The REAL Last LAST Blog:

The REAL Last LAST Blog:

I’ve been dragged out of blog retirement quite quickly. 

So, for this week, we are to reflect on what we have learned in LAST 301: Human and Civil Rights in Latin America. The first thought that comes to my head is: wow. Once-a-week classes sure do fly by. Although busing back to UBC after class was a tiny drag, I can’t really complain because I’ve lived on campus my whole time studying. Perhaps it was about time I commuted to relate to the tens of thousands that do so every day.  Truth is, I loved going to the class because the environment was very open and dialogue-inducing from the very beginning, and the downtown change of setting actually made for a sense of novelty every Monday. 

Ok: as far as lessons learned, the first thing that really came at me when looking back was the fact that the entire Human Rights discourse (which I took for granted for my whole life) seems to crumble pretty quickly when it is discussed. Perhaps it doesn’t crumble entirely, but it surely is a concept that, upon analysis, shows gaping holes between its rhetoric and its reality. Mentioning the fact that, previous to this class I took human rights for granted as this existing, clearly defined concept, I realize that I never gave any thought to their nature. As soon as I started thinking about them from different angles (comparing it to law, looking back towards times in history in which the discourse did not operate or exist, etc) I saw that it was not a very clearly defined concept: sure their are many ‘rights’ enshrined, some are respected, hundreds are broken. But what makes them rights? why are they called ‘rights’, what the hell are they? (personally, being last named Izquierdo, I find the concept exclusionary. Not really, but why ‘rights’? I like etymology.) It is a question that I'm still grappling with, but one I never asked myself before this class. As a sociologist in training, I believe asking one’s self these kinds of questions is healthy. 

The notion of Human Rights as Western Hegemony was interesting. Very interesting. The Makau Matua reading ‘hipped’ me to that idea and it’s a heavy one that can be explored quite deeply. 

The fact that H.R.s shine for their absence, or the absence of their respect, was another thing I came to see towards the end of the course. On this subject, I believe reading the more, how to put it.... emotionally powerful readings we worked through, was great not only for the sake of better understanding Latin America, but also for what could be a sort of 'bearing witness'. However, I do have to say that the human psyche is such that, towards the end of the course, the laundry lists of utterly awful actions that we now interpret under the rubric of human rights violations, started losing its shock. I don’t know if anyone else felt like that. 

I learned more about the conquest, but also about the continued struggles for and in Latin America. 

Finally, I learned of a whole new slew of Grade-A Villains and the role they played in the history of my peoples. But what I got out of the course that was my personally favorite part, was a large list of new Heroes. I will not type it up here, but I hope everyone else got some too. 

Awesome class. 

Peace!!!

Final Post - Guatemala pt II.

“I’m from where people worship the gods of their conquerors and practically every president’s a money launderer...”    

Immortal Technique, The 3rd World. 

“The Army killed us like chuchos...” (95)

This was again, a powerful reading. The first thing I can think of as I look back at all the chapters, is the feeling that first: the reading tied towards the end clearly with the Argentina case study, in particular with the ‘gringa’ character in the end and her mission, eerily reminiscent of the Argentine Madres. Second: that the two case studies for the session seem to represent the common experiences of the ‘Southern Cone’ with its dictatorships, and of the nations from Guatemala on down to about Bolivia, with their  very much contemporary history of internal (although with plenty of external [U.S.] help) insurgency-state conflicts. 

The first chapter we read, Nebaj, drew my attention from its second paragraph to the centrality of the institution that is the military in Guatemalan society. This was through its description of the barracks's placement in the town, although it would become evident throughout the readings as we learned of just how far Guatemalan life experience has been dictated by its Army in recent decades (centuries?). 

I did feel as though Nebaj’s historical context was a bit too Jared Diamond (which I don't particularly enjoy). From this chapter, I drew a parallel between the initial militarization of haciendas to the same process through which Colombia’s paramilitary nightmare was created. 

A clear theme here was a feeling throughout all chapters of a continuation, or rather a continuum, of The Conquest. The labor situation that first led to the arming of the peasants and guerrillas, was not anything unlike the slavery and peonage that has been occurring for 500 plus years now. And of course, the zealousness with which so many denominations of Christianity were salivating for the souls of the Guatemalan Original People also added to this theme significantly. 

In fact, the biggest theme perhaps, was that of hypocrisy: Absolute Christian hypocrisy, killing and torturing in the name of the lord, of civilization or of whatever else. Political hypocrisy, fighting an alleged global communist conspiracy with methods of turning the populace against itself clearly reminiscent of the Soviet Union and East Germany. Military hypocrisy, first immersing the population into a course on cruelty and torture, and then expecting peace to grow out of this. 

For the sake of business, of cheap labor, of modern day slavery, the Church, military and the law all came together to beat on the population that they are all supposed to service. Man, this reading pissed me off. 

I enjoyed the rebellions in the farms. It was reminiscent of Fernando Soto Aparicio’s La Rebelion de las Ratas. The author’s quick blame of these actions as causing more trouble to the population, while true, do seem quite a bit paternalistic, as it is clear that the authors would have needed generations of personally suffering torture, humiliation and death in order to give an informed judgment on why it was a stupid thing to act that way. Clearly, it was a time in which no logic held any kind of ground. This paternalism reared its ugly head, at least in my opinionated opinion, at the end, when it is suggested that the struggle of the Guatemalan people for the past few decades was only in need of a brave white woman to make real progress. I thought that was a tiny bit of BS, in particular due to the fact that, whatever the temporary hubbub in Washington, nothing really changed in the hills of the Ixil. 

Anyways, the emotions that this reading brought up have led me to rant. I will end by saying that this reading clearly demonstrates why in the culture that is Hip Hop, the letter agency so prominently involved in this case study (both parts) is known either as Criminals In Action, or the Cocaine Importing Agency. 

-Also of great interest: the word ‘racism’ never came up. Plenty of talk about ladinos this, Mayas that, Christians and gringos the other, even ethnic cleansing. Can we acknowledge that a lot of this is rooted in basic and pure racism? 

-And... what’s up with all the Satanism references? The pope was satanic, Gorbachev was the Anti-Christ, Rios-Montt, criminal-against-humanity par excellence was there to usher in the second-coming of Christ! .... Religious Psychological Warfare 101. 

Peace. 

News Story - Belize - LGBT Rights.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/global-campaign-decriminalise-homosexuality-belize-court?newsfeed=true


Very interesting for several reasons: First, I wanted to look at those three countries East of V/zuela that we barely consider as Latino. Second, it describes steps taken from the U.K. to change the laws of another sovereign country. Third, the barbarity of outlawing homosexual intercourse. Lastly: it connects to our last case study in that we see the Church(es) side with the rights-abusing party in the conflict.


Peace!

News Story - Paraguay

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2011/11/paraguay’s-indigenous-peoples’-rights-slowly-improving/

An interesting story about the current conditions of Paraguayan indigenous people, in relation to a U.N. visit. It is interesting to see how at the end, the official talks about the U.N. declaration on the rights of ingenious peoples as being the answer. I've read the charter and it is a powerful document, if only in its language. It would be interested to see how Paraguay, or any colonized area in the world, would be shaped by an implementation to the letter of it.

Peace.

RE: Case Study: Guatemala, Bitter Fruit

“...The United States were more interested in unquestioning allies than democratic ones...” (254).

This week's readings were very interesting, however, the cyclical nature of recent history in Guatemala made it so that by the end, things were getting confusing. Many of the 'changes' of power seemed to be replaying the previous regime, only worse. It reminded me of the whole 'dream within a dream within a dream' idea, although it was clearly a nightmare for all involved. Except, apparently, the CIA. They seemed to have faired pretty good by the end, growing their reputation for their.... intelligence assessment?

Not quite. 

Here are some of the things that jumped at me. I feel as though some go with a theme that I’ve explored in previous blogs of ‘things that remind me of the the contemporary U.S.’ The first chapter, however, reminds me of a different theme that I have also noticed in previous class readings: that is, the way in which certain individuals, strong personalities, ‘crazies’ even, have had huge effects on the history of millions of people. We saw it in A Memory of Fire , for example. Here we see it with Banana Sam. Also of great interest in this chapter was learning of the connection between New England and Central America. 

The fist instance of my U.S. theme came with the bogus Czech shipment in ‘the final countdown’. I could not help but feeling as though it was the day’s Iraqi WMDs scenario. The second instance was the fact that at the time, the U.S. was acting under an idea that the Cold War meant a different set of rules for ‘the game’, which seems to parallel the paradigm under which the war on terror is ran. 

The part with Che was very interesting in that it implied that U.S. actions somehow, by further radicalizing Guevara, had a direct role of causation in the way the Cuban Revolution developed. As the fight against Arbenz developed, the opening of the caches by the American-supported army connected with my U.S. theme again, as it mirrored what happened in Iraq at the beginning of the occupation. 

I found of interest the many hands that came to the Guatemalan pot. From the UFC (not the Ultimate fighting Championship, but the company that brought us the lovely term ‘Banana Republic’, which by the way, how offensive of a brand name is it?) to Time magazine writers called to draft constitutions, to the bizarre way in which the diplomats behaved (even getting assassinated in the dubious line of duty). 

The entire post-‘liberation’ period just stinks of a Guatemala with zero point zero sovereignty, which is a sad picture. The way in which Castillo-Armas (can you get a better name for that job? What is this, a Dickens-written telenovela?) was ‘built up’ as a Libertador made me wonder how much of the alleged predilection for caudillos in Latin America is fabricated.

The end of the story was part sad part ‘karma’s a bitch’, except of course, as I mentioned before, for the CIA. It is interesting to see all this in the current context of Guatemala, as the old story seems to be shaping the current one: we have an outgoing Colom, nephew of the one in our story, and an incoming School of the Americas gradute, General Perez-Molina. Just makes you wonder... who’s hands are in the pie now? 

Un Abrazo, Guatemala.

Peace. 

News link for Nov. 6

"Mayan girls are the country’s most disadvantaged group, leading lives characterized by early marriage, limited schooling, frequent childbearing, social isolation, and chronic poverty." 

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=105738

An article trying to bring to light the specific challenges faced by young maya women in Guatemala. In reality, the article only touches on the tip of the iceberg of the situation of women in Guatemala, where what has been called a 'feminicide' is taking place.

The violent deaths of 3,800 women in the country since 2000 is studied to a deeper degreee in this link: 

http://cgrs.uchastings.edu/campaigns/femicide.php


Peace

CASE STUDY: ARGENTINA, PT. II. RE: OPEN LETTER FROM A WRITER TO THE MILITARY JUNTA.

“The battle we are waging has no moral or natural limits, it takes place beyond good and evil.” (288)

I must start by acknowledging that I have been so preoccupied with the literature review I just finished that, at this point, I can only comment on Rodolfo Walsh’s reading.I found this letter to be very interesting. It was written in a concise manner which seems to be shaped by his profession as a journalist, in particular due to his ability to compile evidence out of the monstrous-come-monotonous occurrences of late 70s Argentina and tie the strings of information and ghastly numbers into visions of a systematic nightmare. In its goal of public denunciation and the courage it took to write, the reading reminded me of Olympe De Gouges’ letter. The fact that Walsh’s letter comes from a modern period, and describes the crimes of a state much closer to what we see around the world today than the one De Gouges was writing against, made Walsh’s readings much more relatable. 

As I have mentioned, I am fresh from finishing my literature review, for which I researched about human rights violations attributed to the Colombian state. As could be expected, there are some aspects in common with Walsh’s reading. First of all, the mere title of walsh’s letter reminds me of the question which led me to choose my literature review topic: Who do you go to for protection when it is your own government you need protection from? This question, of course, remains unanswered. 

His highlighting of the fallacy of a discourse of ‘national spirit’ (285) piqued my inner cynic, which tends to think that most overtly national discourses mask projects that usually adversely affect a significant chunk of that nation’s population. 

The discussion of the repression suffered by labor definitely reminded me of my literature review and the astronomical numbers of assassinated labor union organizers and members in Colombia. This made it seem as though labor repression usually comes hand-in-hand with political repression. In so-called ‘peaceful’, ‘free’ societies such as ours, sometimes it is easy to forget that, just like the Feminist sisters asserted that ‘the personal is political’, work is also always inherently political. This makes me fear the current international climate of labor movement erosion. 

The talk about habeas corpus was central to this reading, as well as to last week’s and to the whole enterprise of citizens trying to achieve some justice, or at least accountability, from their government. It made me think of the Bush administration’s suspension of said legal right. This connection to that particular administration was brought up again in Walsh’s discussion of the use of torture (285-286), which reminded me of Leigh Gilmore’s essay “How We Confess Now: Reading the Abu Ghraib Archive.”

I found that, as with my literature review (and the class readings for last few weeks) the numbers of victims are so outrageous that they start to loose their shock value by virtue of going over anything one should be able to imagine. Finally, I really enjoyed the way Walsh wrapped up his letter by listing the basic implementation of ‘Chicago Boy’ economic policies as worst than and the root of all the horrendous crimes committed against Argentina (288). This, along with his description of a deteriorating geography (288), made me feel that what the Junta was doing was not governing a nation, but rather implementing an economic plan by any means necessary. An economic plan that was obviously not for the benefit of the population. 

PS: Did his discussion about the stock exchange and privatization of banks remind anyone of what is going on with our neighbors south of the 49th? 

Peace. 

News link for Oct. 30

A good look at the trickonomics of FTAs, going 15 years back (already?!?) to the signing of NAFTA and exposing some of the patterns of broken promises and real repercussions. Let's see how Colombia and Panama (or a better question perhaps is who) will benefit from this, and how the rights of laborers and the environment, to name a few, are affected.

Peace.

http://www.truth-out.org/new-free-trade-agreements-threaten-kill-jobs-and-labor-rights/1318363783

RE: Case Study: Argentina, Pt. I

As the Day of the Dead approaches, I am making my way through the readings for the first part of the Argentina case study. Nouzeilles and Montaldo’s  chapter introduction gave me a better grasp on the timelines and characters of the horrific events that traumatized Argentina during the post-Peron dictatorship period, starting in the early 70s. The introduction, among other things, hinted at one of the great paradoxes inherent in ‘free’ market economics: in a large chunk of the world, the policies of free markets ,built on philosophies of ‘Modernization’, have best been employed by ruthless dictators. The freedom of the market is in many instances predicated on the slavery of peoples, in different guises, be it maquiladora workers or Special Economic Zone ‘employees’. Reading about the discourses through which the Argentine state justified its terrorizing ways, I could not help but to be reminded of a peculiar perception of its neighbor to the the West, (and fellow dictatorship victim) Chile, which growing up I heard from a couple of voices (young and old, for politics seeps into all ages and places in Colombia). The kind of thought boiled down to: ‘Yes, Pinochet did some horrible things, but look at Chile now!’ Just to make it clear, I think that link of thought is barbaric. I believe it is good to keep in mind, as we continue next week with the Argentine case study, that it is one among several in the region in which the tactics of government form a discernible pattern. 

Ricardo Piglia’s excerpt from Artificial Respiration led me to feel that, at least within the very little Argentine literature that I am familiar with, the deconstruction of national culture (and literature specifically), wether for praise or condemnation, seems to be a theme. I found interesting the way in which the discussion between Tardewski and Renzi addressed the role of Europe in shaping Argentine national identity, within a dialogue about literature. The disappeared professor is said to have interpreted Argentine culture as doomed in its obsession with Europeanness and its inability to sincerely duplicate it. This brought back to mind Galeano’s passages about the British influence in the history and shaping of the Southern Cone’s economic patterns (in his view, dependency), and even its land colonization imperatives. The role of the Guerra de las Malvinas in the events surrounding this week’s readings also exposes the curious continuation of this influence/relationship. I don’t think I will shock anyone if I say that I believe this cultural/geographic relationship has not only largely shaped Argentina’s perception of itself, but also the perception that it’s neighbors hold of it. Basically, it is as if Argentina deals on the one hand with an inferiority complex due to Europe’s perception of it as too colonial, too native. On the other hand, it deals with a superiority complex due to the rest of Latin America’s (erroneous) perception of Argentina as an all-white, all-European country, and the dynamics that this implies. This might construe Argentina as an Island, out of place in either continent. 

To close this post, Bonafini and Sanchez’ “The Madwomen at the Plaza de Mayo” relates an aspect of this period of Argentine history with which I was much more acquainted, in a large part perhaps due to something that is explored in the text, which is the fact that the Mothers where, at one point, embraced by the world’s media. One thing I was not aware of, was the role of the World Cup in the repression of the Mothers and Grandmothers. It is curious how the Cup’s sponsorship of the dictatorship, as well as the Olympics' approval of Hitler’s government, have been so thoroughly sanitized in our current, over-the-top embracing of said events. Also, in a kind of feminist reading, I found very interesting the goal which the Mothers, (themselves symbols of what, in traditional societies such as Catholic, mid 20th century Argentina is perceived as the pinnacle of womanhood), tried to reach in order to defy the paternalistic, patriarchal state, embodied in the Dictator: the incredibly obvious symbol that is the obelisk. 

Peace. 

POR QUE SOMOS COMO SOMOS? RE: THE STATE AND THE INDIVIDUAL IN LATIN AMERICA: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW.

I would like to start off by thanking Margaret Crahan, for I felt her reading tried to tackle the very question that fuels my interest in Latin American Studies. Por que somos como somos? Why are we, that hard-to-define, yet clearly felt community of Latin Americans, the way we are? Why do the things that happen in our countries and the patterns that have emerged out of our regions happen? Crahan’s goal is to tie the structure of the state and society at large in Latin America to its “Iberian Heritage”. In the process of her argument I agreed with some things and disagreed with others. Overall, I enjoyed many of the historical connections she made throughout her account of the evolution of the state in Latin America. 

Crahan makes a case for something of which I have been convinced for a while: that the revolutions that deposed the Spanish crown from Latin America were not for and by the people, as they have been romanticized in our (at least my) national histories. Rather, it was a war fought by the people, for certain elites. (24) This paper made me ponder on the origin of certain tendencies in Latin America. Perhaps in our revolutions we can see the origin of the tendency, or the initial manifestation of the curse by which Latin American nations always seem to be stuck choosing the lesser of several evils. 

On page 27 she identifies the ideology at the root of another Latin American tendency: the susceptibility to fall into racism and classism as systems for understanding/navigating the social reality of our nations. I once had an Israeli-American friend who claimed he didn’t travel because he didn’t need to: he though anywhere you went was the same: The lighter people have the money and the power, and the darker people do the work. It was meant as a fatalistic, simplistic, inflammatory comment. Something to mess with the sensibilities of those discussing their latest travels. I couldn’t help remembering this comment as I read about the construction of a white-mestizo-black/indio caste system, and I can’t help thinking of my city, Bogota, where the president is white as milk, the struggling middle class has always been by large majority mestizo, and the darker brown and black skin tones are the norm for la gente de la calle. 

Crahan also supplies a theory for the origin of clientelism, the ruling paradigm of government in Latin America, by which the highest law of the land is the golden rule: He who has the gold, makes the rules. She sees this as yet another trait passed down from the peculiar Iberian royalty, down to its successor, their illegitimate social offspring that was the mestizo elite. She also discusses the origin of the penchant for being ruled by caudillos, attributing it to the frustrated desire for stability post-independence. In my opinion, this was the simplest (or weakest) of her arguments.

Finally, I really enjoyed her account of the beginning of a true sense of social mobility in Latin American societies in what she dubs “the development of the modern state, 1920-1980” (36). Her description of the push by the “urban working class, small businessmen, professionals and others” to gain access to benefits paints these groups as “broadening the bases of collectivity without fully challenging the nature of centralized power.” (36) Perhaps in an overly cynical manner, I couldn’t help but feel that this was the moment in which the larger society became complicit in the perpetuation of what Crahan exposes to be an internally, inherently flawed system based on the privilege of certain elites. Perhaps Leon Gieco was not exaggerating when he sang “Cinco siglos igual...” 

“LOOKING LATINO IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE”

Latino residents sue ICE over apartment raid

http://www.timesnews.net/article/9037273/latino-residents-sue-ice-over-apartment-raids

With the context of the recently lauded "largest national crackdown on immigration" in the U.S., which took place last month (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationnow/2011/09/immigration-raids-net-2900-criminals.html), this story depicts a small challenge against the arrest and deportation machinery that is currently targeted at Latinos (both legal and illegal immigrants, as well as citizens). The lack of criminal charges stemming from the raid in question shows how such practices terrorize communities unnecessarily. The implied link between the economic benefit of private businesses and the targets of the raids is alarming. This is a small peek at what the militarization of immigration law enforcement looks like. The lack of respect for rights of due process is blatant. 

Peace. 

The Phenomenon of “False Positives” in Colombia.

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/9555-auc-describe-false-positive-killings-by-colombian-army.html

“To ease the tension, Don Mario gave the colonel COP100 million and sent several men to Villavicencio and Granada (in Meta) to find young people to present as false positives. The paramilitaries scouted bars and night clubs and returned with five to seven drunk men, who were the next day murdered and presented as guerillas killed in combat by the army.”

Nope, it ain’t about faulty pregnancy tests. This article discusses one of the biggest stains on Colombia’s already shoddy human rights record. False Positives are Colombian citizens, mostly civilians, mostly young males from poor areas, who have been murdered both by the military and the paramilitary, then presented officially as guerrillero casualties, inflating the alleged accomplishments in the war against drugs (and now terror) that the Colombia government and its legal and illegal allies are knee-deep in. 

This is the kind of stuff the just-approved free trade agreement with the U.S. is condoning in saying that Colombia has fixed its H.R. record enough to do business with. (not that business between the two has ever been slow.)

Peace. 

RE: Galeano: MEMORIES OF FIRE II: FACES AND MASKS

“The History of the West is becoming a theatrical spectacle as it unfolds”    Galeano, 213. 

Regarding this week’s readings, I must say that Eduardo Galeano’s excerpts stand perhaps as my favorite texts read so far in my academic career. I Had previously read him in LAST 100, in an excerpt again, this time from his Venas Abiertas de Latino America, regarding the Potosi mines. While that was also a great read, this compilation really packs a punch in many aspects, in a very poetic, digestible manner. 

To begin, I will relate how the reading made me think about human rights. Two vignettes in particular come to mind, the siege on the Cahapultepec castle (160) and the description of child soldiers in the wars against Paraguay (202). Both of these instances deal with what today be interpreted as a human rights violation: the idea of underage fighters. Galeano’s text conveys the atrociousness of such a condition without any recourse to the rights discourse. I thought that, not only are rights a sociological construction, but also many of the concepts they defend, such as “childhood”, are also recent constructs of our society. This lead me to ponder wether many of our discourses for justice, change, or whatever is sought, are built on the quicksands of concepts that mean one thing today, and something else in ten years. 

I thought that Galeano’s choice of events to relate was subversive in several ways: I found that it challenged the institution of History by uncovering peoples within it that have been largely obscured. Among these stood out for me the story of the Saint Patrick’s Irish Battalion (161), and the roles of Chinese folk both in the ‘development’ of Cuba (184) and Peru (218). It also challenged His-story by narrating events of the historical ‘other’, even those that would be deemed superstitious (to spare words) by the positivist, such as the cross at Chan Santa Cruz (171, 183), and the disappearance of the buffalos “Into the Beyond” (211). He records them with the same veracity and tone as any other factual historical event he describes. 

I found this quote quite appropriate for the course: “Our Rights are born of victory” (223). Perhaps the chance to create, enshrine or declare rights are the spoils of the victor and nothing more? Some of the men who got to write their own sure thought so. 

Of interest to me was the way in which he narrates the history of the entire “Americas” together, showing that the ties between “North” and “Latin” America are many, that their histories have been shaped by each other, and that in reality, the differences are quite ambiguous, even when it comes to the shifting physical/geographical border. Some of the instances that highlighted this interrelation where the migrations to California (166), and the life-story of Geronimo, defined by his defiance of both the American and Mexican governments (182). When the U.S. treatment of the Kiowas (211) is compounded alongside the atrocities perpetrated all the way down to Tierra del Fuego in a single text, one is left with a feeling that all these actions were not the acts of random, different enterprises acting on whims, but that they were all part of a single system of conquest through which all these lands where taken over with, if by different actors at certain given points. 

A third point of interest to me was the way in which the european economy shaped the events of the nascent nations of Latin America, although I will elaborate on this if discussed in class, as this post is getting long. To see what I mean, refer to the blockade of Buenos Aires (169), the demographics of Argentina (207, 229), the nitrates war (197, etc) the effects of the UK’s need for cattle on the geography of the continent (215), among other examples. 

To close, I would like to say that all this read a bit like a pulp or noir novel novel written by Garcia Marquez. I refer to the feeling of surreal that the real history of Latin America leaves one with. De Las Casas captures this perfectly in his synopsis: 

“Everything that has happened since the marvelous discovery of the Americas...has been so extraordinary that the whole story remains quite incredible to anyone who has not experienced it first hand.”  (3)

Peace. 

Comment to Jonelleaspa's "The Ends of Rights"

I wanted to comment on this blog post, but crappy Blogger is not allowed to reply!


So, RE: http://jonelleaspa.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/the-ends-of-rights/





I also agree with most of what you are saying, and I felt that you could hear his voice as you read the article, which made it awesome. I wanted to engage your final point about women's movements as well too though, because he is not equating the actions/visions or the morals of feminists to those of fundamentalists, but rather pointing out that both parties frame their particular vision of what womanhood should/could be like, often through the frame of harassment, which is true. He is not saying that take-back-the-night marches are the same as saying all women should wear a burka, but he is saying that both sides often cite the same reason for such different actions. 


Peace. 

RE: End of Human Rights

RE: THE END OF HUMAN RIGHTS

“It seems to me that in this juxtaposition of texts (ORIGIN/END), the group of ‘Origin’ authors brought boring knifes to a gunfight.”

Well if my favorite aspect about last week’s readings was Mrs. De Gouge’s mix of wit and sarcasm, this week I’ve been delighted again by a few displays of literary Attitude. More poignant and at times cynic, this week’s writings (In particular Deleuze, Agamben, and of course Zizek’s aptly titled piece) where not cheeky critiques but rather full-frontal attacks on the notion of rights.

 Applying some reflexivity, I am beginning to notice that I do enjoy attitude in text. Now: I have not made my mind up with regards to which side of the HR fence I am on. I am still standing on that proverbial picket and letting the course develop. 

However, 

if I was to to take the side of the futility of human rights, I could ask if perhaps the impotence of the concept, discourse and application of human rights might all be somehow rooted in their historical document’s utter lack of passion. Looking back at earlier readings for the course, they all seem sanitized and inhuman, even within a context of supposed reverence to humanity (or a particular portion of it, in the least). It seems to me that in this juxtaposition of texts (ORIGIN/END), the group of “Origin”authors brought boring knifes to a gunfight.

I loved Deleuze’s reduction of human rights into “a party line for...intellectuals without any ideas of their own”. He saves no words and calls those who “recite” human rights “idiots” who have not realized that, events such as the Armenian Genocide had nothing to do with these alleged rights but rather were issues of jurisprudence. For a course on social movements, I was recently reading a piece on “framing” the abortion debate, and the key was that one side built its case on rights, while the other built it’s case on morals. Let’s say any given contentious situation can be interpreted from a different viewpoint, be it rights, morals or jurisprudence. Can we start to think of human rights then as a lens through which to interpret social realities? Now, there is a question that arises from Deleuze, a point at which I feel he takes a jump. While he is successful in conveying the ethereal, unreal nature of the concept of human rights, he implies in his essay is the idea that Law, or the legal system, is a solid-enough, real-enough rock on which to build Justice (for lack of a better word). I wonder then, where the difference emerges between Rights and Law and I have a feeling that one is enforced by threat of punishment in a somewhat consistent manner, while the other has no body to perform such tasks in any swift manner. 

So what am I arguing? I believe that the Law might be as abstract as rights. What is real, as real as cold steel, is Law Enforcement. The Law is broken often, it is also applied selectively many, many times. This makes it not unlike rights. This line of thought left me in disagreement with Deleuze as he concluded. Could, maybe, “the fight to create the right” be not the fight for jurisprudence but rather for the power to enforce law/right/morality? 

Hate Crime, Arkansas.

2 Sentenced for Hate Crimes in Arkansas


I wanted to share this tiny news blip today as my story for the week. This is my logic as to how it connected to the course on Human and Civil Rights:


-The legal definition of a hate crime, according to Merriam-Webster's Legal Dictionary is: "A crime that violates the victims civil rights and that is motivated by hostility to the victim's race, religion, creed, national origin, sexual orientation or gender."


One of the things that interested me with regards to this horrendous case, is that it has been documented


(http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2008/10/29/anti-latino-hate-crimes-rise-for-fourth-year/ , for example)


that there has been an significant rise in hate crimes against Latinos in the United States. I responded recently to Ana's posting on anti-immigration laws as a impinging on the rights of the same population target. This got me turning some mental wheels. Having been discussing wether there is any grounded
reality/importance/weight to the socially constructed rights so many texts 'enshrine', this story takes my mind to the fact that the political discourse in any given society, wether in the concrete realm of signed law or in the intentions/directions politicians are willing to take might have a very real effect on the behavior of such societies.


Basically, I ask if the climate of anti-(Latino)Immigration in U.S. politics can be connected to the rights abuses experienced on the ground by that population not only at the hands of both federal/state authorities but also by the 'dominant' American population.


Now some more apropos questions could be: Does the existing conception of H+C Rights really affect this situation at all?  Do laws trying to curb on this kind of violent, discriminatory behavior rely on rights discourses to justify a particular legal category of crime?


Peace.

Sikuani (Indigenous Colombian) Children Starve in Oil Country.

This article details the tragedy. Although I have not been able to find a source for the news in English, I will provide a quick translation of some of the main parts so that we can all understand what is going on. Also, the pictures speak well for themselves. The children are shown, but also the excesses of the oil region wasted (in my humble opinion) while the kids vanish away in front of the authorities. 




http://www.semana.com/nacion/fisica-hambre/164662-3.aspx


"Nobody can conceive how in the new oil mecca of Colombia, the municipality that receives the most oil royalties in the country and where juicy child-nutrition contracts have been signed, each month, starved native children arrive at the hospital, dying of hunger."


"The majority of the children are indigenas of the Sikuani Etnia, coming from one of the region's nine, dispersed resguardos." (similar but not equivalent to reservations).


"In the past, their etnia was nomadic, but with the arrival of oil and agroindustrial companies, they lost their liberty and the environment was contaminated. They are now sedentary and have no land that is cultivable." 


"Puerto Gaitan registers an infant moratlity rate of 61 kids per 100000 inhabitants"


This cipher is made the more appalling when this is taken into account:


"The municipality only counts with 27 police officers, has running water for two hours a day, suffers from constant black-outs, and 44% of it's population lives in misery. Nonetheless, visitors are greeted on arrival by a gigantic concrete arch that cost (approximately 1 million dollars), or they have the possibility to attend a summer festival that costs (approximately 500 thousand dollars) with Willie Colon and Daddy Yankee on board." 




Hmmmmm.....

CLAIMING RIGHTS AND TAKING NAMES

CLAIMING RIGHTS AND TAKING NAMES 

Re: ‘The Origins of Rights’ readings. 

On De Gouges

Out of this week’s readings, Olympe De Gouges’ writings really stood out for me. I actually thought it was awesome and my margins are full of comments like “Damn!!!”. The first thing to strike me was the language; the confrontational, direct language in which her letter to the queen was written. While the other readings for the week were written in a more abstract, philosophical plane, De Gouges speaks her mind rather than expounding on societal models based on divine rights and natural laws. I believe the difference I felt was that De Gouges’ readings seemed to me to be the expression of a perceived oppression, while the others seemed to be philosophical constructs designed to justify or delineate particular social structures. 

Here are some of the things that I enjoyed from her writings: 

In her letter to the queen, De Gouges builds a case for the royal to support the cause of women’s rights and equality. Cloaked in praise and respect, the author manages to appeal to the queen’s own ‘sex’, makes her aware of the numbers (political support) involved (“soon you will have half the realm on your side, and at least one-third of the other half”) and did anyone read “Believe me, Madame, our life is a pretty small thing, especially for a Queen, when it is not embellished by people’s affection and by the eternal delights of good deeds” as a nicely veiled death threat?!? Perhaps I’m reading too much into her sharp, almost-sarcastic tone. 

In The Rights of Woman, she strikes brilliantly at her rival, the enlightened men of the revolution (and presumably 2/3s of the male population, according to the letter to the queen), knowing just where she can hurt them most. She calls into question their ability to be just (their capacity for Justice!) right off the bat. She then attacks their most precious weapon, reason, asking them in very empirical terms to survey creation (appealing to their alleged reverence to nature and to their scientific identity) and point out an example of such sexual imbalance anywhere on the planet. 

“Bizarre, blind, bloated with science and degenerated - in  a century of enlightenment and wisdom - into the crassest ignorance...” No words minced before she goes on to declare the Rights of Woman. I was also interested by the way in which she framed womanhood in the preamble around the notion of family (176), the claim of female superiority in beauty and courage (177), and the notion of the imagined nation not as a Father nor Mother Land, but as a marriage (Article IV). Also powerful was her call for a democratically drafted constitution (Article XVI), which is a topic we have discussed more than once in class. 

On the other readings:

On a quick comment on some of the other readings, I found Hobbes’ distinction of law as obligation and right as liberty was of use for the class. I was confounded by the section titled Covenants exhorted by fear are valid. Did this legalize theft and kidnapping?

At this moment I also remember Locke’s idea of one’s ownership of self as having interested me a lot (Chapter V, point 27). In general so far the readings for Monday have clarified many of the concepts present in the discourse of rights, although the fact that the definitions vary almost from author to author, also convoluted things at the same time. Looking forward to the class’ insights. 

Free Trade Agreements and Human Rights.

My first link, http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=e147dbd8-0165-44ee-83f3-5a3f8fa6eada is a short report on how last month, Canada and Colombia signed a free trade agreement called the CCFTA. Given the corporate-related source, it is no surprise that the report limits itself to numbers and benefits for those invested (or looking to invest) in both markets. 


Now, how does this free trade agreement connect to human rights in Latin America? 


My second link, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-13/trade-deals-wed-obama-to-republicans.html is a Bloomberg.com article on a recent speech given by President Obama to his nation's congress. In a nutshell, it narrates how Obama pushed and lobbied hard for the stalled free trade agreements that have divided U.S. political interests: South Korea, Colombia and Panama. The article points on how, after his speech, the president received a standing ovation...from the Republican party members! The truth is that ever since a trade deal with Colombia, such as the one Canada so eagerly signed, has been opposed by a faction of the democratic party due to the country's shoddy record with human rights, in particular around labour. To quote the article, "Representative Sander Levin, a Michigan Democrat, said he won’t support the Colombia deal because its government fails to protect workers from intimidation and violence." 


One the one hand, the U.S. trades with multiple trade partners with shoddy H.R. records that I don't need to single out here, as we can all think of a handful of examples. Why picking up that labour and human rights banner in such a specific case as Colombia? And how does it reflect on our Canadian govt. and society in general when we quietly and successfully sign a trade agreement with a nation that does truly have a laundry list of murder, extortion and torture charges targeted towards union organizers and rights activists?