Politics of Silence and Visibility

This letter ran yesterday in the Arbiter

"The idea President Bush hates black Americans is ridiculous"

You have got to be kidding me. First off, you deserve no credit for the port-a-potties being brought in. Are you so dense that you believe that you were the one that thought of that first? If President Bush is so against Black Americans, please tell me why Condoleezza Rice works next to him? Or are you going to claim he does that for show? Of course our soldiers need to have guns, 10,000 dense ignorant people are not leaving. They need to protect themselves. It's sad that you are an American (at least I am assuming) and you can't thank the troops for exposing himself or herself to disease, or being killed! Give me a break! If people are breaking into businesses and stealing IPODS and TV's something has to be done. People can't think that they can get away with this! The troops are there to help; President Bush has to make difficult decisions while you complain. So I suggest that you do your research before putting your opinion out there for all to see. You give future journalists a bad name! I am going into journalism and I am offended by your ignorance.
Jessica Bruton
Boise, ID


This is my response:

Jennifer Edwards
Boise, Idaho
Major: Interdisciplinary Studies

I am writing to address the very passionate argument Jessica Bruton made in her letter to editor titled, "The idea President Bush hates black Americans is ridiculous." Notice I said address, rather than engage in what could easily become a written ego peeing contest, which is quite boring, and well, useless. First, I'd like clarification. Please explain to me, who the "10,000 dense, ignorant people" are exactly and how Condoleeza Rice's presence in the White House is automatically and unquestionably indicative of an administration's racial equality?
I do not see the connections and I would love for you to help me understand. Also, please explain to me how questioning political decisions, policies and government officials automatically and unquestionably renders one offensive or inept as a journalist?

I did not see the piece critiqued, nor did I find enough evidence in your response to support the points that made you "sad" that someone making these statements is an American. It would be wonderful if we could actually discuss such discrepancies in opinion, not in blanket statements, arguments and posturing, but as critical thinkers and concerned, educated citizens. It troubles me to see someone I think to be very bright, using an emotional argument to silence criticism. To me, the value of a University education IS the encouragement of critical thinking and NOT to serve as a space for sustaining the view of government as shepherd, to a public of happy, unquestioning sheep.

*****************************************
I rarely ever even read the arbiter yet alone respond to letters to the editor but this particular letter really made me think about the politics of silence and visibility. I did not happen to catch the particular piece that she was responding to and as I stated in my response, I did not feel there was enough evidence in her letter to make me understand her points. Instead, reading this made me think of how easily criticism is silenced. Written off. Discouraged. Yet clearly emotional reactionary pieces such as this are used CONSISTENTLY and treated as irrefutable. Maybe they are. After all, how can you truly disprove one's opinion, if they refuse to either use facts to support their views or refrain from the lapse into blanket statements and circular arguments?

What really, really made me want to respond was where admonished the "journalist" for not having done their research "before putting your opinion out there for all to see." Her entire piece completely BLURS the line between opinion and opinion stated (and assumed) as fact, in the same fascinating fashion that FOX news does. Op-Ed's such as this do NOT invite discussion, they silence. They attempt to render opposition invisible and irrelevant. Opposition is relevant. Dissent is relevant. Critical thinking is relevant and I am beyond tired blanket statements used to silence.

I think I might actually build upon this very thing for one of my three projects...the politics of silence and visibility. In this lovely climate of a perpetual war of words, I think it ideal to arm yourself with the most under appreciated weaponry...the ability to listen, to think and to question, to educate yourself and to challenge that "ignorance" first and foremost in yourself as well as in others. ~peace~