http://news.yahoo.com/honduras-becomes-western-hemisphere-cocaine-hub-145553646.html
This article talks about the position of Honduras a major transit route for drugs, especially cocaine. Apparently, about half of all the cocaine reaching the United States every month is unloaded in Honduras, which comes up to 20 - 25 tons. Whole villages are now part of the drug trade, and street gangs are creating a climate of violence that can only be compared to Kabul, Afghanistan. The homicide rate is euqivalent to 82, 1 killings for evey 100, 000 people. The govenrment, of course, says that fighting the cartels is at the top of the list, but the governemnt itself is far from stable, and corruption is rampant. Often, the police is actively involved in the cartels, and it is believed that many in the government are making a lot of money off of them, leaving the country in an extremely vulnerable position.
On a more personal note, this article hits very close to home due to my personal attachment to Honduras. I lived there when I was younger, my brother is from there, as is my foster sister. I still have very strong ties with people in Tegucigalpa and Copan. When I lived there, it was already routine to bribe the police (even my parents did it, in order to get out of bogus charges), but now, from what I hear from my friends, it's anarchy. They are scared to leave their homes after dark, and my foster sister, who married an American and now lived in Washington DC, is scared to go back, especially when her husband talks of going with her. She hasn't seen her family in over two years for these reasons. I have seen the good side of Honduras, and there is so much I love about it, that this breaks my heart.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Argentina: State Violence
State repression and brutality are one of the most unforgivable things that leaders can do to their people. It's a complete disruption of social bonds, with the powerful lashing out against the people that they are supposed to protect. The case of Argentina is particularly horrific, though, unfortunately, just one in the long history of militarized oppression in Latin America. The use of paramilitary forces as an excuse to "maintain security" usually means keeping the elite wealthy and in power and keeping everybody else down. In the case of Argentina, this translated in the use of extreme brutality against countless people. I can't even imagine being in such a situation, living in a constant fear of being taken away, or having someone I love disappear. The complete impunity of the military meant that nobody was safe, and that everybody could be subject to torture and murder, creating a climate of constant fear. In a situation like this, it's not surprising that people would choose to flee rather than remain in such an environment. I understand, however, that this in itself would have also been far from easy, with people grieving not only those they left behind, but also the metaphorical death of a country.
In reading this, two things really stood out for me. One of these was the involvment of the US in the strenghtening of the regime. Of course, I know about that involvment of the United States in Latin America, which was more often than not treated as the US' back yard. However, the blatant support given to disctators still shocks me, especially when the reason behind this was mainly to protect US assets. Countless people suffered, and the US turned a blind eye in order to maintain it's own wealthy elite. The second thing that stood out for me is the courage of the people that still stood up and resisted, risking their lives in the process. Personally, I don't know if I would have had that courage to do that. Through the use of contraversial art, dissent was expressed and circulated. Most impressive, however, were probably the "grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo," the only visible opposition to the regime, who demanded justice for their disappeared loved ones. They displayed true courage, and their commitement to their cause was a strong agent of change.
When reading these horror stories, one is usually left with a "never again" feeling. However, I see these more as a cautionary, a reminder of how easy it is for things to slip into that institutional darkness. It's a reminder of the importance of vigilance and active involvment in politics. Such regimes are not a thing of the past, and they could easily manifest again if we are not careful.
In reading this, two things really stood out for me. One of these was the involvment of the US in the strenghtening of the regime. Of course, I know about that involvment of the United States in Latin America, which was more often than not treated as the US' back yard. However, the blatant support given to disctators still shocks me, especially when the reason behind this was mainly to protect US assets. Countless people suffered, and the US turned a blind eye in order to maintain it's own wealthy elite. The second thing that stood out for me is the courage of the people that still stood up and resisted, risking their lives in the process. Personally, I don't know if I would have had that courage to do that. Through the use of contraversial art, dissent was expressed and circulated. Most impressive, however, were probably the "grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo," the only visible opposition to the regime, who demanded justice for their disappeared loved ones. They displayed true courage, and their commitement to their cause was a strong agent of change.
When reading these horror stories, one is usually left with a "never again" feeling. However, I see these more as a cautionary, a reminder of how easy it is for things to slip into that institutional darkness. It's a reminder of the importance of vigilance and active involvment in politics. Such regimes are not a thing of the past, and they could easily manifest again if we are not careful.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Brazil Defends Boycot of Dam Meeting
http://news.yahoo.com/brazil-defends-boycott-dam-meeting-221409783.html
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.
Amnesty: Dominican Police Torture, Kill People
http://news.yahoo.com/amnesty-dominican-police-torture-kill-people-174803084.html
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.
Rights in Latin America
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.
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.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Wrongs in Latin America
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.
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.
Monday, October 3, 2011
UN human rights office concerned about killing of journalists in Mexico
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=39896&Cr=drug+trafficking&Cr1=
This article discusses the wave of murders in Mexico, specifying the vunerability of news reporters as targets. Apparently, "80 journalists have been killed in Mexico since 2000". Other targets include internet users, or anybody who would dare try and intervene in the drug wars.
What is particularly worrying about all this is the assumption that some elements of the police forces probably have a hand in this. Far from protecting their citizens, they have shown that corruption really runs deep in Mexico. How can human rights be protected if their primary enforcers are the ones torturing and murdering innocents? Not only that, but freedom of speech, a basic tenant of human rights, becomes something that is too dangerous to engage it. If people are too scared to speak out, how will this ever end?
This article discusses the wave of murders in Mexico, specifying the vunerability of news reporters as targets. Apparently, "80 journalists have been killed in Mexico since 2000". Other targets include internet users, or anybody who would dare try and intervene in the drug wars.
What is particularly worrying about all this is the assumption that some elements of the police forces probably have a hand in this. Far from protecting their citizens, they have shown that corruption really runs deep in Mexico. How can human rights be protected if their primary enforcers are the ones torturing and murdering innocents? Not only that, but freedom of speech, a basic tenant of human rights, becomes something that is too dangerous to engage it. If people are too scared to speak out, how will this ever end?
Sunday, October 2, 2011
The End of Human Rights: Readings for October 3
The readings for this week are, in my opinion, the most interesting ones we have had so far. They are all about the limit of human rights, and what it means to understand and respect them. We are finally moving away from the idealized intellectual frameworks of human rights to the reality of them. In these articles, people seem almost to be arguing against human rights, in the sense that they are saying that the way they are viewed is flawed and that there have been many failures.
I was really drawn to the idea of nationhood as the defining factor of being a human being. There was this idea that if you loose that attachement to your nation, if you become a refugee, then your human rights also disappear. Cut off from your cultural setting, your place of origin, you are no longer viewed as a complete human. This explains the systematic rights abuses so often commited to refugees. It is easy to say that you are open to "the other" until the other is all around you. It also begs the question: what does it mean to be human? Are we our culture, or is there something more, some underlying tread uniting us in our common humanity and making us all worthy of the same rights?
I would also like to address the idea of human rights being a Western concept. In many ways, I very much agree with this. Western countries have been at the forefront of the articulation of human rights as we know them; therefore, Western values and ideals are heavily present in them. Does this make them wrong? I do believe that the Western world have too often used human rights as an excuse to march into a country guns blazing and try to impose peace and democracy, as if that ever works. Human rights as a pure and untainted concept, however, looses a lot of it's meaning for me if I start thinking of it simply as a construct of the West. The solution, then, would probably be a more inclusive discourse, one that includes minority groups and refugees and countries other than the West. But would any agreement ever be reached? And if so, would it be respected?
I'm starting to feel terribly disillusioned.
I was really drawn to the idea of nationhood as the defining factor of being a human being. There was this idea that if you loose that attachement to your nation, if you become a refugee, then your human rights also disappear. Cut off from your cultural setting, your place of origin, you are no longer viewed as a complete human. This explains the systematic rights abuses so often commited to refugees. It is easy to say that you are open to "the other" until the other is all around you. It also begs the question: what does it mean to be human? Are we our culture, or is there something more, some underlying tread uniting us in our common humanity and making us all worthy of the same rights?
I would also like to address the idea of human rights being a Western concept. In many ways, I very much agree with this. Western countries have been at the forefront of the articulation of human rights as we know them; therefore, Western values and ideals are heavily present in them. Does this make them wrong? I do believe that the Western world have too often used human rights as an excuse to march into a country guns blazing and try to impose peace and democracy, as if that ever works. Human rights as a pure and untainted concept, however, looses a lot of it's meaning for me if I start thinking of it simply as a construct of the West. The solution, then, would probably be a more inclusive discourse, one that includes minority groups and refugees and countries other than the West. But would any agreement ever be reached? And if so, would it be respected?
I'm starting to feel terribly disillusioned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)