abuelas de la plaza de mayo:

the argentine “dirty war” of the late 70s resonates today as an outrageous violation against humanity. thanks to the abuelas de la plaza de mayo, the voice of those who suffered the loss of loved ones at the hands of a totalitarian dictatorship now thunders on a global scale. these women who call themselves, “abridadoras de caminos,” have been granted recognition for their efforts by the organization UNESCO. their mission is predicated on a dedication to recuperating the memory of the victimized during the belligerent military coup… “para que esta historia no se repita en ningun lugar del mundo.”

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/21/world/americas/venezuela-chavez-gadhafi/

Vhavez and Gadhafi had been friends for the past decade. Gadhafi awarded Chavez a human rights award in 2004 and Chavez gave Gadahfi a replica of Simon Bolivar’s sword. The two countries were also partners in OPEC but now since Chavez (along with other left leaning leaders in Latin America) refuse to acknowledge Libya’s National Transitional Council the Venezuelan and Libyan relationship is now uncertain.
Considering their close ties and similar affinity for dictatorial power, I wonder if Chavez’s rule will come under increased scrutiny in the coming months, especially since an election is nearing in Venezuela.

Though I have never written a blog post about the protests that have been going on in Bolivia against a plan to build a new road, I have seen that many of you guys have and have been following it a bit myself through the news. Today I was happy to read that President Morales has agreed that the road will not be built through a rainforest reserve; a decision made after about 2 months of protesting by indigenous Bolivians who marched to La Paz as part of their protest. Though I am sure that this story is far from over, this was a really encouraging piece of news to read - showing the power of peaceful protest, and the good that can come from an unwavering determination to see a goal accomplished . I find it especially fitting given the amount of peaceful protests going on in the world right now with the Occupy movement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15409447

Though I have never written a blog post about the protests that have been going on in Bolivia against a plan to build a new road, I have seen that many of you guys have and have been following it a bit myself through the news. Today I was happy to read that President Morales has agreed that the road will not be built through a rainforest reserve; a decision made after about 2 months of protesting by indigenous Bolivians who marched to La Paz as part of their protest. Though I am sure that this story is far from over, this was a really encouraging piece of news to read - showing the power of peaceful protest, and the good that can come from an unwavering determination to see a goal accomplished . I find it especially fitting given the amount of peaceful protests going on in the world right now with the Occupy movement.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-15409447

 

I found both readings,” Eduardo Galeano, Memory of Fire II: Faces and Masks, and  Bartolomé de Las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies, excerpt very powerful readings for different reasons.

Las Casa’s reading was powerful for the intense and gruesome picture of Spanish Conquest of the Americas that he portrays. His writing seems very much beyond or out of his time. It is quite unfathomable to understand the brutality of his writings of actually occurring, even though he repeatedly states that they were actually more brutal than he depicts them.

Two questions arise out of his description for me. The first being how did Phillip, the Prince of Spain to whom the short account is directed, respond? I know from my history classes that nothing of significance happened for more than a century, but did the Prince respond at all? The other question is how did the Spanish perceive the Indians? Las Casa’s speaks of rights of which he seems well acquainted, did the Spanish soldiers participating in the massacres have no conception of these? Ignore the rights? See them as not applicable to the Indians?

It seems beyond my realm of comprehension that such brutality could occur from a people that had developed ideas of rights. But perhaps that is exactly the issue; that rights are ideas and of no meaning if they are not perpetuated in the actions of people.

Galeano’s reading was powerful in a different way. It comes close to being perhaps my favourite reading of the term so far. I love the fluid historical analysis of his work, set in a very colloquial, casual, literary frame. It makes history seem at once close and entangled with other stories. His short descriptions of people transmit the essence of that person, the historical time and their actions surprisingly well. I love the way he uses his artistic creativity to juxtapose ideas, anthropomorphising and personifying  places.

There is little more I can say to this work. I could attempt to summarize the time frame which Galeano refers to, or some of the figures but really you just have to read it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/world/americas/03cuba.html?_r=1&ref=americas

This article from the New York Times is about the monumental reform policy that is to be implemented in Cuba by the end of the year: Cuban citizens will, by 2012, legally have the right to buy and own their own homes. For socialist Cuba, this is a huge step. Until now, the government has owned all property and Cubans have been perpetual renters. With the passing of this new law however, Cubans will be taking a big step into the capitalist world and will be allowed to purchase their own homes.
Drawing from our class discussions on human rights, I was completely unaware and shocked to learn that Cubans do not possess the right to own private property. After all, all of the documents regarding human rights that we have read declare the right to property (or land) to be a "fundamental" human right. Following this logic then, all Cubans have been deprived of a basic human right for a very long time.

However, this article made me realize that the human rights doctrines that we have read have all been written from the point of view of a capitalist society (hence the right to private ownership). If a communist were to write a declaration of rights, the right to property would not be included (hence communism and a sharing of resources). Therefore from a communist perspective, Cubans have not been denied a basic right (with regards to a lack of right to property). I just think it is interesting that I had never before considered that human rights doctrines are created with an economic ideology in mind (therefore all of the "Western" rights documents we have read have also been capitalist ones, as that has been the dominant economic system in the Western world since the revolutions of the late 18th century). I wonder what other differences between human rights would exist on a communist written doctrine versus one written by a capitalist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/world/americas/03cuba.html?_r=1&ref=americas

This article from the New York Times is about the monumental reform policy that is to be implemented in Cuba by the end of the year: Cuban citizens will, by 2012, legally have the right to buy and own their own homes. For socialist Cuba, this is a huge step. Until now, the government has owned all property and Cubans have been perpetual renters. With the passing of this new law however, Cubans will be taking a big step into the capitalist world and will be allowed to purchase their own homes.
Drawing from our class discussions on human rights, I was completely unaware and shocked to learn that Cubans do not possess the right to own private property. After all, all of the documents regarding human rights that we have read declare the right to property (or land) to be a "fundamental" human right. Following this logic then, all Cubans have been deprived of a basic human right for a very long time.

However, this article made me realize that the human rights doctrines that we have read have all been written from the point of view of a capitalist society (hence the right to private ownership). If a communist were to write a declaration of rights, the right to property would not be included (hence communism and a sharing of resources). Therefore from a communist perspective, Cubans have not been denied a basic right (with regards to a lack of right to property). I just think it is interesting that I had never before considered that human rights doctrines are created with an economic ideology in mind (therefore all of the "Western" rights documents we have read have also been capitalist ones, as that has been the dominant economic system in the Western world since the revolutions of the late 18th century). I wonder what other differences between human rights would exist on a communist written doctrine versus one written by a capitalist.

“'If Secure Communities was working properly,' the report said, a match under the program 'should never result in the apprehension' of a citizen." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/us/latinos-said-to-bear-weight-of-deportation-program.html?_r=1&ref=world

“'If Secure Communities was working properly,' the report said, a match under the program 'should never result in the apprehension' of a citizen." http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/19/us/latinos-said-to-bear-weight-of-deportation-program.html?_r=1&ref=world

BBC News

Huge fine for Venezuela opposition channel Globovision

Venezuelan opposition TV channel Globovision has been fined $2.1m (£1.3m) for its coverage of a prison riot earlier this year.

Media regulator Conatel said it was being punished for justifying crime and fuelling public anxiety.

Globovision says the fine is “unpayable” and has accused the government of trying to shut it down.

President Hugo Chavez has previously accused the channel of supporting a coup attempt against him.

Conatel said Globovision had broken broadcasting regulations in its coverage of disturbances in the El Rodeo prison outside Caracas in June, in which more than 20 people were killed.

Conatel director general Pedro Maldonado said the channel was being fined for its “editorial conduct,” which had “promoted hatred and intolerance for political reasons”.

Media conflict

Globovision said it would appeal against the fine and do everything it could to stay on air.

“This fine represents the economic breaking of Globovision,” the channel’s vice-president, Maria Fernandez Flores said.

“For years the government has tried to break us morally,” she added.

The fine is the latest development in a long conflict between the government and Globovision, which has been very critical of President Chavez.

Several other private radio and television stations have been forced off air for failing to comply with regulations requiring them to broadcast government information.

Venezuela’s opposition has frequently accused Mr Chavez’s government of trying to gag the media.

The government has frequently accused private media companies of using their power to try to undermine the democratic authorities.

Mr Chavez has accused Globovision of supporting a 2002 coup attempt and of plotting to assassinate him.

State-owned media has expanded dramatically since Mr Chavez took office in 1999.

In these readings, we have finally broached the subject of historical wrongs that have afflicted the people of Latin America, the repercussions of which are still felt today. In these two texts, the subject is approached differently, more lyrically in Memory of Fire and "historically" (with a strong level of personal interpretation) in Bartolomé de Las Casas' text.

I very much liked the lyrical descriptive approach taken in the writing of Memory of Fire. It developed and portrayed a complex and long history in a way that was both easy to read and that projected us into the mindset of the people that lived through these events, especially the Indigenous people. Everything seemed to be interwoven to create a visually engaging description. Personally, I enjoyed reading it very much. The way it was written allowed me to mentally string together a history that was complex and scattered across a continent and see it as a coherent, cohesive chain of events. More importantly, it allowed me to see the importance of certain events that I would not necessarily have considered, and understand how the related to a whole.

In Las Casas' text, the approach that is taken is very different. I guess that he must be applauded for being one of the first to speak out against the injustices being wrought on the people of the New World, but I found it very hard to remain sympathetic towards him after reading his description of said Indigenous people. He sees them as children, helpless, innocent, delicate, unable to speak for themselves. In this sense, I think he mis-represents them just as much as the butchering Spaniards that he speaks out against did. All this serves to corrupt the European's image of Indigenous people in the Americas. However, I believe that much can be said for him being one of the few willing to speak out against these atrocities, and to propose that these people be treated with fairness and considered human beings.

In these readings, we have finally broached the subject of historical wrongs that have afflicted the people of Latin America, the repercussions of which are still felt today. In these two texts, the subject is approached differently, more lyrically in Memory of Fire and "historically" (with a strong level of personal interpretation) in Bartolomé de Las Casas' text.

I very much liked the lyrical descriptive approach taken in the writing of Memory of Fire. It developed and portrayed a complex and long history in a way that was both easy to read and that projected us into the mindset of the people that lived through these events, especially the Indigenous people. Everything seemed to be interwoven to create a visually engaging description. Personally, I enjoyed reading it very much. The way it was written allowed me to mentally string together a history that was complex and scattered across a continent and see it as a coherent, cohesive chain of events. More importantly, it allowed me to see the importance of certain events that I would not necessarily have considered, and understand how the related to a whole.

In Las Casas' text, the approach that is taken is very different. I guess that he must be applauded for being one of the first to speak out against the injustices being wrought on the people of the New World, but I found it very hard to remain sympathetic towards him after reading his description of said Indigenous people. He sees them as children, helpless, innocent, delicate, unable to speak for themselves. In this sense, I think he mis-represents them just as much as the butchering Spaniards that he speaks out against did. All this serves to corrupt the European's image of Indigenous people in the Americas. However, I believe that much can be said for him being one of the few willing to speak out against these atrocities, and to propose that these people be treated with fairness and considered human beings.