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.