock is a crucial part of the agricultural system.

  • Arkley I call bullshit

    Arkley I call bullshit

    By | Phil Santos

    Only a sick mind believes you can give something that you have stolen. To give something, it must be yours in the first place. When you steal something, the status of your possession is always illegitimate. You can’t give something you’ve stolen because it was never yours, to begin with. This elementary concept is one that many fail to grasp or disregard completely.

    One of those people is Rob Arkley. He has recently pledged to “buy” Tuluwat, the site of the 1860 massacre of Wiyot women, children and men from the city of Eureka. This is in direct conflict with Eureka’s plan to transfer the land back to the Wiyot tribe.

    Regarding the outcry against Arkley’s proposal, Arkley said, “I am stunned by this whole thing. I don’t get it.”

    Tuluwat is stolen land, but it’s in the process of being returned. Why would anyone pay money to stop that process? My answer is as stated above: their mind is sick.

    However, Arkley says that he’s “concerned about what public access to the island will be like if the land transfer goes through.” He also says that “if [my] offer is taken up, [I] will set up a charity, similar to how Friends of the Dunes operates, [which is] to provide stewardship to the land [and that] it will remain open for public use like it is today.”

    I call bullshit. In 2005, Friends of the Dunes tried to purchase land to preserve and Arkley pulled the same move on them!

    An article in the North Coast Journal wrote, “‘they got in second place,’ Arkley said, making no effort to conceal his glee. ‘And it’ll never, ever, ever, ever, ever be sold to them. I’m not going to give it to the government agencies. I believe there’s far too much government land.’ Arkley has no specific plans for the parcel, which also includes a house. But he made it clear the land would be fenced off and not open to the public.”

    Wiyot tribal administrator Michelle Vassel wrote in an email regarding the transfer of Tuluwat, “The Wiyot Tribe is a government which by nature is a public, not a private entity… the tribe has no intention of excluding people. We have worked long and hard with the city of Eureka and other government agencies, local native and non-native, people and organizations in this community to come together to work toward these goals.”

    It seems like Arkley is afraid that the Wiyot would bar anyone from stepping foot on Tuluwat after it is returned to them. Where does that fear come from? It sounds like something that he would do. It’s an irrational fear of being subject to his own practices. By disregarding the statements of Michelle Vassel, Arkley is practicing the historic American tradition of distorting Indigenous practices. The Indigenous nations on this continent are historically stereotyped as “savage,” “uncivilized” and “unsophisticated.” The list goes on. The common element is that it’s all fabricated for the sake of telling a story to justify the genocide and theft which founded the settler society called The United States of America.

    Arkley’s unfounded concerns promote an irrational fear of exclusion. This mobilizes the public to buy into his perspective – to believe the Wiyot will exclude the public from Tuluwat. He invokes classic tropes that are used to justify the theft of Indigenous land such as giving things back to Indigenous communities, or how Indigenous peoples aren’t using Tuluwat. This is representative of a deep divide in the way that American settler society sees history and the modern reality of contemporary life. As polarized as these viewpoints may be, there is hope because there might be one place where Arkley and the Wiyot see eye to eye.

    This is best said by Arkley himself “I don’t get how they can take one of our assets and give it.”

     

     

  • DVAM is now

    DVAM is now

    From O.J. Simpson to Ray Rice, domestic violence in the United States is an issue that has been perpetuated for too long. It is often swept under the rug due to its complexity.

    In honor of recognizing October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month (DVAM), it is worth taking the time to talk about this issue that still requires public awareness, education and involvement.

    Domestic violence is a broad term for a complex issue. The term refers to any form of physical, emotional, psychological, economic or sexual abuse that exists in a household. These include family, non-family and romantic relationships. The underlying issue and its scope expand far beyond the definition of the term.

    It is important to understand that domestic violence is a prevalent issue in many communities. Persons affected by domestic abuse can be of any age, gender, race, sexual orientation or socio-economic status. Forms of domestic violence can differ in individual relationships, but are often conceived as a vicious cycle that is hard to escape.

    Domestic violence victims are often perceived as weak or incapable of leaving the situation, but the solution is almost never easy. As allies, we must recognize the complexity of relationships and show compassion for those affected. Family and romantic relationships are complex on their own, especially when loved ones intentionally disrespect and abuse each other.

    Emotional or financial dependence can trap the victim in a toxic relationship with an even more dangerous outcome. 75 percent of domestic violence murders in the U.S. occur while victims attempt to leave the perpetrator. It is a scary situation, but certainly not hopeless. Support and resources are out there.

    infographic_violence
    Graphic by Lora Neshovska

    The Humboldt Domestic Violence Services is a non-profit organization that provides free and confidential support to victims. Their services include legal, medical and financial support. They also offer referrals to outside services, such as support groups.

    The North Coast Rape Crisis Team is another non-profit organization that offers a variety of education and community-based programs on prevention and self-defense.

    HSU’s Check It is an extension of the North Coast Rape Crisis that provides tailored services to students, staff and faculty on campus. The club holds workshops and events to raise awareness about dating violence and consent culture.

    Many perpetrators were witnesses or victims of domestic violence as children, which illustrates the importance of proper prevention education in both children and adults.

    Community Outreach coordinator at the North Coast Rape Crisis Team, Paula Arrowsmith-Jones, says DVAM serves to “bring [domestic violence] out of the shadows [and] raise awareness so the community can see it happens to everyone.”

    The 31 days of observance focuses on instilling strength and supporting survivors through advocacy. Domestic abuse prevention is a community effort that involves education and support. It also calls for building healthy relationships with our family, friends and peers.

    If you or someone you know needs help, free and confidential support is available to you.

    • 24/7 LOCAL HOTLINE: (707) 445- 2881 – North Coast Crisis Team
    • 24/7 LOCAL HOTLINE: (707) 443-6042 – Humboldt Domestic Violence Services

     

     

     

     

     

  • More like higher training!

    More like higher training!

    By | Reza Sadeghzadeh

    Let’s be honest and tell it like it is.

    Screen Shot 2017-10-14 at 2.23.51 PM.png

    The big corporations want the politicians to turn higher education into a factory that produces blue and white collar workers because the corporations need individuals that are trainable. But there is more to it!

    Programs like Humanities and Social Sciences are under attack by politicians like Marco Rubio, the person that said: “we need more welders and less philosophers.”

    The underlining message is that public schools should teach us less about the world and more about the working world.

    Donald Trump’s most recent presidential memorandum to the Secretary of Education will also reassure you that “it is critical that we educate and train our future workforce to compete and excel in lucrative and important STEM fields.”

    Read between the lines! Trump is trying to manage public school programs that teach students how to be obedient workers.

    In other words, the Trump administration is steering the working people away from courses that focus on critically thinking. They want to make sure that the 1% does all the thinking for us.

    To be fair, STEM students do have more career opportunities than students in other programs. But that should not make the other programs inferior to science, technology, engineering and math. It would be like comparing apples to oranges.

    These “soft” or interdisciplinary programs are just as important because they cultivate leaders with ethical decision-making abilities. But this notion would bring empowerment to the working class that would threaten the 1%.

    Knowledge is power. When the people become educated, they are more inclined to be critical of their surroundings, the public discourse and their history. As a result, the people start making impressive egalitarian changes in society.

    A perfect example of that is the current transformation of Columbus Day to Indigenous Peoples’ Day.

    Hopefully, you can see why the few people at the top would want to make sure that our education does not get out of line. Emphasizing STEM programs is a smart tactic on their part to deter us from gaining social consciousness.

    There is more to Trump’s job growth rhetoric and it is not just about increasing our nation’s gross domestic product. It is harder for politicians to manipulate the people when the people start thinking outside the box. With that said, I leave you with this question: Is Trump’s education plan undermining your intellectual autonomy?

     

  • The next great quake is coming

    The next great quake is coming

    It’s only a matter of time before nature blindsides us with a catastrophic earthquake. Geologists predict that the next big one could happen within our lifetime and we are ill-prepared for it.

    According to the Uniform California Earthquake Rupture Forecast (UCERF3), there is a 76 percent chance of an earthquake greater than a magnitude of 7.0 striking Northern California within the next the 30 years.

    We are situated along the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ), a major plate boundary that stretches from Vancouver Island in Canada down to the Lost Coast in Humboldt County. It is capable of triggering “megathrusts” that can exceed 9.0 on the seismograph. Such an earthquake can set off tsunamis capable of wiping out our coastal communities. Buildings will collapse, our utilities will be cut and all hell will break loose. We need to know how to manage ourselves if and when the big one hits.

    It’s easy to forget that we live in Earthquake Country. Also, some of us are emotionally distanced from natural disasters that occur outside of our bubble, because they don’t directly affect us. Unless it hits home, we pay little mind to disasters that happen in other parts of the world. Let’s not get too comfortable, though.

    “Disaster, if we let it, can teach us that we who have not yet suffered are not untouchable; we are not special; we are lucky,” wrote Melissa Batchelor Warnke of the Los Angeles Times. “And luck runs out.”

    Living on Shaky Ground is a free magazine prepared by Humboldt Earthquake Education Center at HSU in cooperation with several relevant organizations. They offer valuable advice to prepare, protect and recover from earthquakes and tsunamis. Download and read the PDF magazine on their website today.

    Finally, we would like to remind you that the annual ShakeOut is happening on campus this Thursday, October 19 at 10:19 a.m.

    The Great California ShakeOut is an opportunity to practice how to be safer during big earthquakes. Remember to Drop, Cover and Hold On.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

  • A nuanced way of grading

    A nuanced way of grading

    By | Reza Sadeghzadeh

    Settling for a lower grade is frustrating when you’re trying to get the grade you want. It’s time to get rid of our old, outdated grading structure!

    There is a new way of grading that allows students to get the grade they deserve. It‘s called specification grading. The “specs” grading system has no ambiguities because students will know from the first day of class exactly what grade they will be getting. It sounds too good to be true, but this is how it works.

    The professor will tell their students the first day of class that they must successfully meet a set of specification proposed in the syllabus. For instance, to get an A, the student must write four essays, pass three exams, finish two projects and provide the class with one presentation. If a student could settle for a B, they will have to complete and pass fewer tasks. You get the idea.

    The professor will also give a token to every student so they can use it to redo an incomplete assignment. Additionally, the instructor will provide more assignments and exams than the amount required to get an A. Therefore; students have a chance to redeem themselves if they fail an assignment or test.

    Dr. John Meyer, a Politics professor at Humboldt State University, has experimented with this method of grading.

    “[I] very much liked it,” said Meyer. “It encouraged the class to focus on the things that matter.”

    Further, the students are inclined to apply themselves more in class since they know exactly what it takes to get the grade they want.

    “There’s something wrong with the way we’re grading that isn’t being talked about nearly enough,” said Dr. Linda Nielson, director of the Office of Teaching Effectiveness and Innovation at Clemson University. “Grades [only] account for 2.4% variance of career success.”

    Our current grading structure does not fully correlate with how much we learn. Sometimes the difference between a B+ and an A- comes down to the discretion of a professor. In other words, their final decision may be dogmatic and unfair.

    It is important for a learning institution to acknowledge all of its options. Now is the time to start talking about a new way of grading that will boost our education so we can focus more on learning than worrying about the uncertainty of our grades.

  • Drive right, pass left

    Drive right, pass left

    By | Phil Santos

    If you’re afraid to break the law, then get out of the way so I can. This is what usually runs through my head as I drive on the 101 from Arcata to Eureka. Most of that highway stretch is designated as a “safety corridor” with a speed limit of 50 mph. On any given day, I wouldn’t ever drive that slow, but most of the time I don’t have a choice. This is because drivers on the safety corridor tend to drive side by side the whole way, which makes passing impossible. I call this “double driving.” If they’re not doing that, they hang out in the left lane with no intention of passing anyone. Both of these driving habits are not only agitating, but they also make the safety corridor even more dangerous. (If you haven’t driven on the safety corridor, prepare to be confused – if you have, read on.)

    669A8426
    Cars make their way North through the Eureka Safety Corridor. | Tyler Boydstun

    The 50 mph speed limit is intended to make crossing the highway at any one of the six intersections a bit easier. Slower cars make for easier crossing. It’s pretty intuitive. But there are two problems the speed limit doesn’t fix: poor judgment and a high-pressure 0-50 test. These two issues are compounded by the poor habits I mentioned earlier.

    Crossing the 101 comes with a lot of pressure. You have to wait for a significant break in traffic to truly be safe and this wait can be too much for some drivers. I’ve seen many drivers dart across the 101 as if they had their eyes closed, counting on the reflexes and braking ability of oncoming drivers. If you aren’t sure you’ll make it across safely, just wait. It will be a lot faster than getting into an accident. You can reboot a game of Frogger, but the reality isn’t as resettable.

    Additionally, you sometimes have to cross one side of the highway and are forced to merge into the fast lane. This is primarily a mandated 0-50 test where you don’t get enough space to get up to speed. This creates a situation where drivers merge into the fast lane at inferior speeds. The result is rapid hard-braking and rapid lane- changing, which encourages accident conditions.

    Poorly judged crossings and inadequate mergers can be made safer by following the golden rule of driving: drive right, pass left. When people “double drive,” they block visibility for drivers who are trying to cross the highway because you can’t see down either lane. Poor visibility facilitates a poor judgment. This is alleviated when the left lane is clear, giving a crosser an avenue to look down at the oncoming traffic. Additionally, if the left lane is left open, oncoming drivers can use it to allow other vehicles to enter the highway. As for inadequate mergers into the left lane, the same sentiment applies. When drivers leave the left lane open, crossing a highway and merging into the left lane at inferior speeds becomes easier and safer, because there are fewer cars to compete with.

    The golden rule also lets idiots like me break the law by the mph without having to juke left and right. But more importantly, it reduces the potential for road rage. The most dangerous driver isn’t a fast driver, it’s an angry driver. Road rage continues to become more common and more fatal. “Double driving” and left lane loitering trigger road rage like no other. This is from observation, not experience. Merging over could legitimately keep you from becoming a victim of violence.

    I recognize that I’m complaining about not being able to speed on a stretch of highway where countless people have died in fatal accidents. But ultimately, I am always thinking about the safety of the people around me. I’m not the only one who has spoken out against the safety corridor or the drivers on it. The safety corridor was meant to be a temporary measure. Most of the intersections are going to be closed off. The ones that remain open will utilize on ramps or traffic lights. But funding for this project is now in question and we might be stuck with the six-mile sloth lanes for a while. In the meantime, if you’re not going to move over so I can speed by, at least do so to cool the head of a stranger. Say it with me: “Drive right, pass left.”

  • Recycling isn’t working

    Recycling isn’t working

    Recycling is not as sustainable as you might think. It has become a wasteful movement that was beneficial during the early stages of the environmental movement. Now the cost outweighs the satisfaction we get out of recycling.

    “Recycling has been relentlessly promoted as a goal in and of itself: an unalloyed public good and private virtue that is indoctrinated in students from kindergarten through college,” wrote John Tierney, journalist and self-described “contrarian” for the New York Times. “As a result, otherwise well-informed and educated people have no idea of the relative costs and benefits.”

    To put it in another way, most recycling advocates are unaware of the cost of transportation, labor and production of renewable materials that ultimately defeats the purpose of saving the planet.

    Recyclers are validated by the collective consciousness of fellow believers. They don’t realize the wastefulness that occurs after rolling the recycling bin to the curb. Why did things get worse? The short answer is the success of an ongoing marketing campaign that resonates with a growing population of millennials and aging liberals.

    Since the advent of the “Reduce, Reuse, Recycle” idea, recycling received the most attention. Why? Because there’s barely any money in reducing or reusing. If you think about it, recycling starts its capitalistic cycle from our wallets to the bins or recycling centers, then to the manufacturing plants, the businesses and back to burning a hole in our pockets.

    So, there you have it, reduce consumption and reuse your renewable materials. Buy used products and learn how to repair them if they break. Borrow, rent or share if you can. The point is to reduce the disadvantages of recycling that is practiced by too many people and apply smarter solutions to climate change. If enough of us consume less and reuse more, the act of recycling can reclaim its integrity. It’s all about balance.

     

     

     

  • Beat the gun

    Beat the gun

    People lose sight of the bigger picture when mass shootings occur.

    Gun owners and non-owners sound off their views on the internet to a great extent with little to no common ground. If we were to look at a Venn diagram between the two groups, mutual understanding would barely overlap. Further, conspiracies about multiple shooters in Las Vegas or debating about what is statistically the worst mass shooting in U.S. history is pointless. Let’s focus on the fact that dozens of people got murdered by a domestic terrorist who managed to smuggle an armory of military-style rifles into his hotel room.

    Our opinions are divided about banning guns versus preserving the right to keep and bare arms. Politicians understand this dichotomy well and use public opinion to leverage their gun policies. The fruitless arguments stop over a short period of time and we fall back to a desensitized state. Sure enough, another mass shooting breaks out and gun control becomes the hot topic of discussion again.

    Nothing effective is being done about gun violence when we offer our warmest condolences or disagree with each other on social media. Real change comes from taking action. Stricter gun laws won’t eradicate violence, but the permissive policies we have now aren’t stopping our mass shootings epidemic.

    “It’s important to note that people’s beliefs about the causes of mass shootings are one thing; the reality can be quite another,” said Tania Lombrozo, contributor to Cosmos and Culture NPR blog. “Policies should be informed by what we know about what actually does and doesn’t reduce gun violence, not by surveys of what people believe.”

    Gun owners and non-owners should engage with policy makers starting in their community. Attend town hall meetings and speak up. If each city takes persistent action to change gun laws, our nation may have a better chance of reducing mass shootings. We are the constituents of real change.

  • North Korea = no worry

    North Korea = no worry

    By | Philip Santos

    Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un should be best friends. When I read about escalating tensions between Trump and Kim, I can’t help but see two short, chubby kids fighting over who gets to play in the sandbox. The sandbox tale typically ends with a long-lasting friendship after two people discover how much they have in common. Trump and Kim both employ inflammatory statements, exaggerate oppositional views, resort to strong arm tactics and utilize name calling on a regular basis. This is why U.S. relations with North Korea have become so frightening. We have two similar archetypes locked into a childish war of words, which is precisely why we don’t need to go bunker shopping just yet.

    North Korea agreed to abandon “all nuclear weapons and existing programs” in 2005 during what was called the “six-party talks.” Clearly, that didn’t happen, but it shows us that the polar extreme of today’s situation wasn’t so long ago. More recently in 2015, North Korea agreed to suspend nuclear testing in return for the cessation of the annual U.S.-South Korea joint-military exercises. The U.S. rejected that offer. The takeaway from this is that North Korea has come to the table before, and I think that will continue to be the case.

    What has pushed North Korea away from the negotiating table and into the war room is what we see Trump doing today: name calling and ridiculing. Former president Bush labeled North Korea as part of the “axis of evil,” The Interview portrayed the plotted assassination of Kim and now Trump has gone and said we would “totally destroy” North Korea. These events prompted displays of aggression by North Korea, ranging from withdrawal from disarmament talks to testing missiles. The common theme amongst these events is that they were reactionary and some might even say defensive. The U.S. has “totally destroyed” North Korea once before during the Korean War.

    Curtis LeMay, head of the U.S. Air Force Strategic Air Command during the conflict, would later boast in an article from the Guardian that the U.S. bombing campaign killed about 20% of the population.

    “We went over there and fought the war and eventually burned down every town in North Korea,” LeMay said.

    When the President trumpets about “totally destroying” North Korea, he’s rubbing the pain of history into a wound that hasn’t ever healed. If Trump can keep a lid on statements like that, we’ll be just fine.

    I feel a bit crazy for thinking this, but I think North Korea’s actions are somewhat rational. First consider that, as previously mentioned, the U.S. has demolished North Korea before. The track record since then doesn’t get any better – U.S. weapons have become more powerful and plentiful as a result of endless decades of war. Secondly, the U.S. has a long history of foreign intervention, even when there weren’t necessarily direct threats. I have a book called Killing Hope by William Blum that examines every U.S. Military and CIA intervention since World War II. It was printed in 1995 and has a chapter for each country the U.S. has intervened in. There are 55 chapters. Kim isn’t irrational for being weary of the U.S. His hostility makes a lot of sense. I find these indicators of ration as reasons for relief, because I think Kim understands that any attack on his part would result in the destruction of his country. For that reason, I don’t see him authorizing an attack on foreign countries.

    So why all the showmanship then? Well, the kid throwing a tantrum wants to be heard. Having nuclear power means you have more to say at the table and it might be the only way for North Korea. It may be savvy of U.S. to take North Korea out of corner time, sit down with them to hear their side and maybe even apologize for the hurt that’s been done. But can you see Trump, a man who still eats well done steaks swimming in ketchup, changing his nature to make this possible? I think he’s a playground bully who’d rather see the sandbox filled than change or apologize – and that is what we need to be afraid of.

     

  • Where’s our legal protection?

    Where’s our legal protection?

    By | Reza Sadeghzadeh

    There is a health center on campus for students, but there is no place on campus for students to go to when they have a legal issue.

    So many students have to deal with greedy landlords, careless employers and lousy customer service. If that’s not enough, some students are now facing racist immigration policies.

    We are here to receive a higher education and hopefully be able to build a career from the experiences we gain.

    Instead, some of us have to deal with external forces like housing and employment that spoil our learning ability.

    There is no plausible reason for a student to be homeless and the University ought to find the root of this problem. More likely than not, homeless students are financially capable of paying rent, but landlords discriminate against some applicants.

    The prejudice doesn’t stop there. It’s not just issues in our community, but throughout our nation. Our government’s approach towards immigration is not only racist, but it is also detrimental to our University due to our lack of diversity.

    We as a University must act now!

    One of our most powerful preemptive recourses in dealing with these external forces is establishing a legal center. We need a place on campus ready to help students with their legal issues so they can worry less and focus more on their academia.

    We live in an isolated area with limited legal services and it would cost students an arm and a leg to seek legal counseling.

    Luckily, there are some compassionate attorneys in our community who are willing to help. But it is our responsibility to create an organization so we can have access to legal services.

    The creation of a legal center should be one of the main goals of Associated Students and it is a bit disappointing that we have not created a mechanism that provides legal remedies for those in need.

    The time is now! We must act immediately to create a legal center for the sake of student success.

     

  • Drink smart

    Drink smart

    If we’re going out for drinks, we need to follow some rules for our own good. All work and no play makes a Lumberjack dull. Okay, that’s not exactly how the saying goes, but the truth is many people want to get buzzed after a long week. The major downside to this reality is that trouble usually follows where drunkards go. Petty fights, alcohol poisonings and sexual assaults are some of the ramifications of irresponsible partying.

    Some of the ways people de-stress are exercising, playing video games or binge-watching shows on Netflix. The list goes on, but drinking alcohol remains one of the most popular ways to take a load off. This ritual isn’t going to stop, especially for college students. As long as we go out to bars or parties, the odds of putting ourselves in precarious situations are high. So, we present to you practical guidelines to protect yourself.

    First of all, don’t drink on an empty stomach. You’re more likely to wind up blacked out, in jail or the hospital by avoiding this step.

    Drink in moderation and know your limits. In other words, listen to your body. If you’re tipsy, it’s probably in your best interest to take a break and hydrate than giving in to more booze.

    Be mindful of leaving your drink unattended, because they might get drugged. This applies especially to those who believe that placing a coaster over their glass will prevent any harm.

    Establish a buddy system with trustworthy friends and try to stick together. If you stray from your friends, don’t go home with someone you don’t know. Remember that the bartender or bouncer’s job is to help their patrons, so don’t hesitate to ask for help.

     

     

     

     

  • Word on the street: Trump’s response to Las Vegas shooting

    Word on the street: Trump’s response to Las Vegas shooting

    Thirty-two floors above the crowd, a shooter opened fire on thousands of people gathered for the Route 91 country festival in Las Vegas, Nevada on Sunday, Oct. 2 Paddock killed approximately 59 people and injured at least 520. Paddock was a Caucasian male and a retired accountant living in Mesquite, Nevada.

    President Donald Trump responded to the casualty on Monday morning. Instead of addressing the reoccurring issue and the nation’s problem with gun laws, Trump said “we are all looking for some light in the darkness. The answers do not come easy.”

    Additionally, Trump has been less than sympathetic towards the United States territory of Puerto Rico, which was severely impacted by Hurricane Maria. Since then, Trump has continuously denied any problems with Puerto Rico relief efforts, as many parts of the island still remain without running water, gasoline or basic necessities. Trump recently visited Puerto Rico on Tuesday.

    In the wake of a crisis, the President’s response is crucial. Whether President Trump responded accordingly is debatable, however. We asked Humboldt State University students what they thought of Trump’s response.

    Question: “What do you think of Trump’s reaction to the Las Vegas shooting on and his plan to visit Las Vegas on Wednesday?”

    “He has left Puerto Rico as they are and put them on the back burner. I don’t think visiting is what he needs to be focusing on, when he has taken as much money from the NRA as he has, that’s where he needs to be looking for a change.” – Macy Suchan, 21, Communication, Senior

    LN_Shooting_MacySuchan.JPG
    Macy Suchan, 23-year-old senior at HSU stands in front of the half-staff flag on Oct.2 2017. Photo credit: Lora Neshovska

    “I don’t like his demagogic use of Twitter instead of another media outlet. The shooter was portrayed as many other white perpetrators in the news, a ‘lone wolf.’” – Quinn Bornemann, 21, English, Senior

    LN_SHooting_Wren_Broekema.jpg
    Wren Broekeama, a 22-year-old graduate student majoring in Academic Research says Trump showed the ability to respond quickly but only in chosen instances. Photo credit: Lora Neshovska

    “This showed his ability to respond with swiftness, he just chooses not to respond to other disasters, which is not presidential at all.” – Wren Broekema, 22, Academic Research, Graduate Student

    “I think he’s so quick to respond because he wants to justify the action, the keep the “American” image. It’s like anyone who isn’t white is bad and whoever is white is justifiable.”- Romero Perez, 20, Environmental Resources Engineering, Sophomore

    “It bothers me that the media is not referring to this white male as a terrorist.” Kammi Loyd, 18, Psychology, Sophomore

    LN_Shooting_FranciscaCrutchfield.JPG
    Education graduate student, Francisca Crutchfield says Trump has lots of financial and corporate power in Las Vegas, a possible reason he was so quick to respond to the Oct. 2 fatality. Photo credit: Lora Neshovska

    “I can assume Trump has a lot of corporate and financial connections and power in Las Vegas. This is a pretty direct issue, unlike the hurricanes that involve a lot of problem-solving so it’s an issue that he can touch on without getting too involved with.” – Francisca Crutchfield, 27, Education, Graduate Student

  • Get your facts straight

    By | Matthew Hable

    You, the reader, have a moral responsibility to verify the truth when it comes to news. Fake news is everywhere and much of it has to do with the fact that the average person can be a journalist these days. Millions of bloggers and social media users distribute biased, inaccurate and partial information. Add bipartisan news organizations to the mix and we have ourselves a flood of conflicting information inundating our lives every day.

    The Society of Professional Journalists says that an ethical journalist “strives to ensure the free exchange of information… is accurate, fair and thorough.”

    A good journalist aims to report objective information that has been carefully verified. Readers should do the same. If you dig deep enough, you’re likely to discover that the source of a story has media bias. By understanding the motive behind the story, the reader can make a better decision about sharing information. To put it another way, don’t immediately accept news for its face value.

    It’s also worth mentioning that objectivity does not necessarily mean taking a neutral stance.

    “Because the journalist must make decisions, he or she is not and cannot be objective. But journalistic methods are objective,” said Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, authors of “The Elements of Journalism.”

    Verifying the truth is one way to combat fake news. Go over the Code of Ethics on the Society of Professional Journalists website to gain a better understanding of ethical journalism.

    “The first task of the new journalist/sense maker is to verify what information is reliable and then order it so people can grasp it efficiently,” said Kovach and Rosenstiel. Our responsibility is “to provide citizens with the tools they need to extract knowledge for themselves from the undifferentiated flood or rumor, propaganda, gossip, fact, assertion and allegation the communications system now produces.”

  • Lucky just won’t cut it

    Lucky just won’t cut it

    By | Phillip Santos

    I want to be a Snowflake, not a Lumberjack! Imagine the announcer’s voice rolling over the Redwood Bowl, “And here comes the Humboldt State Snowflakes!” What a better mascot to represent Humboldt State. It’s better than a term used by conservatives to make fun of us sensitive liberals. If you think this is absurd, then we need to talk about Lucky the Lumberjack.

    Almost 60 years ago the Lumberjack was selected as HSU’s mascot. It made sense historically as logging was still a major practice in the area. Times have changed and Lucky the Lumberjack just doesn’t make sense anymore. It’s time to pick another mascot. Electing a new mascot could be a move towards strengthening HSU’s message of environmental responsibility and promoting gender inclusion. It would also be a fun opportunity to keep Humboldt State relevant to contemporary times.

    When I see Lucky the Lumberjack, I see the legacy of lumberjacks. Lucky represents the unchecked destruction wrought by the timber boom. Most of the area around us was once a redwood forest. What we know as the Arcata Community Forest is what was allowed to grow back. Enshrining the legacy of lumberjacks by having it as a mascot directly counters the sentiment of environmental stewardship that HSU represents. If you think the image of a lumberjack is flexible, I challenge you to imagine Lucky the Lumberjack chaining himself to a tree to keep it from being cut down. It just doesn’t work; it’s comical.

    Lucky the Lumberjack is a presumably buff and bearded white man, but I have a question. What do you call a female lumberjack? The lack of an answer to this question shows us that Lucky the Lumberjack promotes the classic white male archetype. In a society which seems to be promoting gender inclusion and deconstruction of patriarchy and toxic masculinity, Lucky the Lumberjack needs to go because he reinforces all of those things.

    Finally, let’s talk about why this would be fun. Electing a new mascot would be an exciting way to update the relevance of HSU’s mascot. I am not saying that history doesn’t matter, but rather emphasizing that it’s perfectly fine to move away from reinforcing a history (through our mascot) that is destructive and undesirable. We are not confined to the past.

    It’s funny to think about us as the HSU Snowflakes, but what’s wrong with funny? Think of the endless possibilities that could become our mascot: a cannabis plant, an oyster or a space cat. You get the idea! If you have an idea for a new mascot, let us know at thejack@humboldt.edu and we’ll put together an online poll. Vote Snowflakes!

     

  • Let’s talk about gender pronouns

    The transgender community has more important things to worry about than correcting common misconceptions about their personal identity. Violent hate crimes and discrimination in healthcare and employment are just a few examples of the problems transgender people face. If you want to be an ally to transgender people, start by using their preferred pronouns.

    If you want to ask which pronouns people prefer, “don’t ask questions out of nowhere,” said Kai Lassen, a 21-year-old Theatre Arts student at HSU.

    The better thing to do is to listen. If they don’t reveal their pronouns and the topic of conversation is not relevant to gender identity, there’s no point in asking.

    A well-intentioned mistake people often make is assuming that all transgender women prefer the pronouns “she,” “her” or “hers.” The same assumption applies to transgender men for “he,” “his” or “him.” Some transgender men and women prefer the singular “they,” “them” or “theirs.”

    “If you’re unsure… it’s polite to use ‘they’ or ‘them’ than to hazard a guess and being rude,” said Wren Broekema, a 22-year-old Psychology student at HSU.

    Also, if a trans person corrects your assumption about their identity, don’t take it personally. Remember that their identity is more important than your ego.

    It’s also worth noting that not all transgender people are comfortable with disclosing their gender identity. If necessary, ask them which pronouns they prefer to use in private.

    Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) says that publicly “outing” a transgender person can have a negative impact on their “… jobs, housing, friends, or even their lives when other people find out about their gender history.”

    On a final note, your friends are more than just their gender. You wouldn’t introduce a friend to someone by mentioning their ethnicity. You would just say their name. You also wouldn’t say things like “my best friend is [fill in ethnicity].” That would make you smug, not holier-than-thou. The same idea applies to introducing or referencing transgender people.

  • California Cap and Trade: Climate Problems Solved?

    By | Ciara Emery

    As hundreds of bills sit on Governor Jerry Brown’s Desk for signature at the end of this legislative session, a cap and trade extension prevails as a win…for some.

    A ten-year extension to California’s landmark carbon market was approved in the middle of July this year—four years after its initial passage in 2013.

    California’s carbon market consists of caps on carbon emissions to certain sectors of the economy and includes the ability to trade allowances to meet emissions targets. These targets get smaller every year.

    The idea is simple: industries and businesses that remain under their emissions limits will be awarded with extra income from the sale of their extra allowances. Industries that are not under their emissions limits will be penalized with the extra costs of their pollution.

    This market-method of climate change mitigation is a bipartisan step forward on the path towards sustainability—with a few hiccups that is.

    While several assembly Republicans in California voted for the measure, it was far from bipartisan. No more than one month after the vote, Republicans ousted the Assembly Republican Caucus Leader, Chad Mayes, in an upset party vote. His discretion? Allowing eight caucus members to side with Democrats in favor of the measure.

    Republicans argue that concessions such as these allow Democratic legislators off the hook on tough votes. Three Democrats, including Assemblyman Mark Stone who represents the cities of Santa Cruz and Monterey, were able to vote no and avoid any wrath from tough districts.

    Republicans would also like to fall in line with national GOP stances and oppose the measure for its seemingly anti-business policies and tax-like features.

    While this debate rages on the right, the same amount of conflict has risen on the left.

    Environmental justice advocates largely find this extension a loss for low-income communities and communities of color. These communities are overwhelmingly more impacted by pollution from the sale of extra allowances than more affluent communities in California.

    While several initiatives attempt to respond to this inequality (AB 617 also passed this session, which attempts to address issues of air quality), large scale problems persist.

    California is continuously hailed as a national leader for Climate Change policy. In many cases, we act with fervor where others do not. But we still have significant conflicts to grapple with.

    California Republicans must figure out which side of history their party wants to stand on. Democrats need to commit to environmental justice concerns. The climate should not be better for some, it needs to be better for all.

  • An alumnus perspective on being Lumberjack football player

    An alumnus perspective on being Lumberjack football player

    Over the last few weeks, a lot of rumor, fear and misinformation have been circling about the possible loss of Lumberjack football next year. As a 40 year old alumnus and former football player, I felt it is important to share my perspective on what it meant to be a student athlete, and more importantly, a student athlete at Humboldt. I speak from my perspective, however I would imagine many other guys feel the same way. I think this is important for three main reasons.

    First, to let the administration know how much that Redwood surrounded stadium and campus means to all of the alumni. Secondly, to offer perspective to the student body and community who may not be football fans. Finally and most importantly, to publicly ask for answers from the administration that is making this decision.

    All alumni have different levels of involvement with the program. My personal involvement is of course as a fan, but also as a booster. I have always tried to support the program when I can and always will. I proudly share my alma mater in my living room with my 6 year old son just about every Saturday in the fall. So at 40 years of age, with kids, wife, a demanding career, why such a die-hard connection? The answer is simple; pride and connection. I am proud of where I went to school, I am proud to have worn Humboldt State on my chest for 21 Saturdays, I am proud of the work I put in with Drew to prepare myself, I am proud to share my university with my children. Most importantly, I am connected. I am connected to men who did the same thing as I. I am connected to these men for life. I am connected to men from Compton, Santa Rosa, San Diego, Hawthorne, Eureka, and Reno. I am connected to men from a myriad of backgrounds that I would have never known had it not been for football. I now realize this is what matters. Yes, winning games is important and feels great. As you get older, what will become more important are the relationships you have built. One thing is certain, as a student athlete you will build relationships with people from backgrounds you would otherwise never be connected to. As a professional in a highly-competitive field that has made a great impact on my life for the better, I have been outside of my comfort-zone. I am able to appreciate other world perspectives. I have shared in different peoples life experiences. I don’t want that valuable opportunity erased from campus.

    So with such positive experiences why is there talk of cutting football? We are being told budget. Well, according to the research study commissioned by the school, cutting football would not relieve the budget issues. Why are athletics not budgeted out of the general fund? We are being told enrollment is down. Why are there 1,500 applications not being looked at? By no means do I claim to be a CSU budget expert, none of us are. So why isn’t the administration having a public forum to discuss the possible loss of an obviously beloved part of the community? Are they looking at better ways to budget? Are we actively seeking out corporate sponsorships? Can athletics do a better job of reaching out to alumni? Why is attendance at football games being underreported? These are all great questions. Why are there no answers? I don’t have the answers, unfortunately those that do remain silent or give noncommittal statements. I would like something from the AD and President as to what the plan is. Is the plan to cut the program and they’re too cowardly to admit it now? Are they looking at ways to budget correctly? I don’t know, we don’t know, I am frightened they may not know.

    I am not a professional writer, I am not a seasoned College administrator, I am a former mediocre college athlete who loves his Green and Gold brothers, and loves his University. My goal in writing this is to try and let those understand the importance my college experience has played in my live. Learning how to compete, how to work, coping with failure, instilling empathy for different life experiences. All of these things have made me a better person. College is about academics but it is also about learning to be a better person. I ask you to evaluate the importance of football not on your love for the game but on your appreciation for the importance of connection. I ask that all my brothers, the community, boosters, students, stand up and speak and fight any attempt to erase this program. I ask the administration to communicate with us. Involve us in the process, let us help, we want to fight with you not against you.

    Respectfully,

    Jarrod Klein

    Class of 2000

    GO JACKS!!!!!

  • Not going down without a fight!

    I hope that this letter reaches all of my former Humboldt State teammates, former Jacks that have worn the Green and Gold and all of the Lumberjack supporters out there. I will be sending this letter on to Dr. Lisa Rossbacher along with the rest of the leaders on the HSU campus and in the CSU. Football won’t be cut from Humboldt State without a fight.

    This past week some awful news, news that many inside the Humboldt State Athletic Department and University have known about and anticipated for years, was released. Instead of the focus being on the Humboldt State football team going on the road and taking down the No. 8 team in the country, rival Azusa Pacific, it was on whether there will be a football program in two short months. The outcry and response from the news that I have seen through multiple news outlets will hopefully force the administration to pause and think again before they make this decision.

    First, to be clear, there is not a financial problem at Humboldt State, there is a leadership problem, starting at the top. Having known about the financial shortfall that was coming when the current President took the job, she has only let it grow and has lacked the decisive decision-making that is required of the position. HSU spent tens-of-thousands of dollars to bring in a consulting firm to help advise her in the process of finding solutions to the current financial problem which she COMPLETELY THREW OUT and ignored. She has also postponed making a decision several times which has continued to let the deficit grow.

    The President said a year ago that the “Humboldt State University strategic plan is focused on four key areas: supporting student success, providing a welcoming environment for our diverse community, ensuring that we have the resources needed to fulfill our educational mission, and expanding partnerships, both on- and off-campus.” In what ways will cutting the most successful program on campus be beneficial in serving your strategic plan?

    How is cutting athletic programs, specifically football, in line with your strategic plan for the University, which INCLUDES athletics. Getting rid of football is harming students and their pursuit of receiving a degree. It gets rid of the diversity that our University desperately needs that football provides and also will damage partnerships and relationships that have been cultivated over the past decades. There are countless donors and supporters that support the Athletic programs because of the impact sports has on student-athletes.

    Coming from a small town in North Bend, Washington, Humboldt State football helped build me into the man I am today. The relationships I made, the people I met, the lessons I learned are all 100 percent attributed to the Humboldt State football program. Coming from a high school that lacked diversity, I was thrown a major curve ball when I arrived in 2011 to a locker room that had players from every corner of the west coast. Oakland, Sacramento, Rocklin, San Diego, Poway, Compton, Los Angeles, you name it. I was able to meet, bond, connect, and work with individuals that I can now call my teammates and brothers FOR LIFE even though we all came from entirely different backgrounds. We all shared a common goal. No where else on campus does a group of students come together like they do in college athletics.

    A current report states that there are only 281 (3.41 percent) Black or African American students at Humboldt State University. How are you promoting diversity when a high number of these students are involved with college athletics? There is no question that this group is under-served and not represented properly at Humboldt State and in our community. How is cutting Humboldt State football and athletic teams helping with your strategic plan in promoting diversity when it does the complete opposite?

    Most importantly through this ugly situation, what about the kids? What about the coaches that may lose their jobs and their families? Announcing this decision in November will only allow students one month to find new homes before the start of the spring semester as they will no longer be able to pursue their goals and passion in college athletics at Humboldt State. You are in a position to SERVE our students. Announcing this decision in November may be what’s best for you and your colleagues, but don’t forget WHY you have a job and WHO’S best interest you should be considering. The fact that this news broke in the middle of another historical football season at HSU is beyond inappropriate and unprofessional.

    I have seen the number of “around 200-250 students” will transfer from the University if football is dropped. I believe that number is a low estimate as that is only the number of student-athletes that will be leaving. This does not include the other students at Humboldt that came because of football and the other athletic programs as they wanted to be a part of the special community too. With struggling enrollment that is showing no signs of improving, how is getting RID of more students going to help? The athletic teams continue to fill their rosters to the maximum number, what good is it to get rid of the schools best recruiters?

    What about Arcata and Humboldt County? Only five times a year do 7,000 and more people come together in the community and it is on Saturday nights in the Redwood Bowl. What will Homecoming weekend be like without football? What purpose will the weekend serve if it is not highlighted by a football game in the Redwood Bowl? The sense of community and togetherness that the football program and Humboldt athletics brings can not and should not be underestimated. It should also be noted the potential financial impact that HSU athletics and the football program has for the community, what about the local businesses?

    When you add the tens of thousands of dollars spent on the Strategic Edge Report, the hundreds of thousands of dollars missing from IRA fees of the “missing” students that were projected to be attending the University, and another $58,000 in the form of a cancelled Pepsi sponsorship, you have have over $250,000. Yes, with the major financial hole, the leaders on campus elected to not renew a sponsorship which had totaled $58,000.

    Seeing the overwhelming support for the program on social media has been special, but changes will have to come from within the University. Just this past spring, all of the Athletic programs were asked to raise money and as football raised over $100,000 which went directly toward athletic scholarships. Football raised their money and a portion of it even went to other teams.

    Before you think about cutting the football program, think about the long-lasting impact it will have on YOUR students, coaches, administrators, community members, local business owners and alumni. Cutting the football program will set the University back years and hundreds-of-thousands of more dollars. Taking the easy way out by simply cutting the “biggest” budget item is lazy, irresponsible and won’t be tolerated. The impact the HSU football program had on myself and so many others including your current student-athletes is irreplaceable and a better solution needs to be found.

    – Taylor Mitchell, Former HSU Football Player

  • Don’t be a creep

    Don’t be a creep

    Grabbing or groping a person without their consent are desperate acts of perversion. The same goes for ogling at someone’s body for too long or texting unsolicited photos. While they may not seem like a big deal, you’re ruining someone’s day to say the least. There is no excuse for sexual harassment.

    Contrary to the sexual harassment case that was reported to the University Police Department this month, many survivors choose not to speak up, especially survivors of rape.

    Allie Jones, 20, is majoring in geography and journalism at HSU. She was harassed and assaulted twice last semester by two different men, both on and off campus. The worst incident involved stalking and attempted rape.

    It took Jones almost a month before calling UPD, yet she disguised her report with hypothetical questions about how to deal with sexual assault. Jones did not get help that day. In fact, she didn’t want help.

    “I realized that I didn’t want to talk about it,” said Jones. “I didn’t want to rehash it… you just want some normalcy, because you just want to move on.”

    Before long, Jones opened up to her friends and accepted their emotional support. She also signed up for Counseling & Psychological Services (CAPS) and credits them for partial recovery.

    Sergeant Janelle Jackson of UPD handles cases of sexual misconduct. She says that sexual harassment is “a burden to hold in.”

    Survivors who don’t speak up are suppressing trauma that may lead to long-term consequences of phobias and chronic stress. If many stories go untold, sexual harassment wins. Speak up in numbers and let your voices be heard.

    If you feel inclined to speak up, there are resources available to you, including North Coast Rape Crisis Team (NCRCT), Sexual Assault Prevention Committee (SAPC) and Campus Assistance Response and Education (CARE).

    Print
    Graphic by Michelle Meyers
  • Use it or lose it

    Use it or lose it

    By | Reza Sadeghzadeh

    Why do people have a love and hate relationship with freedom of speech? Well, first of all, everyone enjoys the privilege to express themselves freely. On the other hand, you might come across some “legally hateful” speech. Yes! The law protects hateful speech unless such speech grants a “clear and present danger.” So how do you deal with legally hateful speech?

    You don’t want to condemn hateful speech by restricting the speaker. Instead, it’s more compelling to use more speech to condemn hateful rhetoric. It is unwise to restrict a speaker that is using hateful speech because it makes you look weak.

    It would be wise to use more speech to persuade and enlighten those who use hateful rhetoric. To do this, you must first find out why that individual is using hateful speech. This is the most crucial aspect of using more speech because that’s how you start a healthy dialog. The ability to listen critically is important in this phase of your interaction.

    It’s also important not to interrupt the speaker when finding some points of dispute. Instead, keep in mind what you would refute regarding their rhetorical reasoning to deflate the hate in their speech when it is your time to talk.

    Once you get to know that individual and understand why they use hateful speech, the second phase is explaining why such hateful speech is hurtful and offensive to you. Before you explain your reasoning, it is helpful to briefly introduce yourself. Further, do not be afraid to expose your scars, meaning the struggles you have dealt with throughout your life. People understand what it’s like to struggle, but they might not be aware of your problems. It is important to have this type of dialog so that others know where you are coming from. Ultimately, the process of using more speech would tunefully condemn hateful rhetoric.

    The final step is to establish some commonality with those who use hateful language. This should be easy because humans have so much in common with one another. However, we are unaware of it due to the contemporary state of mass media and modern political rhetoric of “divide and conquer.”

    It’s unfortunate that it takes a major crisis for humans to understand their connection and dependency on each other. We need each other to survive and thrive.

    We do not experience many hateful speeches on our campus, but eventually, we will graduate and become a part of the workforce. Eventually, we will be confronted with hate speech or antithetical ideologies and hopefully, you can use your knowledge to create amicable solutions. Last, I would encourage you to take full advantage of the resources provided by our university to improve your communications skills. Like joining the debate team, student body of government or the university senate.

  • The fight must continue

    The fight must continue

    We need to continue to fight for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. We need to continue to fight for the hundreds of thousands of young people whose lives are in jeopardy. Young people who were brought to this country as infants are now being told that they have to go back to a country they know nothing about.

    Nearly 100 students at HSU are being told that they cannot continue their education because they are not U.S. citizens. They have no choice. Former President Obama said that these young people are American citizens in many ways but one ― on paper.

    Under D.A.C.A., 95 percent of recipients were working or going to school and 54 percent had bought their first car. We cannot let Congress take away the opportunities that D.A.C.A. gives to these young individuals.

    Get involved. M.E.Ch.A., Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, is a great club on campus that’s promotes political involvement and change in their society. M.E.Ch.A. is planning events to continue the fight for D.A.C.A. The Latinx Center for Academic Excellence is a great place to find support for allies and D.A.C.A. recipients. For D.A.C.A. recipients, share your stories. For allies, tell the stories of all those individuals who are a part of D.A.C.A.

    Follow activists groups and organizations on social media. Stay involved. We cannot let Congress take opportunities away from D.A.C.A. individuals.

  • Stick it to the statue!

    Stick it to the statue!

    By | Philip Santos

    Don’t be silly. Smashing a statue will never change the past. What’s done is done; history is history, right? The problem with this sentiment is that which history is history depends on who you ask. If you ask an average citizen why the U.S. dropped two atomic bombs on civilians in Japan, their response would probably be: “To win the war.” Turn to someone else and they might say, “It was to send a message – that we will do this to you if we want to.” Those are two versions of an infamous event that are very different from one another, yet both can be true either separately or simultaneously.

    Statue1_Web.jpg
    The statue of former United States president William McKinley stands in the middle of Arcata Plaza. The statue was erected in 1906 and has been at the center of controversy. Photo credit: Diego Linares

    Statues memorialize people and events which will always remind us that one thing can have a variety of meanings. How do we reconcile the fact that the Founding Fathers are seen primarily as the harbingers of democracy by some, yet are simultaneously documented as perpetrators of genocide? I’m just a simpleton student working on my undergrad, but I think I have an idea: find a way to tell the truth. While truth is complicated, that is no justification for promoting a lie. And most statues are liars. A statue is lying when it’s preserved in a way which forwards a fraction of its historic context. Most statues meet this criteria. So how do we get a statue to tell the truth? We supplement the story by bolstering one-sided narratives with previously erased histories. Where there is a statue of George Washington, let it be known that he was also known as “town destroyer” by the Iroquois Confederacy. Where there is a statue of William McKinley, let it be known that he authorized the annexation of Hawaii, and Guam, and Samoa, and Puerto Rico.

    Statue3_Web.jpg
    The statue of former United States president William McKinley stands in the middle of Arcata Plaza. Photo credit: Diego Linares

    When we take the time to understand that history is complex, it becomes easier to understand the same is true of us. We are complex, more than simple terms like “racist” or “liberal.” Statues are no different, but unlike us they cannot speak for themselves, which is why we need to take the rest of history and stick it to the statue.