The history of Latin America seems to be the history of an agglomeration of people that for one reason or another were lumped together. Starting with the indigenous communities that at one point were forced to cohabitate with the settlers, that forced cohabitation lead to the mingling of communities, which made harder to make claims about race in terms of Latin America. The fact that a clear case about race could not be properly constructed, did not mean that there were not other axis upon which understandings of nationhood were meant to coalesce and more often than not, it was through a connivance of religious institutions with national armies as well as conservative politicians and foreign investors that those peculiar understandings of nationhood were fostered. Reactionary understandings of nationhood understood political opposition as a crime and chastise as demonic and terrorist anything that looked similar to Communism.

Latin America is an unfinished product, still in a process of discovery, not so much in terms of land, but in terms of soul searching. Most of the region experienced a tremendous swing to the right due to the policies of anti-communism that placated the world during the last part of the XX century and what they are experiencing now, is precisely the coming to terms with that part of the history that still haunts them. One of the discourses through which that process of soul-searching is being made is precisely through the discourse of rights, for it was precisely the obliviousness to that discourse which in most cases leads to the human rights violations.

Another point that was brought forward by the course was the repeated patterns of intervention that run through the region. More often than not, the pattern that is seen in Guatemala can be found in Chile and Argentina. One cannot necessarily talk about a structure of intervention throughout the region, but there are interesting patterns that are repeated at different places and by different characters, however, the result is often the same, the annihilation of political alternatives associated to the left. More than being able to tell what I have learned, it seems imperative to acknowledge the positive value of having a permanent opposition to one’s stance toward rights.

I know this is coming up a bit late, but I was busy writing many papers as usual.  This blog is about the debate that occurred in Vancouver about mining in Latin America. Although I couldn’t physically make it out there, I listened to it through the radio and took 6 pages of notes, yes, quite a bit. What can I do, I found it really interesting.  So what are my thoughts? I find this subject really complicated. After listening to Goldcorp’s vice-president and the other panelists, I do have to agree with them saying that there is a lack of institutional integration from the governments which triggers violence and every day killings in Guatemala, for instance.  But somehow, when mining companies arrive, things get more out of control and the issue of land rights stands out. For instance, last year in El Salvador a conflict started with those who opposed mining. It became so sharp that people were “gunned down.” Protestors and activists were shot, etc.  This is one example of the kind of conflicts that take place at the local level when mines begin to operate. However, it was argued the amount of benefits given to the locals (from a Goldcorp perspective) even when they leave the country. For instance, their involvement with schools in the area, mentoring programs directed at development and capacity, and even museums showing people the equipment to teach them about mining. Companies also invest heavily in roads and improve the region’s communication infrastructure. Barrick for instance, gave a $500,000 grant to a community in Peru. Hmmm.. Nevertheless, as a Peruvian, I know the amount of corruption that exists, so I just wonder where exactly did that money go to. We can’t be so soft and just accept tokens. The amount of environmental consequences and health issues that companies leave in the area is just immeasurable.  I understand that companies have to go where the gold is, but they have to respect the area in which they are going to and the people.  This week, it was brought to my attention this new mining project in Peru, “Minas Conga” which is planning on making the biggest investment ever in this sector.  However, a week after their proposal, locals rejected them by stating that the construction will leave the natural lakes without any water.  There have already been violent incidents with workers from the company being hurt by locals. It’s very complicated.

There is a lot more I could say on this issue, but I’ll leave it open for opinions.

http://elcomercio.pe/peru/1323382/noticia-pobladores-le-dicenalto-mina-cajamarca

I knew that the United Fruit was very involved in the Guatemalan economy but I seriously didn’t know to what extent, which really surprised me.  Even though the company argues that they provided workers with better conditions than most other farms and even provided them adequate housing, their colonizing type abuses and overall domination of Guatemala has had tremendous impact even seen nowadays.  Seriously I don’t understand how “better conditions” meant paying your workers no more than 50 cents per day while your company was making millions.

 They have retained the country’s progress by implementing this “foreign intervention” in Guatemala’s internal affairs.  This United States Company abused the country by making disproportionately amounts of profit, taking advantage of their resources from an impoverished country, thus making it even more poor and violent. Their freedom was bashed. 

It’s hard to believe that a country like Argentina has experienced such dark times. While reading Feitlowitz, A lexicon of terror, Argentina and the legacies of torture, I really started getting goosebumps as I went along the lines of horrible meanings to words that I actually use on a daily basis such as “capucha.” This article is basically all about how language was used as a way either to hide things in a euphemistic way or to use it as a code language. Reminded me of how in 1939 the Nazi’s started using that type of language to hide the fact that horrific crimes were about to be committed.  The altering of words was part of the methods used to control and manipulate people so that they wouldn’t be able to understand what was really going on.  For instance, the usage of the word “tratamiento” which in reality means to “treat” someone was used as the word for “torture.” It’s really horrifying how things turned out in Argentina and how, even after WWII and the Holocaust, we still saw in 1976 some of the similar techniques or approaches used by the Nazi’s.

“Fifteen thousand disappeared ten thousand prisoners, four thousand dead, hundreds of thousands uprooted; these are the raw statistics of terror” (1).  Walsh’s letter to the Military Junta was a very courageous act.  He throws out so many secret details like the amount of money invested in the military, intended to prove that those policies were more important than human rights abuses, and it was very hard not to believe his honest words. While the people involved in and with the military were becoming richer, the rest of the population was suffering the consequences. La Guerra Sucia was more than sucia!