Letters

Keep Tagalog at UCLA

Editor:

As members of the Concerned Asian Pacific Students for Action
(CAPSA), we express our thanks to Dean of Humanities Pauline Yu for
her verbal commitment to fund the Tagalog language for an
additional year. We are pleased that the Pilipino Coalition, along
with other UCLA student groups, have succeeded in retaining the
Tagalog language.

Despite the fact that 35 percent of the undergraduate population
is Asian Pacific Islander, UCLA only offers three permanent Asian
Pacific languages, while Vietnamese and Tagalog must undergo an
annual review process which determines their existence. Considering
the importance of language in strengthening cultural diversity and
integrity, we hope to see both Vietnamese and Tagalog shifted into
a permanent status here at the university. We further hope the
university will implement intermediate Tagalog and Pilipino Studies
classes in the immediate future.

Through the continued reform of the college curriculum to keep
pace with the needs of a changing student body, the university can
continue to live up to its commitment to address its multicultural
community. Once again, we are pleased with Yu’s decision and
commend the university for responding so succinctly to the needs of
the student population.

This statement was sponsored by Concerned Asian Pacific Students
for Action

‘Living history’ only entertains

Editor:

Tom Momary’s analysis of "living history"(”Living history lets
those of past speak to us still," Oct. 26) is woefully inadequate.
Furthermore, his diatribe against historians and other ‘unthinking
people’ is ­ forgive me ­ downright shallow. His many
assertions are so misguided, in fact, that their complete
refutation would far exceed the confines of this forum.

Momary preaches that "no greater method exists" than historical
teaching via the "living history" method. We can just forget about
vigorously studying the social, political, economic, religious and
intellectual forces that led to specific events; and to hell with
their effects. All that is required is the replacement of those
wretched professors with theatre troupes to teach us history? Isn’t
that special?

The reenactment of history ­ and that’s all it is, not
"reliving" history or a "dream brought to life" ­ is
principally entertainment. That’s it. I like entertainment, but
when it is declared a deity, the holy water must start flowing.

It is readily apparent that Momary is quite naïve. While it
may be true that Walt Disney started with a dream, his successors
have taken that dream and turned it into a multibillion dollar
enterprise. Mr. Momary, do you really believe that the Disney
company’s motive in Virginia was to, as you say, be a "better
instructor of history than all the teachers I ever had combined"?
Isn’t it more probable that they saw a tremendous money-making
opportunity? Do you enjoy being fooled? By the way, I’m not
anti-business. I’m even a Republican!

In Momary’s worship of "living history" and concomitant contempt
for professors, is he ignorant of who makes it possible to "relive"
history in the first place? Mr. Momary, those evil professors and
historians make possible that which you so love.

Jackson Eskew

Junior

History