Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood were bad for Egypt. The military’s coup, however, is even worse.

Protesters began to enter the streets June 30, the anniversary of Morsi’s inauguration, which marked the general rise of the Muslim Brotherhood within Egyptian politics. Indeed, there was still much to be upset about: few within the previous regime were punished for rampant corruption, deteriorating economic conditions and rising inflation that made daily expenses nearly impossible to afford. Steep youth unemployment not only infuriated a restless demographic but also reared its ugly head in the form of increased rates of crime and violence.

As for Morsi himself, with a tendency to lean toward more authoritarian measures when policies were unpopular, he had even gotten into the ugly habit of sending the military after pro-democracy nongovernmental organizations and independent news sources, a habit all too familiar for those who had lived decades of oppression under Hosni Mubarak.

Thus, such protests initially represented an actual success of the democratic process, mainly that people felt they had the freedom to publicly and vocally criticize a government that had, by most measures, been failing its constituents. The protests, however, led to a far uglier outcome: the coup. Sensing discontent and the opportunity to seize power once again, the military gave an ultimatum to Morsi, and a couple days later, the military found itself in control again.

While there are many Coptic Christians and more secular individuals who are excited and joyous for the coup, believing that this coup was the right move would be a mistake. Morsi had performed poorly as president, yet in the end, he did not violate his office. His belligerent behavior, while morally reprehensible, was allowed under the constitution, and many of the complaints presented before the Brotherhood were about issues that had long existed. Morsi did not destroy the economy: Mubarak and the turbulent revolution had beaten him to it. As for not punishing many of the corrupt military personalities, it was somewhat expected in order to keep peace between the civilian government and the military.

The military has now suspended the constitution and has tried to assure everyone that elections will be held again in the near future. Yet what good will these elections even be if the military can simply remove any president or party that it doesn’t like? Will Egypt move from a military autocratic rule to a military-approved party rule? This is not progress; it’s the trampling of democracy masked as the triumph of pluralism.

The United States can and should do something about it. For one, call it what it is: a coup. Stop dancing around the subject and officially declare the events a military coup, for anything else would make a mockery of both the rule of law and our international reputation. By doing this, we can also cut off our military aid package of an annual $1.6 billion, a great way to try and push the military into, ideally, reinstating Morsi into power, but more realistically to set a date for the election as soon as possible. A long-sighted plan to resolve this issue, however, would be to create a new aid package. This foreign aid would not be military-related but would rather be used to assist the civilian government and pro-democracy NGOs, strengthening their resolve and presence within the power dynamics of Egypt.

This coup represents a tragedy to the democratization of Egypt. Let us not just accept this tragedy and move on. The Obama administration should declare these events a coup. If we cannot stand strong to Egypt, then why should others, including Iran and Pakistan, fear us?

Cliff Drake is a junior double-majoring in International Economics and Political Science. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Egypt, coups and Islam appeared first on The Triangle.

The Supreme Court recently declared that federal laws barring same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage benefits were discriminatory and had no place in our society. Even now, and in typical American fashion, lawyers in a handful of states (including Pennsylvania and New Jersey) are determining how they can use this precedent (which applies only to the federal government) to attack and destroy all vestiges of a pre-gay marriage America. Their announcement was in line with President Obama’s current views on the subject, feeling that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people should enjoy all the benefits that our society has to offer: marriage, employment, housing and tax breaks.

Within the frame of Western politics, this is great news. America is one step closer to being in social communion with Europe, where 18 nations already recognize same-sex marriage or civil unions. But if we take a look at the wider scope, some disturbing trends begin to appear. Anti-LGBT violence in the Republic of Iraq has been on a steady increase following the installation of a United States-backed government in 2005. Violence against LGBT people in sub-Saharan Africa has also been the focus of press attention recently, especially since President Obama’s clash with Senegalese President Macky Sall and the murder of a Cameroonian LGBT activist. Anti-gay rhetoric in the Russian Federation has similarly been a concern for American and European diplomats, as the Russian Legislature passes increasingly draconian laws governing “homosexual propaganda.”

In each of these three cases, two common factors become apparent. For both Iraqis and sub-Saharan Africans, Islam is the governing religion for social issues, and a post-Communist Russia has embraced the Eastern Orthodox Church in a similar capacity. However, organized religion alone is not the driving force here. It has existed in these countries (in one form or another) for centuries. Some critics call the “apparent increase” in anti-LGBT violence an artifact of America’s recent interest in LGBT issues. They say that this violence has always existed here, but Americans just weren’t looking for it.

This argument (while possessing some validity) is not the main reason for Iraqi, sub-Saharan and Russian extremism. When comparing these governments to culturally similar ones (Iraq to Saudi Arabia, Russia to Ukraine, etc.), it becomes clear that the countries I have highlighted are experiencing quantitatively more violence than their neighbors. Saudi Arabia endorses Sunni Islam as a political philosophy and threatens to punish homosexual acts with death. Yet if you talk to a resident of Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Region, you’ll learn of the (closeted but obvious) homosexuals who live freely in their society. Compare that to the reports of the Iraqi police working their homosexual convicts to death or assaulting them when they request assistance. Similarly, while gay pride parades are legal and protected in Ukraine, the very act of kissing a same-sex partner is now criminalized in Russia.

So why are Iraqis, Sub-Saharans and Russians so homophobic? If only it were that easy to demonize cultures that we don’t really understand. The second (and more important) common factor among these people is their desire to be free of us. Anti-LGBT violence in these countries is usually related to increasing religious conservatism among their leadership, which is itself a response to increased pressure by the United States for them to conform to our beliefs. A severe lack of respect by the U.S. government, combined with a cultural arrogance about our “superior” way of life, makes negotiations with these countries difficult because they view our presence as a threat to their cultural uniqueness.

Even using the phrase “LGBT” to describe sexual minorities in other countries is a form of this arrogance. Around the world, local understandings of gender and sexuality vary greatly, and the “gay and lesbian” identities simply do not apply. Similarly, these sexual minorities do not demand the same rights and privileges associated with the LGBT movement in the U.S. They have unique problems to contend with, like rampant HIV infections, discrimination against HIV-positive individuals, police brutality, and media-encouraged violence against their most vulnerable members. When President Obama was asked to stand before the people of Senegal and lecture about same-sex marriage, it did nothing to address the widespread police brutality there. By the same token, Germany’s announcement to restrict Russian visas for its homophobic laws does nothing to aid the Russian LGBT community in its struggle for equal protection.

So how can the U.S. actually help the LGBT people whom its Department of State claims to love? By listening. Instead of assuming that gay people around the world want essentially the same thing, the U.S. could benefit from learning what “LGBT rights” mean to an Iraqi. Promising “marriage for all” doesn’t go over well when dealing with countries where sodomy is still criminalized. Working with and encouraging local LGBT activists must not be encumbered by U.S. assumptions of our cultural superiority.

Supporting the global fight for LGBT rights is neither simple nor short-term. When Western governments bring their self-aggrandizing views into the discussion, they alienate their allies and hurt those allies’ LGBT constituents. An effective strategy to protect sexual and gender minorities around the world is one written in terms that the locals can understand. It must reflect local values and respect local beliefs. Without such compassion, homophobia and Americaphobia will continue to grow.

Richard Furstein is the manager of distribution services at The Triangle. He can be contacted at richard.furstein@thetriangle.org.

The post The folly of international gay activism appeared first on The Triangle.

Why should the Supreme Court leave the decision of same-sex marriage to the states? Our Declaration of Independence, a document that speaks for our entire country, has already stated that “all men are created equal” and are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,” including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” So what leeway do states have unless they reinterpret the Declaration of Independence, supersede the “Creator” and redefine the word “all”?

Unfortunately, throughout history, members of the “majority” haven’t been concerned about preserving the rights of minorities with regard to happiness, especially if the desires of the minority conflicted with their own, e.g., slaves and Southern plantation owners. Inequality was wrong then, and inequality is wrong now. Nevertheless, members of the majority still experience relatively few implacable roadblocks along the path to happiness, while the path for members of minorities — especially the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community — is an obstacle course. And for many young gay people, it’s a crash course.

If you are one of those people who is still having a hard time opening your heart and mind to the idea of same-sex marriage, perhaps a little empathy would help. Put yourself in their shoes.

You are gay. Yes, you were born this way. The research can prove it. You come to realize that something is different, but you don’t always know what it is or why it is before a classmate, friend, family member, acquaintance or stranger teases or bullies you and makes you feel inadequate. And this feeling doesn’t go away. You have choices, but for most people, none of them are satisfying. You can pretend that other people are wrong and go out of your way to prove you are not what you are, perhaps by involving yourself in a heterosexual relationship that gives you no joy and hurts another human being. Or you live a double life — one existence that gives you some fulfillment and the other that makes you feel guilty. And when the truth comes out, all involved are likely to suffer. Alternatively, you could live a very lonely and loveless life — a single person who never seems to find the “right” match. Finally, you could tell the truth — you “come out” to your family and community and open yourself to the possibilities of insults, humiliation, physical abuse and unemployment. Given these choices, your only choices, which would you choose?

Choose? Nobody’s potential for happiness should be limited to options like these in the United States.

There should be another prospect available: a life of personal, private and public acceptance that is nationally encouraged and judicially declared. Opportunities for all people to pursue a loving relationship that harvests happiness should be the law of our land, and the Supreme Court should relish its power to make it possible.

Alexis Finger is a professor in the ESL certificate program at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Equality, everywhere appeared first on The Triangle.

Many of us know that this week has been pretty eventful at our nation’s capital — the Supreme Court declared a discriminatory section of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional, thereby allowing the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages, and issued a ruling upholding the U.S. District Court’s ruling regarding Proposition 8, thereby re-allowing same-sex marriage in California, and an “unruly mob” of Texans contributed to the filibuster of a bill that would virtually ban abortion in the state of Texas, but I’m here to give you the lowdown on the climate change address that President Obama gave June 25 to Georgetown University and the rest of the world.

The president did a great job of telling the American story — the one where our country faces a problem and then overcomes it with our innovation and dedication that is recognized around the world. But this time he put a global warming spin on the story, unlike what any other president has done. The president began his address by mentioning the numerous devastating disasters we’ve had in the last few years, but instead of just leaving it at that, he told us that it’s costing us, the taxpayers, money. Millions, if not billions, have been put into rebuilding communities and taking precautions for future disasters. He went on to mention the children, of course, to touch everyone’s hearts and give meaning to this important cause — without a planet, there is no future for the children. Then he clearly laid out his simple plan for America’s sustainable future:

•    Limit pollutants that cause global warming (aka greenhouse gases) from new and existing power plants, and build cars that burn less fuel.
•    Cut energy waste from our homes and businesses.
•    Help states and cities prepare for the impacts of climate change.
•    Be a leader in this time of crisis for the rest of the world.
•    Provide support to countries that may be unable to face these large changes so suddenly.
•    Collaborate with other countries that are leading the race in sustainability.

One main point that stuck out was his statement that he will not approve the Keystone XL pipeline if it increases greenhouse gas emissions. This is huge. If you read my previous op-ed, you know the impact of the pipeline, and it’s much larger than just emissions! He also mentioned natural gas as the “bridge fuel” to more sustainable options. Many environmentalists will agree that this is not a good choice — hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is very detrimental to our waterways and aquifers. But enough with the negatives — One of my favorite positive moments was near the end when he encouraged everyone to “Invest! Divest!” He literally told Americans to get fossil fuels out of their portfolios, which is relevant to everyone. I bet he’ll get an earful about that back at the office.

The main message that was recognized across the environmental community was that we’re at risk, we need to do something now, and we don’t have time to wait around for other countries to do it. Many are saying that it’s about time that Washington caught up with other states and cities that are doing revolutionary initiatives with sustainability and climate change. This shouldn’t be a fight, but the president will, and does, face lots of opposition based on his stances on natural gas, the Keystone XL pipeline, renewable energy, and climate change as a fact. This opposition comes from other countries, Congress, various industries, and even some of his constituents. That being said, we don’t have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. We need to act now and together.

The post Enviroweekly | The politics of climate change appeared first on The Triangle.

The Boston Marathon is considered one of the biggest events for athletes after the Olympic Games. It is the oldest annual marathon in the world, and it has many historical stories of achievement. Citizens, residents and tourists are proud to participate in and watch this event. After the horrific Boston Marathon bombing, more than 200 people were injured and three were killed. A 20-year-old Saudi man was injured from the explosion like others. A bystander saw the badly injured Saudi man running and tackled him shortly after the blast. However, I’d like to call attention to the police officers who saw his race and nationality and decided to investigate his presumed guilt further. While he was treated in the hospital, his apartment was searched in a startling show of force. The interrogators suspected him because he was running after the bomb went off. The media played a role to paint him as a main suspect, but the police spokesperson said that it was false information and there was no one in custody. However, his name popped up on the Web, social media and newspapers as a “suspect in custody” regardless.

What happened in Boston has shocked and horrified us as international students. We deplored and mourned the loss of innocent lives in the criminal attack, which was an assault on our fundamental moral values. It was a senseless massacre of the innocent by perpetrators of violence. Terrorism has no nationality or religion. Unfortunately, Islam is popularly seen as a violent religion, and Muslims are envisaged as terrorists. The Holy Quran says, “If anyone killed a person not in retaliation of murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land — it would be as if he killed all mankind, and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all mankind.” After the explosion I received many calls and messages from my family and friends who prayed for us and who were full of dread from the reaction against us. Our fears were exacerbated by early media reports that a Saudi student who was taken to the hospital after the explosions was questioned by officers. As a Saudi international student, the implication of false accusations against all international students abhors me, and I’m sure my fellow foreign students feel the same. Sadly, the surviving terrorist was a student, but we all condemn and are disgusted by his actions. The fear of being considered a suspect because one is Muslim, Arab and/or Saudi is enough to prevent someone from doing something natural or routine. Humanity is not related to nationality or racism. If I were there, as a human being, I would have helped injured people, donated my blood, prayed for them, volunteered, and cooperated with law enforcement officers who kept the streets safe.

I endorse the idea that that the U.S. should be cognizant and meticulous in the future to protect the citizens and residents from ominous forces in this country. The fear associated with 9/11 has returned because of the continued employment of discriminatory judicial processes that are inequitable and judge people not on their behavior but on their nationality. The world looks to the U.S. as a role model of democracy and freedom. As international students, the U.S. has inspired us to pursue careers in technology, sciences, medicine and other fields, and we are fortunate to get the opportunity to study in the greatest universities in the world. Indeed, there are many students from Saudi Arabia who are studying in different fields and organizations. It is undeniable that universities and research centers are major drivers of the U.S. economy. If the U.S. continues the prejudicial process and unfair treatment of international students, those students will look for other options, which could affect the quality of U.S. education. Finally, at the interfaith memorial services for the victims of the Boston Marathon bombing, President Obama said, “Every fall, you welcome students from all across America and all across the globe. And every spring, you graduate them back into the world.” As if those words will motivate and encourage us as international students to keep going! Is that what we expect from Obama’s government.

Bassam Albraidy is a freshman ESL major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Stop the discrimination appeared first on The Triangle.

Recently, The Triangle featured an article in the Enviroweekly column that discussed the so-called dangers of genetically modified organisms. While the movement against GMOs has gained momentum in recent years with large lawsuits being filed against companies such as Monsanto across a multitude of countries, it is important to address the benefits of GMOs and conceptualize just how safe these modified organisms really are. The recent USDA investigation of Monsanto’s GM wheat production and its relative safety and low impact on human health provide excellent evidence as to why GMOs are perhaps the single biggest innovation to facilitate the expansion and survival of the human species.

Before analyzing the current state of GMOs, including any modern genetic or agricultural advancement in the past century, it is important to note that artificial selection on many plant species now used in agriculture developed alongside the beginnings of true agriculture. Many of today’s staple foods were actively selected for specific traits by early humans, providing larger, more palatable and more filling diets. It could be argued that this process of selection was not dictated by the natural growth of the plant itself but rather by a cognizant force. Effectively, these selections led to a genetic shift and rapid speciation of plants with the selected traits. Many of these innovations paved the way for the stabilization of human communities that could now rely on a consistent and reliable crop rather than migration through a hunting-and-gathering lifestyle.

The original roots of genetic modification are not as contemporary as many would think. The process of selection has been occurring for many centuries, but what makes modern genetic modification different and perceived as harmful? Modern advancements in genetic engineering have provided direct methods to change the DNA of target organisms through recombinant DNA technologies. Opponents of GMO practices often cite grounded ecological concerns as to why the practice of genetically modifying organisms needs to be reduced drastically, but their worries only represent a very radical case of genetic change. Additionally, many GMO detractors promote the idea that even livestock fed with GMO crops are dangerous for human consumption. This is completely irrational on both accounts.

The ecological impact of GMOs would be miniscule when compared to the impact of current agricultural practices. Agricultural crops today are not growing rampant, so why should GMO crops do the same?

By feeding livestock with GMOs we do no more harm to ourselves than if we were to eat from the same animal fed without GMOs. This is because everything that we consume contains large amounts of DNA from microscopic organisms, which our bodies break down and use later.

When weighing the costs and benefits of producing GMOs for both human and livestock consumption, the positive spectrum is overwhelmingly outstanding. Here are several amazing things that GMOs have allowed for in the past several years:

GMOs have led to an increase in food production and yield. This is a critical need for an ever-increasing population. Natural pesticides produced by GMOs have reduced agricultural chemical runoff into potentially sensitive environments such as streams or marshes. Growing and habitat modification have allowed for a longer growing season and for crops to be grown in previously uninhabitable conditions. Agriculturally desolate areas can now hope to grow food and reduce hunger.

Finally, the recent USDA investigation of Monsanto shows that even in the presence of overwhelming information proving the safety of GMOs, steps are being taken to ensure the utmost safety and regulation of any commercial GMO or those produced for research purposes. Given the long history of continuous research projects and experiments being run on GMOs, the risk of catastrophe is significantly mitigated. The benefit of GMO production, in relation to its environmental impact and reliability as a solution to agricultural problems facing humans today, makes these organisms and the entire industry a valuable asset to a successful society.

Vaughn Shirey is a freshman environmental science major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post GMOs are our friends appeared first on The Triangle.

It was the fall season, and the weather was chilly and windy. I was waiting for the bus with many people, including a middle-aged African-American woman. When I sneezed, she said, “Bless you, dear.”

I thanked her. She asked me, “Where are you from?”

I said, “I am from the Middle East.”

“Which language do you use there?”

“Arabic.”

She smiled and then asked me to wait. She was carrying a very big purse, and she searched it for a minute until she pulled out a thick black book and quickly looked for the right page. Then she gave it to me and asked me to read it. The page she asked me to read was written in Arabic. I will never forget the first sentence: “Dear brother or sister, I do not know you, I do not know your language, and I do not know if we will meet again, but if I know something, I know I respect you, and we are equal, looking for one goal — that is world peace.”
Because of this delightful lady and her book, questions came to my mind. I asked myself, “Can we have world peace for real someday? Is it even possible to happen? If it is possible, how we can make it happen?” Finding the answers to these questions was not easy, but today here I am, writing about world peace and how we can make it happen because I do believe it is possible, achievable and worthwhile.

First, let me define it. According to most, “world peace” is an idea of freedom, peace and happiness among and with all nations and their people. It is an idea of nonviolence and brotherhood and sisterhood, living in extended peace and companionship. My belief in the possibility of world peace is based in the basic natural tendencies of human beings throughout history. Many studies show that all people are genetically born to be good and that no one is born a criminal or a killer.

In addition, we have had great examples throughout history of people who lived their lives for world peace and died for it — people like Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., the Prophet Muhammad, and many others. These people were different in almost everything — religion, culture, race and time period — but they all spoke the language of world peace and had the same spirit and courage to work for it. These people passed away a long time ago, but their ideas still live in people’s minds and hearts. Perhaps by now many of you think, “If we had such great leaders of world peace, why don’t we have it right now?” This question actually leads me to the next point — how can we live this dream?

We may have had great world peace heroes during the past, but we lacked a working process that requires all of us to work on it. World peace can be a difficult maze for many, but for me it is neither difficult nor easy. I believe we can spread it by a smile or good deeds. We can do it by making a small effort and acting with kindness and appreciation. By not judging or stereotyping people, we can do it. By charity and thinking of others as we think of ourselves, we can do it. By believing that we are one and that we have the same color inside regardless of the color of our skin, we can do it. By believing that our differences give us a great opportunity to explore new things, we can do it. By admitting that when one person dies all humanity suffers, regardless of the dead person’s religion or nation, we can do it. Living in peace, sharing a big heart and working as one hand is the best thing that can happen to us.

As I will never forget the first line from the aforementioned woman’s book, I will never forget the last thing she said to me. Before she left, when I told her that it was a pleasure to meet her, she said, “Dear, you just made my day.”

I smiled and told her that we will have world peace someday because we have people like her, and then she even smiled bigger than I did, shook her head and said, “Like us, people like us.”

Yes, now I strongly believe in world peace, and I think we are able to make it true by hard work and strong beliefs in humanity. I could not end my message better than by repeating that wise lady’s words “Yes we will have world peace one day because the world has people like us.” All of us!

Hanan Hafiz is a student at Drexel University. She can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post Peace is still an option appeared first on The Triangle.

You would be hard pressed to find someone who hasn’t heard of genetically modified organisms in our food at this point. It’s a topic often touched upon in the mainstream media, and people have various opinions and theories about the issue of GMOs.

There are articles that argue that GMO food is essential for a growing population. As the human population increases in size, the amount of resources needed to sustain life will be strained globally. Water, oil, grain and rich soil will be used extensively in the future. With current farming practices, agriculture will have to change. Some people view GMOs as a solution to an ominous future because they believe it increases crop yields.

Environmentalists tend to argue that GMOs will meddle too deeply with the workings of nature and the planet in general. For instance, Roundup Ready seeds are mutated to resist copious amounts of herbicides and contain cell toxins to kill insects, and the new terminator seeds will be able to sterilize the plant after one or two growing seasons, making it impossible to recycle the seeds. The risks of GMOs have not be studied enough to see challenges they may create for our health, environment and future food production.

One interesting point that is not made often is that humans are not the main consumers of GMOs. In the United States, 10 billion farm animals eat genetically modified corn and soy every day. Over 70 percent of corn, grain and soy produced in the U.S. is fed to animals in factory farms. Furthermore, an exorbitant amount of water goes into producing the grains for animals to eat and keeping the animals alive until slaughter, and then additional water is required for the process of slaughter.

If you really want to avoid GMOs, don’t eat animal products or animal byproducts. Choosing organic foods yet still eating animal products barely chips away at the issue and doesn’t protect you from consuming GMOs. Globally, humans consume 60 billion animals each year, and we are feeding animals food that humans could easily eat for themselves (unless you’re avoiding GM food). By avoiding GM plants and animals completely, you are taking the best precautions to avoid that food. The most effective choice we have today is where and how we use our dollar for the food we eat and in how we spend our lives.

The post EnviroWeekly | The problem with GMOs appeared first on The Triangle.

I will put this issue in the simplest mathematical terms: The Japanese Rising Sun Flag equals the Nazi swastika flag. Simply put, both flags represent cold-blooded military regimes that were responsible for numerous war crimes. Under the Nazi flag, 6 million innocent Jews were killed in brutal concentration camps. Under the Rising Sun flag, many innocent civilians and prisoners of war were mercilessly tortured and killed by Japanese Imperial troops.

It is logical that both symbols of horrible crimes ought to be banned from display regardless of any occasion. After the fall of the Nazi Party, Germany took swift action to remove and ban every Nazi symbol. This shows Germany’s effort to atone for its sins. If I asked anyone to hold the Nazi flag in a crowded street, nearly anyone would refuse to accept my request.
Curiously, the same phenomenon did not occur with the Rising Sun Flag. Furthermore, many people around the world, except the descendants of the Japanese Imperialist Era victims, are indifferent to the meaning behind the Rising Sun Flag. As a matter of fact, I see these signs in countless places. Either directly or indirectly, the Rising Sun Flag is placed on jackets, gloves, music videos, posters and Olympic gymnastics uniforms, and it is carried by supporters at international sporting events.

The usage of the flag is not even limited to the Japanese. For instance, one of the most famous English rock bands, Muse, produced a music video for one of its hit songs, “Panic Station.” The music video takes place in the Tokyo metropolitan area, and one scene shows a large Rising Sun image in the background. This scene alone brought outraged reactions from the Chinese and Korean public on Muse’s social networks, so much so that Muse had to make a public announcement that they were deeply sorry for the thoughtless use of the Rising Sun Flag in their music video.

Frankly, I do not think that Muse realized the negative impact behind the flag. They probably thought that it is one of Japan’s cool fashion icons. This incident proves that most people do not know the historic symbolism behind the flag. Therefore, the fundamental point of this column is: How did this symbol of war crimes ever reach the public without censorship?
Some may ask why Americans should care about such a matter like the Japanese Empire and its war crimes. The Rising Sun Flag became ingrained in popular culture around the world. Today, popular culture pervades the whole world, and many countries enjoy the same popular music and films. Therefore, as long as the Rising Sun Flag exists in pop culture, we share the responsibility of knowing the origin. Nazi symbols earned their rightful place as banned in some places and repellant to people, so why can’t the imperial flag be treated the same way? To know the cause, we need to look at the history behind the flag.

In fact, the Rising Sun Flag was highly restricted to the point of being completely banned by Gen. Douglas MacArthur and the Allied Powers right after the end of the Pacific War. The restrictions were slowly reduced as the years went by, and by 1949, before the Korean War broke out, the Japanese government abolished the restrictions. As in Germany, the Allied Forces planned to station their troops in Japan in order to completely neutralize any threat of Imperial Japan’s vestiges during reconstruction of the government and education system. Japan was to become a permanently harmless agricultural nation.

This policy changed when the Korean War broke out. In order to halt the communist advance in East Asia, the United States had to allow Japan to develop heavy industries again. Furthermore, many of the alleged war criminals who could have been prosecuted by the International Military Tribunal for the Far East didn’t end up being charged. The surviving politicians and generals formed their own political party.

I truly hope that fellow students are well aware of the fact that the Rising Sun Flag symbolizes war crimes in the same way that the Nazi flag does. If you actually have any items that bear the flag, I would sincerely suggest that you reconsider displaying them. Countless people were scarred by the inhumanities of World War II. Consequently, bringing out any symbols that bear the horrifying memory of madness is seriously disrespectful and offensive to victims and their descendants.

Alex Cho is a freshman political science major at Drexel University. He can be contacted at op-ed@thetriangle.org.

The post A symbol of a disgraced past appeared first on The Triangle.

It seems like in an age where sex, gender and sexuality are constantly being shoved down the throats of adolescents, there is no escape from the inevitable questioning of one’s personal identity. Lurking around every new acquaintance, unseen pressures from both parties seem to boil until someone pops the sexuality question. Even if the question is never asked, people will always assume based on stereotypes, mannerisms and actions. Of the numerous times that the question has been brought to my attention, I have still failed to grasp an answer that I can fully stand behind. While labeling sexuality can have important implications in terms of personal identity, ultimately the negative consequences of being so strictly defined by the parameters of “gay,” “straight” or “lesbian” outweigh the human desire to categorize and belong.

While recognizing sexual and romantic attraction toward a specific gender is a monumental step in personal development, rushing to label and address those attractions to others leaves plenty of room for later confusion both internally and externally throughout friends and family. While it is generally a good idea, at least for the then and now, to inform your immediate family of your feelings, abstractly claiming a queer identity is far better than coming out as one specific thing. Why? The complexity of human attraction is not fully understood. Going with the flow of attraction seems to be the most stable method of identifying oneself. To conceptualize this, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community should move toward adopting the queer identity as an umbrella term for all sexualities. In fact, “queer” should not be the final step in this transition but rather a step toward just being yourself.

The catch to this proposition is human nature itself. Bound by observation, we categorize everything into groups in order to determine what we personally do and do not enjoy. And here is the problem: I might choose to identify one way, but say I meet someone whom I really like but doesn’t fit my predefined mold. Does that person know about me from friends or acquaintances? Has that person heard about my declared sexuality and become curious as to why I am making advances? With common culture dictating the innate presence of sexuality from birth, suddenly coming out again as different from the original declaration might seem strange and even hypocritical to the outsider. That is why it might be better to let whatever happens happen and not worry about conforming to a specific label.

Instead of focusing on the difference between individuals, the labeling of one’s sexuality or the mechanism of attraction between two individuals, you can make communication clear and abundant by promoting yourself and letting what lies within you become reality. The future of decision, the future of attraction and the future of defining individuals by mundane characteristics depends on this transition from obsession to a statement of “whatever happens, happens.” Of course, this means reinventing the individual and our notions about sexuality, which is no small step for a large group of people, but with enough support, it would be an easy transition within an entire community.
Signing off on another column of Queerview, I’m Vaughn Shirey — I’m a human and I like other humans, and that’s all you need to know.

The post Queerview | Labeling sexuality appeared first on The Triangle.