Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4A — Thursday, February 7, 2019
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Samantha Goldstein
Elena Hubbell
Emily Huhman
Tara Jayaram
Jeremy Kaplan
Sarah Khan
Lucas Maiman
Magdalena Mihaylova
Ellery Rosenzweig
Jason Rowland
Anu Roy-Chaudhury
Alex Satola
Ali Safawi
Ashley Zhang
Sam Weinberger
Erin White
FINNTAN STORER
Managing Editor
Stanford Lipsey Student Publications Building
420 Maynard St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890.
MAYA GOLDMAN
Editor in Chief
MAGDALENA MIHAYLOVA
AND JOEL DANILEWITZ
Editorial Page Editors
Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of The Daily’s Editorial Board.
All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors.
EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS
A
fter several years of
growing
unrest
and
widespread
protests,
tensions in Venezuela finally
boiled over at the start of this
year. To begin, the immensely
unpopular
president
Nicolas
Maduro was re-elected in 2018
through
an
allegedly
rigged
vote. In the wake of his 2019
inauguration,
the
National
Assembly
of
Venezuela,
believing Maduro’s election to be
illegitimate, invoked articles 233,
333 and 350 of the Venezuelan
Constitution, allowing them to
render the presidential position
empty and confirm Juan Guaidó
instead, setting the stage for a
dramatic battle over presidential
authority. While there has been
an outpouring of support for
Guaidó in the weeks since his
confirmation, not many concrete
changes have occured, leaving
Venezuela in a state of great
uncertainty going forward.
In a situation with so much
up in the air, looking at similar
situations from recent history
can be the best way to try and
determine what comes next.
Thanks to several key factors,
including military backing, the
role of foreign intervention, and
how far leaders are willing to go
to stay in power, recent uprisings
have had three distinct outcomes:
transitions of leadership with
government reforms, increased
oppression
and
a
greater
concentration of power, or civil
war.
For
Venezuela,
the
ideal
outcome is a relatively orderly
transition
which
ends
with
Maduro conceding power to
Guaidó without violence. While
this is far from guaranteed, there
is still some historical evidence
it is possible. In 2011, Tunisian
citizens
launched
massive
protests against President Zine
El Abidine Ben Ali, a revolution
which bears similarities to the
situation in Venezuela today.
Similar to Maduro, Ben Ali faced
protests fueled by economic
instability and allegations of
corruption (Ben Ali had been in
office for more than 20 years,
routinely threw dissenters in
jail, and often won elections with
more than 90 percent of the vote).
Facing nationwide protests,
Ben
Ali
was
ultimately
overwhelmed and fled to Saudi
Arabia in January. In October
2011, the country held free
elections, and while Tunisia
still has many issues to work
though, the 2011 transition has
undeniably improved Tunisian
politics. Crucially, the military
showed relative restraint during
the protests, which was a crucial
component of the revolution’s
success. In Venezuela today,
the military still backs Maduro,
though one high-ranking official
has already declared support for
Guaidó. Additionally, as protests
go on, there are reasons for the
military to flip.
Maduro
cannot
rely
on
issues like racial identity to keep
the army behind him, as some
leaders like Syrian President
Bashar al-Assad have been able to
do. Maduro must also be wary of
foreign intervention, especially
from the United States, where
remnants of Cold War anti-leftist
sentiment make Venezuela a
target.
While examples like Ben Ali’s
overthrow in Tunisia provide
hope, a positive outcome is
far from assured. An uprising
could also be quelled, allowing
Maduro to remain in power
without
conceding
anything
to his opposition. For example,
protests erupted in Bahrain in
2011 as part of the Arab Spring.
The
country’s
Shia
majority
wanted equality and greater
political freedom. In response
to the uprising, the Sunni king,
Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, used
Saudi Arabian troops to brutally
suppress
the
protests,
even
killing
several
people.
After
declaring martial law and a state
of emergency, Hamad remained
in power, squashing the chance
for a regime change.
The most prominent recent
example of an uprising backfiring
in this manner was in Turkey
in 2016, when a small faction
from
the
Turkish
military,
known as the Peace at Home
Council, attempted to overthrow
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
In response to the uprising,
Erdogan’s regime arrested more
than 40,000 people and labeled
a leading critic of Erdogan,
Fethullah Gülen, a terrorist.
While the Bahraini uprising
is obviously not identical to
Venezuela, Hamad and Maduro
have one commonality which
helps
strengthen
established
regimes: They are willing to
greatly infringe upon citizens’
rights to maintain their power. In
addition to the army, Maduro is
also backed by the Special Actions
Force, or FAES, a group of largely
untrained government loyalists
who have no reservations about
attacking or even outright killing
dissenters. In the long term, a
relatively small force of untrained
radicals is not enough military
support to sustain power, so it is
important for Maduro to retain
the support of the military if he
wants to stay in power.
Looking beyond the violence,
Maduro could also spin foreign
support
of
Guiadó
into
an
“us-against-them” narrative to
try and create national unity.
Additionally, Maduro has been
accused of corruption several
times, and it is important to
consider there may be high-
ranking
government
officials
involved who would actively
benefit from Maduro retaining
power.
Ultimately
though,
while
Erdogan may have been able to
spin his attempted overthrow
into increased authority, there
is no guarantee it would be
as effective for Maduro. The
protests in Turkey had nowhere
near
the
popular
support
Guiadó has, and many foreign
governments
condemned
the uprising, saying they felt
it
disrespected
democratic
institutions in Turkey. While
violent repression of protests is
often effective when support for
the opposition is limited, using
violence against huge masses
of people is often an exercise in
futile cruelty which does little
but draw international ire.
Using
violence
against
large groups of people may be
an exercise in futile cruelty,
but it doesn’t mean it’s never
been done before — sadly, it
leads to the third outcome of
popular uprisings: civil war. On a
simplistic level, the most notable
contemporary civil wars, fought
in Syria and Yemen, both began
when massive anti-government
movements
were
met
with
widespread violence. In Syria,
people flooded the streets to
show their opposition to Bashar
al-Assad as part of the Arab
Spring in 2011. Assad refused to
back down and responded with
incredible violence against his
own citizens, leading to a civil
war that has killed and displaced
hundreds of thousands of people.
In
Yemen,
the
Houthi
movement,
which
supports
former President Ali Abdullah
Saleh and refuse to recognize the
authority of current President
Abd Mansur Hadi, violently
took the capital city of Sana‘a in
2015, leading to an ongoing civil
war. Thankfully, it is extremely
unlikely the dispute in Venezuela
will spiral into anything as
violent as the wars in Syria
and Yemen. In Syria, Assad has
violated human rights to a truly
extreme degree.
While Maduro may use some
violence
against
dissenters,
Assad’s extreme measures are an
outlier, and not representative
of how most leaders handle
uprisings. In Yemen, the rebel
Houthi movement is comprised
of armed attackers, not peaceful
protesters,
and
the
conflict
has worsened by attacks from
terrorist groups like ISIS, as
well as the United States, Saudi
Arabia and Iran all using it
as a proxy war. Venezuelan
opposition has, thankfully, been
peaceful, so escalation into a
military civil war is extremely
unlikely.
To conclude, it’s remarkable
how profoundly the next few
months could shape the future
of Venezuela. There are still a
great number of questions left to
answer, leaving the world with
nothing to do but speculate and
hope for the best. Thankfully,
it is unlikely Venezuela will
go down the path of bloody
civil war. However, who is
ultimately able to retain power
is still unknown. Hopefully, the
situation concludes peacefully
and Venezuela can move forward
once again.
Zack Blumberg can be reached at
zblumber@umich.edu.
SAM SUGERMAN | COLUMN
A butterfly’s fight
A
s a child I remember aimlessly
running through my yard
in constant pursuit of the
graceful butterflies that fluttered their
wings only a fingertip away from
my youthful reach. My intent
was never malevolent — quite the
opposite. I yearned for a butterfly
to latch onto my hand so I could
mesmerize myself with its colors.
Though I am far removed
from my backyard adventures,
butterflies continue to be an
emblem for my life and the lives
of
others,
as
they
represent
hope,
display
grace,
denote
beauty and symbolize freedom.
Unfortunately, during the summer
of 2017 in Mission, Texas, these
dignified
creatures
became
entangled
with
the
Trump
administration’s effort to move
forward with construction of a
wall for increased border security.
In July 2017 at the North
American Butterfly Association’s
National Butterfly Center, the
director
Marianna
Treviño-
Wright
confronted
chainsaw
wielding construction workers.
The workers were tasked with
demolishing the building and the
landscape Wright and her team
worked so diligently to create
and preserve. This confrontation
precipitated
a
legal
battle
between the Center and the
Trump administration, in which
the
administration
ultimately
prevailed.
Trump eventually enforced
eminent domain (the government’s
power to take private property
for public use) and waived 28
environmental protection laws
to take over NABA’s private
property in order to expedite
the construction of his infamous
wall. Now, in the coming weeks,
200,000 square feet of the National
Butterfly Center is scheduled
to be bulldozed. Four-hundred
endemic and migratory species
of butterflies are at risk if we do
not rally and act in their support.
Butterflies are too fragile to fight
for themselves, and thus the fate
of their beauty, grace and hope
depends on the determination of
engaged citizens.
The fight is especially salient
because butterflies are ecologically
pertinent to healthy ecosystems
as they are an indicator species,
meaning they provide evidence of
a healthy environment. However,
butterflies do not merely indicate
health in an ecological scope,
but their natural beauty is a
microcosm of the health of society.
On an ecological level, the
proposed border wall will divide
the National Butterfly Center,
leaving an estimated 70 percent of
the land on the Mexican side of the
wall. This physical partition poses
a threat, as the butterflies will be
challenged to navigate the wall.
This reduction in viable land will
lead to fewer resources for animals
and catalyze the bottleneck effect
which will weaken the butterflies’
genetic pool and decrease their
population.
For more than 15 years, the
National Butterfly Center has been
a lush area of vegetation drawing
flocks of wildlife and tourists
alike, to witness the vibrant
environment.
This
raises
the
question: Will people at the border
realize that any day they may see
their last butterfly all due to the
construction of a border wall?
I fear this wall will slowly strip
away the hope of a sustainable
future, the strength to fight and
the beauty of the world, much
like the Holocaust did to poet
Pavel
Friedmann.
Friedmann
wrote “The Butterfly,” a poem
which
profoundly
encapsulates
hope while incorporating despair
during his encampment in the
Theresienstadt concentration camp
and ghetto. His poem discusses the
last butterfly he saw. The butterfly
was “dazzlingly yellow,” but after a
short stay “it went away.”
The creation of the infamous
wall will leave a permanent scar
on our landscape. Butterflies are
simply a precursor to the greater
tragedy that is unfolding due to the
environmental follies perpetuated
by the Trump administration and
its unprecedented desire to fulfill
one of its many campaign promises
at all costs. The construction of
this small portion (38 miles) of
the border wall will require the
removal of over 30 million square
feet
of
vegetation,
vegetation
situated on public land that is
ultimately paid for by our taxes and
therefore owned by the people.
President Trump is neglecting
our wildlife, our backyards and
our
environmental
health
in
pursuit of a wall that will only
lead to larger ladders or deeper
tunnels. Trump, on behalf of the
butterflies and all other animals
subject to the ramifications of
the proposed border wall, should
remove and recognize the impact
of his decisions. This wall will
stand far beyond his term, and
will stand as a monument to
hate, bigotry and environmental
destruction.
Ultimately,
the
border
wall is not constrained to just
environmental
ramifications.
It also is an emblem of anti-
immigration. Immigrants hope
for a better future and have the
strength to risk their lives in
pursuit of happiness and embody
the beauty of the promise upon
which our country was formed.
This principle was best put
forth by the poet Emma Lazarus
in her poem forever emblazoned
on our Statue of Liberty, “The
New Colossus”: “Give me your
tired, your poor, your huddled
masses yearning to breathe free,
the wretched refuse of your
teeming shore. Send these, the
homeless, tempest-tost to me, I
lift my lamp beside the golden
door!”
I refuse to accept a person
may see their last butterfly in
response to ethnic tension and
the fallacious misconceptions
perpetuated
by
Trump
in
his
pursuit
to
degrade
the
immigrants yearning to be free.
I patiently await the day I can
watch my kids running around
a field chasing butterflies to
experience their beauty first
hand. I fear, however, that his
wall — if constructed — leaves
our country less vibrant, hopeful,
beautiful and free. I fear I will
never watch my children chase
butterflies.
JOIN OUR EDITORIAL BOARD
Our open Editorial Board meets Wednesdays
7:00-8:30 PM at our newsroom at 420 Maynard
St. All are welcome to come discuss national,
state and campus affairs.
ZACK BLUMBERG | COLUMN
Where does Venezuela go? Look at the past to find out
A
s a little girl, I was
something of a tomboy. I
played jackpot in the mud
at recess, and my Christmas wish
lists consisted of baseball mitts and
remote controlled cars. Skirts were
my mortal enemy, and, much to
my parents’ chagrin, I was always
unbearably uncooperative at the
mall. While I have incredibly
fond memories of those times, my
adolescent years were also haunted
by a dark secret — I was a Twihard.
I distinctly remember watching the
first “Twilight” movie and gawking
at Bella and Edward’s forbidden love
and Edward’s mysterious disposition.
But to those who knew me — or so
they thought — “Twilight” was just
a stupid movie. Bella was boring,
Edward’s sparkly skin was absurd
and their romance was over-the-top
cheesy. After the second movie came
out and the world divided itself into
Team Jacob or Team Edward, my guy
friends and I judged the “obsessive”
fans with disgust. Little did they know,
I was a closeted Edward supporter.
As a disclaimer, I have since
grown up to realize the many flaws
in the “Twilight” franchise and the
problematic power dynamic between
the two main love interests. That
being said, “Twilight” fans have faced
a uniquely harsh judgment in our
society, and a lot of it has nothing to do
with these flaws. For whatever reason,
the franchise has become the poster-
child of anti-intellectual, unartistic,
cinematic garbage. Even as a little girl,
I knew that if I wanted respect from
my male friends, I had to join the camp
that disdained the vampire-obsessed
girls. I couldn’t be seen as a member
of Team Edward because everyone
knew that the people who bothered
themselves with that nonsense didn’t
know “good” film.
“Twilight” is an extreme case, but
it is certainly not the only example of
a franchise whose fan base receives
frequent criticism and judgment.
In middle school, it was “Pretty
Little Liars,” “Gossip Girl” and “The
Vampire Diaries.” In college, it’s
“Grey’s Anatomy” and “The Bachelor.”
It’s no secret that all of these shows and
movies share a common thread: Their
target audience is female.
Yes, the criticism these shows
and movies face is not entirely
unfounded.
Was
“Twilight”
a
groundbreaking,
Oscar-deserving
film? Obviously not, but the degree
to which our society loathes these
particular shows and films is
rooted in something more than
just their lack of originality. It is
rooted in a sexist attitude toward
entertainment that goes almost
entirely unrecognized.
Society spends far too much time
judging works that target female
audiences. Yes, when artists release
a piece to the public, they must be
prepared for strong opinions, and it is
perfectly within the rights of the public
to share their praises and criticisms.
But among public reception of certain
works, particularly in the film and
television industry, is a commonplace
contempt for those that target female
audiences.
The judgment towards fanbases of
traditionally considered “girly” works
is dehumanizing. Girls are painted as
irrational and foolish for succumbing
to the appeal of drama, romance and
fantasy. They lose credibility and
respect merely for enjoying certain
forms of entertainment. Moreover, the
girls who take part in the judgement of
those who like such works earn praise
for managing to “rise above” their sex’s
tendency to gravitate toward such
primitive cliches.
For some reason, when girls
enjoy “Twilight,” their lack of taste
is irreconcilable, but there is no
such equivalent in entertainment
that targets a more traditional male
audience. In fact, when girls like these
traditionally male-targeted films, it is
seen as an impressive display of good
taste. If you like “Twilight,” you’re
irredeemable, but if you like “Star
Wars,” you’re a game changer.
We
all
know
the
popular
complaint against shows like “The
Vampire
Diaries”
and
“Grey’s
Anatomy.”
They’re
repetitive,
predictable and overly dramatic, and
those that enjoy such entertainment
simply have no taste. While these
series receive a seemingly constant
stream of backlash, television shows
and films like “Criminal Minds”
and the millionth installment of
“Mission Impossible” that cater to
a more general or male audience
receive virtually no such criticism.
Yes, sometimes we make fun of
these works for being repetitive and
predictable, but nobody is shouting
that those who enjoyed them are
intellectually inferior.
The fact of the matter is,
franchises
earn
success
with
unoriginal work because there are
certain tropes, that, no matter how
overused, pique our interest. Nobody
is watching “Mission Impossible”
expecting a life changing viewing
experience. We watch because it’s
entertaining to see Tom Cruise
save the world with some last ditch
effort, even if it is for the seventh
time. Similarly, girls don’t watch
“Twilight” seeking enlightenment.
They watch because forbidden love
and vampires are exciting.
There is a disturbing double
standard in public reception of film
and television, and it is reflective
of a greater societal perception of
traditional femininity. Succumbing
to conventionally “girly” norms is
not a bad thing. There is nothing
inherently
worse
about
liking
“Twilight” than there is about liking
any other cliche action film, and our
punishment as “Twilight” fans has
lasted far too long. It’s time we let it
go.
AMANDA ZHANG | COLUMN
There’s no shame in liking “Twilight”
Amanda Zhang can be reached at
amanzhan@umich.edu.
Sam Sugerman can be reached at @
samsugumich.edu.
The judgment
towards fanbases
of traditionally
“girly” works is
dehumanizing
The creation of
the wall will leave
a permanent scar
on our landscape