God in a Pamphlet

Is UCFV 'comprehensive'?

iLl By Christopher Bolste,

It's late. My copy deadline was hours/days ago and l'rn just sitting down to write my editorial. The pressure has built up ahd I HAVE to think of something to put on paper. Well fortunately enough for me there has been an Issue on my mind for the longest time and I think that it may finally find its expression tonight.

How can we call this school a 'uni· versify' when it doesn't offer stu• dents options to get a bachelor of arts degree or even a minor in Philosophy, Modern languages and Political science? Does UCFV have something against the Humanities? What does this say to our communi· ties about studying the humanities?

The past nine years have been important growing years for UCFV and of course it would be impossible to expect that a university would come 'online' right away. But after nearly ten years UCFV needs to take a serious look at the incomplete status of the Bachelor of Arts program.

It is a little ironic that UCFV sees itself as a comprehensive education• al Institution. Well I suppose it is comprehensive if that means we offer a smattering of everything.

Last week I was looking for story Ideas, I found something that can on·ly describe in the immortal words of Jimmy Walker, "Dynamite!" I stumbled into the program mix discussion for the strategic plan. I read, dumbfounded, the position statement of the Political Science faculty regarding the fncomplete status of the bachelor of arts curriculum.

They had put words to my frustrations. I was amazed. The document says things like, ''The current arts curriculum at UCFV undervalues and misrepresents the educational ideals of the liberal arts tradition which we. Implicitly and explicitly, claim to support. And It runs contrary to UCFV's historical commitment to provide a "comprehensive" curriculum."

The position statement talked about the ideals of a liberal arts education and contrasted them to the goals of to a professional, vocational, or technical curriculum.

"The granting of a Bachelor of Arts degree implies that the recipient student's have been informed by a relatively wide range of arts disciplines to provide the foundation upon which they rnlght continue to inform themselves throughout their lives as citizens, and a foundation from which they might pursue any of a wide range of graduate degrees and professional schools where they will indeed become "masters" and "doctors" in their chosen specialties."

Most importantly and by far the most Interesting, the position statement also suggested that "the overwhelm-

ing majority of the citizens of the Fraser Valley come to know what constitutes knowledge... through their various connections with UCFV. The current arts curriculum at UCFV conveys to them the dis• tinct impression that the study of government, philosophy and Ian• guage is not important."

The political science faculty says that they don't think that UCFV actually takes this position on the Humanities, but that message is conveyed in the courses that we offer here invariably.

Whether or not UCFV meant to under-develop political science, phi· losophy and the modern languages really doesn't matter. UCFV, with its Strategic plan, has a real opportuni· ty to fully develop the arts curriculum in the next few years. Only if we succeed in rounding out the arts curriculum can we really call our institution "comprehensive."

God in a pamphlet

By Andrew Bingham

Aller hearing a rumour that many Christians (read: Protestants) don't read this paper, I hesitated to write another piece on this particular subject. Yet, a certain recent circumstance made me think again about this modern understanding of Christianity.

I was walking on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Fort Langley, minding my own business, and Just returning from the liquor store which I had dis• covered to be closed. I was not carrying a bottle of wine as planned, and my mind was thinking about various subjects, namely that I was being employed as a writer for a newspaper and I had yet to write something. I turned the corner onto the main street in Fort Langley, and was suddenly blindsided by a man lying in wait for unsuspecting walkers such as ·myself. "Here, read this," he said, thrusting a pamphlet into my hand. I mumbled thanks and started walking a little bit more quickly.

As I was looking for a garbage can in which to deposit my new treasure. I got a glimpse of the title: "USA & Canada Take Heedl'' Hmmm ... a potential subject to write about. Upon arriving home (after narrowly missing another encounter with the same individual • mumbling and walking faster does help one escape) I took a look at what was written In the pamphlet which the poor bloke who gave It to rne was hoping would change my life.

I was not sure whether to expect politics or reli• gion, but the lat111ir turned out to be true. Protestant - naturally. Death threats • of course. It seems funny how certain people think that they can use fear to try to convert people to a certain cause. One would think that to come from the opposite angle would be much more fruitful. As the pamphlet was not too long, I decided to read the whole thing. In paragraph two I almost laughed: "If we are honest, we must admit that mankind has not learned from the lessons of history ... " This sentence seems to be at odds with my understanding of how Protestants like to select from and shape history as they wish. But anyway. The words rolled on.

Having determined that people today are mostly leading empty and meaningless lives (a brilliant observation), the pamphlet went on to "prove" that the Bible is true. First the writer used a fancy trick with mathematics, one of which I failed to see the significance. This reminded me more of those people Who count through the Bible, take out every 43rd word, and leap to proclaim to the world that THEY have round the real Biblical truth: it was invented by aliens.

Anyway, the next "proof" was in the category of "the Bible and Natural Science." Under this head· ing the writer of the pamphlet "proved'' that the Bible supports the Idea of "creation science" (as opposed to evolution), and that this "creationism'' is true. Another demonstration of the fundamentalists "learning from the lessons of history." Actually, the early Church Fathers understood and taught about creation taking place over a vast period of time. Evolution in our day is mainly rejected by those religious fundamentalists who try to understand a text which they cannot com• prehend and remove certain phrases from an overall sense of understanding. As a certain physicist in Greece 011ce related to me: ''To be frank I wonder at the success of ere• ationism in [North] America. In Europe nobody even refers to that, seriously." Couple this fact with the huge North American phenomenon of fundamentalist Protestants, and an understandIng is approaching. ago, I wonder at how it was an example of "learning the lessons of history." Maybe the lesson was something like ··until now Christians didn't understand, but now we know. If we -babble, scream, shout, cry, and bark then it is speaking in tongues and it is what was meant all those centuries ago in the Bible."

The pamphlet finished with ''Follow Jesus Christ and you will be saved." A good sentence, but out of con• text in this instance. A nice reassurance for those who managed to slog through to the end. One always feels better when one's own salvation Is assured; it frees up that much more time for the telling of others that they will go to hell unless they become like you: the enlightened, saved individual. Enough. I opened the Vancouver Sun to find an article on a Protestant British band named "Delirious." They are coming to play at the Pacific Colosseum, and are expected to fill the place. A cuning edge Christian rock band to preach to the youngsters. Cute. The name says it all. and in fact nicely sums up the state of Protestant thought today: "Delirious: suffering from delirium." "Delirium: an acutely disturbed state of mind characterized by restlessness, illusions, and Incoherence of thought and speech, occurring in fever, intoxication, and other disorders." (Oxford English Dictionary.) All I can say is: Oui.

But I am tiring you with all these words . . . the rest of the pamphlet went by rather smoothly, as Protestant pamphlets go. Of course it was mentioned that '', .. [God) will pun• ish those who die In their sins with everlasting damnation." The fear fac• tor. And then it states that one is sure of being "born again" when one receives the gift of "speaking in tongues." This babble is Interpreted as being a sign of holiness and as coming from the Holy Spirit. But by being invented by a declining group of Christians around a hundred years Ujjal and Grizz: Two endangered species in B.C.

March 1 2001

Letter to the Editor

THE CASCADE 7

Dear Editor, As I made my way towards UCFV this last Thursday, I felt the ever-present elation spawned from the mere thought of secondary education. Admittedly, it was a transcendent February afternoon, goading me to cast off the fetters of winter clothing and enjoy the faux spring weather, but primarily I was enamored with education. Needless to say I was pleasantly content in body and soul as I approached my usual corner retreat within the campus.

Personally I find that a few moments of quiet reflection are beneficial before class, and it was at this time I happened upon the February 16 issue of the cascade. I casually opened the journal and quickly scanned the featured articles. Though I found noth1ng that peaked my initial interest, I forged ahead regardless to indulge in written prose by those of wit and skill. However, to my dismay, what I found in the areas of creativity and generally interesting articles, can best be portrayed by someone closing their eyes and telling you what they see. If your uncommonly clever you will have already deduced that what was found was essentially ... nothing. Had I thought my biology textbook to be a dry reod, I was now confronted with a barren literary wasteland, void of all life sustaining waters of interest. And yet what is worse is the fact that the monotonous succession of progressively stale articles were eclipsed by the mind numbingly uninspired layout of the entire paper. Did you by any chance have the physics department draw you up a mathematically pleasing schematic? Though I have nothing against the physics department perhaps I could suggest next time calling the people in the arts building. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking anyone's personal character, for most of your writers practice their art with a goodly amount of skill. And in line with this I found V.A Jordan's article on Humanities exceedingly well written while at the same time being thoroughly entertaining. Accompany that article with theback page of your journal and you have found two bright spots from which to diffuse. A creative director possessing some semblance of creativity might be in order, or perhaps even a forum under which short stories and poetry may be displayed as a constant feature.

Dustin Carlson

A PROTEST, A CALL TO ACTION, A CELEBRATION

By Jean Ballard working conditions, fair pay and the right to vote. in 1922, it wasn't until the late 1960's that it became Head, Social Cultural and Media Studies Frequently, arrests were made and women Injured. a common celebration in North America.

The year is 1857. Thousands of women in the needle trades march in the streets of New York City to demand better working conditions. Many of the marchers are arrested, and others are trampled in the confusion that ensues.

In the early days of industrialisation, employment in textiles, manufacturing and domestic service was a necessity for single, widowed and deserted women, and those whose husbands' incomes were below subsistence. Invariably, the conditions were deplorable and the wages exploitative. In the 50 years following the needle trades march, tens of thousands of women workers rallied in cities around the world to demand shorter working hours, better In 1910, at the Second International Conference of Socialist Women, Clara Zetkin of Germany proposed that a day be set aside each year to commemorate women's struggles, and so began International Women's Day.

Today, International Women's Day is cele,brated In Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America and Australia. In 1923 and 1936, over 800 000 Spanish women gathered in Madrid to demand improved conditions for women. In 1948, 100 000 women gathered in Australia, and in 1955 over a half million Asian women gathered In Indonesia to celebrate International Women's Day. Although women in Canada first celebrated International Women's Day There are still countries in which females are denied education, healthcare, and the democratic right to vote. There are still sweatshops In which women and children labour in appalling conditions for exploitative wages. And even in North America, there are still women living in poverty, living with violence, and living with little hope. But while women still struggle for an equal chance to be all that they can be, they also celebrate all that they have achieved.

What began as a call for better working conditions.in one industry in one city has grown to an international day of protest, political activism and celebration around the world.

Whenever I think of Tonto, I hear ominous music

By Sherman Alexle

I was a little Spokane Indian boy who read every book and saw every movie about Indians, no matter how terrible. I'd read those historical romance novels about the stereotypical Indian war· rfor ravaging the virginal white school• teacher. I can still see the cover art. The handsome, blue-eyed warrior (the Indians In romance novels are always blue-eyed because half-breeds are somehow sexier than full-blooded Indians} would be nuzzling (the Indians in romance novels are always performing acts that are described in animallsti~ terms) the Impossibly pale neck of a white woman as she reared her head back in primitive ecstasy (the Indians in romance novels always inspire white women to commit acts of primitive ecstasy). Of course, after reading such novels, I imagined myself to be a blue-eyed warrior nuzzling the necks of various random, primitive and ecstatic white women. And I just as often imagined myself to be a cinematic Indian, splattered with Day-Glo Hollywood war paint as I rode off into yet another battle against the latest actor to portray Gen. George Armstrong Custer. But I never, not once, imagined myself to be Tonto. I hated Tonto then and I hate him now. However, despite my hatred of Tonto, I loved movles about Indians, loved them beyond all reasoning and saw no fault with any of them. I loved John Ford's "The Searchers." I rooted for John Wayne as he searched for his niece for years and years. I rooted for John Wayne even though I knew he was going to kill his niece because she had been "soiled" by the Indians. Hell, I rooted for John Wayne because I understood why he wanted to kill his niece. I hated those savage Indians just as much as John Wayne did. I mean, jeez, they had kidnapped Natalie Wood, transcendent white beauty who certainly didn't deserve to be nuzzled, nibbled, or nipped by some Indian warrior, especially an Indian warrior who only spoke in monosyllables and whose every movement was accom• panied by ominous music. In the movies, Indians are always accompanied by ominous music. And I've seen so many Indian movies that I feel like I'm constantly accompanied by ominous music. I always feel that something bad is about to happen. I am always aware of how my whole life is shaped by my hatred of Tonto. Whenever I think of Tonto, I hear ominous music. I walk Into shopping malls or family restaurants, as the ominous music drops a few octaves, and imagine that I am BIiiy Jack, the half-breed Indian and Vietnam vet turned flower-power pacifist (now there's a combination) who loses his temper now and again, takes off his shoes (while his opponents patiently wait for him to do so), and then kicks the red out of the necks of a few dozen racist white extras. You have to remember Billy Jack, right?m Every Indian remembers Billy Jack. I mean, back in the day, Indians worshipped Billy Jack. Whenever a new Billy Jack movie opened in Spckane, my entire tribe would climb Into two or three vans like so many circus clowns and drive to the East Trent Drive-In for a long evening of greasy popcorn, flat soda pop, fossilized licorice rope and interracial violence. We Indians cheered as Billy Jack fought for us, for every single Indian. Of course, we conveniently ignored the fact that Tom Laughlin, the actor who played Billy Jack, was definitely not Indian. After all, such luminary white actors as Charles Bronson, Chuck Connors, Burt Reynolds, Burt Lancaster. Sal Mineo, Anthony Quinn and Charlton Heston had already por• trayed Indians, so who were we to argue? I mean, Tom Laughlin did have a nice tan and he spoke in monosyllables and wore cowboy boots and a jean jacket just like Indians. And he did have a Cherokee grandmother or grandfather or butcher, so he was Indian by proximity, and that was good enough in 1972, when disco music was about to rear its ugly. head and bell-bottom pants were just beginning to change the shape of our legs. When it came to the movies, Indians had learned to be happy with less. We didn't mind that cinematic Indians never had jobs. We didn't mind that cinematic Indians were deadly serious. We didn't mind that cinematic Indians were rarely played by Indian actors. We made up excuses. ''Well, that Tom Laughlin may not be Indian, but he sure should be." "Well, that movie wasn't so good, but Sal Mineo looked sort of like Uncle Stubby when he was still living out on the reservation." "Well, I hear Burt Reynolds is a little bit Cherokee. Look at his cheekbones. He's got them Indian cheekbones.• "Well, it's better than nothing.'' Yes, that became our battle cry. "Sometimes, it's a good day to die. Sometimes, it's better than nothing." We Indians became so numb to the possibility of dissent, so accepting of our own lowered expectations, that we canonized a film like "Powwow Highway." When it was first released, I loved "Powwow Highway.'' I cried when I first saw It in the !heater, then cried again when I stayed and watched it again a second time. I mean, I loved that movle. I memorized whole passages of dialogue. But recently, I watched the film for the first time in many years and cringed in shame and embarrassment with every stereotypical scene. I cringed when Philbert Bono climbed to the top of a sacred mountain and left a Hershey chocolate bar as an offering. I cringed when Philbert and Buddy Red Bow waded into a stream and sang Indian songs to the moon. I cringed when Buddy had a vision of himself as an Indian warrior throwing a tomahawk through the window of a police cruiser. I mean, I don't know a single Indian who would leave a chocolate bar as an offering. I don't know any Indians who have ever climbed to the top of any mountain. I don't know any Indians who wade into streams and sing to the moon. I don't know of any Indians who imagine themselves to be Indian warriors. Wait· I was wrong. I know of at least one Indian boy who always imagined himself to be a cinematic Indian warrior.

Me.

I watched the movles and saw the kind of Indian I was supposed to be. A cinematic Indian is supposed to climb mountains. I am afraid of heights. A cinematic Indian is supposed to wade into streams and sing songs. I don't know how to swim. A cinematic Indian Is supposed to be a warrior. I haven't been in a fistfight since sixth grade and she beat the crap out of me. I mean, I knew I could never be as brnve, as strong, as wiser as visionary, as white as the Indians in the movies. I was just one little Indian boy who hated Tonto because Tonto was the only cinematic Indian who looked like me.

CROSSFIRE: Legalize drugs? Kyle says, 'no way'

By Kyle Webb

This debate started from a discussion upon a pre· vlous movie review. My colleague, Mr. Bingham over there, reviewed the movie Traffic a month ago, and I found his review to be very shallow and unfair to the story of the movie in general. There were many interesting, enlightening and contro• versial ideas about the war on drugs in that film. Mr. Bingham, however, didn't see nearly as mucl1 merit as I did in the content of this movie and we proceeded to discuss it in a most gentlemanly manner over some tea and crumpets. What follows is a further exposition on the topic of drugs, specifically, whether or not it would be wise for society to legalize what are now termed illicit drugs, such as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, et al .

As someone who has done his share of experimentation with drugs both legal and otherwise, I find from my past experiences that YES, drugs ARE bad for you, and NO, they definitely should not be legalized. It would be a great tragedy to the world to legalize, and therefore officially condone, the use of drugs in society. But let me qualily the statements I have just made.

As this is only theoretical, one can not say for sure what might happen in the future regarding society's stance on drugs. Hopefully though, I can accurately speculate on the probabilities regarding this issue. So bear with me. This is MY hypothesis of what is likely to happen if drugs were legalized, and my criticisms of such an outcome. What would happen if drugs were legalized? This is what I think:

My main argument against drugs is that they are very destructive to both the person who takes them and the family and friends of that person. As I stated above, a government act legalising drug possession and use would be tantamount to society's approval of such a lifestyle, and this is simply wrong. Drugs are destructive to the individual physically, psychologically and socially. Drugs create a dependence and are very destructive in both the short and long term.

Drugs are a means to alternative ways of thinking and experience. They therefore inhibit the ability of the user to act rationally and properly within the sober majority of society around them. Excessive drug use is known to cause Ill health and often death. People are not meant to engage in such self-destructive behaviour.

To have society pass legislation legalizing drug possession and use will not help win the war against drugs. Doctors and pharmacists would, in effect, become paddlers and dispensers of drugs that are not beneficial but rather harmful to people. The patient's right to choose, regardless of the correctness of his judgement and morality, Is being placed above the doctor's responsibility to the well being of individuals and society. Why do we have doctors and pharmacists if not to know how to, and tell us how best, to heal ourselves and maintain our physical health?

The legalization of drugs would send a message to youth and society at large, that it is okay to do drugs. It is not okay. People have an obligation to themselves and their society to be healthy and contributing to the overall welfare. The use, and subsequent abuse, of drugs is not behaviour which contributes to the good of humanity. People put themselves and others In danger when they use drugs through their abilities and actions while under the influence of a consciousness-altering substance.

One final point I have to make, my wily Orthodox foe. People such as yoursell who promote the legalisation of drugs are of the best intentions, just as we all have, but where you go wrong is in promoting the complete restructuring of the entire system. A complete turnaround in the whole stance on drugs wouild not solve the problem. It just serves to create more problems In the Immediate future. Take the Russian example: a corn· munist country that simply changes over to a capitalist ideology overnight is ill prepared to create the conditions for a stable market economy. This is just the same with drugs. A flip-flop of the status of drugs from illegal to legal would create social chaos in much the same way as the change to capitalism has created chaos lh Russian society over the past ten years.

It is right to maintain the legal stance against drug use and possession. The system as it is now is flawed, there is no doubt. But it is surely better and more stable for society to start treating the problem before changing the rules. As ii stands now, the drug problem is proliferating because of a lack of education from parents and schools. In addition, the intrinsic flaw of human nature will cause us to stray no matter how much education and guidance we receive, so we must create a system that treats drug addiction as opposed to incarcerating offenders.

CROSSFIRE: Legalize drugs? Andrew says, 'okay'

By Andrew Bingham

After reading Kyle's article I could not help but smile. Yes, it was a cute argument, but lacking, very lacking. In the introduction he refers to my comments on the movie "Traffic," which was also humourous. There is one thing to remember when reading anything written by Kyle: he's a goof. No, I'm kidding. But deep down, I think 'that he actl.lally likes America. What can I say: the lea and crumpets were delicious.

While agreeing with some of Mr. Webb's sentences in his article (drugs are harmful and destructive), I have to disagree with his overall

Sav~ ::1ot1r

R.oacbes ! A shortage Is forthcoming ...

Tit• CHCllde .,.,, '" no w•y condonH lh• Uff or ,n.,IJu•na and or d•rl••II••• on or off ci.,npu., FurlltHmot•, •'•" nwmH,... •r• •crHned monttlly lly • random urlno ,n,1y,1., Nor pe•alll(I lhl• raal rHutla In an •11IQmaU11 ,~of!d chantt (ol/ow«I by• ltlll'd ,no HIMllmH a IOUrTlt, 111191 ,;' '"'• ,,,. olfalld .. ,, fltlOl!UIIICIIIII' ,.n, to rehab 11nd In • monlh a/la/I return to hit or her po.lllon. picture. 1 am supportive of the legalization of drugs, but only when certain conditions are applied to this situation.

Before I begin my own argument, I would like to criticize his article a little bit. The first thing to note: the system that he advocates • "the war on drugs" - has not worked. In terms of stopping people from taking drugs, a failure. Drugs are readily available for any determined interested party. In terms of shutting down the drug industry, another failure. People dealing drugs are just as prolific as ever before. In terms of wasting a lot of money, an absolute success. Money is thrown at the antidrug industry almost faster than they can spend it, yet they always manage to do just that.

A safer, less costly, and more efficient way of fighting the drug presence In society today would be to legalize drugs, and get the government to sell them. It would happen in this way: The government would sell (or give) untainted drugs to established junkies. The way that the junkies would get in on the program is go through various levels of testing to prove that they were addicts. and then have opportunities to buy at a cheap price the drugs that they needed. This would be coupled with mandatory counselling/support groups to encourage the complete cessation from drug use of those people.

While at first this may seem slightly silly, I think that further reflection will prove otherwise. There are many advantages to this system. Firstly, the need for drug dealers is removed. With competition that is hard to match (very low prices, absolutely pure drugs) dealers would have a hard time keeping up. Secondly, those addicts who were dealers In order to support their own habit would no longer need to do this. With little money being spent on getting their own fix, they could concentrate on re-organizing their own life and getting on with things. They could get a job and function more or less normally in society, Along with this point comes the realiz.ation that with the necessity to sell drugs removes, the recruitment of new addicts to sell to is also removed. Drug users would grow older, and young users would not exist to replace them. Thirdly, it would remove the crime factor from the drug scene. No longer needing vast amounts of money to buy drugs, addicts would no longer need to turn to crime In order to feed their habits. An example: while I was travelling on a train in Greece a young man came In a shouted a message to all those within the car. After he had finished and moved on to the next car I asked the person I was with what he had said. They told me that he said that he was addicted to heroin and was asking for money for drugs so that he wouldn't have to rob someone. This is the kind of situation that a new approach to the drug problem would solve.

Above all, this is a compassionate approach to those with drug problems, and a negating of those who work these people to their own advantage. It would remove the problem from the public eye. It could potentially remove the drug problem altogether. It is a better approach, and holds a better future for the effort against drugs.