Towards an Uncertain Future

This weeks readings focus on the changing dynamic in Latin America that persists to this day. With the push of neo-liberal reform on many nations as required by various international bodies new economies were opened and new conflicts arose. These conflicts resulted from the removal primarily of natural resources from the nations of latin america by predominantly non latin american corporations. These corporations often entered into deals with the often corrupt governments that allowed them to circumvent or simply ignore local law. These corporations realized vast profits as a result of their projects however little to none of this wealth stayed in local communities. Also many created sever environmental damage in the areas surrounding their operations.

        Document 11.1 is an analysis of the documents produced during the Ecuadorian lawsuit brought against Teaxaco (now Chevron) by several Ecuadorian people citizens. The fact that this suit in the end was brought to court first in the United States shows how little the people trusted their own judicial system when confronting transnational corporations. However in the end the suit was remanded to the Ecuadorian courts. This may have benefited Chevron at first but a change in politics was coming. With the establishment of a more left leaning state the courts of Ecuador now ruled in favour of the plaintiffs. The documents reviewed in the 11.1 illustrate a long drawn out court case in which Chevron especially (though the plaintiffs as well) tries many delaying tactics. Chevron seems to be the stereotypical evil north american corporation in this case. Attacking witnesses characters, calling into doubt their veracity and trustworthiness. Chevron seems to constantly be delaying the trail in any way possible. This document paints Chevron in a very bad light. However we must remember these documents come from an Ecuadorian court with a strong left leaning judicial system.

        The most important aspect of this chapter and its documents appear to be in the way they illustrate a shit in Latin America in general. Latin American governments are now almost completely democratic and many lean to the left. Others still lean to the right. However as Dawson points out both seem to lean more to center than any previous time in Latin America. The evidence seems to support the fact that Latin America is shifting as a region to a more balanced and equal society regardless of the direct political stance of the nations individual governments. Do you believe that Latin America is entering a new era of change and stability?

Supplementary Readings Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics

Document

 Empowering Women: Land and Property Rights in Latin America

 Carmen Diana Deere, Magdalena León de Leal

Page 6 paragraph 2

This excerpt discusses specifically the rise of feminism and indigenous movements in Latin America during the later decades of the twentieth century. The authors main goal is to discuss the rights of women specifically tied to property rights. Earlier in the text the authors compare the older systems of property rights established during colonial rule in the Americas. Women had fewer rights and men held the majority of power and property. The authors using what little data is available determine as best as they can that women though doing a large amount of work in society and being roughly half the population own roughly one percent of the total resources. This disparity in property ownership is tied directly to the limits that women have in regard to rights. The authors also mention how in the wave of indigenous protests in the later part of the twentieth century caused many to think in how the two, women’s rights and indigenous rights. Indigenous people campaigned for access to traditional lands and communal ownership of these lands. It is debated whether these indigenous campaigns could help or hinder women’s property rights.

            I selected this source because it highlights two groups both campaigning for rights in Latin America but with somewhat separate goals and ideals. The feminist group is looking to mainly advocate for and secure stronger property rights for women in Latin America. The indigenous rights groups are advocating mainly for access to their traditional lands and communal ownership of said lands. These two goals are not necessarily mutually achievable. Many tribal groups may not recognize ownership of property by women, and private ownership of land (male or female ownership) goes contrary to the communal ownership goal of many indigenous groups. This text does not specifically relate to the years of the Latin American republics directly post –independence. However I chose to include it because it brings us to the point that even today rights have not been completely established for all. The modern world today can be said to have greater rights for all than in previous times. However there are still many groups who feel (rightfully so) that their rights (traditional and otherwise) are not being respected and enforced. Within the group of people whose rights are marginalized or limited there is not necessarily an overarching or coherent demand/manifesto. This text though mainly focused on women does bring up the apparent conflict between women’s groups and indigenous groups. This allows us to look at a situation where two groups both being marginalized may not have exactly the same goals though on the surface it may appear so.

Document

Trials of Nation Making

Brooke Larson

Page 141

This section of the book focuses on indigenous rebellions and discontent in Peru during the post-colonial era. It focuses on the “Indian Question’, how the creole elites of the nation dealt with the indigenous peoples in Peru after independence. Under Spanish rule indigenous peoples were granted certain rights. They did have to pay tribute and there were many laws governing their existence. However they were guaranteed basic rights such as somewhat autonomous rule and communal property rights. A somewhat dubious exchange of tribute for various guaranteed rights. For this reason many indigenous leaders and others were not completely supportive of the independence movements of the time. Many of these movements were led by creole elites who did not necessarily have the best interests of the natives constantly in mind. Post-independence Latin America in general and in this case Peru still continued to have problems with indigenous rebellions and insurrection. Once independence for the new republics had been won many reforms were instituted. These reforms split land out among the people and declared an end to the indian tribute system. These reforms were Bolivarian in nature and did not often take into account communal land ownership by indigenous peoples and their traditional practices. Many of these reforms were later removed or changed over the next decades.

            These examples of the conflicts within the new republics are an excellent way to examine the state of rights given to the various peoples within them. It highlights the conflicts within the new republics especially in regards to the native populations. Under colonial rule these indigenous peoples were granted certain rights guaranteed by the Spanish Crown. These rights consisted of things such as communal land ownership and autonomous local rule along tribal traditions. The main drivers for independence came as a result of the desires of the creole elites and not necessarily those of native peoples. Once independence had been accomplished those in power were generally the upper class creoles who lived in the largely urban areas. Many were inspired by the ideals of Simon Bolivar and wanted to create a utopian Bolivarian Republic. However many reforms actually ended up restricting and changing the rights of many indigenous people. These indigenous people before held their own lands (to an extent) and ruled themselves, once considered citizens of the new republics their rights changed and in many ways were lessened. Land was now divided up among people and communal land rights were no longer accepted/allowed. These indigenous peoples ended being put on the bottom on the hierarchy of society and were considered lesser peoples. This caused much resentment and may have led to many of the future rebellions and dissent in the Americas. This text focuses largely on the indigenous peoples of Peru however many other nations had issues with African descended peoples. Also the new republics struggled in relation to woman’s rights throughout the decades post independence.

Speaking Truth to Power

Of this weeks documents the final two were those which had the most impact on me. Documents 10.7 and 10.8 provoke very visceral reactions in me. I find they provoke this reaction because of the power behind their words. Both documents are a cry out towards terrible forces arrayed against them. These are the voices of the people of Mexico. The average citizen, worker, father, everyday people who live in fear every day. The strangest part to me is the line "this is not a surrender" yet the author asks "what do you want us to do?" While this may seem a contradictory statement, asking what the criminals want and at the same time stating they are not surrendering to the power of said criminals. I do not believe in truth that it is a surrender. This is a letter written in fear and in anger. Anger towards those who have taken so many lives and those who have failed to defend those lives. El Diario has no other recourse other than to simply shut down. To shut down would be to admit defeat and to truly surrender. The author instead asks what can be done to allow them to keep publishing. They accept the fact (not happily) that their city is ruled in essence by criminals and so they call upon this new authority to state clearly the rules that they must abide to. Not out of respect or acceptance of this new authority but out of simple survival.

    The second document is a somewhat different cry. It is a cry for opposition to both the criminals and government, both which have failed the author. The author calls upon the people of Mexico to stand up peacefully in the face of said violence and demand an end, a return to honor. He claims the criminals and government have lost their honor. Can a criminal truly have honor? These two authors show incredible bravery in the face of great intimidation by both criminal forces and that of their own government. They stand up in defiance and cry out at those which have failed them and their society. How does a government fail in its duties so greatly to create such an environment?

The Terror

The period of Peruvian history remarked upon in this weeks readings is one which marks Peruvian politics to this day. Alberto Fujimori in Document 9.3 addresses the Peruvian people and gives them his rationalization for essentially creating an autocratic state. The language he uses in this address is very calculate and careful. He appeals to the anger and resentment that the Peruvian people hold towards a seemingly corrupt and useless government. He claims that this is the only way to create for Peru a truly democratic and fair society. He claims that to rebuild the country he must first tear down the old institutions and people who man them. Fujimori states that this is necessary and above all it is done to create a better Peru. I find the parallels between Fujimori's speech and that of Gonzalo to be quite interesting. On the surface they appear quite different, Fujimori speaks of building a truly democratic nation, Gonzalo of the necessity of violence and bloodshed. However both are justifying their actions. Both claim that their actions though regrettable are solely the end result of the actions of others. They both claim to be reacting to some force that was enacted by someone or something else. Both appeal to the people, to the general populace of the country. Fujimori's speech seems much more rational and "acceptable" compared to that of Gonzalo, which is filled with communist based rhetoric and justifications for bloodshed and violence. However I will repeat both claim to be solely reactionary.
          One aspect which Dawson fails to touch on is another violent group within Peru during this same period. That of the MRTA or Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru. This was a militant socialist group which in 1996 took hostage members of the Japanese Embassy hostage at the ambassadorial residence. The result of the hostage crisis at the time led to Fujimori being acclaimed and widely supported, later events caused somewhat of a change in perception. The MRTA was not a large nor caused as many deaths as Sendero Luminoso. However I bring them up because of the impact this attack has had on in particular architecture in Lima. The residence now has been turned into a fortress. Large solid steel tube fencing and guard posts with buildings set back from the street. Many embassies and diplomatic residences in Lima are built quite durably now (including Canada's) Many were quite fortress like before but after became more so. Terrorism and government violence led to many buildings and homes to be somewhat fortified. Fujimori was convicted in 2007 and 2009 of various crimes committed during his presidency. However even then a large part of the Peruvian populace supported him. The reason Fujimori returned to south america at all was to make another bid for power in Peru. Maybe he would of succeeded. In the last presidential elections his daughter Keiko Fujimori gained 23% of the popular vote, second only to the Ollanta Humala at 31%. In the runoff she lost to Ollanta 51-48. These numbers show the sheer amount of support that the Fujimori name has still retained in Peru. Especially among the more rural and provincial population.

       Alberto Fujimori did however lead the regime that captured General Gonzalo (head of SL) and in large ended this era of terrorism and strife in Peru. The means he used were however quite autocratic and authoritarian, He in essence shut down the democratic processes of the nation and authorized government hit squads and military forces who the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found came only second to Sendero Luminoso in cause of death to many. (and not by a great margin). So my question to you today is "do the ends justify the means?" Alberto Fujimori seemed to bring about the end of an era of strife in Peru, but by very ambiguous means.

Power to the People

The four documents this week all revolve around a particular speech given by Eva Peron to hundreds of thousands of Peronistas in 1951. What I find most interesting about these documents is they seem to showcase the difficulty in controlling a populist movement. General Peron believed he could lead Argentina into a modern and peaceful society through industrialization and empowerment of the labour classes. However in the text it is remarked that much of his success is likely due to global circumstance. The strong post war export boom being key to Argentinas economic growth. Once this boom subsides Argentina slips economically and Peron is ousted. This shows that a populist movement seems only to succeed as long as the policies remain effective in the eyes of the populace. This populace can become quite uncontrollable in little time. During Eva's speech the crowd of Peronistas refuses to accept anything but total acceptance of their demands. Their demand is simple. Eva Peron must run as vice president along with her husband as president. I find it fascinating how a party that has been brought to power by appealing to the masses is now beholden to them. General Peron created this movement and now they dictate the choices of his wife and companion Eva. The documents show varied points of view on the same event. The first being an american point of view. The reporter seems less interested in the actual speech as to the events surrounding it. He highlights the divide in the Peronista party and how things are not quite as they seem. Other documents focus on the speech itself, one solely on the speech without the dialogue with the crowd and the other includes the dialogue with the crowd. The contrast shows the difficulty to me of trying to control or lead a populist movement once it has come to power. Eva attempts to calm the crowd and explain that the vice presidency is not what she desires. However the crowd will have none of it and keep demanding she accept. In the final moments of the speech a distraught Eva seems to resign herself to accepting their demands. However we know that later she decides against running as vice president. These documents show how strong populism could be but also how dangerous as well when the party becomes beyond the control of those who began it.

American Empire

I found this weeks readings quite interesting as I have always been interested in the idea of "American Imperialism". In the text Dawson remarks how The United States claims to be at its core an anti-imperialist nation, however in action it seems to be anything but. Over the course of US history it has been largely expansive and the idea of manifest destiny has been quite prevalent. However military conquest and colonialism have not been the method of choice for US expansion/domination in Latin America. While military intervention has been used multiple times, economic and cultural domination seems to be the norm, whether intentional or not who knows. I would say that the economic domination is an intentional aspect of many American policies. Creating markets for US products and finding secure stable sources of resources is paramount during this period to American interests. This policy of economic domination obviously leads to discontent within the nations of Latin America and aids in stirring up discontent. Though supported by local oligarchies and business interests who stand to gain from such policies, many of the lower levels of society may not be as content or willing to toe the line. Augusto Sandino in the Political Manifesto makes it abundantly clear where he stands on the idea of US involvement in Nicaraguan affairs. He remarks on how he is born from the "bosom of the oppressed". He is a patriot and loyal citizen of his beloved homeland Nicaragua and pledges to fight against those who he believes have sold the soul of the nation away. He calls those in power snakes, and lambastes them for going over to the enemy as he puts it. The enemy in this case being the United States. He describes the flag of Nicaragua hanging limply and needing to be torn from "the claws of the monstrous eagle with the curved beak" This period of history marks the beginning of US hegemony as far as economics are concerned. The US decided that they would not allow other major powers a hold in the "backyard" so to speak and took steps to ensure this. Despite what the nations of the area desired. As I mentioned the cultural domination seems to have come with the economic part and parcel. As the economies of Latin America became more intertwined with the US so to did their cultures. This also angered many who saw this as weakening and sometimes destroying the cultures of these nations. Even to this day the spread of US culture seems to be unstoppable. Globalization has led to an ever closer link between the nations of the world and those with the most abundant production of culture seem to over power all else. This leads to resentment and discontent by many and may have caused many of the conflicts of today.

To Roosevelt

Of this weeks readings the one I found most interesting was the poem "To Roosevelt". This piece is quite interesting because it is a departure from the letters and manifestos that we usually read. However that being said To Roosevelt is still a manifesto of sorts. A dare to the North. Ruben Dario specifically addresses his poem to Roosevelt, one of the most iconic US presidents and almost an avatar of the United States. By doing this Dario creates a target for his complaints and is able to direct it at the people of the United States as represented by Roosevelt. The United States at this time seems to have become the new boogie man. They have replaced Spain in the eyes of Latin Americans as an imperial power, threatening their liberties. The language used throughout this poem reflect that sentiment. Dario calls Roosevelt "Alexander-Nubuchadnezzer" men who have conquered, calls him Hunter. The prose used throughout the poem bring to mind a great man striding across the Americas making the ground quake and the peoples tremble. However Dario states that Latin America, Spanish America, will not be so easily cowed. They are a thousand cubs of the Spanish Lion roaming free. I find this comparison quite telling because now decades after independence this Latin American poet is using the fact that they as a people are descended from Spain as a qualifier which distinguishes them from the United States. Where once they fought to be free of Spanish tyranny they now call upon their Spanish heritage as a sort of defense of the tyranny of the United States.