The Heights
Monday, December 3, 2012
A7
Opinions
If roles were reversed
Thumbs Up Ode to Stokes‘Twas two weeks before Winter break, And in front of Stokes Hall, The sod was completely lain, Bringing joy to all. The path is now open For our feet to tread upon And the grass a beautiful green : A new era begun The removal of the fence Is a symbol to every eagle Of the studies to take place Within those halls so regal. Many months we waited For this to take place We spread our arms wide To celebrate and embrace Winter Wonderland- We greatly appreciate the snowfall on Saturday. Not only was it entirely fitting that this particularly joyous form of precipitation came on the first of December, the month of winter solstice and Christmas (everyone’s two favorite days of the year), but it also produced hundreds of beautiful Instagrams of our beloved Gasson in the snow. A snowy Gasson might possibly be the best kind of Gasson there is, and so we Thumbs Up downward floating crystalline water ice, the always stunning campus of Boston College, and the average student’s obsession with Instagram. The Winningest Coach Congratulations to Jerry York for tying the record for most collegiate hockey wins ever. An added thanks for doing it at home, against the nefarious Boston University, allowing us to even further assert our dominance over the Terriers. We’d place our bets on another win this weekend, too. So a heartfelt apology to Ron Mason. Looks like 924 just wasn’t enough.
Thumbs Down The Lone Monday - We at Thumbs Up, Thumbs down are a little confused by BC’s finals schedule. Students have one week of classes, two study days, and a week of finals. Right? Wrong. We instead have one week of classes and then... class on Monday? Yep. That’s right, we have class on Monday. And then study days and then finals. We find this day of classes to be both highly annoying and most likely inconsequential. And don’t even get us started on the short winter break. Kardashian CommotionRiots broke out earlier this week in Bahrain and Kuwait in response to the grand openings of a couple of Millions of Milkshakes outlets by none other than one Kim Kardashian. While we certainly cannot condemn the rioters for having the presence of mind – a presence of mind utterly lacking from much of the American people—to vehemently NOT revere the curvaceous pop culture icon from Calabasas, California, we can, however, award them a Thumbs Down for not accepting with open hands some of the tastiest milkshakes known to mankind. And perhaps also for overreacting a little. Like Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down? Follow us @BCTUTD
Michael Auker For your consideration, an alternative version of U.S.-Iranian relations: Following rapid growth through industrialization, by the mid-20th century Iran found itself as the world’s pre-eminent superpower. Lacking the domestic resources to drive its ever-expanding economy and growing infrastructure, the military superpower was forced to look westward to satisfy its deficiencies. In particular, Iran focused on the smaller and highly religious United States, seeking to access the massive oil reserves that had been discovered there. The problem was that, in 1951, Harry Truman was in power and drawing up plans to completely nationalize the American’s oil assets, as well as limit foreign interests in the country. As a result, in 1953, the Iranian Intelligence Agency successfully infiltrated and overthrew the Truman administration and installed a monarchical government attempting to bring communist reforms to the States, ensuring the Iranian’s access to the coveted oil reserves. For years, authoritarian rule of the Iranian-backed government oppressed the American people. Yet, backlash was rising in the form of a highly conservative Christian fundamentalist movement led by the outspoken Billy Graham. Graham was known to the Iranian government as openly hostile to their interests and as a potential threat to the government they had installed, yet was very popular among the American people for his conservative values and antiIranian sentiments. He was forced into exile after demonstrations advocating for regime change turned violent, and for 15 years lived abroad as his opposition movement grew. Finally, in 1979, the American Revolution successfully overthrew the tyrannical communist administration and celebrated
the triumphant return of Graham to Washington, D.C. Later that year, the oppressive dictator responsible for untold amounts of bloodshed throughout the U.S. was allowed into Iran to seek cancer treatment. Naturally, the Americans were outraged, and demanded his extradition to stand trial for his crimes. Iran refused, and a protest outside their embassy in D.C. resulted in the ransacking of the building and hostages being taken. What was portrayed throughout the Iranian media as a group of wild terrorist thugs was seen by many throughout the rest of the world as at least partially legitimate retribution by a people who had been subject to the brutal rule of a tyrant. The U.S. had been a democracy before the Iranians had gotten involved, and now the foreign superpower was protecting its puppet dictator from facing justice. An agreement in 1981 seemed to turn things around, as the Iranian government pledged to abstain from interfering in the internal affairs of the U.S. Yet, over the following decades, Iran involved itself in political dealings throughout the North and Central American region on an almost continual basis. As the new millennium arrived, relations between the two countries would only deteriorate. After a group of radical Christians that had grown and multiplied throughout Canada unleashed a vicious terrorist attack in Tehran on Sept. 11, relations between the Western world and the Middle East would never be the same. In the ensuing years the Iranian government would invade nearby countries and label the U.S. as part of an “axis of evil”, due in part to its dubious nuclear aspirations. For years Iran had been the most dominant military power in the world, with a greater and more advanced nuclear arsenal than all other countries combined. They argued, and many agreed, that it was solely for peacekeeping purposes-- that it was merely a deterrence strategy to prevent other countries from acting too aggressively. But the fact remained that Iran had been the only country ever to actually use a nuclear weapon. So, when the Iranian government condemned the U.S. for its nuclear aspira-
tions, it was viewed within America as an extremely hypocritical position. Nevertheless, Iran imposed heavy economic sanctions on the U.S. for its refusal to cooperate with international agreements regarding its nuclear program. It was emphasized that these were “smart” sanctions, that they wouldn’t hurt the American people. Yet, it soon became clear this would not be the case. The value of the American dollar plummeted, and food insecurity became increasingly widespread. The amount of human suffering in the U.S. caused by the Iranian sanctions was morally indefensible, yet went largely ignored by the Iranian media. Children died by the thousands as many fringe activists went so far as to call what was happening in America an informal genocide. But in Iran, to express any sympathy for the dangerous American government was unpatriotic, especially since they were clearly the morally superior nation fighting the dangers of Christian terrorism. Half a century of Iranian intervention in the affairs of American political functions had led to a complex relationship with little hope for a peaceful co-existence between the two. Most agreed that American nuclear capabilities would be extremely dangerous and only exacerbate an already chaotic situation in the region. Yet, an objective observer could hardly blame the Americans for feeling the need to build up their defenses against a country that had shown little hesitation to wreaking political havoc in their country in the past, and likely would again if it served their interests. There is no single act by either country that can repair the fractured rapport that has built up, but the international community is in agreement that continued animosity can only lead to further suffering. The fundamental differences are many, but for the sake of the innocent civilian population of the U.S., as well as international stability, a measure of reconciliation must be attempted. Michael Auker is a staff columnist for The Heights. He welcomes comments at opinions@bcheights.com.
Hipster mainstream Bud O’Hara I think you’re a hipster. I’m not being ironic. I think that we’re all hipsters. I don’t think hipster is a subculture. And, by no stretch of the imagination do I believe that “hipster” ever signified a counterculture—it is not the contemporary equivalent of “hippie” or “punk.” Conversely, I think (and I’m running with an idea lifted from an article published in the opinion section of the New York Times website two weeks ago called “How To Live Without Irony” by Princeton French professor Christy Wampole) that hipster is in fact a defining, collective disposition of our Internet-raised generation. Before you stop reading because you refuse to be indicted for hipsterism because you like sports, mass consumerism, and do not lead a life tinged by irony, take into consideration that well-known and essential hipster paradigm – in the denial of the label is the affirmation of its designation. In the repulsion that is built into that paradigm—the way in which people so vehemently refuse to accept the term and its vague meaning—there is something else we must consider. In Freud’s observation of the feeling of disgust, he noticed there tends to be a fundamental recognition of oneself in the objects by which we are repulsed. It’s usually some part of our selves that we see, and that consciously, or unconsciously, we do not like. It seems that repulsion towards the term hipster might function in that same way. In the hipster disposition, we see a worldview cultivated in a hyper-postmodern, self-aware, jaded, and ironic world. It’s the same world we’ve all grown up in, and is likely a product of the Internet—its openness, vastness, and its capacity to inundate us with more information than perhaps we are able to process. As current college students, we grew up with a seemingly
Party Time
BY BEN VADNAL
limitless universe of information accessible readily, and immanently. Ours was a world in which a group of 12-year-old boys could huddle around a basement desktop computer and at one moment listen to 50 Cent’s “Wangsta,” the next watch inane, but hilarious videos of people’s cats, and then a moment later watch a woman sodomize a horse. The vastness, the speed, the overwhelming breadth of things to be known, seen, and heard has led us all to a certain jaded reality. It became difficult to understand things as holy, sacred, or innocent when, on the other side of a Google search, we had ready access to the darkest and most deviant productions of the human mind. Wampole’s critique in her article is that there is an overwhelming irony that defines hipster dispositions, which is crippling in the way that it eliminates directness from our everyday speech and interaction. Irony creates distance. It diminishes the seriousness of situations and realities. It makes easier to stomach what are otherwise unpalatable perceptions of our world. Accordingly, hipsters say what they don’t mean, and like products exactly because they shouldn’t. Their consumptive habits are based in the purchase of antiquated items, of clothing and decorations that are wittingly unattractive. Wampole suggests that this irony is the hipster’s defense to the world in which we live, and that the hipster has become an archetype of a jaded and insular worldview, which now pervades modern culture—or at least the culture that our generation is developing. We need not look far to see the effects of Wampole’s claim. Think about the bro who goes out and buys some hideous t-shirt, or snapback because it has the words “Skoal Bandit” on it. It’s clearly an ironic gesture. While bros do love dipping, part of the satisfaction of wearing the item is that it is in some way ugly, and not covetous by standards of modern production. Because of this ugliness, we are not to take the item seriously, and its nature as an overt celebration of chewing tobacco—the evils of which contemporary society never fails to remind us of—is playfully undermined. The hat is
worn exactly because it shouldn’t be worn, but can be without contempt because of its ironic character. Or, take for example the way in which so many college students have become enthralled with the almost kitschy American patriotism that’s been embodied by the perversion of our nation’s name—“Amurrica.” We celebrate and party in outrageous red, white, and blue costumes, reveling in ostentatious displays of a patriotism the seriousness of which we’re not even sure of. Are we lampooning our nation in the drunken revelry that accompanies this sort of over the top patriotic display? Do we secretly adore cut off jean shorts, mullets, and rednecks? And perhaps more importantly, would a genuine patriot satirize his nation’s name, its symbols? There’s a lot more to be said on this subject, and I think that this column is but the beginning to a larger conversation. But to make a final link between whatever our mainstream culture is, and what hipster represents, it’s this—the hipster is a new iteration of the consumptive creature. Her identity is a construction of products, goods, and services as is the case with so many Americans. She uses irony as a way to distance herself from an American culture that hangs in a precarious balance on the threshold of a changing world. Her worldview is shaped in response to an overhanging fear—it’s an insular way to deal with what appears to be a world in which severity is compounding, in which tensions are conflating to a point at which systemic and sweeping change is inevitable. In truth, we’re all afraid and we’d all like to protect ourselves from grappling with real change. There is comfort to be found in the selfdeprecating, acutely self-aware character that the hipster creates – it’s the comfort of distance from one’s self, distance from the most difficult parts of being human. Hipster is a character that’s easy to take on. It’s safe. But, it’s also stagnant. Bud O’Hara is a staff columnist for The Heights. He welcomes comments at opinions@ bcheights.com.
Forza Italia!
Monica Sanchez Last week, I attended my first ever, professional soccer game: Italy versus France, a longtime rival. The stadium was completely packed, the audience coated with Italian flags, large banners displaying more profanities than neither you nor I could ever imagine, and even spots of spray-painted green, white, and red Mohawks abound. The French section certainly made sure it wasn’t overlooked, sporting its own extra-large flags and banners, fans waving them around frantically at every opportunity they had to do so. To my surprise, the soccer game itself was extremely similar to the football games at Boston College. For example, when the opposing team attempts for a field goal, we stick our hands out in front of us and shake them frenziedly, yelling, “oooOOHHHH!” until the kicker’s foot finally meets the base of the football. Whenever there’s a bad call made by the referees, we melodiously yell, “Bulls--t! Bulls--t!” repeatedly. They do some of the exact same cheers, just in Italian. I felt strangely at home. They also had a couple of different cheers meant to build up the morale of the team. Whenever Italy had a failed attempt at scoring, instead of getting frustrated with the team or leaving at halftime, like many of us BC students have been guilty of doing, the fans would clap for the players, giving them props for their effort and encouraging them to try, try again. The fans have a strange sense for how the team as a whole is feeling. When they sense disappointment or maybe some disunity among the players, the fans cheer, “Forza Italia!” meaning, “Strength be with you Italy!” or “Hang in there!” They also cheer, “Tutto il stadio!” meaning, “We are all with you!” Rain or shine, they stand by their team until the very last second of the game. I won’t pretend to be a soccer fanatic here, unlike those people who all of a sudden become experts and staunch supporters of a specific team during the celebrated World Cup. (Yeah, you know who you are.) I was never a fan of the sport, probably because I never understood the concept of not using my hands. I was born with more of a basketball mentality. During middle school, I had to play goalie … Enough said. I did, however, gain a great deal of respect for the sport and its die-hard fan base. What took me back was that,
Sports, while based on competition, serve as a tangible reminder that ultimately, we are all one people despite our differences. at the end of the game, even though Italy lost to France 2-1, there was no oppressive or pervading feeling of defeat hanging over the stadium. Italy gave it their best shot, and France had some undeniably good plays. While it wasn’t a win, seeing this dignity in defeat was almost just as good. The game was truly a night to remember. This was not just because of the fact that it was my first time watching a professional soccer match, or the excitement of witnessing a match bent on a longtime rivalry, or throwing around more profanities than spectators our own age. What I loved the most about the game was the morale, support, and unity felt throughout the stadium. Even though I knew I wasn’t quite “one” with the locals—not much of a soccer fan, having only been in Italy for two month’s time, raised and molded in a different society with a different set of customs, certainly not efficient enough in the Italian language to call myself fluent just yet—I found myself connected to the rest of the stadium by a common thread. We were all one in support of one team. In my opinion, sports, while based on competition, serve as a tangible reminder that ultimately, we are all one people despite our differences. Every country is beset by both internal and external struggles and conflicts. By virtue of sport, these are all momentarily set aside and forgotten. If only we could apply that to our everyday lives and interactions with one another. That’s the ideal. Monica Sanchez is a staff columnist for The Heights. She welcomes comments at opinions@bcheights.com.