I am a 2013 graduate of Ohio University writing to express my full support for Megan Marzec. As Post readers know, Megan posted a video last week that called on Ohio University to cut its ties with the apartheid state of Israel. The video generated enormous controversy locally and nationally, and Megan received over 1000 critical emails and messages in 24 hours, the majority of which were steeped in vitriolic, racist, misogynistic language, and some of which included death threats.
I am a 2013 graduate of Ohio University writing to express my full support for Megan Marzec. As Post readers know, Megan posted a video last week that called on Ohio University to cut its ties with the apartheid state of Israel. The video generated enormous controversy locally and nationally, and Megan received over 1000 critical emails and messages in 24 hours, the majority of which were steeped in vitriolic, racist, misogynistic language, and some of which included death threats.
For example, one email sent to President McDavis on the topic made heavy use of the n-word and the c-word and concluded by saying of Megan, “you’ll be real cute, bitch, when your AllahBoyz SLIT YOUR CHRISTIAN INFIDEL THROAT.”
Although much could be said in support of both the merit of Megan’s original message and her right to say it without her life being threatened, I want to take this opportunity to draw some contrasts between what happens when one talks about human rights in Palestine, and what happens when one talks about human rights in Congo.
When I was on campus, I was involved in the Conflict Free Campus Initiative, which demanded socially responsible procurement and investment practices with respect to conflict minerals that fuel violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Like Megan, CFCI called on the university to end its complicity in international human rights abuses. Like Megan, we did so forcefully and with considerable panache. Student Senate supported us five times, and individual Senate members, including the last four presidents, spoke out publicly on our behalf.
Unlike Megan, we were met with overwhelming support from the campus community. Thousands of people participated. I recall only two students and one faculty member ever expressing criticism. All three did so in a respectful, constructive manner, and we talked to and learned from each other.
The point of this letter is not to make substantive comparisons of the scale or nature of the violence in Congo and Palestine, nor to assert that identical solutions are needed. But minimally, it is clear that serious human rights abuses are being perpetrated in both cases. The United Nations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and many other mainstream NGOs and IGOs have joined anti-colonialists in condemning Israel for its systematic and deliberate denial of Palestinians basic human rights. Six Nobel Peace laureates jointly rejected Israel’s settler colonialism, war crimes, and other grave violations of international law. Over 300 Holocaust survivors and their descendents published a letter decrying what they called a genocide of the Palestinian people.
I did not build a case above that human rights are violated in Congo. I didn’t have to. People in the United States find it very easy to believe that six million Africans have been massacred by other Africans. Centuries of the white savior colonial mentality, in its various forms, have rendered African suffering almost clich. When talking about human rights in Congo, it is easy to find sympathy. It is easy to find trite expressions of admiration for the hope that white people can magically discern in the eyes of African people. It is easy to find people who will sign a petition for Congo because their cousin did missionary work in Uganda. It is harder to find shock and outrage, much less willingness to work toward genuine solidarity with Congolese human rights defenders.
Some of the same people who were supportive when it came to CFCI are sending nasty hate mail to Megan. Apparently it is much harder to believe that Israel could abuse human rights. Israel has gone to great pains to portray itself as a Western liberal democracy that acts as an oasis for women, LGBT people and the environment in the midst of all those barbaric Arab states. Never mind that colonial occupation and militarization are fundamentally incompatible with being green and supporting marginalized people. Never mind that Western liberal democracies perpetrate atrocities every day.
Lastly, I want to address allegations that Megan is anti-Semitic because she dared to criticize the Israeli state. Again, a contrast with Congo activism is useful. CFCI regularly spoke out against the Tutsi-controlled government of Rwanda for supporting abusive Tutsi militias in Congo. Although 800,000 Tutsis were murdered in the Rwandan genocide of 1994, and although Rwanda used protecting its own persecuted ethnic group as a cover for its actions, not one person ever accused CFCI of being anti-Tutsi. Why should they? Criticizing a government's deplorable practices is very different from being prejudiced against the ethnic group that
government claims to represent.
If you have been critical of Megan for speaking out for Palestinian human rights, but you supported me when I spoke out for Congolese human rights, I urge you to critically examine any double standards you may be holding. Reflect on the way you think about Africa, and the way you think about Israel. Consider where those disparate understandings came from, and whose interests they support. I hope you come to the conclusion that everyone’s human rights matter.
Ellie Hamrick is an Ohio University student.
