Who’s the ‘fascist?’
Dear Editor,
I never thought I would see the day I would be called a fascist, but I suppose life really is full of surprises. The Daily Campus’ self-styled reactionary William Baldwin attached the tag of “fascist” to my name in a column Thursday (“Iraq is different”). I feel personally compelled to respond to this insult, though I have considered simply not dignifying Mr. Baldwin’s charge with a response.
My dictionary defines fascism as “a system of government marked by a totalitarian dictator, socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition and usually a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” None of those criteria correspond even remotely with any of my beliefs. To answer Mr. Baldwin’s other charges, I did not engage in name-calling, nor did I suggest that he should not write to The Daily Campus. I referred to him as a Neo-Confederate because, in his own words, he is a supporter of the Confederacy who believes he has nothing to apologize for. The facts would suggest otherwise.
The Confederate States of America was one of the most loathsome manifestations of evil to appear in this nations’ history. The Southern aristocrats (whether they claimed to believe in slavery or not), fought tenaciously to preserve the existence of a backwards and feudal system that rested upon slave labor. These men fed the white Southern public a pack of propaganda about their rights, heritage and whatnot being in danger due to the actions of the federal government, and they believed it, to their detriment.
Astonishingly, many believe these lies today. I once saw a bumper sticker depicting the Confederate battle flag flying over the United States Capitol, with the slogan “I have a dream.”
The men responsible for the Confederate States of America, and thus for the Civil War, have no place as the namesakes of American schools (or institutions of any sort). Just as important, if not more so, their nation’s battle flag has no place on any state flags today. Removing these symbols is not an effort at “political correctness,” whatever that is. It’s a simple matter of respect.
It is true that the average Union soldier did not consider himself on a crusade to free the enslaved. His motives were more likely formed from a desire to prevent the Confederate aristocrats from tearing the nation apart. However, no study of the conflicts’ participants should leave out the large numbers of resolute abolitionists within the Union ranks. Though a minority, these anti-slavery crusaders proved highly significant to the war effort, as they were the natural choice to lead the regiments of black soldiers formed after Emancipation.
In calling me a fascist, Mr. Baldwin refers to the words of Huey “Kingfish” Long, one-time governor of Louisiana and later US senator, with a brief political career stretching from the end of the 1920s to the mid 1930s. His choice is curious, as Huey Long is the same man, who, hearing that a university for black students was scheduled for construction adjacent to Louisiana State University, had a team of men dig a lake overnight, forcing the university to find another home. This doesn’t seem like the actions of a man Mr. Baldwin claims was so opposed to fascism. As such, I am led to question Mr. Baldwin’s motives and intentions. His statements increasingly seem like the textual equivalents of those Neo-Nazis who flee behind the protection of police officers when confronted by the righteous warriors of Anti-Racist Action, only to turn around and scorn those same police when the coast is clear.
Both Mr. Baldwin and myself are students of history, and at least one of us is committed to getting his facts straight. I’ll leave it to The Daily Campus’ readership to determine which one. I’ll also leave it up to the readers to determine if either one of us deserves the label of “fascist.”
Scott Charney
Junior English and History Major
Further spiritual relativism
Dear Editor,
I am appreciative to Professor Bartlett for replying to the article I submitted last week and for giving me the opportunity to further discuss aspects of spiritual relativism. Bartlett replied to my article with several absolute statements concerning the obvious nature of the validity of more than one religious option. By stating, “Surely Anderson does not believe that there is only one legitimate religious option for every person and every community,” Bartlett implied that it is obvious there is more than one valid religion. But I would ask, “Obvious to whom?” It’s not obvious to me or millions of other people. In addition, Bartlett denies the legitimacy of one religion over all others. In his view, to assert such a claim is to denigrate people of other faiths. I would like to challenge the very platform from which he makes these statements.
Professor Bartlett, how did you arrive at you epistemology? That is, how do you KNOW what you know? Who told you? Who told them? Where did you read it? How did you arrive at the conclusion that everyone must choose to believe or not to believe? How do you KNOW that ambiguity is wrong? How do you KNOW that denigration is wrong? How do you KNOW how people should be treated? You are assuming a standard outside of yourself, a non-relative standard, to assume that it is wrong to treat others in a disparaging way. If a Theistic world view is not correct, there is no such thing as denigration because there is no absolute standard by which a person should be treated.
In the relative universe from which you operate, there can be no wrong and no right – the strongest word in your vocabulary must be ‘prefer.’ You can prefer there to be no homicide, no sexual exploitation of young children, no abuse, no racial injustice, but you cannot say with absolute objective certainty that any of those are wrong. For instance, you could (and no doubt would) prefer that the Holocaust had never happened, but you could never say “it SHOULD have never happened.” How would you argue against it on an ultimate and objective level, with 100% certainty? Make no mistake, I think the Holocaust was one of the most morally reprehensible acts ever done by the hands of men, but you have to borrow from my world view to arrive at the same conclusion. You state with absolute certainty that spiritual relativism is the only proper approach to faith. Your statements contradict themselves. For how can you absolutely argue, on an ultimate level, for spiritual relativity? Professor Bartlett, you are applying principles from a Theistic world view, a world view with absolute statements of right and wrong, to discredit the very foundation on which your statements rest. You’re working off borrowed capital.
There are only two ways you can absolutely KNOW something — that is know something with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. The first option is to know everything yourself, to realize even the most remote implications of every possible outcome. The other option is to know someone who knows this absolute truth. I do not claim to know everything myself, but claim to know the One who does. Instead of inventing and creating my own relative standards of right and wrong, I trust the inerrancy of an outside source to define my world view. I most certainly do believe that there is only one legitimate religious option for the entire world, for without an absolute and universal spiritual truth, all concepts of right and wrong, justice and equality are thrown out the window.
Tricia Anderson
Senior Biology major
PETA’s alcohol approval
Dear Editor,
Am I now a minority here at SMU when I say that I was not too enthralled by the editorial article congratulating PETA for their anti-milk/pro-beer campaign? Granted, I will state that PETA will definitely grab college students’ attention; it’s not every day that one comes across the slogan “Got Beer?”
I am perfectly aware of the adverse effects of milk, and that is why soymilk came onto the market a few years back, but is PETA completely throwing the harmful effects of alcohol o
ut the window? They state that in no way are they encouraging alcohol; I must have missed the footnote that states “Got Beer? – PETA does not endorse nor condone the consumption of alcohol.” I don’t think kids are going to buy and drink alcohol just because PETA asked a question, but it’s not helping to prevent underage drinking. Because of this, I can understand MADD’s complaint against PETA.
More than anything, I love how all college students are pigeonholed into being drinkers. Believe it or not, there are some college students who don’t drink alcohol. Oh dear! Some of us are straightedge, some of us follow certain religious beliefs, and some of us just don’t like it.
PETA will get much attention (positive and negative) from this campaign. Heck, these are the people who ran ads of models posing nude for anti-fur protests. They know how to obtain recognition and how to hold it, but maybe they should try a different way?
Travis Hill
Junior Spanish Major
