Letters to the editor for July 3
Rent strike criticism misses the point
The Olympian recently criticized Olympia City Council member Renata Rollins’ public decision to participate in the nation-wide rent and mortgage strike. Like Ms. Rollin’s landlord Zach Kosturas, The Olympian frames it as her decision to “not pay rent this month, even though she has the money to do so.”
This criticism argues essentially that most landlords are willing to work with tenants who have lost their jobs, so Rollins’ refusal to pay her rent actually reduces the landlord’s “cushion” that they could use to grant leeway to more needy tenants.
The Olympian apparently misunderstands what a strike is. A strike is (by definition) an organized and voluntary withholding of one’s labor, or in this case rent. When workers in a factory go out on strike, they withhold their labor because all of them doing this together have the power to force the demands they want. A strike is not a plea for charity or beneficence. It doesn’t matter if the landlord is a stereotypical villain or not. It’s attractive because it can benefit all the strikers, not just the individuals who Mr. Kosturas or The Olympian deem worthy.
A rent strike works precisely because it is voluntary. But it only works when those who are able to pay stand with those who are not.
I support and commend Ms. Rollins for her willingness to stand in solidarity with those who are less fortunate and for raising the conversation about collective action.
Josh Weir, Olympia
What national security?
On Sept. 11, 2001, America learned that despite our military prowess we were vulnerable to a devastating attack by 19 individuals armed only with box cutters.
In nearly two decades of continuous war since 2001, “the finest fighting force in world history” has been unable to defeat determined adversaries in Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the world. The hundreds of billions of dollars we spend annually on a global military force do not protect America from the existential threat of climate change or a pandemic or even foreign interference in our elections.
Our national security spending is vast but does not provide real security in the 21st century. The time has come to seriously rethink our national priorities.
Mark Fleming, Olympia
The white face in the mirror of racism
Our country has convulsed in horror at the video showing the slow strangulation death of a subdued, handcuffed Black man in Minneapolis. Some say that this murder was the result of systemic racism in police departments; others say it was due to a “bad apple” cop, Derek Chauvin. Both of these excuses try to let the rest of us off the hook for the deep racism embedded in the fabric of our society.
The camera captured the expression of racism on Chauvin’s face. It was not the expression of a hot-blooded racial hatred. Instead, it was the look of the cold-blooded racism that runs through our societal veins. His expression showed a callous yet casual disregard for the humanity of George Floyd. It reflected both his and our assumed right, and white privilege, to treat a person of color as a valueless object.
The existence of white privilege may be seen in the recent juxtaposition between the treatment of a Black man dying unjustly at the hands of our police, and of the hands-off treatment of heavily armed white men menacing state governments for anti-social causes. It, in essence, pits the 13th, 14th and 15th Constitutional Amendments, which granted rights to the formerly enslaved humans, against the vaunted 2nd Amendment, which had the original intent to grant slave-holding states the unimpeded right to form militias to enforce chattel slavery. It is evident that white privilege still trumps minority rights.
Looking in the mirror. Are we the fairest of all?
Denis H. Langhans, Olympia