Fuck this noise: Tucson schools ban books by Chicano and Native American authors
Read all sorts of books, y'all. Read 'em! And raise hell when anyone tries to ban them.
Showing posts with label authoritarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authoritarianism. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Friday, February 11, 2011
I'm back (sort of)
It's been a long time since I've posted, for a whole host of reasons. I'm not back with a long post, but with the breaking news from Egypt: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/02/201121125158705862.html
I am amazed and inspired by the power of this non-violent revolution. Al-Jazeera English, which has been reporting throughout the whole process these last three weeks, will probably have a lot of good coverage for many hours to come: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/
In the meantime, between now and my next post (whenever that is), "I now feel that anything is possible; I am so proud." These are the words of a woman who was just interviewed on A-JE.
I am amazed and inspired by the power of this non-violent revolution. Al-Jazeera English, which has been reporting throughout the whole process these last three weeks, will probably have a lot of good coverage for many hours to come: http://english.aljazeera.net/watch_now/
In the meantime, between now and my next post (whenever that is), "I now feel that anything is possible; I am so proud." These are the words of a woman who was just interviewed on A-JE.
Monday, July 5, 2010
The Revolution Will Not Be...
PLQ shows a documentary each week on Monday, usually something about the history of Latin America, colonization, or popular movements around the world. Today´s film was The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, about the 2002 coup d´etat in Venezuela (and the subsequent re-instatement of the Chavez government).
Now I have to say, I am no great fan of Chavez and think that, in the years following the coup especially, his approaches to press freedom and endless re-election have become very problematic. But that didn´t stop me from sitting on the verge of tears when we watched him leaving the presidential palace, while refusing to resign, in order to keep the military from bombing the palace with people inside. This made me realize a couple of things: 1) I watch too much West Wing. The camera crew (which was there for a simple documentary about Chavez´s popularity among the people when the coup occurred) had extraordinary access to the halls of power, so it was (in a dorky way) very much like watching a certain tv show about the presidency. 2) I hadn´t realized just how much I had believed over the past year that something like that could have happened in the States. Not likely, perhaps, but the fear was there. The opposition rallies looked so much like Tea Party rallies, with their vitriol and ¨populism.¨ I hadn´t noticed this fear before, but it was clearly there.
Another crucial aspect was the collusion between the high-ranking military officials and the media. At one point, AFTER Chavez´s ministers had retaken the palace and the guard on site was clearly supporting them, the ¨provisional president¨ (from the coup) told CNN that everything was under control - a few angry, violent Chavez supporters outside the gates, but all in order otherwise. And since the state channel had been cut, there was literally no way to get the word out to military bases in other parts of the country that Chavez had never resigned and that the soldiers (not to mention the people in general) had been lied to. A good reminder to read with a skeptical eye what we receive via any media source (except the MetroLutheran, of course) and determine who benefits from which sources´ explanations.
In brief (ha!) I highly recommend this documentary. I might not be in line with everything Chavez does, but it is absolutely worth a watch.
Now I have to say, I am no great fan of Chavez and think that, in the years following the coup especially, his approaches to press freedom and endless re-election have become very problematic. But that didn´t stop me from sitting on the verge of tears when we watched him leaving the presidential palace, while refusing to resign, in order to keep the military from bombing the palace with people inside. This made me realize a couple of things: 1) I watch too much West Wing. The camera crew (which was there for a simple documentary about Chavez´s popularity among the people when the coup occurred) had extraordinary access to the halls of power, so it was (in a dorky way) very much like watching a certain tv show about the presidency. 2) I hadn´t realized just how much I had believed over the past year that something like that could have happened in the States. Not likely, perhaps, but the fear was there. The opposition rallies looked so much like Tea Party rallies, with their vitriol and ¨populism.¨ I hadn´t noticed this fear before, but it was clearly there.
Another crucial aspect was the collusion between the high-ranking military officials and the media. At one point, AFTER Chavez´s ministers had retaken the palace and the guard on site was clearly supporting them, the ¨provisional president¨ (from the coup) told CNN that everything was under control - a few angry, violent Chavez supporters outside the gates, but all in order otherwise. And since the state channel had been cut, there was literally no way to get the word out to military bases in other parts of the country that Chavez had never resigned and that the soldiers (not to mention the people in general) had been lied to. A good reminder to read with a skeptical eye what we receive via any media source (except the MetroLutheran, of course) and determine who benefits from which sources´ explanations.
In brief (ha!) I highly recommend this documentary. I might not be in line with everything Chavez does, but it is absolutely worth a watch.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
A bit more on Nica
It´s election day again, this time municipal elections in Nicaragua. Seems simple, right? Wrong. We´ve been advised either 1) to stay at home with our host families or, if we need to work on homework, 2) go straight to the CGE house, using only taxis from the cooperative based in our homestay barrio.
Today´s FSLN (Sandinista Front for National Liberation) are not the Sandinistas of the 70s and 80s and, I will wager based on what little I know of him, the party of Sandino himself. Criminalization of political parties, concentration of power in the hands of the FSLN and the opposition party (in such a way, though, that the FSLN has the PLC party in its pocket through control of the legal status of their former president), more and more steps toward authoritarian control of the country.
The women´s movement, so integral to the victories in the 70s/80s, has been shunned for supporting the accusations of sexual abuse brought on by Ortega´s step daughter.
None of this is to say that the Frente isn´t doing good things in people´s lives at the individual level. For example, Amy and Arpita´s host mother was talking a couple days ago about the direct support her family has received in dealing with her husband´s health problems. Thousands of families, at least to some degree, have received food assistance as part of the ¨Zero Hunger¨ campaign. These are all very real, tangible impacts. And I know that it is easy for someone (me) whose daily needs are being met to say that the tangible benefits can often mask systemic abuses -- or even systemic contributions to the very poverty and hunger being addressed by the (highly-publicized) programs. But the fact remains that if you´re confined to a hospital bed, you won´t be going to the polls today, even if your party of choice IS one of the two legal parties in the elections. And if the Frente can get you the medicine to get out of that bed, that´s not be brushed aside.
(What makes the two party situation so disheartening is that one of the four pillars of Sandinism was its comitment to a multi-party system that would allow contributions and participation from people all over the political map. The fact that the FSLN has been so integral in removing that possibility is pretty hard to hear about. But, of course, they didn´t act alone. More on that in a minute.)
Yet, just as is the case for me with Chavez and Castro, I´m not willing to give special passes to authoritarian (or borderline-so) leaders just because they are on the left. If I want my leaders to be both progressive and transparent, then Nicaraguans have every right to expect that from theirs as well. (Not, of course, to say that if I don´t, they don´t. You all get my drift.)
But this would ultimately be too easy if the assumption was just that Ortega, Castro, Chavez, and others went in with hopes of becoming dictators. I honestly don´t think that is the case. There is another common theme that tends to run between people who take up leadership (especially in the Americas) at the head of popular or leftists movements: They immediately become targets for US opposition. In Cuba and Nicaragua, the theme was Communism during two major ¨hot¨ periods of the Cold War -- we need to keep the communist threat out of our back yard.
[And a side note: Central America is not unaware that US foreign policy considers CA the US back yard. Some people plant flowers in their back yards; some let their dogs poop in them. What´s been our approach?]
What I´m getting at is this: In Nica, after the Triumph of the Revolution (in 1979) the FSLN was never given the opportunity to really establish a successful government before the Contra war began. Obviously, that was the point, from Reagan´s perspective. But in the initial phase of the revolutionary government, Ortega (yep, he was president then, too) went all over the country holding listening sessions where he would set up a microphone, invite the community, and ask what they needed from the government. Now I don´t know how much of that information made its way into policy. But Somoza´s (the previous dictator and end of a dynastic line that began in 1934) way of interacting with the people was shooting them or cutting off their hands. Seems like a step or two up to me.
Also, there were immensely successful literacy and health campaigns in the first few years. Tens of thousands of youth were released from school for a year to go out into the campo, where literacy rates were sometimes in the single digits, and teach both children and adults. By the end of the 10-month cycle, illiteracy on the national level (previously 56%) had been reduced to 12%. The majority of the adults, who had not been able to read before, were reading at a third grade level -- after 10 months! Similarly, youth were sent out into the campo with materials for vaccinations and polio was irradicated from Nicaragua.
By the time these gains had been made, the Contra war had also started. Thus a government that had begun to be successful in really reaching the people in both urban and rural areas suddenly had an exterior force against which to rally and consolidate power. Speculation thirty years after the fact doesn´t bring change, so I won´t dwell in it long. But I can only imagine that without the presence of US intervention so common in Central America, the Sandinista government might have felt a bit more freedom not to move toward a more authoritarian model.
(Then also important are the 1990 elections when the majority of the people knew that voting FSLN would continue the US aid to the Contras, ie, continue the violence. That defeat for the Sandinistas also plays a huge role in where they are today. Imagine this: during the 1980s, 30,000 Nicaraguans were killed in the Contra war. This is after 70,000 were killed under the three Somoza regimes. In 1990, Nica had a population of about 3.9 million. Contrast that to the US during Vietnam, where 57,000 US soldiers died in a population of about 150 million. Who in the US didn´t know someone killed or injured in Vietnam? There are essentially no families in Nicaragua that weren´t touched by death in the 80s.)
This has become an incredible stream-of-thought entry. It wasn´t intended to be a Nica history lesson! I didn´t develop my thoughts on US influence on CA dictatorships (of the left or right) as much as I had intended. But I would love to hear people´s thoughts on what I did get out there!
Pray for a peaceful election time here.
Today´s FSLN (Sandinista Front for National Liberation) are not the Sandinistas of the 70s and 80s and, I will wager based on what little I know of him, the party of Sandino himself. Criminalization of political parties, concentration of power in the hands of the FSLN and the opposition party (in such a way, though, that the FSLN has the PLC party in its pocket through control of the legal status of their former president), more and more steps toward authoritarian control of the country.
The women´s movement, so integral to the victories in the 70s/80s, has been shunned for supporting the accusations of sexual abuse brought on by Ortega´s step daughter.
None of this is to say that the Frente isn´t doing good things in people´s lives at the individual level. For example, Amy and Arpita´s host mother was talking a couple days ago about the direct support her family has received in dealing with her husband´s health problems. Thousands of families, at least to some degree, have received food assistance as part of the ¨Zero Hunger¨ campaign. These are all very real, tangible impacts. And I know that it is easy for someone (me) whose daily needs are being met to say that the tangible benefits can often mask systemic abuses -- or even systemic contributions to the very poverty and hunger being addressed by the (highly-publicized) programs. But the fact remains that if you´re confined to a hospital bed, you won´t be going to the polls today, even if your party of choice IS one of the two legal parties in the elections. And if the Frente can get you the medicine to get out of that bed, that´s not be brushed aside.
(What makes the two party situation so disheartening is that one of the four pillars of Sandinism was its comitment to a multi-party system that would allow contributions and participation from people all over the political map. The fact that the FSLN has been so integral in removing that possibility is pretty hard to hear about. But, of course, they didn´t act alone. More on that in a minute.)
Yet, just as is the case for me with Chavez and Castro, I´m not willing to give special passes to authoritarian (or borderline-so) leaders just because they are on the left. If I want my leaders to be both progressive and transparent, then Nicaraguans have every right to expect that from theirs as well. (Not, of course, to say that if I don´t, they don´t. You all get my drift.)
But this would ultimately be too easy if the assumption was just that Ortega, Castro, Chavez, and others went in with hopes of becoming dictators. I honestly don´t think that is the case. There is another common theme that tends to run between people who take up leadership (especially in the Americas) at the head of popular or leftists movements: They immediately become targets for US opposition. In Cuba and Nicaragua, the theme was Communism during two major ¨hot¨ periods of the Cold War -- we need to keep the communist threat out of our back yard.
[And a side note: Central America is not unaware that US foreign policy considers CA the US back yard. Some people plant flowers in their back yards; some let their dogs poop in them. What´s been our approach?]
What I´m getting at is this: In Nica, after the Triumph of the Revolution (in 1979) the FSLN was never given the opportunity to really establish a successful government before the Contra war began. Obviously, that was the point, from Reagan´s perspective. But in the initial phase of the revolutionary government, Ortega (yep, he was president then, too) went all over the country holding listening sessions where he would set up a microphone, invite the community, and ask what they needed from the government. Now I don´t know how much of that information made its way into policy. But Somoza´s (the previous dictator and end of a dynastic line that began in 1934) way of interacting with the people was shooting them or cutting off their hands. Seems like a step or two up to me.
Also, there were immensely successful literacy and health campaigns in the first few years. Tens of thousands of youth were released from school for a year to go out into the campo, where literacy rates were sometimes in the single digits, and teach both children and adults. By the end of the 10-month cycle, illiteracy on the national level (previously 56%) had been reduced to 12%. The majority of the adults, who had not been able to read before, were reading at a third grade level -- after 10 months! Similarly, youth were sent out into the campo with materials for vaccinations and polio was irradicated from Nicaragua.
By the time these gains had been made, the Contra war had also started. Thus a government that had begun to be successful in really reaching the people in both urban and rural areas suddenly had an exterior force against which to rally and consolidate power. Speculation thirty years after the fact doesn´t bring change, so I won´t dwell in it long. But I can only imagine that without the presence of US intervention so common in Central America, the Sandinista government might have felt a bit more freedom not to move toward a more authoritarian model.
(Then also important are the 1990 elections when the majority of the people knew that voting FSLN would continue the US aid to the Contras, ie, continue the violence. That defeat for the Sandinistas also plays a huge role in where they are today. Imagine this: during the 1980s, 30,000 Nicaraguans were killed in the Contra war. This is after 70,000 were killed under the three Somoza regimes. In 1990, Nica had a population of about 3.9 million. Contrast that to the US during Vietnam, where 57,000 US soldiers died in a population of about 150 million. Who in the US didn´t know someone killed or injured in Vietnam? There are essentially no families in Nicaragua that weren´t touched by death in the 80s.)
This has become an incredible stream-of-thought entry. It wasn´t intended to be a Nica history lesson! I didn´t develop my thoughts on US influence on CA dictatorships (of the left or right) as much as I had intended. But I would love to hear people´s thoughts on what I did get out there!
Pray for a peaceful election time here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
