Can I Really Be Friends With You?

Anonymous Author

It’s incredibly sad to see how polarized politics has become, and how quickly a friendship can become distant when you talk about politics. This Fourth of July, I was thinking of our division – with some Americans following the advice of public health experts and not holding barbecues, others perceived a threat that has killed over 150k people as a hoax. I try not to become divided or have my friendships viewed negatively when someone explains their political views, but I find it harder and harder to do so.

How can I have a positive view of you when you support someone who rolled back anti-discrimination laws that protected the LGBTQ community? How can I be friends with you when you support a man who knew about COVID-19 since December but didn’t act at once, leading to the deaths of 150,000 people? How can I be friends with you when you support a man who called for the death of five innocent black men and refused to apologize for it? When a man who made fun of the disabled is someone you support, when you’re not upset that his criminal friends are getting away with crimes, I can’t ignore the bad light those views shed upon you. As the politicians you support classify “very fine people” as those generalizing Muslims as terrorists, how am I supposed to trust you?

You may not be racist, but simultaneously, you are a fan of a President who couldn’t even fathom that a black man was eligible to hold the same office. You may not be xenophobic, but you decided it was okay that asylum seekers were dying in cages with chemicals sprayed on them. In your defense, you say I like what he’s doing with the economy. Even though much of the economic success has been linked to the Obama administration, does the economy outweigh what he is doing to millions of people? Would you tell the innocent people being drone-struck that your view on the economy was the reason they got killed? A man who cuts taxes for the rich and takes away healthcare for the poor is something you admire? 

I wish politics was as simple as I thought it was when I was younger. I thought identifying with political ideology would be something like choosing which ice cream flavor you want. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple and people get harmed due to the way you vote. I will never treat you differently because of the way you vote or the politics you support. But in the back of my mind, it will be hard to forget you can support recurring atrocities.

your america

Saanvi Nayar ’22

when your america was founded
i had no place in the narrative
for the term American Indian 
was coined to compensate 
for the exotica
of how, in 1492, 
columbus sailed the ocean blue
and missed -
entirely. 

when your america was founded
my kind had no place on the ballot
for a brown-skinned woman 
was not worth 
the weighted glance
of a white man’s most trivial thought. 

when your america was founded,
my stance had no representation in history
for my land of the free
was built, cherished, and raised
to undermine who i am,
suppress all with which i stand for.

for i am now resigned 
to accept my absence in the narrative,
but in parting from my
white-washed education,
surely you can teach me the art 
of love, unreciprocated,
after condemning me to worship a country
founded to not love me back.

when your america was founded 
broad stripes and bright stars,
consider how its history 
founded me.

The Hypocrisy of Immigrant Villainization

Fabianna Rincon ’21

“Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore”

These words have beckoned immigrants arriving at our great nation for generations, offering a message of hope to those looking to achieve the American Dream. But in the age of immigrant villainization, can these words truly bear the same effect?

We’re told immigrants steal our jobs, our profits, our livelihoods. We’re told they come only to harbor danger and fear. What happened to our great American mixing pot, a culmination of diverse hopes and dreams from every corner of the world. The vast majority of Americans are descended from immigrants. Our founding fathers were the first. How could a country built on immigration turn so easily against it?

17 years ago, my parents fled Venezuela in the hopes of finding a better life in the United States. Like millions of others, they came for the American Dream. They’ve worked endlessly to ensure a better life for their children, a life that simply couldn’t be reached in Venezuela. They were the tired, huddled masses that yearned to breathe free.

While our attitude towards the immigrant has worsened, I hold hope that we can return to the sympathy we once had – the sympathy that has beckoned millions towards our nation. The villainization of the immigrant may just be the most un-American value there is. We were all once the tired, poor, wretched refuses of our teeming shore. And I know that we, as Americans, have it in our hearts to view these immigrants with empathy.

Pride, And How Indian Culture Uses Ignorance to Oppress It

Saanvi Nayar ’22

My poster reads “AZN for BLM”, bold letters demanding to be seen, the artist who drew them too stubborn to hear otherwise. As I explain the meaning of tomorrow’s protest, my little cousin traces my letters on her own poster board, subsequently arranging six markers in a line – red, orange, yellow, green, blue, purple. I mention how her rainbow color scheme correlates to Pride, and as only a Didi would, I explain all that word has come to emulate. 

She colors back and forth, meticulously placing the marker back to pick up the consecutive shade. And as I continue to explain, my brother sits down to say “Why don’t normal people have a month to themselves?”

She replies with an eye roll and asks me to continue. 

At the age of ten, she detects the trace of mindless privilege laced in that one question. A single, isolated question that has the potential to either be squandered as immaturity, or egged on as a manifestation of disturbing ignorance. A question that seemed to be mindless mockery in my twelve year old brother’s mind, yet proved otherwise – miseducation at its finest. 

I suppress my anger to look up “Martha P. Johnson”, the revered drag queen who pioneered Pride month through partly initiating the Stonewall riots. And, yet, as I begin to relay her activism and legacy, countless names of hate-crime victims fly through my fingertips to the search engine: Matthew Wayne Shepard (gay), Paris Cameron (transgender), Ellie Marie Washtock (nonbinary). 

My brother sits, ears open, yet heart seemingly closed. I type “Avinshu Patel”, and begin to recount his story: having committed suicide, his last words on a Facebook post begged that he was not to blame for being born gay.

My brother pauses, eyebrows furled, and says “I’ve never heard of a gay Indian person before.”

At the age of twelve, he begins to recognize his own mindless privilege in that one comment. A single, isolated comment that perpetuates privilege through culture – the LGBTQ+ community remains as one of the most taboo topics of discussion at Indian dinner tables. 

Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code stated “Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature..shall be punished with imprisonment”. It was unanimously ruled unconstitutional as of September 6, 2018, inaugurating the country to the fight for LGBTQ+ rights. Indian members of the community still do not have the right to marry or adopt; they continue to face hurdles including sexual assault, discrimination in the workplace, and more often than not, death. 

India’s impending legal battle was foreseen by not only citizens, but LGBTQ+ rights activists across the world; however, the true fight begins in our homes. We are not only conditioned to ignore the topic as a whole, but moreover brought up to stigmatize the embrace of sexuality. There is no discourse regarding the fluidity of sexual orientation or preference, much less any conversation involving the “s-e-x word”. Our culture is too often seen as conservatively traditionalist, and that is the rooted issue: LGBTQ+ justice must no longer be perceived as a ‘mature topic’, but rather, a fundamental right.

The conversation begins with us – our generation is responsible for recognizing June as Pride month at the dinner table, mentioning the latest LGBTQ+ hate crime headline on the way to practice. This stigmatized mindset is parallel to that of racism, sexism, and every other form of oppression, being internalized through generations. 

On the way home from my cousins, my brother sits and looks out the window. Turning to me to talk about his friend, he mentions, “His mom said she would disown him if he became gay.”

Stigmatizing sexuality to the extent of imposing fear does not uphold the notoriously idealized virtue of honor in Indian families, nor the prized moral of reputation. As a culture that takes pride in academic and financial success, we must preach pride in identity. Pride in the embrace of the LGBTQ+ community, whether that be in the form of an ally or member. Pride in the conceptual ideology that this embrace does not deter from a moral standing in society. 

“Why don’t normal people have a month to themselves?” Breaking the stigma demolishes the standard that normalcy equates being straight. 

“I’ve never heard of a gay Indian person before.” Introducing the conversation allows for the realization that the LGBTQ+ community encompasses every race, age, preference, and orientation.

Being the generation that approaches this cultural taboo head-on epitomizes the meaning of Pride. It is simply not enough to take pride in being an ally to the LGBTQ+ community; one must be able to take pride in the fact that their culture perpetuates the same. 

History Survives, Even if Statues Don’t

Zara Branigan ’22

May 8, 1945. The end of the second world war. Union jacks flying high and their spirits with it. The man everyone wants to thank is, of course, Mr Winston Churchill. He was on the front lines for the free world, a man grasping onto Western democracy, even as the Nazis yanked at his fingers. 1950 Time magazine called him the “man of the half century”. People believe he was a glorious man, a vigorous man, a harbinger of the oldest established British values: perseverance, pride and strength.

Some argue rightly so, but spray painted onto his statue are the words:

“Churchill was a racist.”

Some rhetoric he applied to people of colour was “beastly”, “barbaric hordes” and as he squashed rebels in Sudan, he declared he was proud to have killed those “savages.” He was happily imperialistic, trumpeting that “Aryan stock is bound to triumph.” We placed him on a pedestal. Now that pedestal is hidden under layers, shielded from protesters and counter-protesters alike.

The marking of his statue drove a wrench into an already gridlocked debate on what to do when we hear great men aren’t that great. The protestors are angry about the wider statues in Britain, as statues celebrate both the person and their ideas—even if they’re racist, sexist, xenophobic. As taxpayers, we pay for some of these statues. Should we, as a so-called progressive society, welcome statues that are against every value we’ve been taught?

We’ve already enacted laws to prohibit hate speech; clarifying we have understood what ideas we don’t want within our society. If we ‘topple the racists’, we’re sending a message about the society we want to live in. Critics may claim that we’re throwing the baby out with the historical bathwater; that we need these statues to teach us the lessons of our history. If we don’t have a plan, their rhetoric will become a self-fulfilled prophecy.

Human beings are complex—with complex problems, emotions and beliefs. No one is purely virtuous or evil. The same goes for history. The same goes for this debate. A common consensus with the protesters is that those who want to keep the statue of Churchill are racist with a hint of good old nationalist Britain. On the other side, all they see is a futile erasure of our history for a symbolic gesture. We shouldn’t swap one simplistic idea for another, but by refusing to engage in a discussion, we unknowingly are. There is a silver lining in this cloud of disconnected culture: there’s common ground. Both sides want to preserve history the right way. The question is, what is the right way?

In terms of the statues, I have two propositions:

1. We move all statues to museums.

Even if we eliminate statues of all problematic people, our society wouldn’t lessen in its beliefs. We can’t allow the halo-like symbolism of the moment to distract from the slow and complicated movement of real change. We should have better ambitions. We need to address the underlying problems without censoring history—good and bad. Museums are the solution. They take elements of history and give the additional context needed to interpret and understand them. They are often free and unbiased, meaning the public can still enjoy the statues and there is no argument about the legitimacy of the person.

2. We establish a council for statues.

The council can decide, review and take action on the statues. They could be a group of professors, historians and other academics engaged in preserving all sides of history. Their first action could be to provide every current statue with a plaque depicting all factions of their history. Their second action could be to consider what statues the public want—through polling, debates and votes. Beyond what the government can do, there are two things us everyday people can do to understand the full history. We can read, watch, listen and learn the history of then and the history of now. When learning, some aspects of British history may be uncomfortable or even shameful. But there is potential in discomfort. Without it, there’s no growth. We can also be aware. We’re living in a time of great division and lacklustre understanding.

Some statues I’d like to see in the UK: Jack Leslie: Leslie was the only professional Black football player in England during his time. When he about to become England’s first non-white player, the selectors realized he was Black and rejected him. With the onslaught of racism in football today, he is a trailblazer in the struggle for inclusivity in sports.

Mary Wollstonecraft: Author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, she never allowed prejudice to stand in her way of becoming a historically significant author. During her era, the role of women was to satisfy her husband and bear children. Wollstonecraft, unfulfilled in this role, broke the law by rescuing her sister from an abusive husband. She later argued for women’s independence in a time where rights for women was inconceivable.

Mary Shelley: Wollstonecraft’s daughter and protégé, she quickly educated herself and engulfed the revolutionary spirit her mother perpetuated. She ran to Paris at 16 with her husband and renowned poet, Percy Shelley. Although she couldn’t vote, obtain her own money or be viewed as an equal, she wrote Frankenstein at 19. She’s now regarded as the mother of gothic fiction.

Olive Elain Morris: Part of the British Black Panthers and a grassroots campaign, she was an advocate in the fight against police brutality. In 1969, 17-year old Morris intervened in the arrest of a Nigerian diplomat for a parking offence. The police gave her a three-month suspended sentence for two years, and during that time, they threatened her with rape. With her experiences, she uncovered racism, sexism and police brutality in the UK. Much of her activism was community-focused; she created safe spaces in Brixton, including the first Black community bookshop in South London. She’s an ordinary icon for community activism, especially in the struggle against police brutality.

History itself is a collection of perspectives; it’s not just our job to understand what those perspectives are— it’s our job to understand why they’ve been recounted. Question everything. Listen deeply. Don’t allow your voices to go unheard. History survives, even if statues don’t.

The Intersectionality of Pride

Celebrating pride in the age of the Black Lives Matter movement

Fabianna Rincon ’21

June of 1999 was the United State’s first designated Pride Month.

21 years later, the country is riddled with black lives matter protests in all 50 states, with citizens everywhere fighting for the civil liberties and protections that people of color around the nation have been denied for years. 

The LGBT+ community has been denied things as well – even as recently as days ago our government moved to deny them rights to health care and adoption services. But we don’t see them up in arms about their month, their pride, being ignored by the nation as we face bigger issues. Why?

A little over 50 years ago, the Stonewall riots shook the streets of New York city. Cops launched fights with the Drag Queens of the stonewall inn, resulting in a series of riots that set fire to unprecedented progress in LGBT rights and fighting police brutality. 

LGBT pride in this country began with a fight against police brutality. Sound familiar?

These issues have been intertwined for decades. People of color have fought alongside their LGBT siblings for decades. We fight and we fight and we fight so that our voices our heard, our rights are protected, and so that our lives matter. The fight is long from over, for both of these parties. But the most meaningful part of pride is it’s intersectionality. 

Happy Pride everyone. BLM. 

What the Supreme Court Rulings Meant for the LGBTQ+ Community

Haroon Shaikh ’22

The Supreme Court ruling concerning a civil rights law was a huge victory for members of the LGBTQ community. The Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects LGBTQ members from workplace discrimination. This is since the ruling declared that discrimination based of sex also applies to sexual orientation and preferred gender. The Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 ruling concluded that it was against the law to fire someone for simply being part of the LGBTQ community.  Before this decision it was legal in more than half the states for an employer to fire someone simply because they were a part of the LGBTQ community.

A surprise was the way that Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Niel Gorusch voted. He voted to protect members of the LGBTQ community. This vote contradicts the Trump’s administration’s latest actions regarding the LGBTQ community.  Actions such as banning transgenders from the military and rolling back protextions against discrimination in the helathcare system which were designed to protect membersof the LGBTQ community. Another Obama-era rule was under threat that would allows adoption agencies to turn away same-sex couples from adopting simply because of their sexual orientation.

These laws are incredibly important and protect the LGBTQ community.  People in the LGBTQ community are at higher risks of committing suicide due to discrimination like this.  Studies have shown that in the transgender community risk of suicide is extremely high due to discrimination, family rejection, and other forms of people not accepting who they are. LGBTQ youth are also 120 percent more likely to face homelessness and 40 percent of homelessness youth is part of the LGBTQ community. 

Homophobia and transphobia are often depicted as a personal choice. However the reality is when lawmakers and individuals act out their prejudice and discrimination it costs people their lives. No one should have to face the hardships and discrimination that the LGBTQ community faces it is simply not moral.

Prejudice & Judgement

Rohan Lokanadham ’23

As said by the author “Some people think that it is so easy to come out. They say that people care for some time but then forget about it. But that’s not how it is. Every time someone says any one of these things that I have stated in the poem, it shows their homophobia. These are things people in the LGBTQ+ community have to deal with every single day, and not only that, but they hear from their friends and family. I feel like I can’t ever truly be myself, because people will look down upon me for that. I get scared to have a “gay voice”, so I make my voice deeper when talking to strangers. I have to go through all of this just to hide my true self, and sometimes it makes me not want to be myself anymore. My anger and frustration about this, reflects who I am. This is how I feel. I feel that society needs a change, a major one, and it needs to happen soon.”

Why can’t I be myself,
I don’t understand.
Wherever I go, there's the judgement, 
The prejudice of the gay kid. 
That’s all I am, isn't it. 
“Shut up, you like men” 
“You’re gay” 
“You don’t count ‘cause you gay”
Why?
Why am I invalid because of my sexuality? 
These are the questions I ask myself everyday. 
These are the questions that make me wonder if I’m valued. 
I don’t wanna be myself.