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? 

Re: Magna Carta and Rights Declarations

Re: The Magna Carta (1215)

This was my first time reading the Magna Carta. Although I’ve been aware of the document since my childhood, I never really cared to learn what it entailed and had no idea about the historical context out which it came. So I approached the text “knowing” that it had to do with what we today understand as human rights, and that it was one of the key historical documents in the shaping of our societies into more egalitarian and responsible societies. As far as wording and layout of the document, I imagined it to be closer in language and format to the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). 

Upon reading say, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, or the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States, I could see the direct influence (or even continuation) of several of the statements/laws presented in the Magna Carta. The similarities are attested by the fact that they, as historical documents are grouped together. I was struck, however, by a difference between the Magna Carta and the latter documents: The U.S. Constitution speaks on behalf of “We the People” and the French Declaration is put forth by “the representatives of the French people”. Both imply the declarations as 

stemming from an understanding of “the people” as the common citizenry. The Magna Carta, on the other hand, is striking in its introduction, so convoluted with titles of royalty and ecclesiastical top brass. 

The Magna Carta seemed to be a document for and by the elite of the time rather than for the common understanding of “the people”. Although the liberties that are first granted to the Church and the royals are extended to all “freemen”, my understanding of that term in the historical context is not sufficient to determine who inclusive the document really is, although I have an inkling that the answer is “not very”. 

This difference between who is declaring and what they are declaring is very interesting to me. While the American Bill of Rights and the French Declaration are both known to be exclusive as well in their definitions of who exactly counts as possessor of the rights declared (through exclusions like property-ownership, gender, age, etc), they seem to assert the rights of the populace directly, as the main point of the document. The Magna Carta, contrasts in my opinion in that it grants rights to the general population more as an outcome of the rules of conduct set for the elites, than as the general purpose of the document. For example point 15 seems to be a precursor to tenant’s rights but is phrased directed towards the conduct of landowners. 

I found of interest (and surprising as well) the document’s calls for what I interpreted as labor rights (point 23), separation of the judiciary from law enforcement (point 24), rent control (point 25). I found of sociological/historical interest the explicit racism of the law in the distinct treatment of debts owed to Jews (point 11). And I also found of interest the idea that the ‘liberties’ seemed more to be held by institutions/places (point 1, point 13) than by individuals.

I was more familiar with several of the more recent documents and declarations of rights, and I expected the Magna Carta to have been no different to those. It was an interesting text to read and I am still fitting my interpretation of it into my understanding of “human rights” and their history as a concept. 


Peace

Intro

Peace. My name is Esteban and I am many things: I am a full-time Sociology and Latin American Studies student at UBC (with a focus on immigration) starting my third year. I am a father and husband (Boy, 5 years old). I am Colombian by birth and Canadian by 'naturalization'. I am obsessed with music and books.

I am in LAST 301 because all things Latin American fascinate me. I moved out of Colombia at 15 and remain fascinated/amazed/ with the politics, culture, history and peoples of what we call "Latin America". Also as I mentioned, I am going for a Latin American Studies minor.

I grew up in a time when car bombs where the norm. This trend was then replaced by a kidnapping boom. Around that time, during the economic disaster that was the second half of the 90's in Colombia,
my family scattered to any country possible. Since '99 my family has been split up a hundred ways.

I've ended up in Vancouver. It is the 4 or 5 city I have lived in and the smallest one by far,
but I do love it so.

My boat gets rocked by discussions about ethnicity, class, gender, politics, oppression, justice, war, immigration, social movements, rap, hip hop, hard core punk, salsa, jazz, Latino popular culture, the Canucks, and anything Basketball.


PS: I am new to blogging...

Peace.