We see in this final chapter the struggles that claim with the claim of an abundant natural resource that is useful to many, many people around the world.
Regarding the Lago Agrio oil field, local Ecuadorians and their lawyers have been forcing Texaco and their parent company, Chevron, to take responsibility for the water and soil pollution and degradation, as well as deforestation and social displacement.
The oil spills and the neglect of the people and the environment can be considered crimes of humanity, in my opinion. As well, I believe that too much finger-pointing is being done, while the locals still suffer from the intensive-scaled oil extraction, the spills, and the water and land degradation. Yes, there have been clean-ups performed by Chevron, but only after multiple trials, and millions spent.
How do these people sleep at night? Knowing they're profiting off another man's land and resource and degrding his quality of life as well?
Spanish colonization, rise of the caudillos, authoritarians, revolutions, capitalism and communism, and now cartel-controlled authorities... Latin America has gone though so much in the last five centuries. It is an uncertain future, indeed, as the people of Latin America have always been a part of a movement. These movements seek peace, but it seems it is becoming more and more difficult to trust in any form of justice. What will it take to change the chaotic systems of governing the countries in Latin America, the injustices present at every scale? What will take to take foreign investment out of the region, to allow the people to make decisions for themselves, and create the Latin America they have always hoped for for their children?
Tuesday 25 November 2014
Tuesday 18 November 2014
Research project - week 3: Catalina de Erauso and the Casta Paintings
Catalina de Erauso was born in 1592, in the Northern Spanish
country of Basque, in San Sebastian. She was born into a noble, rich family, which looked something like
this. Catalina was placed in a convent at the age of four, were she lived until
the age of 15. After being severely beaten by a nun, Catalina ran away from the
convent. She took on the name of “Francisco de Loyola”, and then set of for
Panama as a cabin boy, leaving on a ship from Bilbao. As a soldier, she fought
several battles, under the name of “Alonso Díaz Ramírez de Guzmán”. After being
seriously wounded in a battle, Catalina confessed her secret, believing she was
on her deathbed. However, she survived, and continued on to Guamango, Chile,
where she enlisted in the army, serving under several captains, including her
brother, whom did not recognize her. In her memoir, Catalina wrote “I remained with my brother as his aide, dining
at his table for nearly three years without his ever realizing anything. I went
with him sometimes to the house of a girlfriend he had there. Other times I
went there without him. He found out about this and took it hard, telling me to
keep away from there. He lay in wait for me and caught me at it again. When I
came out he attacked me with his belt and injured my hand.”
Catalina became a second
Lieutenant, fighting on the front lines. When her division’s commanding officer
was killed, she took on the position of captain. Tragedy struck when she
accidentally killed her brother, Captain Miguel de Erauso. Catalina dropped out
of the army and fled to Peru. She became dangerously ill again, and was tended
to by a rancher and her daughter. The daughter took a fancy to Catalina, but to
no avail. Catalina wrote “After having me there for eight days, the good woman
told me that I could stay there and be master of the house. I expressed much
appreciation for the kindness she showed me in my waywardness, and offered to
serve her as best I could. After a few more days she gave me to understand that
she would consider it a favor if I would marry the daughter that she had there
with her. The daughter was ugly as the devil, very contrary to my taste, which
was always the pretty faces.” Catalina married her anyway, with the goal of
getting a good dowry. She received the money before going through with the
wedding ceremony and quickly fled.
Catalina spent the next several years moving around the country, stealing, picking fights, and gambling, her reputation for mischief and crimes becoming well-known. In Guamanga, after being arrested, she, at last, revealed her true identity, to a bishop named Fray Agustin de Carvaja. She settled into a convent for the next two years, after an examination which concluded that she was still a virgin. She grew restless, however, and headed back to Cadiz, Spain. She was famous in Spain. Whilst traveling in Rome, Italy, pope Urban VIII himself officially granted her the right to wear men’s clothing.
Catalina wrote her memoir between 1626 and 1630. As her
journal ends in 1626, historians are unsure of the rest of her life’s journeys.
What they do know is that, after passing on her estate to her sister in 1629, Catalina
de Erauso returned and settled in Latin America as Antonio de Erauso.
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
The Casta Paintings were at their peak in the 18th
century, playing an important role in colonial Latin America. The paintings’
goal was to classify races according to Hispanic beliefs, to provide a visual
social construction of race. The Casta Paintings aimed to provide a structure which
placed everyone in a specific niche in the societal hierarchy of Latin America.
The representation of a particular “category” of people, for
a lack of a better word, was only possible if represented alongside the other
categories. In other words, in order to understand what a “morisco” or “morisca”
is, one would have to firstly understand what is meant by a “mulato” or “mulata”,
as “moriscos” were the children of a Spanish parent and a Mulato or Mulata
parent. Thusly, the Casta Paintings were painted and presented in series. The
children born to Spanish parents - but in Latin America - were called criollos.
The Casta Paintings sought to solidify the social statuses
of the different races in Latin America, placing the white Spanish at the top. Today,
the paintings raise the question of socially-constructed hierarchies versus
self-identification. The idea of attributing a specific social status to a specific
race is preposterous. However, in the 17th century, it was race that
dictated class. Studying the Casta Paintings makes us wonder if class exists as
a result of biologically-induced differences in the capabilities of different
races. That said, even in this day and age, social classification of different
races exists – known as racial discrimination. It is still present; subtle, but
very much present.
Where would Catalina de Erauso fit in a Casta Painting? She
would still be considered Spanish white, since she was born in Basque, and even
fought against indigenous Latin Americans. But what about her multiple name
changes, “unlady-like” tendencies to commit crimes, her self-identification as
a man, and her sexuality? Would they allow her to be at the same level on the
social hierarchy as the Spanish white male conquistador?
We can see how the Casta Paintings were based on a
racially-discriminatory mentality, and reduced people’s worth in society,
simply due to their race, something most colonists wanted. They failed to
create an efficient society based on a diverse population, which would still be
equal in rights and freedoms, and equal on the social ladder.
Both topics, that is, Catalina’s life journey and the
short-lived organization of society by using the Casta Paintings show another
side of history – that of defied social norms, especially by minorities. And
the story continues today. Racial minorities, as well as people who identify as
LGBTQ are still considered marginalized groups in today’s society.
Monday 17 November 2014
Speaking Truth to Power
Document 10.7, that is, The Diario de Juarez open letter to the drug cartels of Mexico, in September of 2010 was one of the most powerful pieces I have ever read.
Lines such as "From whom do we demand justice?", and "we, the victims, are thus addressing our executioners." show the sense of "unknown" that envelops the citizens of Mexico. What do the drug cartels want? As mentioned in the letter, physicians who had been kidnapped for ransom were murdered, right after the ransom was received. What can the people of Mexico do in this situation? What are the rules of the game, the laws of this battle? Is there any respect at all left towards the lives of innocent people, or are they just another scheme to use in the cartels' plans?
The two photos, 10.5 and 10.6, showing a victim of the massacre at Aguas Blancas lying dead in the street. The farmer, one of the 17 whom were shot point blank that day, was attending a protest march, asking for the release of an activist farmer, and also for better infrastructure, water sanitation, and schools, among others. They were simply shot, and, here, as we can see in this photo, were staged to look as a suicide orto look as though they were armed themselves, so the police had to shoot. We don't know; it doesn't even matter! Again, this goes back to my questions from before? What can the people of Mexico do to bring change in the country,when every single group with some form of authority (police, government, justice courts) is wrapped around the cartels' finger? Killing innocent protesters - for demanding change - and bringing disgrace to their honour by making it look as though they killed themselves or were shooting at someone else... what are the rules in this game? Are there any rules at all? Any sense of honour left?
Lines such as "From whom do we demand justice?", and "we, the victims, are thus addressing our executioners." show the sense of "unknown" that envelops the citizens of Mexico. What do the drug cartels want? As mentioned in the letter, physicians who had been kidnapped for ransom were murdered, right after the ransom was received. What can the people of Mexico do in this situation? What are the rules of the game, the laws of this battle? Is there any respect at all left towards the lives of innocent people, or are they just another scheme to use in the cartels' plans?
The two photos, 10.5 and 10.6, showing a victim of the massacre at Aguas Blancas lying dead in the street. The farmer, one of the 17 whom were shot point blank that day, was attending a protest march, asking for the release of an activist farmer, and also for better infrastructure, water sanitation, and schools, among others. They were simply shot, and, here, as we can see in this photo, were staged to look as a suicide orto look as though they were armed themselves, so the police had to shoot. We don't know; it doesn't even matter! Again, this goes back to my questions from before? What can the people of Mexico do to bring change in the country,when every single group with some form of authority (police, government, justice courts) is wrapped around the cartels' finger? Killing innocent protesters - for demanding change - and bringing disgrace to their honour by making it look as though they killed themselves or were shooting at someone else... what are the rules in this game? Are there any rules at all? Any sense of honour left?
Tuesday 11 November 2014
Peru in an Age of Terror
I will discuss a particular topic that stood out to me from this section of history and the corresponding primary documents. Both President Fujimori and Chairman Gonzalo alluded to the need "for revolutionary violence", the need to completely remove the status quo and establish a new system. Gonzalo, drawing on Mao's ideals, states that "Revolutionary violence is what allows us to resolve fundamental contradictions by means of an army, through people’s war". Fujimori used a more political approach, by dissolving the (at the time current) Congress and Constitution, and establishing new ones, with force.
I feel like both of them, although different in many ways, shared this notion of an extremely radical change. Thinking back throughout history, I get the sense that when a prominent leader of any kind (president, monarch, chairman and so on) believes in and even acts on such notions, the outcome is likely to be too extreme. Guzmán's ruthless actions of bombings and assassinations were indeed catastrophic and cruel. Fujimori, as a response, made huge changes in the government itsel, but with extreme actions that also included crimes against humanity. In the 9.3 document, he almost seems upset and angry at how the nation sees his government. The major change in the government that he created seemed, to me, as though he snapped all of a sudden, like someone who has become so frustrated with the work at hand, that they just start all over. It was a very calculated snap. The death of the eight journalists was the line. However, both parties were capable and willing to carry out the heinous acts of terror and injustice of that war.
I feel like both of them, although different in many ways, shared this notion of an extremely radical change. Thinking back throughout history, I get the sense that when a prominent leader of any kind (president, monarch, chairman and so on) believes in and even acts on such notions, the outcome is likely to be too extreme. Guzmán's ruthless actions of bombings and assassinations were indeed catastrophic and cruel. Fujimori, as a response, made huge changes in the government itsel, but with extreme actions that also included crimes against humanity. In the 9.3 document, he almost seems upset and angry at how the nation sees his government. The major change in the government that he created seemed, to me, as though he snapped all of a sudden, like someone who has become so frustrated with the work at hand, that they just start all over. It was a very calculated snap. The death of the eight journalists was the line. However, both parties were capable and willing to carry out the heinous acts of terror and injustice of that war.
Monday 3 November 2014
Power to the People
Foster Hailey's “Peronists Will Head Argentine Ticket" does not paint a rosy picture of the Peróns, especially Evita. With words such as "After first having asked for four days to make up her mind, then twenty-four hours, then two hours, Señora Perón’s last words as she turned from the microphone were, “as General Perón says, we will do what the people want" and "It has been no secret that there has been a serious split within the peronista party over her candidacy", the paper is eager to show the inconsistency, turmoil and dissent occurring with the Peronist Party. The writer is clearly biased, which is not professional at all for a journalist (I studied journalism for two years).
The second document, Dawson mentions, seems to contain words Evita never said and omits the speech she gave directly to the crowd. The document supposedly originates from the Peronist Party. This makes me doubt the validity and existence of certain statements such as "For I always wanted to rub shoulders with the workers, the elderly, the children, and those who suffer, working side by side and heart to heart with them to ensure that they love Perón even more, and to serve as a bridge of peace between Perón and the descamisados of our Fatherland". At first it would seem highly unlikely that someone of her status and wealth would actually claim to have these beliefs and wishes. As I read the third document, which comes from a more trustworthy source, it appears that the aforementioned statement was in fact mentioned by Evita to the crowd. This is very interesting; she did indeed try her best to side with the descamisadas of Argentina and encourage them to see her as one of them. The fourth document gives us her decision in 1951, and her reason why she came to the decision to not run for vice-presidency. She truly put the welfare of her people before her status, something that is very admirable.
It's also very fascinating to see the different views and aspects journalists gave of the renunciamiento, when journalism should be as unbiased as possible, with no conflict of interest or partiality influencing the story.
The second document, Dawson mentions, seems to contain words Evita never said and omits the speech she gave directly to the crowd. The document supposedly originates from the Peronist Party. This makes me doubt the validity and existence of certain statements such as "For I always wanted to rub shoulders with the workers, the elderly, the children, and those who suffer, working side by side and heart to heart with them to ensure that they love Perón even more, and to serve as a bridge of peace between Perón and the descamisados of our Fatherland". At first it would seem highly unlikely that someone of her status and wealth would actually claim to have these beliefs and wishes. As I read the third document, which comes from a more trustworthy source, it appears that the aforementioned statement was in fact mentioned by Evita to the crowd. This is very interesting; she did indeed try her best to side with the descamisadas of Argentina and encourage them to see her as one of them. The fourth document gives us her decision in 1951, and her reason why she came to the decision to not run for vice-presidency. She truly put the welfare of her people before her status, something that is very admirable.
It's also very fascinating to see the different views and aspects journalists gave of the renunciamiento, when journalism should be as unbiased as possible, with no conflict of interest or partiality influencing the story.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)