‘Arch a space for reflection’, other letters

To the Editors:

The Memorial Arch was built in 1903 by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, a Boston-based evangelical organization, to commemorate the deaths of the American missionaries (10 of whom were from Oberlin) and their families killed during the ‘Boxer’ Uprising of 1900. Oberlin Shansi was formed to provide financial support for the establishment of schools in China, built in memory of these same missionaries. From the Vietnam era until the present, through consciousness-raising efforts on the part of students, the Arch has come to symbolize the ambiguous relation of the College, Oberlin Shansi, and their related communities to this history.

Oberlin Shansi recognizes that, as a tribute to this past, the Memorial Arch represents only one of many contending narratives. Inscribed with the colorful language of martyrdom, this tribute serves to underline the “other,” to emphasize the barbarity of those who “massacred.” It does not inquire about motives or circumstances. Nor does it speak to the Chinese as victims, in far larger numbers than Westerners. Indeed, most of the Chinese victims remain unremembered, even in the archives. The Memorial Arch does not speak to the purpose of Shansi today.

Emerging from the 19th century social gospel movement that undergirded the founding of Oberlin College, the impulse behind missionary evangelism also gave rise to such social activism as abolitionism and female suffrage. Evangelism and social activism were the intertwined motivations in the founding of Shansi. However, during the nearly hundred-year course of its history, Shansi has reconsidered its purpose several times over. The most recent change occurred in 1972, when a previously existing commitment to promoting “international respect and understanding through Christian education” was changed by its board of trustees to promoting “international respect and understanding.” The reasons for this change are illuminating. To quote then-Shansi chair Professor Lawrence Buell in his report to the trustees, “First, to outsiders both here and in Asia, the term is semantically confusing. It implies a degree of orthodoxy which relatively few people connected with Shansi over the past two decades have actually felt....In the second place, the concept of Christian education carries an implication of moral superiority.” In approving the alteration in its statement of purpose the Oberlin Shansi board of trustees clearly rejected the idea of moral, religious, and cultural superiority.

Oberlin Shansi today believes in the kind of learning that goes on when we are challenged by another culture. We are forced to reconsider what we have thought of as “normal.” It pushes us to reconsider our own values in a new context. This is an opportunity that Shansi wishes to provide to all members of the Oberlin College community.

The College community may yet supply the Arch with a meaning that we can collectively embrace. Meanwhile, perhaps we might consider the function it has served in a new light. During this period, when we are seeing the rise of orthodoxies of all kinds, perhaps the Arch could not serve a more valuable function than the one which has made it such a space of contention. By engaging competing views, it provides us the opportunity for reflection on a morally ambiguous history. In the days preceding Commencement, this time of beginning, what could be more relevant than a reflection on the history that we carry forward into the future? We recognize that, for many, walking around the Arch may be the only legitimate way to express the outcome of their reflection, while others may choose, no less legitimately, to walk through. We encourage everyone to follow their own consciences in making this decision.

–Carl Jacobson
Oberlin Shansi Executive Director
–Anuradha Needham
Professor of English
Shansi Trustee
–Sylvia Watanabe
Professor of Creative Writing
Shansi Trustee

To the Editors:

Through this letter, we, the undersigned wish to reiterate our position in the debate regarding the significance of walking around the Arch at Commencement. This act is a meaningful gesture that reflects our continued commitment to raising awareness and speaking out against the continual marginalization and silencing of non-dominant voices, histories and memories.

In the early 1970s, the disenfranchised, disempowered peoples of this country and their allies took action through the Civil Rights and the anti-war movements. This emerging consciousness empowered these activists to deconstruct structures of power and oppression. As this political engagement gained momentum across the nation, there was an increasing awareness of histories and voices that were silenced by the mainstream. This national phenomenon manifested itself on our campus in many ways. Consequently, allied Oberlin students, faculty and staff began to walk around the Arch as a symbolic critique of Oberlin College’s failure to recognize its missionary history as racist and Eurocentric.

Out of this legacy, walking around the Arch has represented an act of protest against the histories that have been buried, specifically by Western imperialism and expansionism. However, today we acknowledge that the marginalizations of histories also occur within non-Western imperialist contexts.

In light of the many different levels at which oppression occurs within a global context, it is imperative to recognize the multifaceted-ness of histories.

Walking around the Arch signifies that we recognize silenced histories; that we acknowledge the privileges that we have gained within institutional structures that have at times been oppressive and that we do not and cannot divest from these privileges. Most importantly, by walking around we remind ourselves of the responsibilities that accompany these privileges and that we must be proactive in our efforts to deconstruct structures of power that sustain silence and complacency.

We ask the Oberlin campus community to reflect on these meanings of the Arch as Commencement approaches. Walk around the Arch if you wish to acknowledge the thousands of Chinese who dedicated their lives to self-determination. Walk around the Arch as a demonstration of solidarity with individuals whose struggles are often obscured by dominant narratives of history.

–Rashné Limki
College senior
Asian American Alliance
–Gina George
College senior
Asian American Alliance
–Aishe Suarez
College junior
Asian American Alliance

To the Editors:

Each year at Commencement, the Oberlin College Community is given the choice to walk around the Memorial Arch instead of through. The arch, dedicated in 1903, memorializes “...the Oberlin-connected missionaries who lost their lives in the Chinese Boxer Rebellion of 1900.” In doing so, the designers of the Arch failed not only to recognize the thousands of innocent Chinese who also perished during this tumultuous time, but also to consider the impetus of the Boxers’ rebellion and how these missionaries fit into the picture. After years of controversy surrounding the Arch and contemplation encompassing the entire campus, the Senior Class of 1994 decided that they would donate a plaque “in memory of the Chinese citizens killed in the violence of 1900,” which would be added to the Arch.

This plaque, while commendable, should not be seen as a solution to the controversy surrounding the Arch. As always, it is important to remember that one act cannot erase years or even centuries of neglect and ignorance. The history of this structure should not be forgotten because it reminds us that our education is part of a systemic tradition of neglecting alternate, particularly non- Western, histories. Remembering the history of the Arch forces us to realize the fallibility of human memory, to which we are all subject. This realization enables us to understand the necessity of viewing our actions/history through multiple lenses so that others will not be silenced or forgotten.

I ask you to consider walking around the Arch this year as recognition of its history, a commitment to remembering the voices that our history has forgotten and a reflection of the impact that each of our actions has on the world around us. Commencement is the final event as an Oberlin College student before entering the real world. Take a moment to reflect upon who you are, what you have been told and who you want to be when you leave here.

–Tracy Ng
OC ’02 A/PA Community Coordinator

To the Editors:

I am writing in an effort to further problematize the annual campus discourse surrounding the Arch (on Tappan Square), partially in response to what I see as a hypocrisy in A/PA activism at Oberlin. By this I am referring to the community tendency to inflate the importance of the arch in terms of visibility, instead of what I feel are issues more deserving of such attention. In the daily lives of most Oberlin students and community members, the Arch is meaningless. By revisiting its history we disallow its dissolving into historical oblivion. Instead of focusing so much attention on the Arch, modern A/PA activism should concern itself with battling its most harmful forms of racism, the pervasive forms which permeate our daily lives. What are we doing to stop the problematic rhetoric surrounding bi- and multi-racial members, labeling them as only half/part or exoticizing them as “beautiful combinations.” What about the internalized racism that pushes members of the community away from self-identification as such? What about our homophobia and heterosexism? What about the xenophobia of established Asian-American communities against newer immigrants? What about the subversion of anti-racist values as seen in the patterns of “preppy” dress that lead Asian-Americans to wear clothing from one of the nation’s most notorious brands, namely “Abercrombie & Racism”...er, I mean “Fitch?”

Not only this, but as an atheist, and in solidarity with all Asians and Asian-Americans who are members of atheist religions, I am also speaking to the hypocrisy of A/PA people’s conformity to Christian religions. Indeed, I find it disturbing that in our discussion (as, of course, many of our names are taken in vain to speak out against the Arch) of the remnants of colonialism, we neglect to discuss one that holds us to this day the place of Christian religions themselves in our communities. I find it abhorrent that we could ever discuss the detriments of Western cultural imperialism without critiquing and reflecting on Christian proselytization, that we could reject the Arch based on its erasure of our people from its history without rejecting the values that caused the white victims of the Boxer Rebellion to be viewed as martyrs. For, my dear A/PA brothers and sisters, those cultural imperialists who died in the Boxer Rebellion and whose memory is honored in the Arch, died bringing many of us our savior.

All I can say is that I find it near shameful that the annual debauchery created by A/PA students around graduation (so close to finals, no less) is a sad indication of our priorities. On one hand, I have my own religious grounds for not wanting to walk through the Arch, however, I would like to walk through, not out of ignorance, or even complacency, but rather in an effort to normalize and demean the original purpose of what too many consider an assault on pan-A/PA solidarity. I even see another reason to walk through it to normalize its presence and demean its original purpose by solidifying its place on Tappan Square as nothing more than a decoration. Unfortunately, however, I feel that the anti-Arch discourse at Oberlin is monopolized, and worry that if I choose to walk around the Arch it will be out of conformity.

Professor of Religion David Kamitsuka once said that “walking through the Arch is a humane action, it reflects on the moral ambiguity of Oberlin’s missionary history at least for that one day.” Within this poignant observation I would only argue with one thing, that such reflection necessitates walking around the Arch.

–Christopher Dykas

An Open Letter to the Oberlin Community:

We are writing to address the student-led effort to re-enact the “Battle of Nanking,” the last stand of the Taiping Rebellion. In particular, we are urging careful reflection on the part of the event’s participants.

For brief historical background: the Taiping Rebellion (1851-1864) was a civil war in China that cost from 20 to 30 million lives by its end. It is considered one of the bloodiest civil wars in history, with more casualties than the First World War.

Irresponsible participation in war re-enactment risks trivializing the realities of war by relieving participants of any sense of responsibility to the accuracy of this historic event. A focus just on play-fighting glorifies violence, silences victims and neglects to address war’s violent and lasting consequences among its survivors.

If a current or recent conflict were re-enacted in such a fashion (a water balloon fight) would that be acceptable on this campus?

How is a water balloon fight related to the Battle of Nanking? Why reference the battle at all?

We recognize the event and sponsor’s intent of education and respect that aspect of it. We also recognize people’s desire for catharsis and fun. We realize that people will decide to participate in this event for varying initial purposes and reasons; therefore, we urge participants to engage in critical and respectful discussion of violence, war and itsrepresentations.

We ask participants to be conscious of the ability to reconstruct history in a way that may potentially dehumanize the people affected.

And finally, we urge the participants to be critical of cultural appropriation: the privilege of being able to appropriate another culture and history solely for their one’s own benefit.

–Rasha Al Sarraj College senior –Emma Blose College senior Student Labor Action Coalition –Matthew Chen College first-year Chinese Students Association and Asian American Alliance –Susanna Duncan College sophomore Student Labor Action Coalition –Shareef Elfiki College senior OSCA –Melissa Francisco College senior Asian American Alliance –Lee Gargaliano College junior Students for a Free Palestine –Gina George College senior Asian American Alliance –Heather Griffin College senior –Rashné Limki College senior Asian American Alliance

–Rachel Marcus College junior Students for a Free Palestine –Kimberley Meinert College sophomore Asian American Alliance –Ali Najmi College junior –Minh-Tam Nguyen College first-year Asian American Alliance –Brian Pugh College first-year Organizer of Battle of Nanking reenactment –Sarah Schreiber College senior COPAO –Sophia Simon-Ortiz College first-year –Maya Walton College junior Asian American Alliance –Amanda Yee College junior Chinese Students Association Asian American Alliance OSCA Committee on Privilege and Oppression (COPAO)

To the Editors:

As this week draws to a close and our long-awaited event is on its way to fruition, there are a few things that I’d like to remind people of.

First, this event has the sponsorship of a department within the school, and as such, its value as an educational event should not be looked upon lightly. Surely, there will be those of you who come armed with ignorance and water balloons, but it would be far better for all involved if everyone were a bit more enthusiastic about learning of the actual events that inspired our event.

Secondly, this event is not an excuse for you Asiaphiles out there to come decked out in your resplendent attire and pretend that you are Asian. Though we all respect people who love other cultures, everyone needs to be mindful of when it is appropriate for people to express themselves fully. Keep in mind that the event is supposed to foster new awareness of an event in Chinese history that is largely ignored and unknown. It is not an event to foster the continuation of useless stereotypes and people identifying with legacies that they don’t understand. Learn and understand BEFORE you decide you want to appropriate something.

Third, if you’re not already painfully aware, real violence and war is not funny. I hope it isn’t necessary for me to underscore the very REAL and very BRUTAL suffering caused by the violent civil war that this event portrays a small part of.

Fourth, I’m sorry for being so long-winded, but as it is my first time organizing an event of any sizeable significance, I would like it not to be an event that is remembered as a debacle and a fountain of conflict. Don’t get me wrong, the goal is still to have a totally awesome time to start reading period off right, just don’t overdo it, okay?

–Lei Zhao
College first-year
Organizer of Battle of Nanking reenactment

To the Editors:

I am writing about the upcoming Taiping Rebellion “reenactment” scheduled for Saturday. While it is billed as a reenactment, the organizers appear to have made no effort to ensure historical accuracy; indeed, it seems to be planned chiefly as a recreational opportunity to let off steam. Why is it necessary to organize a water balloon fight in which participants play at being Chinese? How is this different from donning fake war bonnets to play cowboys and Indians?

Study breaks are welcome and necessary, especially at this stressful time of year. I urge those who choose to participate in this event to consider the implications of carelessly performing identities which are not their own, to acknowledge that others might rightly read this historically inaccurate and frivolous “reenactment” as insulting and an act of cultural appropriation and finally to realize that political responsibility and fun need not be mutually exclusive.

–Daryl J. Maeda
Assistant Professor of History and Comparative American Studies

To the Editors:

I’d like to thank Karles Saucedo-MaQuade for putting a little sunshine into my life with his sensible letter to the Review pointing out the difference between religious and secular opposition to gay marriage. Perhaps I’m reading the wrong articles, but I’m sick of hearing how all those for/opposed to gay marriage are moral/human rights-destroying fascists going for world domination.

God has apparently told a great number of people a great number of conflicting things on many topics, including marriage, but far be it for me to tell someone they can’t believe whatever the hell they want to, as long as they don’t try to impose those specific beliefs on me or anyone else. Perhaps this is purely theoretical musing, since most politicians seem determined to force their religion on everyone else, or maybe I’m missing some important part of the puzzle, but I’ve had several people of similar political persuasion upset by the idea that just because I don’t agree with, for example, the Catholic church’s policy on gay marriage doesn’t mean I want to force them to change it. So thanks, Saucedo-McQuade, for not falling prey to the boring ranting and name calling that so often fills the commentary page.

And then, on the other hand, you have Barry Garret’s letter, where he rails against being perceived as a bigot and calls for intelligent, open debate, then offhandedly compares gay marriage to beastiality in his “logical, secular” argument against gay marriage (noting that, in addition to gender, marriage is restricted also by species). Yikes. I would like to point out that it is perhaps not the best way to make yourself not look like a bigot, and repeatedly name checking your club does them no favors. I like hearing the other point of view. Dissenting arguments are interesting, and I would really love to think that everyone in the OC Republicans aren’t the illogical, stone hearted, puppy eating religious fanatics that bad stereotypes say they are.

That letter wasn’t perhaps the best example to convince me of that. (Note: I am not saying that Mr. Garret eats puppies, only that I found his argument very unconvincing) Would one of the other club members please write in and prove the stereotypes wrong?

–Desiree Herrera

To the Editors:

I would like to let you know that the students here at Oberlin College were paid over $37,000 last year at this time for their used books. We paid out more money last year than ever before and we want to do it again. With the help from our faculty by turning in their book orders, we hope to increase this number again this year.

Selling used textbooks back to The Oberlin Bookstore is not only a good way for students to get some extra money, it also helps provide an ample supply of less expensive, used textbooks for all students. Here are some guidelines to help make sure everyone can get the best value for their used books:

–The bookstore will buy used books at any time during regular business hours. However, it is almost always better to sell used books at the end of a term. The end of the term is when we have your professor’s book requests for the following term. The books they have requested are “in demand” on our campus, so we can generally pay more for them.–As long as a professor has requested a book for the next term, we’ll pay 50 percent of the new book price if it’s a current edition, as long as the bookstore is not overstocked for that title.–If overstocked or not requested by any professor, we will pay the current price offered by the national used book market for that title. We’re sorry, but out of print or old editions rarely have much, if any, value and we therefore can’t buy them.–All books we purchase must be in good condition — covers and pages intact, no excessive highlighting, underlining or notes. In the case of work books, study guides, etc., the pages must be free of writing.

Keeping these points in mind should help keep any uncertainty about “buyback” to a minimum. I encourage anyone with any questions to please come talk to me at any time.

I wish everyone a rewarding and productive summer.

–Abby Bellis
Oberlin Bookstore Manager
 
 

About us
Subscriptions
Advertising

Previous issue
Older issues

Search powered by