Opinion
The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
4 — Thursday, November 21, 2019
Alanna Berger
Zack Blumberg
Emily Considine
Emma Chang
Joel Danilewitz
Emily Huhman
Krystal Hur
Ethan Kessler
Magdalena Mihaylova
Mary Rolfes
Michael Russo
Timothy Spurlin
Miles Stephenson
Joel Weiner
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
DIVYA GUMUDAVELLY | COLUMN
Learning to unlearn
SAM FOGEL | COLUMN
Pay attention to the movements in Latin America
T
he past few months have
been tumultuous for
many around the world.
From Kurdistan to Hong Kong,
to the U.K. and Yemen, there are
many different crises that are
dominating the news cycle at
the moment. But one thing that
I’ve found to be inadequately
covered by mainstream media,
like CNN, and unknown to
many is the ongoing protests
occurring
all
across
Latin
America.
Haiti,
Chile
and
Ecuador all find themselves
in political turmoil, wracked
by protests and movements
in an attempt to change the
status quo. It seems like the
region has exploded into a fiery
chasm of demonstrations and
fulminations.
Headlines
have
recently
covered the cancellation of a
climate summit in Santiago,
but the protests in Chile are
the result of tensions that have
been ongoing for some time
now. The reported cause of the
original protests was a rise in
metro fare, an increase of 30
Chilean pesos (equivalent to
about 4 U.S. cents) in the cost of
using public transport. It may
seem insignificant to us, but for
many, the increase represents
the
growing
economic
inequality in Chile. One percent
of the country’s population
makes 33 percent of the total
income, making it one of the
most unequal economies in the
developed world. Many of the
protesters are calling for the
drafting of a new constitution,
criticizing the current one for
prioritizing
private
entities
over the working people of
the
country.
The
current
constitution was drafted by
the government of Augusto
Pinochet, a fascist dictator
who
won
the
government
in a coup in 1973 (which the
United
States
orchestrated,
by the way). These protests
have
overwhelming
student
involvement,
with
younger
generations being integral to
the success of the movement.
The
initial
demonstrations
were organized by students,
after all. One can take a glance
at the situation and notice
how it reflects the growing
concerns of wealth inequality
for the youth here in the U.S.
In Haiti, protests erupted
last
month
over
growing
concerns about fuel shortages,
out-of-control
inflation
and
general
exasperation
with wealth inequality. The
spark to ignite the powder
keg, however, can be traced
back
to
the
PetroCaribe
oil program, which was an
economic
pact
negotiated
with Venezuela to increase
investment in public services
for the country. Billions of
dollars
of
investments
in
public works projects have
been unaccounted for, which
raises many questions about
where the money was really
spent. Protesters are hounding
Jovenel Moïse, Haiti’s current
president, pressuring him to
step down amid allegations
of
corruption
and
failed
leadership. Over half of Haiti’s
population lives below the
poverty line, landing it as the
poorest country in the Western
Hemisphere.
These
various
conditions,
corruption
and
few economic opportunities
led to cripplingly low faith
in government. In fact, only
21 percent of the electorate
turned
out
for
the
2016
presidential
election.
The
sentiments found here are
similar to the ones in Chile,
caused by economic inequality
and a government ill-equipped
to handle the consequences of
a poorer populace.
Ecuador is another nation
that’s
been
afflicted
with
protests and demonstrations
this past month. Though the
protests have ended, we can
still look to it as an example
of
the
recurring
problem
many Latin American nations
have been encountering. The
protests initially started as a
response to the government’s
termination
of
gasoline
subsidies, nearly doubling the
price of diesel in the country.
In addition to that, many
criticize
President
Lenin
Moreno’s
privatization
of
public services, especially with
the $4.2 billion dollar austerity
package he secured with the
International Monetary Fund
in March. The package was
designed to increase economic
sustainability
and
assist
the lower class, making the
inaction all the more poignant.
The stakes quickly evolved
to
eventually
encompass
many other grievances the
population wanted addressed.
Abortion rights and indigenous
rights became focal points
of the protest as well. The
protests eventually came to a
close when Moreno decided to
meet with indigenous leaders
and negotiate an agreement,
canceling
the
austerity
package and reviewing the
public debt of the nation.
You may be asking yourself
why this concerns you. It seems
like a world away from the
struggles here in the U.S. But
the protests are emblematic
of a common phenomenon
taking hold among the masses
on a global scale. In the
face of growing inequality
and
negligent
governments
unwilling to address it, people
are uniting and having their
voices heard — whether or not
the ruling class wants to hear
it. When confronted with a
changing political landscape,
one
must
ask
themselves
where their allegiances lie.
Young people, students and
the disenfranchised alike are
banding together to make a
stand. The protests in Latin
America are more than just
momentary unrest, they are
signs of changing tides.
Sam Fogel can be reached at
samfogel@umich.edu.
W
e
are
all,
paradoxically, agents
of
social
change
operating
within
forces
of
social
control.
The
limitless
spontaneity of our
minds is imprisoned
by
a
variety
of
internalized social
structures,
ones
we often mistake
as the ultimatums
of life. As a result,
some
actions
or
behaviors
are
arbitrarily
deemed more acceptable than
others.
We
often
address
the fact that “actions have
consequences,”
but
rarely
ever acknowledge that actions
themselves
are
rooted
in
some limited understanding
of the world. Much of our
understanding of the world
and a majority of our own
biases and perspectives come
from rigid and internalized
social structures. To develop
true objectivity, we must not
only be aware of the world
and its processes but also our
own preconceived notions and
ideologies.
Our
entire
lives
are
a
quest for knowledge. In fact,
we often measure personal
growth in the context of
how much we have learned.
Applying
what
we
learn,
however,
is
the
truest
measure of personal growth,
and this is often not possible
because of the limitations
society places on us. We
are taught at a young age to
treat others the way we wish
to be treated, but how has
this played out considering
we’ve internalized systems
of
patriarchy,
oppression
and racism? Recently, two
Indian-American New Jersey
teens were arrested
for
repeatedly
hurling racial slurs
at a group of young
African-American
middle school girls.
Surely, these boys
are
intelligent
enough
to
know
that
this
action
is wrong and has
consequences,
yet
they
acted
in this way because of an
internalized
anti-Black
sentiment that overpowered
judgment.
Teaching
people
that
their actions will lead to
consequences is not enough
—
we
must
also
learn
to
unlearn.
Unlearning
consists of recognizing that
we have all been imbued
with
the
constructs
of
heteronormativity, patriarchy
and
racial
superiority
and
then
challenging
the
dominant values presented to
us. No privilege absolves an
individual from unlearning,
and
the
responsibility
certainly does not fall upon
those who have experienced
oppression to teach someone
else to unlearn. Unlearning
is not about forgetting, it is
about taking the knowledge
we have at hand and learning
to interpret it differently and
opting for alternative mental
paradigms.
Acknowledging
a
history
of
racism
and
dismantling
internalized
prejudices is unlearning, while
ignoring a history of racism or
acting crudely in spite of it is
simply ignorance.
Unlearning may be difficult,
as
we
have
a
biological
predisposition to act in ways
that confirm our initial biases.
Recognizing these tendencies,
normalizing
conversations
around race and inequality
and
incorporating
in-depth
discussions and studies of the
work of individuals who have
repeatedly challenged these
norms in history can all help
overcome these biases.
Moreover,
the
value
of
unlearning
is
unlimited.
Individuals
will
be
more
adaptive
to
situations,
be
less inhibited in diversifying
their own experiences and
will become more empathetic
overall
once
they
unlearn
harmful
constructs.
This
process
recognizes
that
nothing is black and white,
and that we should practice
multidimensional recognition.
Unlearning is not a process
that can be taught or learned —
it comes from self-awareness.
As a result, unlearning can
be
encouraged
through
diverse
teaching
materials
and policies but must be
reinforced and maintained
individually.
It
must
be
encouraged, not forced.
Divya Gumudavelly can be
reached at gumudadi@umich.edu.
NOAH ENTE | COLUMN
W
ith
the
Iranian
regime’s
announcement
on
Nov. 5 that they would resume
their
enrichment
of
weapons-grade
uranium, it appears
the Middle East is
about
to
become
even more chaotic
and
dangerous
for enemies of the
Islamic
Republic.
That includes the
United States, but
this
news
is
an
especially bad sign
for Israel. Already facing great
opposition on nearly all of its
borders from Iranian proxies
and groups receiving Tehran’s
funding, it would be a crisis if the
thousands of missiles possessed
by these groups, or Iran itself,
were suddenly enhanced with
nuclear payloads. An article in
The Atlantic by Michael Oren,
former Israeli Ambassador to
the U.S., lays out the potential
outcomes for the Jewish state
should this reality come to
fruition.
It is clear that one of Iran’s
main objectives in amassing
their arsenal of weapons is to
take down the country which
the late Ayatollah Khomeini
once called “the Little Satan.”
The regime has said so itself.
With Iran’s leaders formally
signaling their resumption of
nuclear development, it appears
that the threat of annihilation
from Iran that Israelis have
feared could be more of a
possibility.
In this context, comments
made by prominent Democratic
candidates for president at the
national conference for the
left-leaning J Street group in
Washington, D.C. last month
appear dangerously misguided.
In
their
speeches,
Sen.
Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., along
with South Bend Mayor Pete
Buttigieg and Julián Castro,
former Secretary of Housing
and Urban Development, all
addressed — to some degree —
the possibility of their future
administrations one day using
the U.S.’s annual $3.8 billion
military aid package as a way
to curb Israeli policies with
which they disagree.
These remarks follow
a similar statement
by
Sen.
Elizabeth
Warren, D-Mass., and
reflect a general lack
of awareness of the
situation Israel faces
and the implications
that such an action
would have.
The military aid
that
the
U.S.
has
pledged to Israel over the
years has been a sign of the
enduring partnership between
these countries: the American
belief that a strong Israel only
serves to make us stronger.
In his speech to the J Street
conference as vice ptesident in
2013, prominent 2020 candidate
Joe Biden said that “If there
were not an Israel, we would
have to invent one to make sure
our interests (in the Middle
East) were preserved.” This is
the sentiment that Democrats
need to make clear to American
Jews and the entire American
public
leading
up
to
the
presidential election just a year
from now. The partnership of
these two countries is strategic
to the interests of both and
cannot be put at risk over
policy disagreements between
a particular administration.
Cutting
military
aid
to
Israel now, in a time when
Israel is facing perhaps its
greatest
external
threats
in decades, would signal a
lack of commitment to the
important bond between these
two
countries
in
defense,
economics,
innovation
and science. As part of the
requisites
for
receiving
billions of dollars in military
assistance,
Israel
and
its
armed forces are required to
spend the entirety of the aid
package on U.S. weaponry and
equipment. In this way, funds
that were set aside for foreign
aid have been returning to the
U.S. economy and boosting its
military technology industry.
This
policy,
often
accused
of being a unilateral gifting
of taxpayer dollars to Israel,
also
has
tangible
benefits
to America and its defense
contractors such as Lockheed
Martin and Raytheon. It is an
arrangement that is beneficial
to the two nations and should
be continued under the future
U.S. administration.
Politicians can reasonably
disagree about the course of
action Israel should take in its
domestic and foreign policy.
However, it should remain a
consensus that U.S. military
assistance to Israel — which
boosts the American economy
and strengthens one of its most
important and loyal allies —
remains intact for years to
come.
Israel
faces
growing
uncertainty and danger in its
future as regional adversaries
continuously prepare to bring
about its destruction. U.S. allies
need to be able to count on
America for consistent support,
not only through rhetoric, but
through our actions. Using
the threat of ending military
aid as a club to force the
implementation of a desired
policy is harmful to American
interests, to Israel and to our
important relationship. It is a
mistake that any future leader
should be sure to avoid.
Aid to Israel cannot be conditional
NOAH
ENTE
The partnership
of these two
countries is
strategic to the
interests of both
Noah Ente can be reached at
noahente@umich.edu.
SOFIA ZERTUCHE | CONTACT CARTOONIST AT SOFZER@UMICH.EDU
DIVYA
GUMUDAVELLY
The value of
unlearning is
unlimited
CONTRIBUTE TO THE CONVERSATION
Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor and op-eds.
Letters should be fewer than 300 words while op-eds should be 550
to 850 words. Send the writer’s full name and University affiliation to
tothedaily@michigandaily.com.