This week we examined readings that supposedly emphasized the concept of rights in Latin America. In his address, Simon Bolivar proves himself to be a great advocate for human rights. He outlines his dreams for the brand new nation of Venezuela, whose citizen’s are ‘Americans by birth and Europeans by law’ (the general identity problem for creoles). Latin America had the potential of being under the ‘triple yoke of ignorance, tyranny and vice’, and never experiencing ‘knowledge, power or virtue’, as ‘an ignorant people is the blind instrument of its own destruction. He is addressing representatives from different parts of Venezuela (which was much larger then than now). His method of speaking consists of praising the representatives at the same time as criticizing the current government, emphasizing the power of the representatives to decide the fate of the nation. He believes that the government must be reformed, despite the fact that it has already established ‘rights of man, freedom to work, think, speak and write’, focusing on strengthening the citizens and the creation of a national identity. He states that ‘nothing is so dangerous as to leave power in the hands of a single citizen over long periods of time’, and emphasizes the idea of equality. Humans do not need to be managed – this would be a form of oppression. Democracy has to be the form of government practiced in Venezuela, but it cannot be modelled after English America, just as the government of England could not be introduced in Spain. The two areas are inherently and culturally different, even before a national identity has been cemented. Equality is needed ‘in order to reconstitute the race of men, political opinions and public customs’, and all men are born with equal rights. The text is peppered with sentiments that still apply into the 21st century, despite his position from the past looking into the future.
In contrast, Margaret Crahan wrote her piece looking back at the past. According to her, the government of Latin America was a ‘mediating instrument between the monarchy and competing elites’ and the majority of people did not have a voice in what happened. Although the ‘vast majority of individuals were able to enjoy rights to the degree that their status and means permitted’, this did not always mean that they were permitted at all. There was no ‘official or promotions of rights’ in the government that immediately followed the independence of Latin America. There had to be a separation of populist coalitions versus elite domination, promoting the evolution of Latin America towards ‘political freedom and individual rights’, which was unfortunately hindered by royal absolutism. Basically, if everything Simon Bolivar said was able to be carried out successfully, Latin America would be a very different place today, and Crahan’s text would not have been written the way it was.
In “Memory of Fire II: Faces and Masks, excerpt”, Eduardo Galeano writes about historical figures ‘from the inside’. His poetic, yet resounding style of writing establishes a personal take on the history of Latin America. He takes readers inside the heads of famous and not-so-famous figures in the regions past, while peppering his account with elements of opinion and historical facts. However, his work cannot be taken at face value. He has exercised his poetic license to its full ability. This, however, does not make ‘Memory of Fire II’ less true, or more fictional. He simply lends feeling to events that have already been discussed. He calls the church ‘landlord and moneylender’, and talks about the ‘road to underdevelopment’. He says that ‘Europe will provide [Latin Americans] for long centuries with its artifacts in exchange for our raw materials’. And in a seemingly out-of-place segment about the fall of slavery in the United States, in a sentence that resounded particularly with me, he says ‘with slavery have fallen the walls that prevented the full development of United States industry and the expansion of its national market’, which went on to impact to a great extent Latin America. With details, Galeano provides a big picture, and with an enviable knowledge of the Americas, he demonstrates that history must be looked at on a larger scale that simply studying individuals and events. The world is only divided in human’s minds, and is linked together historically, economically and politically.
The conflict in the Amazon has finally resulted in Evo Morales, the President of Bolivia, deciding to cancel the construction plans. However, he has not abandoned the idea of a highway, he has only said that it won’t be built through the particular part of the Amazon, the Isiboro-Secure Indigenous Territory National Park, or TIPNIS.
Two ministers, the minster of defence and the interior minister, had quit in protest, after Morales approved the use of tear gas and truncheons against the protestors on Sept. 25. Additionally, Morales likes to call himself an environmentalist as well as a champion of Bolivian indigenous rights, as an Aymara (a group of highland indigenous Bolivians). He argued that the highway would improve the economy in TIPNIS.
Valdez continually refers to the indigenous as Indians. I did not realize that this had again become an acceptable term to identify aboriginal Latin Americans.
The Peruvian president continues to attempt to follow up on his promises to the Peruvian people. He has replaced thirty of Peru’s 45 police generals, on the grounds of trying to eradicate corruption within the police force, including the general commander and the general in charge of the anti-drugs force. However, this turnover may in fact be the president replacing corrupt or non corrupt officers with those he knows are loyal to him, and therefore may ironically be increasing the corruption in the police force. His purge took place without giving the police generals accused of corruption a chance to defend themselves.
In the 1940s, several tests were conducted which consisted of American scientists infecting hundreds of mentally ill, imprisoned and orphaned Guatemalans with sexually transmitted diseases without the knowledge of the subjects in a series of experiments.
In the article, it states that “some 1,300 prisoners, psychiatric patients and sex workers were deliberately infected with syphilis, gonorrhoea or another sexually transmitted disease, chancroid,” while “only about 700 received some sort of treatment”. Over 5500 were involved in the tests.
These tests were a large violation of the rights of the Guatemalans, despite their statuses as mentally ill or criminal. Similar tests were also conducted in Indiana, but those participants were asked for their consent before being infected with anything, hence the title of the article.
The president of Peru, Ollanta Humala, was elected in a highly discussed election in June. He ran on a platform which promised a more benefits of the country’s fast growing economy to the lower classes of Peru, which make up a large percentage of the country’s population. The members of the smaller upper class, however, were not supporters of Humala, and believed his promises to be empty.
However, he has made a few steps in line with his platform, including the subject of this article, which outlines his guarantee of rights of indigenous communities when it comes to development on their lands. The previous president, Alan Garcia, had denied a similar law from being passed.
In addition to this law, Humala has also raised the taxes that mining companies must pay.
This article relates to our discussion regarding the classification of dictators. One student (sorry can't remember who) pointed out that one person's dictator is another person's freedom fighter (or something to that extent). This was perhaps one of the reasons we had a difficult time reaching a consensus regarding who would be included in the "dictators" section of our human rights museums. This article reports President Chavez's response to the news that his "good friend" President Gadhafi had been killed. Chavez is reported as having said that Gadhafi was a, "great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr" and that he would miss his friend. While I think its safe to say that the vast majority of the world would consider Gadhafi to have been a dictator and tyrant rather than a revolutionary and martyr, it is important for us to keep in mind that there will always be those people who go against the status quo and support people who have committed terrible crimes because they do believe the person was justified in their actions. Therefore reaching agreement over who will be historically labelled a dictator 100s of years from now is not easy and is definitely not black and white. The rulers we consider dictators will always have supporters that honor them as brave revolutionaries or martyrs.
This article relates to our discussion regarding the classification of dictators. One student (sorry can't remember who) pointed out that one person's dictator is another person's freedom fighter (or something to that extent). This was perhaps one of the reasons we had a difficult time reaching a consensus regarding who would be included in the "dictators" section of our human rights museums. This article reports President Chavez's response to the news that his "good friend" President Gadhafi had been killed. Chavez is reported as having said that Gadhafi was a, "great fighter, a revolutionary and a martyr" and that he would miss his friend. While I think its safe to say that the vast majority of the world would consider Gadhafi to have been a dictator and tyrant rather than a revolutionary and martyr, it is important for us to keep in mind that there will always be those people who go against the status quo and support people who have committed terrible crimes because they do believe the person was justified in their actions. Therefore reaching agreement over who will be historically labelled a dictator 100s of years from now is not easy and is definitely not black and white. The rulers we consider dictators will always have supporters that honor them as brave revolutionaries or martyrs.
This articles briefly discusses the government of Brazil's continuing refusal to accept discent in the building of it's dam in the Amazon. This project, if completed, would severely damage the environment and displace thousands of Indigenous people.
This articles briefly discusses the government of Brazil's continuing refusal to accept discent in the building of it's dam in the Amazon. This project, if completed, would severely damage the environment and displace thousands of Indigenous people.
This articles talks about the widespread human rights abuses performed by the police forces of the Dominican Republic. Apparently, 260 people were killed and hundreds more injured by the police last year, a number that is on the increase. It is claimed by authorities that victimes were killed mostly during gunfire exchanges, but Amnesty reports show that many were tortured beforehand, or executed. Over 30, 000 officers are under investigation or openly charged with human right violations. This article illustrates the immense problem of police corruption and use of militarized excessive force.
This articles talks about the widespread human rights abuses performed by the police forces of the Dominican Republic. Apparently, 260 people were killed and hundreds more injured by the police last year, a number that is on the increase. It is claimed by authorities that victimes were killed mostly during gunfire exchanges, but Amnesty reports show that many were tortured beforehand, or executed. Over 30, 000 officers are under investigation or openly charged with human right violations. This article illustrates the immense problem of police corruption and use of militarized excessive force.
It’s a tragic comedy, the constant practice of supporting agribusiness ventures in Central American countries by the United States, while those large land owners are so often part of oligarchic families whose other family members benefit from the drug trade and illegal coups, such as that against Honduran President Zelaya. So, this makes it complicated for a body like the CIA, who spends millions on Central American counter-narcotics projects while also represents a government that supports large agribusiness and private land ownership policy throughout the Americas. Which will reign more important, combating the drug trade, or upholding unfettered flows of capital and investment across borders? I personally think it will always be the latter.
For the section of Rights in Latin America, I chose two readings, namely the "Augostura Address", the writings of Simon Bolivar, and "The State and the Individual in Latin America: An Historical Overview" by Margaret E. Crahan. I chose these two because I found that they present two differing perspectives of the political past in Latin America as well as it's strides towards the respect of human rights. In a way, I think that it's the comparison of an optimistic versis a grimmer, perhaps more realistic perspective of the state of human rights in Latin America.
In his Augostura Address, Simon Bolivar outlined the future of the state of Venezuela. He began by saying the he was purposfully stepping down because he did not believe in one individual holding a position of power for too long (this, in itself, must be viewed with some irony, considering how long Bolivar himself stayed in power, long enough to arguably be defined as a dictator). He went on to declare his belief in Decomocracy, basing himself on contemporary (at the time) examples. However, he also reconized the failings of the democracy, in the sense that it did not automatically equate with greatness or fairness. He did, however, believe in the right of popular autonomy, and saw democracy as the only clear route to achieve this goal. Something that struck me in this reading is the way that he spoke of the homogenous intergration of all segments of society into an equal whole. I believe that he is much to be applauded for this ideal, though I can't help but think it somewhat naive. He did not believe that there should be any distinction between, for example, Indigenous people and rich land owners of European descent, and I can't help but agree: there shouldn't. However, historically, his country had not necessarily respected different ethnic groups as equal, and that equality has not yet been reached to this day. Bolivar's writings are difficult to read because I have trouble equating his ideals with his actions, and what has transpired of them. He declares that Venezuela is a great country that will do great things, only to say that it should strive to resemble England. He speaks of popular equality and then says that there should be a House of Lords consisting of people with inherited priviledges. Was banishing such inherited rights one of the tenants of his popular movement? Overall, I find that I have trouble defining Bolivar, or seeing weither I agree with him or not. There is too much of a gap between words and actions, between original beliefs and articulated ideals.
In Crahan's text, a historical overview of the political foundations of Latin America is offered. Unlike Bolivar, Crahan offers an emphasis on enduring class and racial inequality, and the roles that these have played on the construction of Latin America. She argues that enduring structures of inequality find their roots in colonial models that have replicated themselves over time. According to her, structures of inequality are so pervasive, and have been so ingrained (on the Iberian model), that Latin America is, in a certain way, doomed to replicate it. What is also shown is that this structure of society believes social disparity to be natural, even self evident. This structure of class differences is also replicated, which, in my opinion, severely impinges in the development or continuation of human rights. I believe that for real change to be achieved, there must be a break from this overly rigid model of society in order to allow for more inclusiveness.
For the section of Rights in Latin America, I chose two readings, namely the "Augostura Address", the writings of Simon Bolivar, and "The State and the Individual in Latin America: An Historical Overview" by Margaret E. Crahan. I chose these two because I found that they present two differing perspectives of the political past in Latin America as well as it's strides towards the respect of human rights. In a way, I think that it's the comparison of an optimistic versis a grimmer, perhaps more realistic perspective of the state of human rights in Latin America.
In his Augostura Address, Simon Bolivar outlined the future of the state of Venezuela. He began by saying the he was purposfully stepping down because he did not believe in one individual holding a position of power for too long (this, in itself, must be viewed with some irony, considering how long Bolivar himself stayed in power, long enough to arguably be defined as a dictator). He went on to declare his belief in Decomocracy, basing himself on contemporary (at the time) examples. However, he also reconized the failings of the democracy, in the sense that it did not automatically equate with greatness or fairness. He did, however, believe in the right of popular autonomy, and saw democracy as the only clear route to achieve this goal. Something that struck me in this reading is the way that he spoke of the homogenous intergration of all segments of society into an equal whole. I believe that he is much to be applauded for this ideal, though I can't help but think it somewhat naive. He did not believe that there should be any distinction between, for example, Indigenous people and rich land owners of European descent, and I can't help but agree: there shouldn't. However, historically, his country had not necessarily respected different ethnic groups as equal, and that equality has not yet been reached to this day. Bolivar's writings are difficult to read because I have trouble equating his ideals with his actions, and what has transpired of them. He declares that Venezuela is a great country that will do great things, only to say that it should strive to resemble England. He speaks of popular equality and then says that there should be a House of Lords consisting of people with inherited priviledges. Was banishing such inherited rights one of the tenants of his popular movement? Overall, I find that I have trouble defining Bolivar, or seeing weither I agree with him or not. There is too much of a gap between words and actions, between original beliefs and articulated ideals.
In Crahan's text, a historical overview of the political foundations of Latin America is offered. Unlike Bolivar, Crahan offers an emphasis on enduring class and racial inequality, and the roles that these have played on the construction of Latin America. She argues that enduring structures of inequality find their roots in colonial models that have replicated themselves over time. According to her, structures of inequality are so pervasive, and have been so ingrained (on the Iberian model), that Latin America is, in a certain way, doomed to replicate it. What is also shown is that this structure of society believes social disparity to be natural, even self evident. This structure of class differences is also replicated, which, in my opinion, severely impinges in the development or continuation of human rights. I believe that for real change to be achieved, there must be a break from this overly rigid model of society in order to allow for more inclusiveness.
