to
998
iiesday • February 24, 1998
Opinion
PERSPECTIVES
;edfor
ilityat
ie sia-
vnbe-
so sec-
ofsa
istan-
)men
alotof
Jd.I've
ethis.'
edur-
eared
in an-
about
ane of
ion of-
choice
He's a
leople
aid. “I
tabul
ds foot
n.Red
ither,"
ust99
ording
n.”
Elementary education
nterest in learning replaced by apathy as students progress in school
SEE DOT
JflJN
!•
Caleb
McDaniel
columnist
C hildren ask the
greatest ques
tions. They are
forever wondering
how things work,
why something is or
what things mean.
And eventually, every'
child pops the moth
er of all questions:
“Where do babies
come from?” But
something sad hap
pens between the I
days of diapers to the
days of diplomas. As we grow older, our
inquistiveness and childlike curiosity de
teriorate. Children ask questions such as,
“How do telephones work?” College stu
dents ask questions such as, “Is this going
to be on the test?”
You know how it is. On the school
playground, you might have heard
statements like “I can make the biggest
sandcastle ever.”
But at Barnes and Noble during a test
week, you overhear exclamations more
along the lines of “I can make a 46 on this
test and still get a C in the course as long
as I make a 99 on the second test and an
87 on the final exam and attend every
class except for lectures that fall on calen
dar dates that are prime numbers or sea
sonal equinoxes."
The attitude towards learning changes
dramatically between elementary school
and college. For too many students, educa
tion becomes the pursuit of the passing
grade instead of the pursuit of knowledge.
In their classic work, How to Read a Book
(yes, there really is such a book), Mortimer J.
Adler and Charles van Doren write, “Human
inquisitiveness is never killed; but it is soon
debased to the sort of questions asked by
college students.” Not the most flattering as
sessment of “higher” education.
"The child,” they write, “is a natural
questioner." Unfortunately, though, col
lege students are not as interested in the
questions as they are in getting the an
swers. “They want to know whether some
thing is so, not why.” Sad, but true.
As long as we think of education as a
chore, it will be one. But if we begin to cul
tivate an insatiable curiosity about the
subjects we are studying, if we start to gen
uinely love learning, education will be a
joy. Stop snickering. Yes, education can ac
tually be a joy. Really.
But to restore the love of learning to our
college experience, we have to return to
our childhood experiments. Education
should begin in wonder. Yes, wonder. In
stead of just memorizing the energy path
ways in cellular respiration, wonder about
how it works. Rather than simply learning
a list of the major turning points in the
Civil War, wonder about why they were
turning points. Instead of learning the
rules of logic, wonder about why they are
the rules. J.B.S. Haldane, the famous ge
neticist and mathematician, was right. He
said, “The world will not perish for want of
wonders, but for want of wonder.”
There is no end to the amount of won
derful things in the world. Unfortunately,
we seldom take the time to contemplate
them and appreciate them. To the college
student, knowledge too often becomes the
means to an end, rather than an end in it
self, and the almighty GPR takes priority
over the desire to discover.
You are snickering again. An interesting
education is too idealistic, you say. Gradu
ate schools care about my grades, not my
“wonder quotient,” you say. The curiosity
of children is all good, you say, but we are
adults here. We must be realistic.
Maybe you are right. But every once in a
while, it would not hurt to step away from
all the blue books and scantrons and think
about the big picture. Don’t be afraid to ask
the big questions, because Adler and Van
Doren are right — “A mind not agitated by
good questions cannot appreciate the sig
nificance of even the best answers.”
Caleb McDaniel is a freshman
history major.
lVORLD order
Vid to Mexican government shows money-driven policy
&
ram
ters
I
[1
i
Joe
Schumacher
columnist
n the Chiapas region in Mexico, a grass-roots
organization known as the Zapatistas are cur-
^ .rently waging a revolution for democracy. The
raands from the Zapatistas are simple: work,
id, housing, health care, education, indepen-
hce, liberty, democracy, justice and peace. How-
er, these demands are not so simple for the cor-
pt government of Mexico to meet. The
ititutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI is the
minant political power in Mexico and receives
pport from the United States.
The United States seems to be more concerned
th profit than with democracy in Mexico. It has
leatedly aided the corrupt Mexican government,
ned its head at the sight of injustice, and has allowed its own corpora-
ns to go in and plunder Mexico. The United States realizes a truly de-
acratic Mexico would mean the election of a party left of the United
ites which would rebuke their sovereignty in the region, as well as pos-
)ly cost the businesses money. The United States would not allow that.
In December 1997,45 men, women and children were massacred in
e village of Acteal. Their only “crime” was being sympathetic to the Za-
tista movement. Recendy, many Mayan peasants have been driven
>m their small farms and villages at gunpoint.
In a Houston Chronicle article, the Mexican federal government
lims this act of violence and displacement stems from disputes be-
een the Zapatistas and local organizations, not the Mexican Army,
awever, government investigations into the massacre in Acteal seem
suggest a link between the paramilitary groups, the PRI and the
xican army.
Since the Zapatista movement began in 1994 over 400 civilian casu-
ies have been reported. These crimes are mostly committed by
tamilitary groups of rich landowners which are unofficially sup-
irted by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, or PRI, which is the
"ng party of Mexico.
Chiapas has an abundance of natural resources, including coffee, cat-
,lumber, and oil reserves. However, despite the rich resources it pos-
sses, this region has an extremely high poverty rate and lacks the
echanisms (such as hospitals, schools and sanitation) necessary for
epeople there to be prosperous. The Zapatistas are based in Chiapas,
d the violence that began in 1994 took hundreds of years to develop.
The Zapatistas are supported largely by the Mayan and poor farmers
in the region.
Since colonial times, wealthy land owners have gotten richer while the
peasants have lost their land and the means to provide for themselves.
Most of the rich landowners trace their lineage to Spanish colonists, the
peasants of Mayan Indian and Mestizo (mixed-blood) descent.
Even now, large landowners and their private armies are responsible
for most of the current genocide. These landowners support and receive
support from the PRI. Many see these attacks as a concerted effort on the
part of ruling party loyalists to diminish Zapatista support.
The fighting has also pitted Indians loyal to the PRI against others loy
al to the Zapatistas. Many Zapatistas are not armed, and since they ob
ject to the concept of inter-Indian violence, they usually choose to re
treat when threatened by paramilitary violence.
The two main political contenders for Mexican voters are the PRI and
the Democratic Revolutionary Party, or DRR The PRI receives support
from the United States, while the DRP is left of center, and has loose sup
port from the Zapatistas.
The DRP has won some local-level elections, including the Mexico
City Mayoral Elections. However, loyalists to this party have been known
to settle disputes with the PRI through shoot-outs.
The United States opposes the DRP for fear large advances by this
party may challenge the dominance of the United States. The Pentagon’s
strategy paper at the September 1994 Latin America Development Work
shop said, “A democratic opening in Mexico could test that special rela
tionship by bringing into office a government willing to challenge the
United States on an economic and national grounds.”
The Monroe Doctrine states the United States has the ability to inter
vene in the economic and political affairs of Central American countries
under the guise of promoting democracy and protection from foreign
foes. The United States has abused this doctrine to ensure its own eco
nomic profit.
In 1995, the United States lent $40 billion to bail out the faltering Mex
ican economy. In high-profile installments to make the Clinton adminis
tration look good, the money was repaid. Mexico’s economy did not re
cover enough to pay back the loans; they borrowed the money from
other countries.
Additionally, due to the lack of environmental laws and the amount of
control the PRI has over the labor unions, many United States compa
nies have gone south to exploit the people and desecrate the land.
Along with money, the United States also has given military aid to the
Mexican government. Helicopters, light personnel carriers and small
arms are given to Mexico to combat the “drug war.” Most of these
weapons find a use in quelling Indian uprisings, including the Zapatis
tas. Mexican Army personnel are also receiving instruction at the School
of the Americas for Counterinsurgency Training at Fort Benning, Ga. to
combat groups such as the Zapatistas.
The Clinton administration pushed the Anti-Terrorism Act, which
made direct aid to the Zapatistas illegal. Along with the United States
government, several corporations, specifically the Chase Bank, are in op
position to the Zapatistas.
In a report written in January 1995, Riordan Roett of Chase Manhat
tan, called for the elimination of the Zapatistas, stating, “the (Mexican]
government will need to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their
effective control of the national territory and of security policy.” When
this memo was leaked to the public, Chase Bank denied the memo, in an
Associated Press release titled “Chase Bank Denies urging Elimination of
Rebels,” and did its best to distance itself from Roett.
True democracy would almost certainly mean a win for the DRP.
This party would more than likely challenge the United States and our
corporations making it more expensive for them to set up in Mexico.
This could easily amount to a loss of profit and Mexico becoming less
friendly to big business. However, it seems “unAmerican” for the Unit
ed States to not abide by the will of those seeking democracy, no mat
ter what the cost.
The United States should not be in the business of propping up gov
ernments. These actions raise the issue of which is more important: dol
lars or democracy. Additionally, this de-facto military support and
putting down this left-wing paramilitary group sounds similar to what
got the United States into Vietnam.
President Ernesto Zedillo warned humanitarian groups against in
volvement in the dispute in Chiapas, saying, “It is unacceptable that peo
ple violate our laws and become direcdy involved in the conflict in Chia
pas... they would be better to repair the injustices in their own
countries.” Ironically, the situation in Mexico is a result of the United
States becoming directly involved.
The PRI being in power is a result of the fact we endorse a government
that seems to condone genocide is an injustice of our country and the
fact that we seem to value the profit of our corporations over human life
is an injustice of our country, and these are injustices that the United
States Government and the Clinton Administration need to address.
Joe Schumacher is a junior journalism major.
ii
PERSPECTIVES
i
rowing up as a product of 2 differing cultures enriches life
ello, my name is Man-
isha and I am a mutt.
Manisha
Parekh
columnist
That is correct, I am a cul-
ral mutt. Indian by origin,
Derican by birth, and one
mdred percent confused.
In the great gumbo melting
< of America, I am not the
eat or the rice or even the
oth. I am the little bit of sea
ring that gets stuck to the
atula and eventually just ends
•sticking to the bottom of the
Like countless others, I am a first-generation
Derican. Our parents are immigrants who grew up
a culture worlds different from the one that we
fcbeen brought up in. And that has been hard for
of us. l or parents, it has been a process of letting
of some traditions and hopes for me. For children.
Sas been a process of finding a balance between the
T) worlds we grew up in.
Asa little girl, it was easy for me.
(was the kid with the name substitute teachers
had the most trouble with. I was the little girl who’s
parents had funny accents that my friends all laughed
at. I was the little girl who got scolded by my teacher
for eating with my fingers, even though that was how
my family ate dinner every single night.
And I hated it.
But I was not alone at that time. There were plenty
of other kids in the same situation and there was a
type of safety in numbers. Together we could laugh off
questions atxiut whether our families wnrshipped
cows and whether that dot on our mothers’ foreheads
were tattoos.
It got harder as I got older and more American cus
toms clashed with Indian ones.
A normal rite of passage for the American teenager
is dating. Teenage girls look forward eagerly to their
first date and their first kiss.
As an American teen. I also looked forward to my
first date. As an Indian teen, dating was simply out of
the question.
My parents did not date each other before they- got
married. Their marriage was arranged by relatives
and had the blessing of everyone in their families.
That is the typical Indian way.
But I was not the typical Indian girl.
My parents learned to accept the fact that their child
would not be following the centuries-old counship tra
ditions. And they even accepted the fact that their child
constantly dated boys who were not Indian.
But much of the Indian support structure was not
so forgiving. And I was very quickly tried in the court
of Indian public opinion and found guilty of betray
ing my heritage.
The irony of the whole situation was, of course, that
the same fine, traditiona] Indian children the Indian
parents were so proud were the same children sneak
ing around and dating behind their parents' backs.
The problem is that many immigrant parents
come to America and expect to raise their children as
they were back in the old country. And that is just not
possible. Forcing a child to choose between the cul
ture of their country and the culture of their family' is
cruel. It is like asking a child to choose which parent
he likes best, the mother who gives him life or the fa
ther who helps him grow.
I, however, chose to be an American teenager.
I went out with my American friends on the week
ends, and I went to American dances, and spoke the
American language. My friends joked that I had to be
adopted: there w’as no way I was Indian.
I took the comment as a compliment, as proof that
I had become a true American teenager.
But in the process, I threw away the pieces of my
priceless heritage.
College has made me realize how foolish I was to
deny my family in order to accept my country. I miss
the Indian foods, customs, and language that I tried
so hard to get awray from in high school.
And even though I am trying to recapture some of
the culture I have lost. I know' that some of it is gone for
ever. I am not so much an Indian as I am an American.
My Indian peers from high school have also lost
something: the American experience. There is a free
dom to truly experiencing America that does not
come with following the Indian traditions. A piece of
that freedom is gone forever. They are not so much
American as they are Indian.
I do not regret being raised an Indian in America. I
am proud of my country and I am proud of my family.
But I do wish that I had found balance earlier in life.
Better late than never.
My name is Manisha. And I am proud to be a mutt.
Manisha Parekh is a sophomore psychology and
journalism major.