Ideas

Today in conversation class, after we finished discussing the article about the media's coverage of Mexico, Oscar decided to give me a new article to read called "Mea culpa," by Eduardo Galeano (who lives in Los Angeles). The article is from a speech he delivered to publishers in Los Angeles in 1992, and much of what the article discusses has to do with the atmosphere of the times, but also applies today. The opening tone is light and he relates that when he was first trying to get a visa to come to the US and was asked if he would try to assassinate the the president, he took it as a joke and said, "yes." It was not a joke, and they denied his request.

Galeono continues on a philosphical commentary about right and wrong and relates it to the morals in the US. He first asks why, when he reads the news, are North American politicians considered bad if they have affairs with harmless pretty women, but good if they have affairs with major companies the sell weapons and poisons? Why are the countries that produce drugs and the people that consume them bad but the way of life that generates the necesity to consume them is good? Why do people in the US consider protectionist barriers and subsidies good in the US but bad in Latin America? Why does is it popular to exhort people to "Buy American!" and then say that it is bad the the Japonese have invaded the American market, while at the same time saying that it is good for North American products to invade Latin America? He asks us to imagine if the marines from Mexico were to invade Los Angeles, under auspices to protect all of the threatened Mexicans because of recent disturbances (as Reagan claimed). Why were the Iraqi soldiers bad when they invaded Kuwait, but the US marines were good when they entered Granada and Panama? He says to keep in mind that Saddam Hussein was considered good (an ally), until 1991. Galeono says that just a few years ago, schooles would tie the left hands of students to force them to use their right hands, and it gave good results. To force adults to think certain ways, military dictatorships have used therapies of blood and fire, while democracies use television...

The article is an interesting read, and really makes you question popular values and your own values. What is right and what is wrong? How do we know? Why so many double standards?

I had a talk with Estela today about our Rotary project, and she made me think about about it in different terms. She thinks that what we are doing (procuring funds and supplies for the small village in the mountains) is good and bad, as it assists people in great need, but it also lessens their motivation to produce themselves. She explained how she used to work in a village like that, and that originally they would just expect to receive help. Later, she helped to work for 9 years to ensure that the village would be more self-sufficient, and first helped to put in a potable water system, which was followed by electricity and lights, then by cable, and now she says they are even starting to pave the roads! She brings up a good point as it relates to the project and to welfare-type systems in general: support at the beginning through donations is a good starting point, but it can't continue forever. To really help, it is best to help with projects that allow communities/cities/countries/individuals to get on their feet by helping with infrastructure and self-sufficiency. For more of a long-term project, perhaps we should try to think about organizing a project that will be able to help with a potable water system (always the primary public health concern), which would be carried out by later participants and volunteers.