Tuesday marked the second time that I have ever been meaningfully oppressed (my first such experience was, of course, last year’s Tunnel of Oppression). There were some slight differences in this year’s Tunnel (largely, I think, because of my insightful and probing criticism from last year), resulting in what I will consider an upgrade in the Tunnel’s performance, i.e. instead of being completely ridiculous like last year, this year’s Tunnel was only extremely ridiculous. Despite some tweaking around the edges, there was still plenty of absurdity to go around. So, let’s start at the beginning, shall we?

Last year, the Tunnel sported a Harry Potter theme. This year, the theme was Willy Wonka. I commend the Tunnelers for choosing such a theme, as it’s entirely appropriate to the overall context of the Tunnel. Being nothing more than a fantasy of the liberal imagination, the planning committee was spot-on to select Willy Wonka as this year’s sponsor. My only criticism here is the rather obvious lack of chocolate in the Tunnel. After walking under the banner proclaiming the entrance to Willy Wonka’s factory, I was expecting at least a few chocolate bars somewhere along the course of my journey through the Tunnel. A chocolate fountain would have been most excellent, but I’m entirely willing to settle for a few Wonka Bars. Also missing were the demeaning name tags everyone received last year. I had really hoped to be the “Towel Head” in the group again, but was severely disappointed when I learned this part of the tour had been deleted.

We then played the rather odd, “Take One Step Forward if You’re a White, Privileged, Male. Take One Step Back if You’re Anyone Else” game. Unlike last year, I think I nearly won this time. In my alias as an underprivileged Hispanic (by the name of Juan Franco-Seelingez), I was a close second to the black Jamaican guy. Unfortunately I did not anticipate encountering such stiff competition, but I hope to do better next year.

We next passed by a couple of people reciting kvetches from the Daily Tar Heel. I’ll confess that I didn’t quite understand the point of this presentation. I guess the Kvetching Board is oppressive??? Then a homeless man wandering onto the scene, and the Kvetchers “oppressed” him by refusing to give him money. Now, as a rule, I don’t give money to panhandlers. Aside from the dozens of welfare programs that these people could choose to avail themselves of, I’m of the opinion that local charities are much better at determining the needs of such people than I am. The Tunnel’s presentation of the hobo was also misleading. Many bums don’t simply wander up to you (in their brand-new jackets) and amble off when you refuse to give them money. In my experience, they can be quite mean and vile: getting in your face, swearing at you, spitting at you, etc. Not altogether a pleasant experience. The Tunnel’s hobo is quite fictional without any basis in reality, departing with a simple, “Ok, no problem. Have a nice day.” It just doesn’t happen that way.

Next, we wandered into a room that took up the issues of binge eating and the like. This wasn’t particularly interesting one way or the other. Binge eating’s bad, I get that. But then we also have such things as Michelle Obama’s “Move On” campaign and UNC’s own Lifetime Fitness requirement, which for the obese might constitute its own form of oppression. The demonization of anything but a perfect body is not something that is just found in vain Hollywood actors.

Special needs (actually I’m not even sure if I’m allowed to say that) was up next. This was yet another fantasy world dreamed up by Willy Wonka-inspired Tunnelers. In this room, a teacher proctoring an exam refused to allow extra time for the dyslexic student in the room to finish his exam. I don’t know any teacher (or professor) who’s not willing to make accommodations for people with special needs. It’s really just a non-issue for me. The whole scene was contrived.

Next up was the Museum of Religion. The very name of the room was a tip-off, as it implies that religion is some sort of relic of the past. This was the first area of the Tunnel for which I think I can claim responsibility. Considering the way I sandblasted the Tunnel’s presentation of religious believers last year, I think this really goes to show the extent of my power and influence. Instead of outright making fun of Christians, etc. (but mainly Christians), the Tunnelers attempted to present the diversity of religious belief in the world. However, what they accomplished in creating was simply a set of caricatures. Take the Christian as an example. He was a Bible-thumping, Fundamentalist Christian. This fails to appreciate the great diversity of belief among Christians and instead simplifies it down to what is simply a popular mischaracterization of Christians among non-Christians. This occurs while the Muslim girl makes a point about how everyone who’s not Muslim thinks all Muslim women wear burkas. I’m not sure that she appreciated the irony. But then this also seemed like another non-issue (especially if we’re talking about the United States). Sure, there’s still religious discrimination in the world (particularly in, dare I say, Islamic states), but what do the Tunnelers expect us to do? Fly to Iran and tell the mullahs to back off?

We then moved onto what was one of my favorite rooms from last year, the Homophobia Room! I also saw my mark here, as the homophobes (unlike last year) were not carrying Bibles and did not have terribly overt Southern accents. However, there were such classic lines as, “What about AIDS? Aren’t your parents going to be worried?” Because that’s totally the first thing that comes to mind when I meet a gay person. And then there was the not so-veiled criticism of Christians (although, in fairness they could have been invoking Islam, but somehow I doubt that), “Don’t you know what our religion says about these people? That you’re just going to beat them down, [what???] that you’re just an abomination.” I’ll take ignorance for 100 please, Alex. As luck would have it, I happen to be fairly well-versed in what my “religion” says about “these people” (at least on the Catholic side of things). And it’s not, like the Tunnelers suggest that “Gays are bad people.” In fact, it’s quite the opposite. I also don’t think the Tunnelers appreciated the irony of (continuing to) present caricatures of religious groups just after telling us we shouldn’t generalize about religious groups.

We then moved through a TSA security line, where the screeners pulled out all of the Middle Eastern-looking people. Now, like I’ve said before, I have no problem with racial profiling (or profiling in general) in police work. It’s how you eliminate obviously innocent people and narrow down the list of bad guys. Considering that there are armies of Middle Eastern terrorists who would love nothing more than to blow you and me to pieces, I really don’t have any problem with giving them a little extra scrutiny at the airport.

On that subject, following our screening, a group of terrorists herded us into a “gas chamber” and gassed us as we listened to a recording of people being gassed to death. I still believe that this presentation is highly inappropriate as it trivializes some of the most horrific mass-killings of the last century. If the Tunnelers had any respect for the dead, they would drop this.

After listening to two girls talk about relationship violence (which as I mentioned last year, conspicuously omitted any mention of female on male relationship violence), we proceeded to the Diversity Room with Comfy Chairs, where we listened to some of the most confused people I have ever met. Actually, the room might also be entitled the Mental Ward, as no one in the room seemed to know who they were.

(Preface: I apologize for inadvertently filming the ceiling for this section. Being sneaky is harder than it looks). First, we had the throughly confused girl who didn’t want to be placed in a racial “bubble”, but was also freaking out about not being able to fit in with the various racial groups with which she didn’t actually want to identify. As if to make her point, she proclaimed, “[The Egyptians] ask for my passport.” Among a whole list of platitudes, there was this classic line (which I think she stole from an Obama speech), “I am everything I want to be. I am everything I say I am.”  Well… no you’re not. She was quite obviously a woman. Even if she had claimed to be a man, she would still have been a woman (even if some people in the Gender Studies department would contest that). But I think the most bothersome part of this monologue was its sheer hypocrisy. Liberals (and especially UNC’s Admissions Office) obsess over racial identity. I couldn’t care less, but they’re the ones who insist that we all fill out the little racial bubbles on our applications and tests and census forms. Identifying as an American is quite enough for me. I’m not the one obsessing over my racial heritage or demanding reparations for crimes committed against my race. When I look at a person, I don’t see a race. I see a unique person with his own set of skills, talents, ideas, and desires. Liberals, on the other hand, only see arbitrary group identities. So, if you want the source of your “oppression” honey, look in the mirror.

A Racial Bubble

I then had to listen to a black woman complain endlessly about how everyone assumes she’s uneducated because she happens to be black. Of course, she didn’t really do much to help her case with her frequent grammatical slips. She seemed to have a particular issue with adverbs. Consider, “I’m not allowed to speak proper [sic],” or “Just because I speak proper [sic], I’m acting white.” Now, I normally try not to be a grammar Nazi, but if you’re going to make a big deal about how you’re educated and you speak like the white people, you might want to proofread your speech a few times. Just a suggestion. Also, her point about how BET is a true representation of “her people” was also really funny. If you remember, in the 2009 Virginia Governor’s race, the co-founder of BET, Sheila Johnson, endorsed the Republican, Bob McDonnell. Considering that the black vote is overwhelmingly Democrat, I guess the point of the Angry Black Woman is borne out here. But somehow, I don’t think that’s what she meant.

Next was Madame Bolivia, who, if I remember correctly, was also present in this room last year. The one point of her’s that was really irritating concerned her “people can’t be illegal” comment.Clearly they can, and clearly they are. If you break the law (even if it’s not immigration law) you operate in a fashion that is outside the bounds of the law, and hence illegally. Also, being an illegal immigrant doesn’t “void” your existence (as she claimed) in the same way that trespassing doesn’t “void” your existence. You’re just simply in a place that you’re not supposed to be. I’ve never heard of an illegal immigrant just ceasing to exist. She also asks us to consider “things we cannot fathom” (a particularly difficult exercise) and imagine all the things that illegal immigrants give up to be here. But what about those who came here legally and all that they gave up? What makes the illegal immigrants so special? The odd thing is, the illegal immigrants are operating out of a place of selfishness, placing themselves above the laws the govern everyone else and putting their wants and desires ahead of those who patiently waited in line. We all learned in kindergarten that cutting the line was a bad thing and unfair to those in the back of the line. Line cutters would be ratted out to the teacher and frowned upon by the other students. The same principle applies to illegal immigration. I don’t understand what’s so complicated about it that a five-year old can understand it, but the Confusedly Whining, College-Educated, Swedish-Bolivian can’t. Also, her comment about treating illegal-immigrants as third-class citizens is totally out of line. If they were “below human” as she claims, they’d be out in the fields working as slaves, and would not have access to our hospitals, schools, and a whole host of welfare programs. Compared to what many of them came from, I’d say they have it pretty good. And I’d appreciate it if the Confusedly Whining, College-Educated, Swedish-Bolivian did not make my country sound like the re-incarnation of the Third Reich.

Do you think they're illegal???

We ended with a visit to the Hall of Flowers and Sunshine, where we wrote our feelings up on the wall. I, of course, promised to be the change I hope to be, but others took the event a little more seriously than I did. We finished up with the Indoctrination/De-compression session and wished Willy Wonka a good-bye before heading out the door.

All in all, it was a rather entertaining experience. While I realize most liberals have nightmares about these sorts of things, the way in which they presented them was quite funny, at least to me and my compadres (no racial slur intended) who live in what we like to call reality. The Tunnelers followed the classic liberal line of building of a straw man (That’s oppressive isn’t it? Maybe I should say, “straw person” or “straw wo/man”), and tearing it down. But given that we’re dealing with people who obviously have the intellectual depth of a teaspoon, what more should we expect? Though, in all honesty, I think they should really consider billing the Tunnel as a comedy show. I can’t even count the number of times I nearly broke down laughing. They could call it, “A Parody on Life: The Tunnel of Oppression.” But I guess there’s always next year.

I am not sure if this was planned or not, but the entire first floor of Cobb is currently covered in Harry Potter decorations, which really did nothing to dispel my haunted house theory. Nevertheless, our tour of the Tunnel began as we walked into the room with the signage of Platform 9¾ hanging over the door. The first exercise (following the Roller-coaster-like introduction, where we were informed that we could of course step out of the Tunnel if the experience was too much for us) was one of those if-this-applies-to-you-step-forward (or backward) gigs. However, the only purpose of these questions seemed to be to segregate the white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative males from the rest of the group. My hypothesis was proved correct, when at the end of the exercise, my companion and I were standing in the front of the room and the six or so black members of our group (among whom was one-time presidential candidate, Joe Levin-Manning) were at the very back of the room. Maybe that makes me an oppressor? I prefer to blame this result on my altitudinal disability and the fact that this disability requires me to take smaller steps which would allow those in the room with longer legs to more easily move away from me.

Following this, we were each given a nametag with various derogatory names on them. I was a “Towel-Head.” We then proceeded down a flight of stairs (at which point the “Gimp” in the group was forced to take an elevator), passed a group of homeless people, and viewed a display that appeared to bemoan the existence of wheelchair ramps in the world. I cannot even pretend to understand what makes wheelchair ramps so oppressive, but the fun does not end there. We then viewed a skit of sorts that discussed the problems that revolve around self-image, weight, etc. The next part of the tour was absolutely classic.

Walking down the hall, we were confronted by two police officers, who lined us up against a wall and began checking IDs. However, they did not of course check everyone’s ID, just mine (the “Towel-Head”) and the “Wet-backer,” who upon being unable to produce ID, they promptly arrested. I will also note that the two officers had clearly defined and greatly exaggerated Southern accents. This was one of my main critiques of the Tunnel. Rather than provoking a substantive discussion about policy issues, the Tunnelers preferred to set up caricatures, straw men, and gross generalizations. In this case, they characterized those officers who legally enforce immigration laws as nothing but stupid, Southern hicks who hate Mexicans. There is, of course, plenty of room to debate immigration laws, but characterizing the current situation in this way was quite childish.

They also seemed to deride profiling techniques that law enforcement officials often use to catch criminals. But is that not what police work is supposed to be? In order to catch the bad guys, you have to have some idea of what they look like. If you know that your crook has a huge scar down the side of his face, wouldn’t it make sense to more closely examine those people with scars down their faces? There is no point in examining the people without scars, as you know your crook has a scar. The same principle applies to race.

We next moved on to the GLBTWXYZ room, where two people impersonating Evangelical Christians accosted the “Homo” in the group and began calling down fire and brimstone. There were several problems with this display. The first was that the Tunnel people were again setting up a straw man. Not everyone who disagrees with the idea that homosexual couples can enter into a traditional marriage is by definition homophobic. There is room for substantive disagreement on the issue without having to descend to petty name-calling. The two performers also did their best to use rather exaggerated Southern accents while they rattled off Bible quotes. The fact that this accent kept popping up throughout the tour indicates that the organizers of this little event have a rather low opinion of people who live south of the Mason-Dixon Line. This may be in part because the South tends to be the more conservative part of the country, but that is just a guess. If I was from the South, I would be insulted. However, in light of what I learned last night, I am doing my best to feel insulted on behalf of Southerners.

We next moved onto a display about world religions, which had nice little diagrams about what various people around the world believe. A few minutes later, we were rounded up by some guerrilla fighters and gassed. While we were being gassed, we had the opportunity to learn about genocide around the world and listen to a clip of people being gassed. This part of the tour seemed to do a good job of trivializing some of the larger mass killings of the 20^th century. The two comical and absurd guerrilla fighters coupled with the tape of the gassing and the pictures of children killed by genocide taped along the inside of a play-gas chamber seemed a rather inappropriate and irreverent way of discussing this rather somber topic.

We then moved on to a performance on relationship violence. There was a noticeable hole in this performance though. Considering that the Tunnel seemed oriented to exposing students to oppression in all its forms, you would think that in this part of the tour, they would have included both a male and a female who could talk to the issues of relationship violence. Alas, they did not. Instead, I was treated to two women pouring out the stories of their oppression. While they claimed that the stories were true, the way in which they were told seemed to suggest that they were at least partially manufactured and that they were about as true as any of the stories told by the Democrats any time they talk about health care.

The final room was very strange. We talked about race relations. There were three speakers. The first one was an Asian woman who complained about getting a B on a test and was afraid of the abuse her parents would rain down upon her. This one was hard to take seriously, as it replicated the stereotype (which I thought we were supposed to move beyond) that all Asians are rocket scientists and their parents slave drivers when it comes to school. We then heard from a black man from New Orleans who complained about the lack of resources for black people after Hurricane Katrina and in relation to schooling. Of course, the common denominator in both those problems is the government, which he did not seem to appreciate. Somehow it is my fault as a white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male that he suffered during the hurricane and that he went to a poor school. I would suggest that he instead look towards the government of Louisiana as the originator of his problems.

We then heard from a Latina woman who complained about how hard it is to get a visa and how people like her do the “dirty work that Americans don’t want to do.” A discussion about immigration policy is a topic for another post; however, her last comment nearly set me off. To be blunt, it is simply not true. As a white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male, I have done such “dirty” work, even alongside migrant farmworkers. I have worked in a field and done all sorts of unpleasant work. And I know that I am not the only white, American, Catholic, middle-class, privileged, heterosexual, conservative male to do it. It is not fun, but it pays, which is why people do it, especially in this economy.

Finally, we were treated to the woes of a woman who is half-white and half-black. She seemed intensely fixated on the color of her skin and whether she should consider herself a black person or a white person. She concluded by saying that a new race is emerging “mixed, bi-racial, or multi-racial.” I will suggest that it does not matter what she decides to call herself. As Dr. Martin Luther King suggests, what matters is the content of your character, who you are as a person, and what you decide to do with your life. The color of your skin or your race should be insignificant details.

The Tour ended when we entered the Hallway of Happiness and were debriefed in a kumbaya session afterwards (what is a liberal feel-good event without one?). Thus ended the haunted house and the Tunnel. I suppose that most people come away feeling like they have really accomplished something and have successfully been made aware of oppression in the world. I came away convinced that the people running RHA are insane and wondering how anyone could want to spend three days of their life running such a thing. As far as awareness goes, I am now more aware of just how ridiculous these sorts of events are and to what depths some people will descend when they attempt to debate politics. It was a fun experience though. It was a neat twist on people watching, and provided me with valuable insight into the liberal mind. One thing I might suggest they add is a section on political and intellectual oppression. I wonder how they might have reacted had I worn my official Carolina Review t-shirt to this event. My instinct tells me it would have been rather ironic to observe.

Since it was chartered in 1663, the state has been known as “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.” In 1636, Roger Williams was banished from Massachusetts and founded a settlement which he named Providence Plantations. In 1637, Anne Hutchinson was banished from Massachusetts as well and led a group of colonists to settle at the large island in the mouth of Narragansett Bay called Rhode Island. When the settlements were joined into a single colony in 1644, the names were combined into “The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations”, and since independence “The State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations.”

Now, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations state representative Joseph Almeida has introduced a bill to hold a referendum to remove “and Providence Plantations” from the name. Says Almeida, “It’s high time for us to recognize that slavery happened on plantations in Rhode Island and decide that we don’t want that chapter of our history to be a proud part of our name.”

Now, it is true that slavery happened in Rhode Island. In fact, it is a little-known historical fact that slavery existed in all northern colonies. In fact, slaves made up a higher proportion of the population of Rhode Island than any other New England state. There is a fascinating history of slavery in New England which is largely unknown to most people.

Roger Williams, founder of Providence Plantations

However, the name “Providence Plantations” has nothing to do with slavery. As has already been mentioned, the colony of Providence Plantations was founded by Roger Williams,  a pastor whose theological and political views (he was an Anabaptist, opposed the Church of England and criticized the way Native Americans were treated by the colonists) ran afoul of the Puritan authorities of the Massachusetts Bay Colony and was sent into exile. He founded Providence Plantations as a community where freedom of religion and the separation of church and state would be respected. He chose the name in thanks to God for his providence in providing for the colonists. The name had nothing to do with slaves, for Williams was an ardent and outspoken abolitionist. In 1652, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations became the first colony to formally outlaw slavery.

Enforcement of this law waned by the end of the 17th century, but slavery was again abolished in 1784, this time for good.  It was one of the first states to do so.

Rep. Almeida is showing an ignorance of the history of his state. Rather than being a reflection of one of the worst episodes of state history, the name actually reflects the history of the state as a beacon of freedom in the colonies, a bastion of ideals that would later be expressed in the Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, it appears that 69 other state representatives share his ignorance.

And that is the real tragedy of this. Reading about this inspired me to look into Rhode Island’s unusual name, and I learned a lot about the state’s unique history. I’m sure that many others over the years have done the same. The unique name of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is a window into learning the history of the state, and should be preserved as such.

Demjanjuk was born in the Ukraine, and joined the Soviet Army in 1940. He was taken prisoner by the Germans in

John Demjanjuk's German ID Card

1942. He claims that he was held as a prisoner of war until the end of the war. Prosecutors in Germany claim that he collaborated with the Germans and became an SS concentration camp guard who ran the diesel engines that pumped gas into the gas chambers at Sobibor.

Demjanjuk immigrated to the United States in 1952 and became a naturalized citizen. In 1986, he was deported to Israel to stand trial on charges that he ran gas chambers at the Treblinka extermination camp. It was alleged that he had been a camp guard nicknamed “Ivan the Terrible” at Treblinka. He was convicted in 1988 and sentenced to death, but in 1993 his conviction was thrown out by the Israeli high court. The high court said that new evidence from the former Soviet Union indicated that “Ivan the Terrible”‘s real name was Ivan Marchenko. US officials had known this during his trial but had withheld the evidence, because Demjanjuk listed Marchenko as his mother’s maiden name. Demjanjuk claimed that he listed this because he had forgotten his own mother’s name. During his trial, Demjanjuk also admitted that a scar on his left bicep was what remained of an blood-type tattoo given to all SS soldiers. Regardless, the Israeli court ruled that there was not enough evidence to convict Demjanjuk of being “Ivan the Terrible.”

They did not say he was innocent. Demjanjuk returned to the United States, but the US government began trying to deport him to the Ukraine for lying about his past history in the SS when he immigrated in 1952. In 2008, the German government charged him with 29,000 counts of being an accessory to murder at Sobibor death camp and requested his extradition.

Demjanjuk is 89 years old, and claimed that he is in such poor health that a plane flight to Germany would constitute torture. However, US prosecutors produced video which appeared to show that he is in much better health than he claims. On Monday, the extradition was carried out.

Several months ago, I posted about how the world’s last few World War 1 veterans are passing on. We have almost lost our human connection with that war, and we will soon lose our human connection with the Second World War as well. And yet, almost 70 years after the war began, there are still Nazi war criminals who have never been brought to justice. In 2002, the Simon Wiesenthal Center launched Operation Last Chance, an effort to track down Nazi war criminals and bring them to justice before they die of natural causes.

Despite decades of searching by American, British, Israeli and other intelligence agencies as well as private investigators like Simon Wiesenthal, a number of Nazis managed to escape justice. They committed unprecedented industrialized mass murder, and so far have gotten completely away with it.

Alois Brunner in Syria in 1985

One of these men is Alois Brunner. Brunner was Adolf Eichmann’s assistant, and he ran the Drancy concentration camp in France. He was responsible for ordering the killing of over 100,000 people. He fled to Syria after the war, where he was granted sanctuary. Syria refused all requests to extradite him. Along the way, Brunner survived several assassination attempts launched by the Mossad. In 1987, he gave an interview with the Chicago Sun-Times in which he said that “The Jews deserved to die. I have no regrets. If I had the chance I would do it again.” Facial reconition software has been used to compare pictures, indicating that Brunner was living in Damascus until at least the 1980s. As far as we know, he still lives there today, as no confirmation of his death has ever surfaced. If alive, he would be 97 years old.

Another Nazi who escaped justice is Heinrich Mueller, the chief of the Gestapo. Mueller disappeared into thin air in 1945. He may have escaped into parts unknown or he may have been killed in the battle for Berlin, however, if alive today he would be 109 years old, and is therefore extremely unlikely to be alive.

Operation Last Chance has issued a list of the top 10 most wanted Nazis still at large. Brunner tops the list, followed by Aribert Heim, a doctor who murdered hundreds of prisoners as part of human experiments at Mauthausen ca,mp. Heim may or may not have died in Egypt in 1992, or he may be living in Spain, Denmark, Paraguay or Brazil, always staying a step ahead of the authorities. Third on the list is Demjanjuk, followed by Sandor Kepiro, a Hungarian collaborator who murdered over 1,000 civilians in occupied Serbia. Others on the list include Heinrich Boere, a member of a covert SS assassination squad called Silbertanne who was involved in the murder of several suspected members of the Dutch Resistance, as well as Algimantas Dailide, a Lithuanian whom the Lithuanian authorities have refused to imprison. Klaas Carl Faber was another SS death squad member who escaped from prison in 1952 and has been on the run ever since.

So far, Operation Last Chance has submitted 99 cases of Nazi war criminals to prosecutors. A number of these people  are being protected by their country of origin. They have identified Austria, Lithuania, Estonia, Hungary and the Ukraine as countries which are the least cooperative in bringing suspected war criminals to justice. They say that “a lack of political will” is the hardest obstacle to prosecuting Nazi war criminals. Nevertheless, the Simon Wiesenthal Center remains committed to seeing that no one gets away with murder.

On their website, YWC claims to be a group dedicated to preserving western culture on college campuses. They argue that “the cultural, political, and especially academic elites in this country hate the West and seek to destroy its identity and freedoms” and as a result “we do not believe it is worth conserving and adopt a revolutionary mindset towards the status quo. The existing power structure must be overthrown.”

YWC says they are not conservative, for they do not want to conserve the existing power structure. Rather, they say that they “are a right wing movement that seeks fundamental change in our society.” They do not concern themselves with issues such as taxes, the economy or foreign policy. Instead, they maintain that “the leftist assault on the West must be repulsed on the firm grounds of identity.” These politics of identity in practice translates into strong anti-immigrant sentiment (both legal and illegal). Indeed, all speakers (Tancredo and Bay Buchanan) that YWC has brought to UNC have been speaking out against allowing Hispanic immigration into the United States.

However, a closer look at YWC reveals more sinister leanings.

The national Vice President of YWC is Marcus Epstein, who is a regular contributor to VDare.com. VDare.com is a racist anti-immigrant blog which has criticed the US government for “encouraging the garbage of Africa to come here” and argues that Africans are on average mentally retarded. (Ed. Note: Previous version incorrectly identified Epstein as a VDare.com editor)

National YWC president Kevin DeAnna has told Carolina Review that Epstein is not the vice president of YWC, but according to the Vanderbilt Orbis, Epstein is in fact the vice president of the organization. Epstein identifies himself as the vice president of YWC while writing for The American Cause. According to Epstein, he is a close personal friend of Kevin DeAnna.

On their website, the YWC states that they want to “Create a social movement on campus where a right wing subculture — similar to the left wing subculture that currently exists — will provide a healthy alternative to a poisonous and bigoted left wing campus climate.” Their goals:

Initially, we would like to set up as many active campus chapters as possible that will host events such as speakers, debates, and protests.

In the medium term, we want these groups to take over student governments, defend against left wing organizations and create new right wing groups. We also want to change the social atmosphere of the school, with YWC becoming the focus of social life at the school as well as political activism.

In other words, YWC wants to become the right wing version of Students for a Democratic Society.

Given YWC’s stated goals and associations,  it is surprising to know that their faculty sponsor at UNC has not even read the organization’s national charter. Professor Clemens says that he does not agree with everything that they told him they stood for, but that he sponsored the group to foster “a diversity of opinion.”

Riley Matheson, the president of the UNC chapter of YWC, has interned with Epstein. We have not heard Matheson himself say anything explicitly racist, but his association with Epstein is troubling. YWC’s national leadership, especially Epstein, are clearly associated with racist organizations. Considering this, as well as their penchant for revolutionary rhetoric, YWC’s intentions are suspect.

YWC’s leadership insist that their group is not racist. But because of the reasons for suspicion outline in this post, the burden of proof is on YWC to demonstrate what they actually believe.

Ed. Note: The previous version of this post re-printed several other claims about YWC  president Kevin DeAnna from other sources that upon further investigation could not be substantiated beyond one group’s word against another.

In America, we think that people with light skin are white and people with dark skin are black. Although we have sizeable numbers of Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Native Americans and other groups in the United States, discussions on race still tend to focus on white versus black. Seems like a distinct line, right?

Well, the thing is, after four hundred years of intermingling, most Americans of African descent also have some ancestors of European descent in their family tree. So, how black is black? Does one have to have a majority of black ancestors? 50%? In 1892 Louisiana, Homer Plessy was forced to be segregated in the black train cars despite being only one eighth black. This led to the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson case, where the Supreme Court ruled that segregation was constitutional. The answer at that time to “how black is black?” was “any amount.”

And that’s a mindset which has carried on to this day. Barack Obama is considered America’s first black president, despite being only half black. But since very few people in America are of full African descent, this doesn’t really matter, because Barack Obama considers himself to be culturally African-American.

Which shows that the question of race is not really about skin color but about culture. African-Americans do have a distinct culture. But in our society, African-American culture is often lumped with other cultures such as Afro-Caribbean or various African cultures under the umbrella of skin color.

Just as the question of race is not really about skin color, neither is the question of racism. The history of South Africa can attest that the British colonization of that country involved racism not only against the Zulus and Xhosa but against the light-skinned, European-descended Boers. The Boers had a different culture and language than the British, and where there are differences there is often friction. Extreme racism between ethnic groups in Africa occurs in many places, groups that we Americans tend to lump together under “black Africans.”

This of course means that there are thousands upon thousands of ethnic groups that have the potential for racial animosity. What’s more, measuring racial groups in statistics becomes far more complicated, even impossible.

Nevertheless, the US census still asks people their racial status. In 2010, the US census will continue to ask responders to identify their race. For some reason, the census bureau does not consider “Hispanic” to be a race, so before moving to the race question responders will first have to answer if they are “Spanish/Hispanic/Latino”, and further identify themselves as “Mexican”, “Puerto Rican”, “Cuban” or “other”. The next question then asks the responders their race, and gives a limited selection of fourteen options. Now, this is a great improvement over 1870, which simply gave responders the options of black, white or mulatto. But fourteen still does not adequately describe the world, or America even.

The choices you will have to identify your race are as follows: White, Black/African-American, American Indian/Alaska Native (write in your tribe), Asian Indian, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Native Hawaiian, Guamanian/Chamorro, Samoan, Other Pacific Islander, and the all-encompassing “Other Race (Write in).”

Now, this is really a hodgepodge of options, some of which are defined by skin color and others by culture. Apparently, most groups get to be defined by culture (such as American Indian tribes) while others are defined by skin color, such as “White” and “Black”. And if you define yourself as hispanic, you have to pick another race/ethnicity as well. Other groups such as Arabs are just plumb out of luck, as are South Asians who are not from India, Jews, Melungeons, Cajuns, and many more.

I believe this convoluted situation is a result of our failure to address a key question: Is race defined culturally or genetically? If it is defined culturally, then we can choose our own race. If it is defined genetically, we can’t change it one bit.

I am culturally a white American southerner. But I am genetically of Irish, Scottish and German descent. However, I can in no way be considered culturally Irish, Scottish or German. I don’t speak German, Gaelic or the Irish or Scottish dialects of English. I wasn’t raised in nor have I adopted Irish, Scottish or German culture. Yet according to genetics I am Irish, Scottish and German. And according to the US Census Bureau, I am defined as “White” solely by the level of melanin in my skin.

It’s all a big mess, isn’t it? What it means is that our culture needs to end its obsession with categorizing people into races. We can start by removing questions about race from the 2010 US census. We can continue by not using racial or ethnic status to decide anything substantial, including but not limited to college admissions, hiring, and “firsts” for any racial group. Whenever people start categorizing each other by racial status, silly convolutions are the inevitable result. Any anyone that attempts such behavior is sooner or later going to end up tying themselves in knots.

She claims that our February issue was dedicated to “attacking the black race” and offers as evidence our article by Duke Cheston in which he presents the negative effects of affirmative action. He argues that giving preference to ethnic minorities who might not otherwise be qualified results in UNC admitting students who aren’t able to cut it in college. As evidence, he cited the lower graduation rates amongst ethnic minority students.

Arielle Reid argues that because she is of an ethnic minority and is eminently qualified for the University of North Carolina (something that I don’t doubt given that she graduated in the top 1% of her high school class), that this proves that she and every other minority student has “earned their spot.”

Here Reid commits a fallacy of hasty generalization.

This is the fallacy of generalizing about a population based upon a sample which is too small to be representative. If the population is heterogeneous, then the sample needs to be large enough to represent the population’s variability. With a completely homogeneous population, a sample of one is sufficiently large, so it is impossible to put an absolute lower limit on sample size. Rather, sample size depends directly upon the variability of the population: the more heterogeneous a population, the larger the sample required. For instance, people tend to be quite variable in their political opinions, so that public opinion polls need fairly large samples to be accurate.

UNC is full of thousands of extremely varied students of all sorts of different educational backgrounds. As such, drawing any meaningful information about who “earned their spot” and who got in by special pleading through affirmative action requires a very large sample size. Reid is a sample size of one. Just because she was admitted on her own merits rather than her ethnicity does not necessarily mean that everyone else was.

Reid also takes offense at a joke in our classified section about the UNC African-American Studies Department’s missing academic credibility. I suggest that she take a look at the post below from this one for an example of what we are talking about.

Of course, once again nothing in this joke implies that the African-American studies department is incapable of having academic credibility, it just says that it doesn’t. Nor does it say that the field of African-American studies has no credibility, just that this particular department has some issues in that regard.

No, we’re not racist. Having honest conversations about race is not racist. Discussing the effects of affirmative action on our universities is not racist. Making jokes about our less than formidable departments is not racist.

Charges of racism are a rhetorical hand grenade in the modern American political scene. Just like the terms “fascist”, “communist” and “socialist”, when someone claims the other side is racist what they are saying is that they are rejecting the other side’s arguments a priori, without even considering their reasoning. In short, lobbing incendiary terms is a way to avoid having to think about the issues that are being raised.

PS – why does everyone who criticizes CR begin with “…I’m probably one of the few people that reads Carolina Review…”, when our copies consistently fly off of campus newsstands far faster than almost any other student magazine?

Racism, next to smoking a cigarette, seems to be the only deadly sin around here. The road is one way, of course. I don’t mean to be stating the obvious, but it seems that society has placed a “whites only” sign over the boogie monster that is racism. Furthermore, the accusation of racism is one thrown about without much regard to reality in our culture. Many times I have witnessed the black community make silly accusations of racism and national black leaders get involved in in situations that in no way resembeled racism.  Earth to every person that has made an offhand, below the breath giggle that something was racist: a joke about a specific race is not necessarily racist and neither is a comment or generalization about a specific race is necessarily racist in itself. Racism is the belief that one race is inherently superior to all others. Naturally, stupid jokes and generalizations can mark a racist, but the thread of inherent superiority must be present if the allegation is to stand.

I don’t like racism. I don’t like it one bit.  I especially hate it when it is institutionalized. Has UNC not institutionalized racism by allowing the Sonja Haynes Stone Center for Black Culture and History to exist? Of course, a center for the study of black culture and history is not necessarily endowed with a racist mission. Nevertheless, a look into what the Stone Center is and what it is about will, I believe, bring to light its racist ideals.

Sonja Haynes Stone was a professor here at UNC. According to her biography on the Stone Center’s website, she was committed to the “black movement.” What in tarnation is the black movement?  It goes undefined as if everyone who is anyone would know.  Sonja Stone was advisor to the Black Student Movement student organization that is committed to “black ideals.” She was also the founder of the Southeastern Black Press Institute. The Black Press Institute prides itself on being “all black.” Its stories are feverishly written to update readers about the latest news regarding subjects viewed important to blacks and especially focusing on famous black Americans. One news story begins with the paranoid claim that “Affluent ethnic Americans have been invisible to luxury marketers until now.” Another article regarding the Nation of Islam organization strangely glorifies the racist loud-mouth Louis Farrakhan. In other words, Black Press is a racist institute.  They believe their race to be superior to others, obviously focusing in on the occupation of news dissemination. In conclusion, it seems to me that by the standards of racism often applied to whites by black leaders and to my friend’s offhand (many times stupid) remarks, Sonja Stone was a racist.

And what about the events put on in the Stone Center? One a few weeks ago was meant to create a discussion among high school students regarding hip-hop and whether it is helping the local community. Let’s take a look at some of the lyrics of the hip-hop artists present to engage the students:

“Naw, Crackers we aint here for basketball practice, we’re here to be proactive….bastard”

“I gotta mean to slap shit out of your jeans cause angry black man syndrome, don’t ever intervine you’ll be wise standin for a minite or two stopping and gawking should have — now it’s too late for talking”

“Why do black women straighten their hair,it’s not natural manufacturers gather capital while my black women actually loose aptitude afros is more compatible more reliable reasonable it’s feasible the thing that Jesus would do he had hair of wool too just like me and you cause I’m concerned with this European Spurn hold Jesus with a perm no sir so we need to unlearn see the bible say that Jesus he was nappy and bronze so it’s up to you and me as teachers, we must pass the baton”

I’d say those are pretty racist lyrics as would anyone with a brain stem attached. If you’re unsure simply replace “black” with “white” (or any other color) and you’ll find yourself squirming in displeasure. My point is that the guests invited to speak at the Stone Center seem to have an obsession with their race that borders racism.

I am personally sick of the race issue and I have little to no patience for it. UNC is pandering to the unspoken threats of the black community when it puts up with the racist connections of the Stone Center. The black community has pulled the race card when it comes to the city council’s decision on where to place a waste storage site and I would expect nothing less if UNC stood up to the Stone Center’s bull. I mean, for goodness sakes, the Stone Center celebrated the Black Panthers last year during a celebration of their Radicals in Black and Brown exhibit (by radicals I guess they mean murderers). UNC should not allow the Stone Center to hide behind Martin Luther King, Jr. (*) any longer and should rebuke their nonsense.

* -  Blog editor note:  MLK Jr. was a true and real civil rights advocate who mightily contributed to racial equity in America.  The author of this post sees the message of the Black Panthers as incompatible with the loving message of Dr. King.

Maya Angelou

Maya Angelou is going to give the keynote address for the UNC Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Celebration Week. An accomplished writer, she has written twelve best-selling books and has been nominated for three Grammy Awards for her spoken word albums. She is also black. And so, the oh-so-colorblind media called her in for a response to the election of Barack Obama. She gushed:

“I realized, almost within the minute, I don’t have to apologize for my country when I’m abroad.  I can say: ‘I belong to a great country.’ And the Europeans who say: aren’t you glad to be here in France where we don’t have the racism you live under?  Aren’t you glad you’re here in Britain, where we don’t have — I mean, I’ve been on the defensive so long. This time I can say: ‘I am an American: look at us, look at what we’ve just achieved.’”

But what have we achieved? The DTH did a story Friday about MLK Day that sent mixed signals. A former president of the Chapel Hill-Carrboro branch of the NAACP explained, “This is what the organization has been working toward for years.” And, echoing his optimism, the chairman of the NC MLK Commission is quoted as saying, “America has come of age in its ability to judge people based on their ability and not on their skin color.” But the assistant provost for diversity and multiculturalism here at UNC (of all people) “admitted,” “It’s a journey, and we haven’t reached that final destination.” Question: what is the final destination? And when will we know that we have achieved it? Is the election of Obama the turning point at which we can now be proud of our country and put the issue of racism behind us? I offer the following as criteria: do we or do we not now judge by character as Martin Luther King Jr. prophesied.

Consider the following when attempting to answer the question: 96% of all blacks supported Obama. They were joined by 43% of whites. Therefore, less than 4% of blacks and a little over half of whites supported McCain. The implications are obvious. Of course, it’s true that not everyone who voted for Obama did so due to the historic nature of his candidacy. But, is it conceivable that, when 96% of blacks voted the same way, race didn’t play a role in his election? Nay! It is probable that Obama’s skin color aided and abetted his win.

Speaking of which, there’s always the matter of that infamous “race card.” Was it ever played? Si se puede! At an event down in Florida, back in June, Obama warned (referring to Republicans), “‘They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?’” Sigh. Yeah, the Republicans were so obsessed with Obama’s race that McCain refused to run even a single add in reference to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.

As to his character, I find Obama’s presidency to be a symbolic measure of America’s loss of it’s identity as an individualist nation. Obama’s demagoguery (“spread the wealth” and all that) during his campaign was rampant and obvious. For more than half the nation to be taken by such vague banalities as “change” and “hope” and “yes, we can!” is quite embarrassing to me, as an American that is.

In summary, after the election of Barack Obama I realized, almost within the minute and for the first time, I was ashamed of my country. God save America.