April 2005 Issue
Letters To The Editor
LettersReaders respond.
To the Editor,
In their article last month, Amanda Morris and Chris Langevin wrote, “Courtship... represents a new attitude towards relationships, one in which your own gratification is replaced with a commitment to the well-being of another.” This idea seems so very foreign to the culture of instant and selfish sexual gratification which I perceive around me at Dartmouth. Foreign, yet appealing. Every time I hear a friend or sorority sister or random person at Collis laughingly gloat about his or her most recent sexual escapade, I wonder if I am the only one who finds superficial and transient relationships dissatisfying and even destructive.
Despite the prevalence and apparent acceptability (or purported desirability) of random hook-ups, I don’t believe I am the only one who longs for a committed love relationship, because I believe that we were created for committed love relationships. Marriages are failing and families are collapsing and people are lonely because we do not know how to love. We have ignored or forgotten or simply never learned that love is a choice to commit to the well-being of another. Love is not “found” on Webster Avenue (or on the BEMA or in the stacks...), but is learned through conscious daily decisions to consider someone else’s interests above your own. Courtship, when entered consciously with the purpose of learning to love, just may redeem the sanctity and ensure the viability of our generation’s relationships.
Sincerely,
Susan Ivey ’07
To the Editor,
Through the Beacon, I have come to learn about and have a greater respect for conservative ideas. Though considered a liberal by many of my peers, I see myself as more open-minded and equally supportive of and critical of both liberals and conservatives. I appreciate the Beacon for providing a clearer voice of conservative beliefs for others to learn from, and I look forward to more dialogue between people at each end of the political spectrum, in the spirit of the Face-Off section of the Beacon.
So it is with all due respect to the Editor of this magazine (and he is due much respect), that I criticize the historical disconnect found in his last “Letter from the Editor.” I admire him for acknowledging the foolishness and carelessness of the American Cold War policy of supporting any government in the developing world that was anti-communist, even if this meant supporting harsh dictators who cared little-if at all-for the needs of their people. Indeed, much of the suffering in Iraq and Afghanistan in recent years is a consequence of this policy. But I question Gago’s assertion that “the Bush Doctrine has reversed the course” of Cold War policy. To what extent do our global policies today resemble those of the Cold War, with the minor difference that the word “Communists” has been replaced with “Terrorists”? In the Aceh Province of Indonesia, for example, the Aceh Freedom Movement (GAM) has been lumped by the secular Indonesian government with militant Islamic groups in the area, such as Jemaah Islamiya, not due to complicity in militant activity, but simply because the GAM has allied with Muslim scholars and political parties. Military maneuvers against the GAM have been particularly harsh, including 7,000 human rights violations and forced migrations of tens of thousands of Acehnese. The prospect of an increasingly militarized Indonesian state is also concerning, given the violent recent history of that nation. The American response to this situation? Include Indonesia in its $17.9 million military training program and promise to help the army acquire more modern weaponry, as long as Indonesia vows to cooperate fully with the USA in the war on terrorism.
This is one simplified version of one case in the midst of a complex world, but it suggests, at least, that the American foreign policy of the Bush Doctrine is not very far from the over-simplified, reckless and alienating policies of the Cold War. I caution all readers of this magazine, but especially the editors and staff, to remember that we are not incapable of making the same mistakes made by those that came before us, and to not be overly optimistic in the face of apparent gains in the short term.
Regards,
Tyler Stahl ’05