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.

