dil·a·to·ry:
1 : tending or intended to cause delay <dilatory tactics> 2 : characterized by procrastination : tardy <dilatory in paying bills>
This post will be 2 part: first on a cultural aspect and as a response to comments on my previous blog.
In Bolivia, things to occur in a dilatory fashion. People are always late for everything! It is an aspect of their culture: they believe that it is more important to finish what you are doing than arrive on time for an appointment. This means that if you are having a conversation with someone, it is considered extremely rude to end it early in order to do something.
This aspect of culture is one of the hardest things for a gringo to surmount, in my opinion. Here in the US we have the saying "time is money", it is not so in Bolivia. If you are planning a wedding or something similar, you should tell everyone to show up two hours early so that people will be arriving whenever you are ready to go!
Now for something completely different, I would like to respond to a few comments to my last post.
jacquelynn.bensing said:
I think the history of coca being a holy plant is quite interesting. Also, I didn't realize all the positive effects it had.
Is the reason the US is so anti-coca solely based on uninformed drug policy or are there other outlying factors? I don't like to sound pessimistic, but typically politics is motivated by money or greed of some kind. Are there other hidden agendas here?
The US and the UN have been dilatory in revising drug policy. The main answer to your question is uniformed drug policy. The government cannot understand that coca does not equal cocaine. They do not understand that the vast majority of coca production is for legitimate consumption, not cocaine production.
There is a somewhat hidden agenda here. For example, in Columbia, most of the US aid is going towards military aid under the guise of drug interdiction. However, much of the funds are used to repress leftist groups, not guerrillas or the FARC, but union leaders and campesino organizers in support of US multinational corporations. Don't believe me? Read up on Coca-Cola in Columbia.
The "Drug War" is simply an extension of US imperialism in Latin America; they simply needed a new guise after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Suppressing communism simply doesn't cut it anymore. This is especially evident in Bolivia, where Evo Morales expulsed the DEA from the country, accusing them of attempting to overthrow his government.
In short, the current situation surround coca, and the Drug War in general, is prompted by uniformed drug policy as well as an excuse to further US imperialism in the hemisphere.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Biannual
biannual • \bye-AN-yuh-wul\ • adjective
1 : occurring twice a year
2 : occurring every two years (biennial?)
The theme of today's post is coca because, depending on the growing cycle, it is harvested biannually or semiannually. It is used daily by many Bolivians as a natural energizer, a cure for altitude sickness, and it is a key ingredient in many tinctures and herbal remedies. The Incas considered it a holy plant, that it descended from the gods themselves. I used to love to drink coca tea every morning instead of coffee because it would wake me up without feeling jittery.
Coca is an interesting topic for several reasons:
1. It is one of the most divisive issues in Bolivia right now. Part of the reason for the recent surge in campesino and cocalero related strikes and bloqueos is because of the U.S.-sponsored campaign to irradiate the coca plant in a vain attempt to cut cocaine production.
2. It is classified as a Schedule 1 Narcotic by the UN and the US, which puts it in the same designation as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine (which is a little ridiculous considering it is less addictive than chocolate). This is despite popular protest and admonitions from the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales. The fact that it is a Schedule 1 Narcotic is absolutely ridiculous. It is not addictive, more mild than your average coffee, and has been used culturally and spiritually by the indigenous peoples of Bolivia for over a millennium. Although it is the main ingredient in cocaine, coca does not equal cocaine. The argument of comparing coca to cocaine is the same as saying that Draino should be illegal because it is used in methamphetamine manufacturing. Chewing coca leaves or drinking tea is nothing close to using cocaine in any form. I know, I speak from experience. One other item to consider is the fact that when cocaine was at its peak price (during the 80s), the Bolivian economy was experiencing its worse crisis it had ever seen. With this information, it should be obvious that Bolivia really does not benefit much from illicit drug manufacturing; they simply want to sell coca so that it may be used responsibly.
3. It is one of the large reasons that the Left has been doing so well in Bolivia for the last decade or so is because of coca. The Eradication Program is perceived by the populace as an unpopular extension of US imperialism. Evo Morales, who is definitely a socialist, got his start in pro-coca union organization. These unions umbrellaed outwards to create MAS (el Movimiento al Socialismo), Evo's party and the current majority holder in the Bolivian congress. Finally, it reflects poorly on the previous regimes and the American government because through suppression of a small minority, they have put this anti-American minority on the throne of power.
Coca is really fun to chew or drink in a tea. It cures altitude sickness and headaches really fast, and is much better than coffee for a morning pick-me-up. I hope that if you ever travel to Bolivia that you will partake in la hoja santa so that you might see that it does not deserve to be scheduled as heroin, cocaine, or meth.
1 : occurring twice a year
2 : occurring every two years (biennial?)
The theme of today's post is coca because, depending on the growing cycle, it is harvested biannually or semiannually. It is used daily by many Bolivians as a natural energizer, a cure for altitude sickness, and it is a key ingredient in many tinctures and herbal remedies. The Incas considered it a holy plant, that it descended from the gods themselves. I used to love to drink coca tea every morning instead of coffee because it would wake me up without feeling jittery.
Coca is an interesting topic for several reasons:
1. It is one of the most divisive issues in Bolivia right now. Part of the reason for the recent surge in campesino and cocalero related strikes and bloqueos is because of the U.S.-sponsored campaign to irradiate the coca plant in a vain attempt to cut cocaine production.
2. It is classified as a Schedule 1 Narcotic by the UN and the US, which puts it in the same designation as cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine (which is a little ridiculous considering it is less addictive than chocolate). This is despite popular protest and admonitions from the president of Bolivia, Evo Morales. The fact that it is a Schedule 1 Narcotic is absolutely ridiculous. It is not addictive, more mild than your average coffee, and has been used culturally and spiritually by the indigenous peoples of Bolivia for over a millennium. Although it is the main ingredient in cocaine, coca does not equal cocaine. The argument of comparing coca to cocaine is the same as saying that Draino should be illegal because it is used in methamphetamine manufacturing. Chewing coca leaves or drinking tea is nothing close to using cocaine in any form. I know, I speak from experience. One other item to consider is the fact that when cocaine was at its peak price (during the 80s), the Bolivian economy was experiencing its worse crisis it had ever seen. With this information, it should be obvious that Bolivia really does not benefit much from illicit drug manufacturing; they simply want to sell coca so that it may be used responsibly.
3. It is one of the large reasons that the Left has been doing so well in Bolivia for the last decade or so is because of coca. The Eradication Program is perceived by the populace as an unpopular extension of US imperialism. Evo Morales, who is definitely a socialist, got his start in pro-coca union organization. These unions umbrellaed outwards to create MAS (el Movimiento al Socialismo), Evo's party and the current majority holder in the Bolivian congress. Finally, it reflects poorly on the previous regimes and the American government because through suppression of a small minority, they have put this anti-American minority on the throne of power.
Coca is really fun to chew or drink in a tea. It cures altitude sickness and headaches really fast, and is much better than coffee for a morning pick-me-up. I hope that if you ever travel to Bolivia that you will partake in la hoja santa so that you might see that it does not deserve to be scheduled as heroin, cocaine, or meth.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
Diaphanous
di·aph·a·nous
Pronunciation: \dī-ˈa-fə-nəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin diaphanus, from Greek diaphanēs, from diaphainein to show through, from dia- + phainein to show
Pronunciation: \dī-ˈa-fə-nəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin diaphanus, from Greek diaphanēs, from diaphainein to show through, from dia- + phainein to show
Date: 1614
1 : characterized by such fineness of texture as to permit seeing through2 : characterized by extreme delicacy of form : ethereal 3 : insubstantial , vague
— di·aph·a·nous·ly adverb
— di·aph·a·nous·ness noun
To my readers: unfortunately this post was slightly late for class. My apologies; I did not realize that it was due today.
The word of the day is diaphanous. Ironically, the first thing that I thought of whenever I read this word was "democracy". This is because democracy is diaphanous in nature: it should be transparent and it is very delicate.
Democracy as a cultural item is an interesting debate, especially with how it relates to Latin America because of the relative unstable nature of many of the governments and the different interpretations of what democracy mean. On one hand, many if not most of the human rights abuses that occur in Latin America are heavily influenced by American imperialism, imperialism by a nation that claims to be democratic. On the other hand, the U.S. has been instrumental in freeing Latin America from the colonial intentions of Europe (even if we did usurp those intentions for our own benefit).
Readers of this blog are well aware of my tirades against imperialism and the "Great Northern Threat", so I shall attempt to leave my fiery rhetoric off of this post. Instead I would rather talk about the differences in the concepts of democracy between Bolivia and the U.S.
Here in the U.S., politics are rather stable, I do not need to point this out to my readers. Elections (mostly) are fraud-free, politicians are (somewhat) held accountable for their actions, and (knock-on-wood) we have never had a coup.
In Bolivia, things are slightly different. Democracy exists, as evidenced by the election of Evo Morales, but there is much unrest. For example, while I lived there 3 presidents stepped down from their posts due to popular demands (e.g., protesters threatened to burn down the capital building with President Goni inside). Riots and bloqueos (or blockades for our non-Spanish speaking brethren) are common, even normal. Political assassinations, while not of the frequency as during the dirty war, are not unheard of. While I lived there, our city was placed under a state of siege due to a price hike on privatized water.
One aspect of Bolivian democracy that makes it different from the U.S. is its use of multiple political parties. In a presidential election, the president elect usually receives less than 30% of the popular vote. He then forms a "ruling coalition" between themselves and other parties. The exception is Evo Morales who won with a pure 53% majority. This simple fact alone grants his government legitimacy; that and the fact that he is the first indigenous president of country that is over 80% indigenous.
With Evo's election Bolivian democracy can finally state that it is diaphanous: it is transparent in its actions, but still very fragile. It must be well taken care of, but in my opinion, Evo is doing a helluva job.
1 : characterized by such fineness of texture as to permit seeing through
— di·aph·a·nous·ly adverb
— di·aph·a·nous·ness noun
To my readers: unfortunately this post was slightly late for class. My apologies; I did not realize that it was due today.
The word of the day is diaphanous. Ironically, the first thing that I thought of whenever I read this word was "democracy". This is because democracy is diaphanous in nature: it should be transparent and it is very delicate.
Democracy as a cultural item is an interesting debate, especially with how it relates to Latin America because of the relative unstable nature of many of the governments and the different interpretations of what democracy mean. On one hand, many if not most of the human rights abuses that occur in Latin America are heavily influenced by American imperialism, imperialism by a nation that claims to be democratic. On the other hand, the U.S. has been instrumental in freeing Latin America from the colonial intentions of Europe (even if we did usurp those intentions for our own benefit).
Readers of this blog are well aware of my tirades against imperialism and the "Great Northern Threat", so I shall attempt to leave my fiery rhetoric off of this post. Instead I would rather talk about the differences in the concepts of democracy between Bolivia and the U.S.
Here in the U.S., politics are rather stable, I do not need to point this out to my readers. Elections (mostly) are fraud-free, politicians are (somewhat) held accountable for their actions, and (knock-on-wood) we have never had a coup.
In Bolivia, things are slightly different. Democracy exists, as evidenced by the election of Evo Morales, but there is much unrest. For example, while I lived there 3 presidents stepped down from their posts due to popular demands (e.g., protesters threatened to burn down the capital building with President Goni inside). Riots and bloqueos (or blockades for our non-Spanish speaking brethren) are common, even normal. Political assassinations, while not of the frequency as during the dirty war, are not unheard of. While I lived there, our city was placed under a state of siege due to a price hike on privatized water.
One aspect of Bolivian democracy that makes it different from the U.S. is its use of multiple political parties. In a presidential election, the president elect usually receives less than 30% of the popular vote. He then forms a "ruling coalition" between themselves and other parties. The exception is Evo Morales who won with a pure 53% majority. This simple fact alone grants his government legitimacy; that and the fact that he is the first indigenous president of country that is over 80% indigenous.
With Evo's election Bolivian democracy can finally state that it is diaphanous: it is transparent in its actions, but still very fragile. It must be well taken care of, but in my opinion, Evo is doing a helluva job.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Acedia
Acedia: apathy or boredom.
According to many Latin American scholars, such as Sarmiento, social conflicts can be boiled down to a simple argument: civilización contra la barbarie, or civilization versus barbarism. This is an incorrect assumption; however, it allows us to frame many of the conflicts in Latin America, such as La Pacificación or the conflict in Bolivia between the indigenous and the mestizos. A more modern interpretation of this conflict can be considered as indigenous versus Western Civilization.
The indigenous peoples of Latin America have often been misconstrued as being lazy, apathetic, and unproductive. I hope to prove in this post that this belief is entirely unfounded.
When discussing Latin America, agrarian reform has been the most pertinent issue since colonization. This is because many of the indigenous people were unfairly pushed off their communal lands or outright conquered, by wealthy, usually white or mestizo, elites of their countries. This process has occurred in virtually every country in Latin America. I will not be covering the Conquistador robbing of their lands; instead, I will cover the expropriation of their lands by Liberal thinkers.
In many places in Latin America, much of the indigenous population existed as sustenance farmers living on ejidos, or communal lands. During the late 19th century, much of this land was expropriated from them in order to give it away to the following groups:
1. Rich agriculturalists who could produce a higher yield for market consumption through technology and capital.
2. Land for colonizing Europeans. You may ask yourself, isn't the colonial period over by the 19th century? Yes and no. Many Latin American governments, spurned by a belief in eugenics, thought that by mixing whites with indigenous people that they would "improve" the indigenous races, "curing" them of their laziness. This may sound far fetched, but read a few passages of Facundo, and you will see that this was quite a common belief at the time.
One thing that I find interesting about Sarmiento and his treatment of the indigenous peoples was that he was a student of Marx. It should have been obvious to him that they were resisting the process of proletariatization. Why would someone want to leave their idyllic life as a sustenance farmer in order to work in a factory 12-15 hours a day, 6 days a week? Also, according to Marx, these people were living in a man's traditional state: villages that shared responsibilities and leadership amongst the group.
Another interesting thing about the myth of the "lazy Indian" is in the context of Mexico during the Revolution of 1910. The picture/stereotype of the campesino taking his siesta is commonplace in this country. This idea stems from the mass starvation that the Mexican people experienced during the years of the Revolution; the campesino did not nap because he was lazy, rather because he was malnourished. Many Mexicans received 1/3 of the daily caloric intake necessary to sustain an active man.
Isn't it obvious that the stereotype of the lazy Indian/Mexican comes from a western interpretation of malnutrition? Or that the campesino did not want to give up his communal lands because he did not wish to be a member of the proletariat?
According to many Latin American scholars, such as Sarmiento, social conflicts can be boiled down to a simple argument: civilización contra la barbarie, or civilization versus barbarism. This is an incorrect assumption; however, it allows us to frame many of the conflicts in Latin America, such as La Pacificación or the conflict in Bolivia between the indigenous and the mestizos. A more modern interpretation of this conflict can be considered as indigenous versus Western Civilization.
The indigenous peoples of Latin America have often been misconstrued as being lazy, apathetic, and unproductive. I hope to prove in this post that this belief is entirely unfounded.
When discussing Latin America, agrarian reform has been the most pertinent issue since colonization. This is because many of the indigenous people were unfairly pushed off their communal lands or outright conquered, by wealthy, usually white or mestizo, elites of their countries. This process has occurred in virtually every country in Latin America. I will not be covering the Conquistador robbing of their lands; instead, I will cover the expropriation of their lands by Liberal thinkers.
In many places in Latin America, much of the indigenous population existed as sustenance farmers living on ejidos, or communal lands. During the late 19th century, much of this land was expropriated from them in order to give it away to the following groups:
1. Rich agriculturalists who could produce a higher yield for market consumption through technology and capital.
2. Land for colonizing Europeans. You may ask yourself, isn't the colonial period over by the 19th century? Yes and no. Many Latin American governments, spurned by a belief in eugenics, thought that by mixing whites with indigenous people that they would "improve" the indigenous races, "curing" them of their laziness. This may sound far fetched, but read a few passages of Facundo, and you will see that this was quite a common belief at the time.
One thing that I find interesting about Sarmiento and his treatment of the indigenous peoples was that he was a student of Marx. It should have been obvious to him that they were resisting the process of proletariatization. Why would someone want to leave their idyllic life as a sustenance farmer in order to work in a factory 12-15 hours a day, 6 days a week? Also, according to Marx, these people were living in a man's traditional state: villages that shared responsibilities and leadership amongst the group.
Another interesting thing about the myth of the "lazy Indian" is in the context of Mexico during the Revolution of 1910. The picture/stereotype of the campesino taking his siesta is commonplace in this country. This idea stems from the mass starvation that the Mexican people experienced during the years of the Revolution; the campesino did not nap because he was lazy, rather because he was malnourished. Many Mexicans received 1/3 of the daily caloric intake necessary to sustain an active man.
Isn't it obvious that the stereotype of the lazy Indian/Mexican comes from a western interpretation of malnutrition? Or that the campesino did not want to give up his communal lands because he did not wish to be a member of the proletariat?
Response to Jacquelynn
I started to reply to your comments, but I decided to do a random post instead. This is not for credit or any "word-of-the-day" post; it is just random thought about the comment.
jacquelynn_bensing Said: "the experiences of the author are not necessarily the experiences of everyone who travels in Latin America" nice disclaimer :). Another common American touristy thing is we talk far too much while traveling. I've never been to Latin America, but in Spain and Austria I could always point out the American tourists because they were typically the ones talking loudly on public transportation. We especially love to tell our life story while on an airplane, which is just not something they do in Europe."
I completely agree. American tourists always seemed more ostentatious. They were more ready to pick a fight, yell along with a song at a bar, or talk louder when someone doesn't speak English in some vain hope that volume will somehow impart knowledge onto the listener.
Please note that this is a generalization. Some Americans travel well and blend in. I've met Europeans, Asians and Australians who do the same thing; however, based on colloquial evidence and my own experience it seems that Americans are the worst at being tourists.
This poses an interesting question: why are Americans perceived this way? I have a couple of theories:
1. Could it be true? As far as a complete generalization: no. I for one am an American and have traveled abroad and I disagree that ALL Americans are that way. As I stated before, some are actually quite adept at living in Latin America, but it seems that a few bad apples affect the reputation of all.
2. It is a perception that rises from American imperialism. This is the most probable of the theories. People do not view you as an individual when you travel, they see you as a representative of your nation. When speaking specifically of Latin America, imperialism is a relevant topic because Americans are viewed as an extension of U.S. policy; one is complacent because of their citizenship.
3. Lack of knowledge of foreign countries/cultures. This is especially evident when compared with European tourist. Due to the geography of Europe and with the advent of the EU, travel between countries in that continent are rather simple. Plus, the U.S., geographically speaking, is very large, leading to less travel abroad. Also, in Europe, many people are fluent in more than one language. Unfortunately in the U.S. in the vast majority of cases this is not true.
4. Cultural misconceptions. Americans are gregarious, what can I say. It comes from our individualistic/pioneering roots. In many Americans' minds the world is ours to explore.
These are just a few of the reasons that I believe that this perception exists. Any thoughts?
jacquelynn_bensing Said: "the experiences of the author are not necessarily the experiences of everyone who travels in Latin America" nice disclaimer :). Another common American touristy thing is we talk far too much while traveling. I've never been to Latin America, but in Spain and Austria I could always point out the American tourists because they were typically the ones talking loudly on public transportation. We especially love to tell our life story while on an airplane, which is just not something they do in Europe."
I completely agree. American tourists always seemed more ostentatious. They were more ready to pick a fight, yell along with a song at a bar, or talk louder when someone doesn't speak English in some vain hope that volume will somehow impart knowledge onto the listener.
Please note that this is a generalization. Some Americans travel well and blend in. I've met Europeans, Asians and Australians who do the same thing; however, based on colloquial evidence and my own experience it seems that Americans are the worst at being tourists.
This poses an interesting question: why are Americans perceived this way? I have a couple of theories:
1. Could it be true? As far as a complete generalization: no. I for one am an American and have traveled abroad and I disagree that ALL Americans are that way. As I stated before, some are actually quite adept at living in Latin America, but it seems that a few bad apples affect the reputation of all.
2. It is a perception that rises from American imperialism. This is the most probable of the theories. People do not view you as an individual when you travel, they see you as a representative of your nation. When speaking specifically of Latin America, imperialism is a relevant topic because Americans are viewed as an extension of U.S. policy; one is complacent because of their citizenship.
3. Lack of knowledge of foreign countries/cultures. This is especially evident when compared with European tourist. Due to the geography of Europe and with the advent of the EU, travel between countries in that continent are rather simple. Plus, the U.S., geographically speaking, is very large, leading to less travel abroad. Also, in Europe, many people are fluent in more than one language. Unfortunately in the U.S. in the vast majority of cases this is not true.
4. Cultural misconceptions. Americans are gregarious, what can I say. It comes from our individualistic/pioneering roots. In many Americans' minds the world is ours to explore.
These are just a few of the reasons that I believe that this perception exists. Any thoughts?
Monday, March 16, 2009
Purfle
Purfle: to finish with an ornamental border.
Today's topic will be on suitable dress/behavior when traveling in Latin America. How does this relate to purfle? One must avoid any items that might purfle oneself. As far as the cultural element, it is important to understand the criminal culture of one's target country in order to avoid trouble.
When traveling through Latin America there are several things for the typical tourist to consider. It is important to keep in mind that in poorer countries, such as Honduras or Bolivia, tourists are marked. This is because they assume (usually correctly) that they are carry a large amount of cash or valuables. Although this may sound slightly ethnocentric, I do speak from experience having lived in Bolivia for 4 years. While I lived there I survived 5 attempted muggings without losing anything.
Also bear in mind that experiences differ while traveling through Latin America and the experiences of the author are not necessarily the experiences of everyone who travels in Latin America. I went to places I should not have gone and opened myself up to street crime, but I feel that I attained a more honest appraisal of urban survival. Some of the advice that I give might be illegal in the countries that you chose to visit, so use at your own risk.
Hopefully I have given you enough information to avoid a dangerous encounter in Latin America,
Happy Travels!
Today's topic will be on suitable dress/behavior when traveling in Latin America. How does this relate to purfle? One must avoid any items that might purfle oneself. As far as the cultural element, it is important to understand the criminal culture of one's target country in order to avoid trouble.
When traveling through Latin America there are several things for the typical tourist to consider. It is important to keep in mind that in poorer countries, such as Honduras or Bolivia, tourists are marked. This is because they assume (usually correctly) that they are carry a large amount of cash or valuables. Although this may sound slightly ethnocentric, I do speak from experience having lived in Bolivia for 4 years. While I lived there I survived 5 attempted muggings without losing anything.
Also bear in mind that experiences differ while traveling through Latin America and the experiences of the author are not necessarily the experiences of everyone who travels in Latin America. I went to places I should not have gone and opened myself up to street crime, but I feel that I attained a more honest appraisal of urban survival. Some of the advice that I give might be illegal in the countries that you chose to visit, so use at your own risk.
- Do not wear jewelry. This is probably the most relevant item when avoiding a mugging and talking about purfle. This may seem as a no-brainer to most, but you would be suprised how many travellers I saw with an expensive watch or earrings. Anything that glitters, even if it is rhinestones or some other semiprecious stone, catches the eye of the mugger.
- Do not wear colorful clothing. It makes you stand out. Try to avoid bright colors, stick to black or white.
- Do not carry a purse. Sorry ladies and transvestites! A very common practice is to ride by on a motorcycle and grab a purse, usually dragging whoever is carrying it with them!
- Never share a taxi. For people who have never lived in a big city, this concept may seem foreign, but it is an extremely common way for a mugger to operate. The other potential occupant will ask the driver or you which way your going. No matter where it is, he'll say, "Me too!" Then you will be overpowered and mugged if you are lucky, killed if you are not. Immediately exit the cab and run if you must.
- Do not wear sandals. I cannot stress this enough. DO NOT WEAR SANDALS. You never know when you may have to run, wear tennis shoes or lace ups if it is at all possible.
- Do not wear high-heels. See #5
- Leather is your friend. When I travel I usually wear a moderately heavy leather coat (weather permitting) and carry a leather backpack. This is because of the tendency of muggers to cut the bottom of your bag with a knife, grab the most valuable object and split. Leather is much more difficult to cut which it is why it is beneficial to have a leather jacket to prevent knife wounds as well.
- With credits to Farte for pointing it out to me: Try to travel in a group. This may not always be possible, but at least for your first couple of weeks in an unfamiliar country try to stick to it.
- Carry a weapon. This may seem a little controversial, but it is essential. It is important to study the weapons laws of any country that you may visit. Also, it is important not to carry a weapon that you do not know how to use because it can be taken away from you and used against you. I personally suggest a sap, pictured below. This is because of its non-lethal capabilities; you can break someone's arm to disable them without killing them.
Hopefully I have given you enough information to avoid a dangerous encounter in Latin America,
Happy Travels!
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Whipsaw
Whipsaw: to subject to two opposing forces at the same time.
American imperialism has been a blight on this hemisphere for the past century. The U.S. has been implicit for massacres and genocides throughout the continents by supplying and training the Latin American military in counter-insurgency operations and suppression. Much of this training has taken place at the controversial School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, GA, "closed" in 2000. In truth, it is not really closed, just simply renamed to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001. Its alumni include much of the Altacatl battalion who massacred over 1000 civilians at El Mozote in El Salvador.
Simply put, much of the conflict in Latin America from the late 50s to the mid 90s, including the genocide against indigenous peoples, massacres, mass-rapes and "disappearances" is due to funding, training and implicit diplomatic support of the U.S. to right-wing, undemocratic regimes in an imperialistic effort to defeat Communism and prevent "another Cuba".
You may be asking yourself, "What does this have to do with whipsaw?"
Cuba is the finest example of this whipsaw effect in Latin America. Trapped between a rock and a hard place, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, they were subject to an imperialistic, colonial project on the part of both superpowers.
In Cuba, international companies (mostly American) such as the United Fruit Company controlled around 95% of the arable land in Cuba, including most of the sugar plantations, Cuba's cash crop. When Castro nationalized these lands during the Agrarian reform, the U.S. responded by blockading the island.
What could Cuba do but go to Moscow? The U.S. provided for 80% of their sugar export market; Europe and Latin America could not provide the demand need to sustain the economy. They were forced to align themselves with the Soviet Union in order to keep themselves from collapse. They were then pressured by Moscow to place ballistic missiles on the island. They had little choice in the matter.
In a sense, they had jumped from the frying pan into the fryer. They were between the two dominant superpowers at the height of the Cold War. I often wonder how the Cuban state would have been if the U.S. had not introduced the embargo.
Cuba also helps us understand anti-American sentiments across Latin America. They see us as the giant from the north, supporting undemocratic regimes (Somoza, Pinochet, just to name a few), and attacking popular movements. With our political, military and economic supports of these repressive regimes, I can see why.
American imperialism has been a blight on this hemisphere for the past century. The U.S. has been implicit for massacres and genocides throughout the continents by supplying and training the Latin American military in counter-insurgency operations and suppression. Much of this training has taken place at the controversial School of the Americas in Ft. Benning, GA, "closed" in 2000. In truth, it is not really closed, just simply renamed to Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation in 2001. Its alumni include much of the Altacatl battalion who massacred over 1000 civilians at El Mozote in El Salvador.
Simply put, much of the conflict in Latin America from the late 50s to the mid 90s, including the genocide against indigenous peoples, massacres, mass-rapes and "disappearances" is due to funding, training and implicit diplomatic support of the U.S. to right-wing, undemocratic regimes in an imperialistic effort to defeat Communism and prevent "another Cuba".
You may be asking yourself, "What does this have to do with whipsaw?"
Cuba is the finest example of this whipsaw effect in Latin America. Trapped between a rock and a hard place, the U.S. and the Soviet Union, they were subject to an imperialistic, colonial project on the part of both superpowers.
In Cuba, international companies (mostly American) such as the United Fruit Company controlled around 95% of the arable land in Cuba, including most of the sugar plantations, Cuba's cash crop. When Castro nationalized these lands during the Agrarian reform, the U.S. responded by blockading the island.
What could Cuba do but go to Moscow? The U.S. provided for 80% of their sugar export market; Europe and Latin America could not provide the demand need to sustain the economy. They were forced to align themselves with the Soviet Union in order to keep themselves from collapse. They were then pressured by Moscow to place ballistic missiles on the island. They had little choice in the matter.
In a sense, they had jumped from the frying pan into the fryer. They were between the two dominant superpowers at the height of the Cold War. I often wonder how the Cuban state would have been if the U.S. had not introduced the embargo.
Cuba also helps us understand anti-American sentiments across Latin America. They see us as the giant from the north, supporting undemocratic regimes (Somoza, Pinochet, just to name a few), and attacking popular movements. With our political, military and economic supports of these repressive regimes, I can see why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)