There is a formality to the Spanish language which doesn´t exist in English, especially American English. Grown children who live with their parents still observe the polite form of you; people long familiar still address each other as señor and señorita, while an address frequently heard in shops and on the street would translate literally, ¨Good-day Gentleman.¨ It is also common to address people in a professional setting with their titles. At the English institute I teach at, for example, since the students are used to using the police forms of address, some modifications of English are used only for us. ¨Teacher Patrick,¨ is what the students call me. In English we are not used to saying that, but in Spanish it is normal to address people by their titles. It is an unwritten rule that staff only speak in English yet we still address the general administrators as señora and señorita, since in English the words Mrs and Madam mean something slightly different. In a culture where there is respect, the language reflecting that respect materializes.
Not everywhere, however, is respect. Many women have confided in me that infedility (sometimes called machismo) is a big problem. The maturity among women, though, is very high. They want to marry young and have children. As long as they are single they still live with their parents. There is never any question of moving out. They help provide for their families, cleaning the house and help take care of their siblings. Peru has one of the highest fertility rates in the world and so big families are normal. The level of maturity among the average man, however, is very low. After marriage, the men frequently abandon their families, have affairs and cat calls and sexual harassment is normal. Still, it would be wrong to characterize all Peruvian men in this way. The ones with more education often have a boyish quality about them and it is very easy to make friends and go do things.
Because of the unfortunate economic situation in Peru, many Peruvians dream of slipping away to the United States, often moving back for retirement. But they still hold onto their identity wherever they are. It is interesting: the general consesus among Peruvians is that the government and its institutions (including the press, which is thought of as an arm of the state) are intrinsically corrupt. ¨Of course our leaders are all theives and crooks,¨ seems to be the reigning consensus. If you say good things about the government, they will assume you are working for the government. Yet they still hang Peruvian flags (especially during the month of July, their independence month) and wear buttons that say ¨Proud to be Peruvian¨ and ¨Made in Peru¨. They are capable, more easily than Americans, of distinguishing between love of their country and a realistic view of their government. This is a far cry from how it is in the United States, where handing out DVD´s and pamphlets criticizing the government often got me labelled ¨anti-American¨. Anti-American is a very interesting phrase. Noam Chomsky, a world reknowned linguist, did an interesting study in one of his CD lectures showing that the use of the prefix anti only preceeds countries with a deep totalitarian strain. It is not taken seriously anywhere else. If one called a Peruvian or Ecuadorian, for example, ¨anti-Peruvian¨ or ¨anti-Ecuadorian¨ for critisizing their government, the result would be to meet with laughter or ridicule. Even when the policies of their leaders drive the citisens of these countries to North America to seek a better life, they still consider themselves true Patriots. They are able to clearly distinguish between the love of the things in their culture to affirm and a realistic view of their leaders. It is a distinction many Americans are still incapbable of making. Even among the left and the peace movement, one often hears things like, ¨I hate America and everything it stands for¨. In short, these distinctions between love of one´s country and a blind faith in our leadership, or letting the bad decisions of the leadership affect one´s love of one´s country on the other hand, is a lessons most Americans would do well to learn. It should be underscored that the real haters of the United States, are the political leadership. At this point there should be little doubt of that, especially after it has been revealed by Semor Hersh, a Politzer prze winning jounralist, that Dick Cheney recently proposed, during a secret meeting, building American ships in the style of the Iranian navy and staffing them with Navy Seals disguised as Iranians and having them go ape on American troops. This was nothing short of a proposed terrorist attack on the United States. He wanted it as a causes belli for a new war with Iran. It was overided by Bush, who on Sep 10th and 11th was on Florida while his father, King George the First, and Dick Cheney slept in the White House and conducted secret underground meetings. We know the meetings were underground, at least for part of the time, because of leaks and whistle-blowers, even some public ones from cabinet ministers.
Over the last week, the Venezualan government, as well as the Bolivian government, have expelled the American ambassadors from their countries. I don´t know how the press in the United States has portrayed the events. It is reflected negatively here by a press owned by an oligarchy, yet information is easier to come by. I don´t think we should be too quick to blame Hugo Chaves and Evo Moralis for the decisions. After an intense 60 years of the United States interferring in their countries, taking over national businesses—often violently—and making them US businesses, can you blame them if their threshold of tolerance is very low? Probably if the world new that the United States was carrying out terrorist attacks on its own citizens and proposing more, the platitudes about peace and political advice, from the Caucases to South America, would seem more what it is: pompous and hypocritical medling.
