For those of you who didn't have the opportunity to read Kristina Lusk's opinion piece ("NorCal and SoCal Regional Rivalries are overplayed" Nov. 21), the basic structure of her work was as follows: One, Californians "take hating on one another to a whole new level." Two, although California's economy has proven strong, the state could not survive as "a sovereign nation" without the event of a "bloody civil war." Three, such a war has already started in the form of the "incendiary diatribes" that have developed between the Northern and Southern Californian regions.
Lusk then provides evidence for her case by sharing the opinion of a Southern Californian friend who dislikes Northern Californian people because "they think they are the best in the state" and because "everyone knows that SoCal is better in sports than NorCal." After being "called out" on her weak evidence of a blooming conflict, Lusk took upon herself the responsibility of finding more concrete facts. She then produced a "general consensus" that the hatred she sees stems from sport team rivalry and the manliness of the men in each region. I would summarize Lusk's article further although I see no point in reiterating much else. By finishing with the self-contradictory statement "actions (the passing of Proposition 8, for example) reflect you as a state, and no one differentiates the North from the South in light of the choices you make as a state," Lusk clearly fails to deliver a cohesive or enlightening message.
As a Southern California citizen for the entire 19 years of my life, I cannot help but find very little truth within the piece. For one, the "hating" Northern and Southern Californians inflict on each other indicates nothing more than healthy competition. Like rival high schools, both regions talk smack and find themselves superior, but neither would likely go so far as to wage war on the other. Also, while some citizens feel their favorite athletic teams outperform others in the opposite region, such a mindset exists in a much broader spectrum outside the state lines of California. Take for instance the East Coast/West Coast NBA conferences and the international fight for the coveted World Cup. Would any of these contests still exist if they led to a significantly violent battle?
Lusk's generalization that "a typical Californian male" sports "longer hair, bronzer skin, and long board" reveals her own discriminatory tendencies. She cannot tell the difference between them regionally, and therefore finds them one and the same. She uses such a stereotype to argue that since Californian males don't look different, they shouldn't see themselves as different either. My favorite remark from Lusk reads "I won't allow my judgment to be impaired by my own biases." Has the Washington native not already soaked her argument in judgments from biases? Why stop now?
Anyway, I wrote this article mainly to defend California. I would have expected someone to accuse my home state of exhibiting shallow behavior or living selfishly, fast-paced lives, but Lusk's allegations simply misrepresent the Golden State. As a state, we're nowhere near civil upheaval, especially in terms of sports and brawn. Of course we have differences in opinion and hold protests, but those take place up and down the state (and in other states, too!) for similar causes. Since 1934 we've voted blue, indicating a consistency in the majority. Furthermore, the passing of Proposition 8, (for those who don't know, a proposition which changed the constitutional definition of marriage and prevents same-sex couples from marrying) while shocking and detrimental to many, also shows solidarity of a different sort. If California can manage to endure a huge election year without bloodshed, I have a feeling the "in-state vendettas" Lusk so clearly sees hold little importance in light of the real issues Californians currently face.
Thus, I question Lusk's motives and advise her not to use the current faults of her own state (i.e., Dino Rossi and Oklahoma City Thunder) as the basis for lecturing another state on their actions. Sure, California has some serious flaws, but those imperfections need to be fixed by Californians, not out-of-staters who pretend to know the truth. Lusk should write to her fellow Washington denizens about the recent changes the state has undergone before stepping on the toes of other Americans. All states should work toward perfecting their own societies before showing others how to fix theirs in order to better America as a whole. Doesn't the infamous Gandhi saying go, "Be the change you want to see in the world?" So, Lusk, you stay Evergreen, I'll stay Golden, and we'll call it a truce.
Sarah Dysthe is a senior at Gonzaga.
Be the first to comment on this article!