14 ’ Other Editorials DB eae ee IAL October 12th marked the five-hundredth anniversary of Columbus’ first contact with native peoples of the Americas. Columbus, the great explorer, was lost.... Thinking himself to be in India, he called the people he met on these shores Indians. Today we know these “Indians” as First Nations Peoples. The moment Columbus set foot on their shore marked the beginning of the decimation of the First Nations Peoples and their cultures. North American culture venerates that fateful day, Columbus Day in the U.S., Thanksgiving in Canada. Indeed it has become a day of reunions, feasting, celebration! But just whatis being celebrated? The sad reality is that we are celebrating the conquering and subsequent destruction of many entire nations of peoples and their distinct cultures. Since elementary school most of us have been told about the glorious discovery of the New World by the brave and fearless (nonetheless lost) Columbus. hence, Columbus Day. (In the U.S. the atrocity is celebrated twice, Columbus Day and Thanksgiving.) Thanksgiving is said to mark the day when the native people kindly saved the “settlers.” Biased history has christened the invaders as early “colonists” and bestowed upon them historical fame and importance. Thanksgiving is supposed to celebrate the cooperation and peaceful interaction between this continent’s indigenous peoples and its newest citizens. Oyer the past five hundred years this myth has been enshrined. It is anything but the truth. Columbus, exploiter of a navigational blunder, slave trader and courier of many frightful diseases, has been iconized by mainstream culture for a couple of hundred years. Only in recent years have we begun to look at his “discovery” as the gateway to disaster it was. We can’t change history. We should acknowledge that Columbus did not discover North and South America. However the proselytizing, exploitation and genocide carried out from region to region and era to era has changed, the bottom line remains the same. No matter how it happened; it happened and it was wrong. We can choose to ignore this, or we choose to make amends for the past. We can also in the process of ethically resolving the past forge a future history that is not based on this tragic legacy. Elijah Harper, A Cree, said no to the Meech Lake Accord when , in his view, it failed to satisfy either resolving the past or creating anew and better future. : We can change what we do today and tomorrow. We can educate ourselves about First Nations land claims and other grievances. We can attempt to understand the way they were treated and the cultural context through which they view their treatment. Many Aboriginal concems are easily seen as legitimate while the significance of others eludes us. All of their concerns deserve attention. Since they took over governments at all levels have been balking their responsibilities to the First Nations. So too have far too many citizens for far too long. the Other Press October 15, 1992 THATS A TREATY, — 40U PUT YOUR MARK ON IT AND THEY'LL TAKE YOUR MAND AWAY FROM You (SOME GHITE MEN CAME WITH A PAPER, THEY WANT ME To PuT A CROSS [ RETURN THEY 26 Give You an EDUCATION SO Jou CAN LEARN TO Live wa Ney Way! Another accord is before the citizens of Canada. We will soon vote yes or no. We owe it to the future __ to ensure that our history of neglect does not repeat itself. Find out what’s at stake, educate yourself and if you vote. vote with your conscience. douglas college's autonomous student newspaper - since 1976 October 15th, 1992 The Other Pressis Douglas College's autonomous studentnewspaper since 1976. : Being autonomous means neither the Douglas College Students! Society or the College administration can tell the Other Press what to print. Only you, the students, can decide what goes in the paper By helping out. It means that if someone doesn't like us, they can't shut your voice down for telling the truth. Wereceiveour funding froma studentlevy collected from youevery semester at registration, and also from local and national advertising revenue. The Other Press is a member of the Canadian University Press, a cooperative of almost 50 student newspapers from across Canada. We adhere to CUP's Statment of Common Principles and Code of Ethics. The Other Press reserves the right not to publish anything sexist, racist, ake ape or against the principles of good taste. Letters received by the Other Press should be a maximum of 300 words, : and contain the name, program of study, and student number of the writer (although the latter can be withheld upon request). The Other Press reserves the right to edit for space constraints. And double-check Sere ar: lettersare printed uncorrected. Thecollective is the final arbiter of disputes. PHONE - 525-3542 FAX - 527-5095. Staff This Issue This issue's contributors are the following: Angela Chiotakos, Sean Veley, Angus Adair, Byrun Stedmann, Mark Foster, Elaine Leong, Ryan Cousineau, Brook Johnston, Marion Drakos, Thomas Halmosi, Nadine Handley, Jasmine Wilde, Karen Remple and Lynn Wainman, the woman with the car and the fan (many, many thanks). Kudos and jelly-filled doughnuts to you all. There you go. Not very flashy, but sometimes life can be like that. coordinators sean vely advertising*® byrun stedmann & tara campbell arts and reviews vacant features* greg holtz —— vacant newse tim crumley offices nadine handly photose angela chiotakos production» elaine a mark s. foster editorials and opinions marion drakos classifiedse stephen so distribution jt Other Letters Oops! We goofed The Other Press apologizes. This letter originally appeared in the September 16, 1992, issue. Several editing mistakes were made and subsequently published. The letter appears here in its original glory. By the way, students, if The Other Press had a larger staffsuch bloopersand bungles could probably be avoided. Interested? Just show up at room 1020 any Wednesday afternoon at four for a staff meeting. It'll change your life. Some Speculations About D.C. Harassment Policy Finally, D.C (sic) has a Sexual and Personal Harassment policy enacted. This policy, which is obtainable from the Women’s ctr. (sic), may reduce the confusion amongcollegecommunity members about this issue to a certain degree. Since this policy is intending to provide an environment free from sexual and personal harassment {which was not addressed properly HEY, HEY, HEY! STRESSED OUT STUDENTS, GOT A PROBLEM? TELL SOMEONE WHO CARES. IF YOU CAN'T FIND ANYONE WRITE TO: C/O THE OTHER PRESS, ROOM 1020 by the College Student Conduct Policy (C.S.C.P)] oneshould consider providing this policy as a positive step toward eliminating the harassment and the confusion about it. Nonetheless, this policy is suffering from ambiguity and discrimination in different aspects. The terms and phrases used by this policy, like the ones used by the C.S.C.P, (sic) are still unclear and leavea big margin for interpretation. “Serious”, “Natural”, “Legitimate”, “Substantial” ... are some examples of suchterms. Orconsider this: “Off- premises behaviour which is unrelated to an individual's employmentorstudies at the College is not covered.” How can ome determine that behaviour is related or unrelated to the individual’s employment or studies is an untold story. The reader can detect more such examples. In this policy, the President of the college has extreme power. Heis not committed to consult any a of the campuscommunity for selecting the investigation committee members. The policy avoids dealing with hypothetical incidents in which the president might be involved. Like the C.S.C.P, (sic) students play almost no roll in any part of this policy. In the case of student involvement, the president may, and only may, appoint a student to the committee. This demonstrates the college view and respect for students. Notonly muast students be involved in the procedures but also there has to be an equal participation of students in the case of student involvement incidents. It seems that the College is ignoring Robert Porter’s, the human_ rights coordinator, aobservation for students’ “lack of power and input” in the C.S.C.P. (re: Status Report- work plan 1990 07 27) Womenare the main victims of sexual harassment. Theinvestigation committee must be guaranteed to have at least half female members. This will prevent having maleculture dominate the committeeatmosphere. By the same token, in the case of incidents with individuals from ethnic backgrounds, the committee members must be selscted from different ethnic bachgrounds. This will reflect our understanding from thenatureofour multicultural society. . To create and maintain an “environment which is free from sexual and personal harassment” the College mustbe obligated to provide ongoing educational programs for its community. This should not be considered as a side task. In fact, this is our main way to create and maintain such an environmentin an educational institution. Educating people for this matter will help to reduce harassment in our societyas whole, as well. Mahdy Sirdehai UT