Warning: this is a bit of a rant!
A different kind of “Left Behind”
My experience in returning to college has been an exciting and positive one, at least until the current course. Last week, as I sat in class and listened to the professor drone on about homosexuality being an abomination and Portland taking the lead over San Francisco in acceptance of the gay lifestyle and “agenda”, a couple of thoughts rushed over me, replacing the sound of Charlie Brown’s teacher’s voice that I was using in my head to drown out his lecture. One was that many of the people with whom I attend school are living in a fantasy world, where, depending on the issue, they are 50 to 4,000 years behind the rest of us. The other thought was that for the past eight years, George Bush and his ilk have been trying to drag us kicking and screaming back to the 50’s, and I’m speaking of the 1850’s here. Meanwhile, this November 4th enough of us finally broke free of the vice grip and chose the path of progress.
Many Christians I have met are fond of telling me about how the “Left Behind” series of books and films has changed their lives or strengthened their faith and their belief in the second coming of Christ. It is my view, however, that they are the ones to be “Left Behind” in the sea of change that was heralded by the election of Barack Obama. For the uninitiated, “Left Behind” is a series of novels depicting end times as prophesized in the Book of Revelations, with a modern day “Tribulation Force” fighting the rise of a global community led by what they perceive as the anti-christ. Several years ago, my girlfriend’s son brought home a cinematic version of one of the novels, and of course we obligingly sat through a viewing in which a presumably doomed airliner is littered with the discarded clothing of the saved, or believers, dispatched to heaven via the rapture. Conveniently, the rest of the passengers (non-believers) are given a reprieve of sorts because the pilot and one of the flight attendants are not saved (and were having an affair) so will not be leaving the plane to an ignominious conclusion and will instead reflect on the error of their ways and be saved once safely on the ground.
But why are evangelical Christians the ones to be left behind, instead of the rest of the world? Because the bullet train to progress that was derailed with the arrival of Bush and Company is back on track and cannot be stopped unless those of us who had a hand in bringing about this change allow it. Another example from class is instructive. One of the groups (all female) made a presentation pining for a return to 1950’s family values, linking an increase in divorce rates since that time to a decline in morality. Sensing that none of them saw the irony that they were making this presentation at a college at which in the 1950’s only women of privilege would have been able to attend, I asked them what I knew would be a particularly piquant question. Did they not realize that in the 1950’s, women were still largely expected to stay at home and take care of the children and other domestic chores, or that many of the marriages of that time period were a patriarchal sham, held together for the sake of the children and at the expense of the physical and psychological health of both parties? Did they really want to return to that kind of society? Did they really want to limit their choices as women, disparaging the pioneers of the sexual revolution and equal rights movement, all because today’s Barbie is wearing a too-short skirt or rappers wax poetic about killing police? Ok, so maybe I didn’t ask the questions exactly like that. However, months later I still wonder how they reconcile these contradictions. Well, they do not, really. They take a free-ride on the freedoms won by the blood and toil of 60’s revolutionaries, while simultaneously biting the hand that feeds them. How else to explain a friend of mine telling me that she is still making less in salary then the men she works with and is AT LEAST as capable as they are, and at a firm owned by two women! Yes, our society is still holding back the progress of women and minorities, and often it is people within those groups that are gumming up the works.
As a society, we have evolved from believing that it is ok to sell your daughter into slavery, or that a woman on her period should be “put apart” from others for seven days. So why can’t we evolve to the point that we accept that homosexuality is not an abomination? The answer lies in the ancient text that a still large segment of our population looks to with selective adherence to its precepts. The professor tells me that when it comes to homosexuality and other so-called sins, there is no gray area, only goodies and baddies. Well, I say that when it comes to human rights, you are either for them or against them, there is no fuzzy space. Fortunately for the rest of us, control of the most powerful nation on earth has been wrested from those who would make decisions based on “what God has instructed me to do” as Bush said before invading Iraq. Ironically, that very leader was recently quoted in an interview as saying that he believes the Bible is "probably not" literally true, which of course has the conservative Christians who voted for him in apoplexy. The world has been waiting for the United States to join the 21st century, and with our new leadership we appear to have done just that, leaving behind the evangelicals, and those who would pander to them for their votes, in the middle of the 20th century. Make no mistake, the “gay agenda” shibboleth will still be trotted out, along with other chart toppers from the right like “pro-life”; they will just be a little quieter without the reins of power to help them spew their vitriol. Welcome to the new century America, we’re finally starting to catch up.
References
“Bible not “literally” true: George W. Bush” accessed at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24773441-26397,00.html
“Bush: God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq”, accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Friday, December 5, 2008
Share with your brothers and sisters
Sharing
As children we were taught by our parents and teachers to share. “Share with your brother”, I was told, and I have heard hundreds of parents utter that or similar admonishments through the years. So, at what point do we stop practicing this important lesson? Perhaps the answer is that we never really learn the lesson. Or, perhaps we do not have role models in our lives to show us the way. Our elders could have been better at sharing.
This global economic crisis reminds me that human beings can be downright cruel in their greediness. Corporate CEO’s who make enough to live comfortably for a hundred lifetimes cry poverty while traveling in private jets. A flight attendant who had the temerity to suggest that it was unfair for her and her colleagues to accept a 40% wage cut while upper management received big bonuses is ridiculed by the very same managers. When President-elect Obama suggested that we “spread the wealth” he is branded a socialist. Well folks, he is in good company there, because that fellow with the initials J.C. was a socialist if there ever was one. He knew how to share!
How much do you need? What can you do with $500,000 a year that you can’t do with $250,000 a year? I have always been baffled by the sense of entitlement that so many people have. Why don’t you want that neighbor who has worked hard all her life but is down on her luck to have a chance at getting back on her feet? Oh, I’ve heard all the arguments, especially “people are lazy” or “they choose to be homeless.” The fact is that the vast majority of people want to work; they want to contribute to society, and have a chance at a better life. Another one that particularly grates on me is “they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.” Well, no one who has ever accomplished anything in this world did it without some sort of help along the way.
So it comes down to what I call “forced sharing” or what is commonly known as taxation. One way or another, these problems will need to be solved through taxation, or a forced sharing of the wealth. The question becomes who should bear the burden? Right now, the very people who are suffering the most are bearing that burden. Who has the courage to change this?
What kind of a society do we want? I want my neighbor to have a job that pays well enough so that they don’t have to work a second job, with the opportunity to improve themselves through higher education. I want my neighbor to have access to preventative health care, because if they are sick I could become sick too. If your neighbor who is out of work had a job, he could be your customer. Some among us will remember that it was not so long ago that families could live on one income and never worried about losing their home because of hospital bills. We could have that kind of world again, if we share.
We are all one big family. If we are going to get through this crisis, we will have to learn to share. Share our abundance, and share our hearts. Our lives WILL change, there is no denying it. Almost everyone I know is doing pretty well, even in these tough times. We must all do the little things that will make a difference for someone who is hurting or just trying to stay afloat. When you go out to dinner, tip your server well. Volunteer at a soup kitchen or shelter. Take some food to your neighbor who is out of work. Forgo that extra coffee or trinket and put the money in a collection plate or donate to charity. Use one of those hours you might spend on the couch to do something for someone else. It just might be you that needs it someday.
Perhaps it’s a hopeless cliché, but it bears repeating. “Live simply so others may simply live.” Share with your brothers and sisters. It feels so good.
As children we were taught by our parents and teachers to share. “Share with your brother”, I was told, and I have heard hundreds of parents utter that or similar admonishments through the years. So, at what point do we stop practicing this important lesson? Perhaps the answer is that we never really learn the lesson. Or, perhaps we do not have role models in our lives to show us the way. Our elders could have been better at sharing.
This global economic crisis reminds me that human beings can be downright cruel in their greediness. Corporate CEO’s who make enough to live comfortably for a hundred lifetimes cry poverty while traveling in private jets. A flight attendant who had the temerity to suggest that it was unfair for her and her colleagues to accept a 40% wage cut while upper management received big bonuses is ridiculed by the very same managers. When President-elect Obama suggested that we “spread the wealth” he is branded a socialist. Well folks, he is in good company there, because that fellow with the initials J.C. was a socialist if there ever was one. He knew how to share!
How much do you need? What can you do with $500,000 a year that you can’t do with $250,000 a year? I have always been baffled by the sense of entitlement that so many people have. Why don’t you want that neighbor who has worked hard all her life but is down on her luck to have a chance at getting back on her feet? Oh, I’ve heard all the arguments, especially “people are lazy” or “they choose to be homeless.” The fact is that the vast majority of people want to work; they want to contribute to society, and have a chance at a better life. Another one that particularly grates on me is “they can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.” Well, no one who has ever accomplished anything in this world did it without some sort of help along the way.
So it comes down to what I call “forced sharing” or what is commonly known as taxation. One way or another, these problems will need to be solved through taxation, or a forced sharing of the wealth. The question becomes who should bear the burden? Right now, the very people who are suffering the most are bearing that burden. Who has the courage to change this?
What kind of a society do we want? I want my neighbor to have a job that pays well enough so that they don’t have to work a second job, with the opportunity to improve themselves through higher education. I want my neighbor to have access to preventative health care, because if they are sick I could become sick too. If your neighbor who is out of work had a job, he could be your customer. Some among us will remember that it was not so long ago that families could live on one income and never worried about losing their home because of hospital bills. We could have that kind of world again, if we share.
We are all one big family. If we are going to get through this crisis, we will have to learn to share. Share our abundance, and share our hearts. Our lives WILL change, there is no denying it. Almost everyone I know is doing pretty well, even in these tough times. We must all do the little things that will make a difference for someone who is hurting or just trying to stay afloat. When you go out to dinner, tip your server well. Volunteer at a soup kitchen or shelter. Take some food to your neighbor who is out of work. Forgo that extra coffee or trinket and put the money in a collection plate or donate to charity. Use one of those hours you might spend on the couch to do something for someone else. It just might be you that needs it someday.
Perhaps it’s a hopeless cliché, but it bears repeating. “Live simply so others may simply live.” Share with your brothers and sisters. It feels so good.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales and the Bolivarian Revolution: Democracy, Latin American Style
“Democracy is a very radical thing. Capitalists don’t like it, because it takes power from them and gives it to people who haven’t got money.” Tony Benn, retired British MP.
Indeed, democracy is a radical idea. It is also a fragile entity. Its meaning is often abused and misused. It is now celebrated and practiced in more parts of the world than at any time in recorded history. From the various definitions of democracy at our disposal, a consensus develops that democracy is a form of government in which the power rests with the people, whose business is carried out by leaders who are freely elected on a regular basis. The sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, famously defined democracy as “government of the people, by the people and for the people” in his Gettysburg Address.
With these and other philosophies of how democracy should work and what it should look like, we can see that progress in social justice through democratic means would be highly desirable to nations with a majority of their citizens living in poverty. In December of 2007, I read an article in the British newspaper The Guardian highly critical of Venezuelan President Hugh Chavez. It was the type of criticism on display in the article that was cause for concern and made me want to know more about this charismatic leader who has been elected and re-elected, through the democratic process, by a country with a massive population of poor, indigenous people. The first criticism that was problematic was that Chavez is “ubiquitous” in Venezuela, on murals, in the media, in conversation with strangers. A simple “so what” should suffice in response to that critique. However, the author of the piece also claimed that somehow Chavez had overreached when he called a referendum on constitutional changes. He was rebuffed at the polls, despite his overwhelming popularity, and he accepted the verdict as any good champion of democracy should. These petty criticisms galvanized my interest in the Latin American political scene.
Hugo Chavez coined the phrase “Bolivarian Revolution” to evoke in the minds of his people the memory of “The Liberator”, Simon Bolivar, and to define his aims for a socially just Venezuela. Evo Morales, democratically elected President of Bolivia, a country renamed after the same Liberator Chavez emulates, has demonstrated a similar trajectory in his rise to power. With this blog, I will show how both of these leaders are connected by similar socialist movements, how they were influenced, politicized and radicalized by forces both inside and outside of their region, and how they continue to battle these same forces who wish to control their respective countries' resources and undermine their democracies, all the while demonstrating to the rest of the world that the democratic process can work for social justice.
It would be difficult to understand the motivations and leanings of Chavez and Morales without an appreciation for the two men who most influence them, the Liberator and the Teacher, Simon Bolivar and Simon Rodriguez. In the 1790’s, a young Caracas schoolteacher named Simon Rodriguez wrote a memorandum to the city fathers, expressing his desire to see children of Indians provided with free education in public schools, just like the children of wealthy whites. Thus began a sojourn which would start with Rodriguez’ joining a movement for the independence of Latin America from Spanish colonial rule, and would continue in his travels throughout Europe, from which he came away with the notion that Latin Americans must do things differently in order to overcome colonialism. It is said that Rodriguez was 100 years ahead of his time not only in his belief in indigenous equal rights, but also his unconventional views on education and commerce. In his primary school classroom in Caracas, there sat in rapt attention a pupil named Simon Bolivar.
The leader of rebellions against the Spanish empire in the Andean countries of Latin America, Simon Bolivar and his armies fought for more than 10 years to secure their liberation in the early 1800’s. Before taking the mantle of leadership in his region of the world, Bolivar traveled extensively throughout Europe, where he crossed paths again with his teacher, Rodriguez, who introduced him to European scientists and philosophers and to the writings of the Enlightenment, laying the foundation for the kind of advanced political theory that would put him, like his teacher, well ahead of his time.
Hugo Chavez was inspired as much by the words of Rodriguez and Bolivar as their deeds on the battlefield or in the streets. What Rodriguez meant by Latin America doing things differently can be found in these words: “Spanish America is an original construct. Its institutions and its government must be original as well, and so too must be the methods used to construct them both. Either we shall invent, or we shall wonder around and make mistakes.” These words help us to uncover the mindset behind Chavez’ aims for a socially just Venezuela and an integrated Latin America. Chavez was first elected President in 1998, and re-elected in 2000 and 2006, and was victorious in a recall attempt in 2004. Chavez’ platform is based on economic development through nationalization of Venezuela’s natural resources and redistribution of land rights, among others, and attempts to forge cooperation and integration of this and other policies among his regional allies.
Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales are linked in more than just their desire for social and economic justice by democratic means. They are both indigenous people; in fact, Morales is his country’s first fully indigenous head of state since the time of Spanish colonial rule. The other connection is their involvement in a political organization called Movimiento al Socialismo, or Movement Towards Socialism. Among the party’s aims are nationalization of industries and equality in distribution of natural resources. Thanks in large part to his support from the majority indigenous community, Morales was swept into office in 2005 with 53% of the vote. In a 2008 recall referendum, his mandate was solidified when he won 67% of the electorate. The polls were observed by members of the European Parliament.
These leaders are connected not only in their understanding of the historical importance of Latin American independence won by Bolivar and others, but also in their determination to avoid a repeat of more recent threats to indigenous rights and democracy. It is the event referred to as “the other September 11”, the September 11, 1973 overthrow of Salvador Allende’s democratically-elected government and installation of right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, that rouses leftist Latin American leaders to unite against external imperialistic interference (there is ample evidence that this coup was backed by the CIA). The 15-year despotism of Pinochet and subsequent right-wing dictatorships in Nicaragua, Brazil, Uruguay, Columbia and others in the 1970’s and 1980’s are today a rallying cry for leftist governments wishing to entrench democratic socialism in the region. This legacy of totalitarianism and economic exploitation dating back to colonial rule is in no small measure responsible for the rise of leftist administrations in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador and Brazil. These governments all came to power on the coattails of Chavez’ ten years of rule in Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have endured their share of fierce opposition; Chavez’ primarily external and Morales’ internal. Chavez survived a coup in April 2002, again with at least tacit support from the U.S. government, but with the help of an uprising of his supporters in Caracas shanty towns, staged a counter coup to regain his government. Several states in Bolivia that are rich in resources have mounted an opposition to Morales and are seeking autonomy. The racial overtones in the conflict (states where the majority are indigenous support Morales) have caused violent uprisings in recent months. At first it seemed Morales would take a softer approach in attempting to control the unrest, but more recently has declared martial law in one of the opposition provinces.
The Bolivarian revolution is now ten years old. Amid unrest and clamor, a tremendous amount of social and economic change has taken place in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. Chavez’ education reforms have overseen a rise in literacy rates which puts Venezuela at number one in the region in this category. Morales, despite opposition from the elite, has managed a successful agrarian reform program, parceling out land to poor indigenous farmers. One thing has not changed, however, and that is the level of antagonism and interference from the outside in their democratically-inspired affairs. Recently I read an article in which the U.S. intelligence chief stated that Chavez was “a threat to democracy”, referring specifically to his attempt to gain additional parliamentary powers, which in fact went down to defeat in a recall referendum. I would argue that while Chavez may be a threat to capitalism, or multinational corporations, he is not only not a threat to democracy, but indeed a champion of the democratic ideal.
The Bolivarian revolution and other populist campaigns are not just ideological in nature. There is much that Americans can learn from the Latin American struggle for autonomy, beyond that of mere difference of opinion in policy. If more Americans made the connection between how their government attempts to exploit resources in other countries, whether human or natural, to anti-American sentiment and how their tax dollars are spent to those ends, perhaps their demands for reform and votes would take a different shape. In an increasingly interdependent global community, diplomacy at the point of a gun is simply no way to behave. The history of Latin America is littered with the experience of American and European oppression and interference, and the rise of leftist politics in places like Venezuela, Bolivia and others is a direct reaction to that experience. The people know their history, and when given the opportunity, vote accordingly. Dick Cheney famously said “The American way of life is non-negotiable.” If Americans really understood what that means, that our way of life is propped up on the backs of the poor people of other countries, perhaps as a nation we would approach foreign and domestic policy differently. Does the United States believe in democracy or not? If we do, it seems we would support movements like the Bolivarian revolution, instead of attempting to destroy them.
References
AFP, August 15, 2008. Latin America’s left wing swells with new Paraguay president. Accessed at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hqFLYrBs7ry_miqB_KSjyiqy2J_Q
Burbach, R. (2006). Original mandate for a social revolution: Bolivia’s Evo Morales. Accessed at http://www.counterpunch.org/burbach01242006.html
Carroll, R. (2007, December 21). Continent just gets a word in edgeways. The Guardian UK, pp. 8.
Chelala, C. (2005). Hugo Chavez: The anti-elite president. Accessed at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0927-25.htm
German Press Agency (2007, January 30). Chavez a threat to democracy, U.S. intelligence chief says. Accessed at http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Chavez_a_threat_to_democracy_US_int_01302007.html
Gott, R. (2005). Hugo Chavez and the bolivarian revolution. London, Verso
Forero, J (2004, December 3). Documents show CIA knew of coup plot in Venezuela, The New York Times
Kornbluh, P. (1998). Chile and the United States: Declassified documents relating to the military coup, September 11, 1973. Accessed at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
Schmitz, D. (2006). The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989. New York, Cambridge University Press
Indeed, democracy is a radical idea. It is also a fragile entity. Its meaning is often abused and misused. It is now celebrated and practiced in more parts of the world than at any time in recorded history. From the various definitions of democracy at our disposal, a consensus develops that democracy is a form of government in which the power rests with the people, whose business is carried out by leaders who are freely elected on a regular basis. The sixteenth President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, famously defined democracy as “government of the people, by the people and for the people” in his Gettysburg Address.
With these and other philosophies of how democracy should work and what it should look like, we can see that progress in social justice through democratic means would be highly desirable to nations with a majority of their citizens living in poverty. In December of 2007, I read an article in the British newspaper The Guardian highly critical of Venezuelan President Hugh Chavez. It was the type of criticism on display in the article that was cause for concern and made me want to know more about this charismatic leader who has been elected and re-elected, through the democratic process, by a country with a massive population of poor, indigenous people. The first criticism that was problematic was that Chavez is “ubiquitous” in Venezuela, on murals, in the media, in conversation with strangers. A simple “so what” should suffice in response to that critique. However, the author of the piece also claimed that somehow Chavez had overreached when he called a referendum on constitutional changes. He was rebuffed at the polls, despite his overwhelming popularity, and he accepted the verdict as any good champion of democracy should. These petty criticisms galvanized my interest in the Latin American political scene.
Hugo Chavez coined the phrase “Bolivarian Revolution” to evoke in the minds of his people the memory of “The Liberator”, Simon Bolivar, and to define his aims for a socially just Venezuela. Evo Morales, democratically elected President of Bolivia, a country renamed after the same Liberator Chavez emulates, has demonstrated a similar trajectory in his rise to power. With this blog, I will show how both of these leaders are connected by similar socialist movements, how they were influenced, politicized and radicalized by forces both inside and outside of their region, and how they continue to battle these same forces who wish to control their respective countries' resources and undermine their democracies, all the while demonstrating to the rest of the world that the democratic process can work for social justice.
It would be difficult to understand the motivations and leanings of Chavez and Morales without an appreciation for the two men who most influence them, the Liberator and the Teacher, Simon Bolivar and Simon Rodriguez. In the 1790’s, a young Caracas schoolteacher named Simon Rodriguez wrote a memorandum to the city fathers, expressing his desire to see children of Indians provided with free education in public schools, just like the children of wealthy whites. Thus began a sojourn which would start with Rodriguez’ joining a movement for the independence of Latin America from Spanish colonial rule, and would continue in his travels throughout Europe, from which he came away with the notion that Latin Americans must do things differently in order to overcome colonialism. It is said that Rodriguez was 100 years ahead of his time not only in his belief in indigenous equal rights, but also his unconventional views on education and commerce. In his primary school classroom in Caracas, there sat in rapt attention a pupil named Simon Bolivar.
The leader of rebellions against the Spanish empire in the Andean countries of Latin America, Simon Bolivar and his armies fought for more than 10 years to secure their liberation in the early 1800’s. Before taking the mantle of leadership in his region of the world, Bolivar traveled extensively throughout Europe, where he crossed paths again with his teacher, Rodriguez, who introduced him to European scientists and philosophers and to the writings of the Enlightenment, laying the foundation for the kind of advanced political theory that would put him, like his teacher, well ahead of his time.
Hugo Chavez was inspired as much by the words of Rodriguez and Bolivar as their deeds on the battlefield or in the streets. What Rodriguez meant by Latin America doing things differently can be found in these words: “Spanish America is an original construct. Its institutions and its government must be original as well, and so too must be the methods used to construct them both. Either we shall invent, or we shall wonder around and make mistakes.” These words help us to uncover the mindset behind Chavez’ aims for a socially just Venezuela and an integrated Latin America. Chavez was first elected President in 1998, and re-elected in 2000 and 2006, and was victorious in a recall attempt in 2004. Chavez’ platform is based on economic development through nationalization of Venezuela’s natural resources and redistribution of land rights, among others, and attempts to forge cooperation and integration of this and other policies among his regional allies.
Chavez and Bolivian President Evo Morales are linked in more than just their desire for social and economic justice by democratic means. They are both indigenous people; in fact, Morales is his country’s first fully indigenous head of state since the time of Spanish colonial rule. The other connection is their involvement in a political organization called Movimiento al Socialismo, or Movement Towards Socialism. Among the party’s aims are nationalization of industries and equality in distribution of natural resources. Thanks in large part to his support from the majority indigenous community, Morales was swept into office in 2005 with 53% of the vote. In a 2008 recall referendum, his mandate was solidified when he won 67% of the electorate. The polls were observed by members of the European Parliament.
These leaders are connected not only in their understanding of the historical importance of Latin American independence won by Bolivar and others, but also in their determination to avoid a repeat of more recent threats to indigenous rights and democracy. It is the event referred to as “the other September 11”, the September 11, 1973 overthrow of Salvador Allende’s democratically-elected government and installation of right-wing dictator Augusto Pinochet, that rouses leftist Latin American leaders to unite against external imperialistic interference (there is ample evidence that this coup was backed by the CIA). The 15-year despotism of Pinochet and subsequent right-wing dictatorships in Nicaragua, Brazil, Uruguay, Columbia and others in the 1970’s and 1980’s are today a rallying cry for leftist governments wishing to entrench democratic socialism in the region. This legacy of totalitarianism and economic exploitation dating back to colonial rule is in no small measure responsible for the rise of leftist administrations in Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, Ecuador and Brazil. These governments all came to power on the coattails of Chavez’ ten years of rule in Venezuela.
Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales have endured their share of fierce opposition; Chavez’ primarily external and Morales’ internal. Chavez survived a coup in April 2002, again with at least tacit support from the U.S. government, but with the help of an uprising of his supporters in Caracas shanty towns, staged a counter coup to regain his government. Several states in Bolivia that are rich in resources have mounted an opposition to Morales and are seeking autonomy. The racial overtones in the conflict (states where the majority are indigenous support Morales) have caused violent uprisings in recent months. At first it seemed Morales would take a softer approach in attempting to control the unrest, but more recently has declared martial law in one of the opposition provinces.
The Bolivarian revolution is now ten years old. Amid unrest and clamor, a tremendous amount of social and economic change has taken place in Venezuela and throughout Latin America. Chavez’ education reforms have overseen a rise in literacy rates which puts Venezuela at number one in the region in this category. Morales, despite opposition from the elite, has managed a successful agrarian reform program, parceling out land to poor indigenous farmers. One thing has not changed, however, and that is the level of antagonism and interference from the outside in their democratically-inspired affairs. Recently I read an article in which the U.S. intelligence chief stated that Chavez was “a threat to democracy”, referring specifically to his attempt to gain additional parliamentary powers, which in fact went down to defeat in a recall referendum. I would argue that while Chavez may be a threat to capitalism, or multinational corporations, he is not only not a threat to democracy, but indeed a champion of the democratic ideal.
The Bolivarian revolution and other populist campaigns are not just ideological in nature. There is much that Americans can learn from the Latin American struggle for autonomy, beyond that of mere difference of opinion in policy. If more Americans made the connection between how their government attempts to exploit resources in other countries, whether human or natural, to anti-American sentiment and how their tax dollars are spent to those ends, perhaps their demands for reform and votes would take a different shape. In an increasingly interdependent global community, diplomacy at the point of a gun is simply no way to behave. The history of Latin America is littered with the experience of American and European oppression and interference, and the rise of leftist politics in places like Venezuela, Bolivia and others is a direct reaction to that experience. The people know their history, and when given the opportunity, vote accordingly. Dick Cheney famously said “The American way of life is non-negotiable.” If Americans really understood what that means, that our way of life is propped up on the backs of the poor people of other countries, perhaps as a nation we would approach foreign and domestic policy differently. Does the United States believe in democracy or not? If we do, it seems we would support movements like the Bolivarian revolution, instead of attempting to destroy them.
References
AFP, August 15, 2008. Latin America’s left wing swells with new Paraguay president. Accessed at http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hqFLYrBs7ry_miqB_KSjyiqy2J_Q
Burbach, R. (2006). Original mandate for a social revolution: Bolivia’s Evo Morales. Accessed at http://www.counterpunch.org/burbach01242006.html
Carroll, R. (2007, December 21). Continent just gets a word in edgeways. The Guardian UK, pp. 8.
Chelala, C. (2005). Hugo Chavez: The anti-elite president. Accessed at http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0927-25.htm
German Press Agency (2007, January 30). Chavez a threat to democracy, U.S. intelligence chief says. Accessed at http://rawstory.com/news/2006/Chavez_a_threat_to_democracy_US_int_01302007.html
Gott, R. (2005). Hugo Chavez and the bolivarian revolution. London, Verso
Forero, J (2004, December 3). Documents show CIA knew of coup plot in Venezuela, The New York Times
Kornbluh, P. (1998). Chile and the United States: Declassified documents relating to the military coup, September 11, 1973. Accessed at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm
Schmitz, D. (2006). The United States and Right-Wing Dictatorships, 1965-1989. New York, Cambridge University Press
Friday, November 21, 2008
Barack Obama is the next President of the United States. I breathe a substantial sigh of relief. Not because I think he will right this ship in four years, or even eight if given the opportunity. Of course I am relieved that Bush/Cheney will be headed to the garbage bin of history (dustbin is too good for them); four more years of republican rule would have been tantamount to approval of the tragic policies of the previous eight. No, my mind is at ease because intellect, reason and diplomacy will return to the national discourse.
Indeed, this election will be remembered most because electing a racial minority to the highest office of the land was in a sense a referendum on race and how the country views the racial divide that appears to be shrinking. I would also like to believe that the impact young voters had on this outcome speaks well for the future of race relations. That these triumphs come in the form of one brilliant person who recognizes that everyone must contribute to the reconstruction of the body, mind and soul of the nation, is doubly inspiring. The smart people are in charge again! Not only did we elect the right person for the job and state plainly that the majority of this country will vote for a person of color to lead, but we may have also put an end to the scourge of anti-intellectualism that has plagued us for too long. Perhaps we have entered a new era where the "Best and the Brightest" are lauded, not ridiculed. The enormous task that lies ahead requires nothing less than the best we have to offer.
Indeed, this election will be remembered most because electing a racial minority to the highest office of the land was in a sense a referendum on race and how the country views the racial divide that appears to be shrinking. I would also like to believe that the impact young voters had on this outcome speaks well for the future of race relations. That these triumphs come in the form of one brilliant person who recognizes that everyone must contribute to the reconstruction of the body, mind and soul of the nation, is doubly inspiring. The smart people are in charge again! Not only did we elect the right person for the job and state plainly that the majority of this country will vote for a person of color to lead, but we may have also put an end to the scourge of anti-intellectualism that has plagued us for too long. Perhaps we have entered a new era where the "Best and the Brightest" are lauded, not ridiculed. The enormous task that lies ahead requires nothing less than the best we have to offer.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Finding Home: Urban versus Suburban Lifestyle
Many people feel the need to escape the world in which they were raised, to a world where they can find themselves. In most cases, these individuals are headed in one direction, out of a small town or rural life and into an urban environment. The reasons for this exodus are varied. Regardless of whether they had a happy home life or fractured one; whether they needed to escape a repressive community or abusive parent; or just needed to experience more than the area in which they grew up had to offer, these people sought change and were not afraid to strike out on their own to find their identity. I am one of these people.
Some would say that living in an urban area versus living in suburbia, or living in a rural environment, is simply a matter of personal preference. While I would not argue that point, there is much more that lies under the surface explanation for why we choose to live where we live. In the United States, choosing to live in the inner city or downtown is very much a lifestyle preference. My main reason for choosing Portland upon my return to the states was for its excellent public transportation system. Having lived in Montreal, with its phenomenal subway, bus and commuter rail network, I became accustomed to not relying on a vehicle. In Portland, I could continue this way of life and feel good about it knowing that I was also reducing my carbon footprint on the world. In addition, the development of ideas such as “The 20-minute neighborhood”, where building and transit is geared towards citizens living within walking distance of amenities including schools, grocery stores and restaurants, highlights the many advantages of urban living.
Choosing to live in the city instead of the suburbs, which more and more Americans are doing, is very much counter to the American Dream. Since the creation of Levittown, New York, the prototype for post-war suburban living, more than 60 years ago, tens of millions of Americans have considered it their destiny to live the dream and move to the suburbs. It is ingrained in the culture; in fact, other cultural icons, such as the car culture, sprang from the dream of home ownership and suburban living. After all, it is the car that is necessary to take you from your house in the outskirts to your job in the city, not to mention the freedom people feel on the open road. It is all part of the dream.
An unfortunate outgrowth that accompanied the rise of suburban living was “white flight” a demographic term for the trend of middle class whites fleeing the city for suburbs, presumably to get away from people who are different from them. It appears that “white flight” or something eerily similar is alive and well today. One of my co-workers told me, to my astonishment, how she continues to move farther and farther out into the suburbs, despite the high price of gas and traffic nightmares. Interestingly, it is the combination of the end of cheap fossil fuel and the mortgage/foreclosure crisis that is forcing many suburbanites back to the traditional urban environment. The sociological impact of this trend could be profound, as these folks are integrated into city living, some for the first time.
One common reaction to the downtown experience, or even Portland neighborhoods like Hawthorne, that I have heard from suburbanites is “I wish those people would go back to where they came from.” It is when I hear these comments that I am reminded of what I was looking for when I decided to live in or near downtown. I want to be in an environment where my quirkiness is lost in the sea of eccentricity; a place where I can enjoy the “parade of different” on a daily basis. Many who live in the suburbs or the country do not appreciate this aspect of city living, and their attitudes create a defensive posture among urban dwellers. On a personal level, this manifested itself in my reaction to a letter to the editor in the Oregonian in the summer of 2007. A suburban reader submitted a litany of downtown Portland “turnoffs”, including bike lanes, the trolley, light rail and street people. In my response, I refer to the character of downtown life and what mayor-elect Sam Adams promotes as the “creative capital” of our city. Portland’s urban neighborhoods have character, and those of us who live here thrive because of it. I also stated that “I will take street musicians and panhandlers any day over the soulless boulevards of suburbia, with its never-ending string of chain restaurants and stores, all of which you have to drive to because of inadequate transit.” But what bothered me most about the “downtown turnoffs” letter was the dismissive reference to street people; another case of suburbanites seeing them as “those people”, to be shunned and marginalized.
For me and my fellow urbanites, our choice of lifestyle is also grounded in what could be described as existentialism. There are those among us who find the solitude of the country or forest or mountains the right place to find their inner voice. My needs in this area are quite the opposite. How can I discover my true path If I close myself off from humanity? For me, nature is an occasional escape which provides a much needed respite for the weary mind and body. However, I believe there is a reason so many artists of every stripe live in places like New York or Paris. They need to be part of the cacophony of the masses; the tension, vibrancy and serendipitous interaction with the human animal that the city provides.
Also, the close proximity of my urban neighbors, a generally higher level of tolerance for differences and more and easier access to common meeting places, fosters a greater sense of community in the inner city neighborhoods. In Jane Jacobs’ book Dark Age Ahead, she finds the opposite to be true in suburbia. She observes “One can drive today for miles through American suburbs and never glimpse a human being on foot in a public space.” She adds, “This is a visible sign that much of North America has become bereft of communities. For communities to exist, people must encounter one another in person.” In contrast, I have seen neighbors in a Northeast district clubbing together for a community yard sale and marching en masse for a dozen or more blocks to the site. I attended a Trimet hearing and dozens of citizens from areas adjacent to downtown came to voice their concern over the proposed elimination of fareless square. It is my experience that urbanites are more likely to take advantage of their environs to form an active and engaged community.
Growing up in the country was a good experience for me. However, I sensed at a very young age that I needed more than small town and rural life had to offer. I was a city boy lost in the country. I had to break away and look for an environment where I could make the most of my divine potentialities. It is away from the familiar that we discover ourselves and find what is “home.” In my urban domicile, I have found what I need to feed my soul.
References
Jacobs, J. (2005). Dark age ahead. New York: Vintage Books
Trevett, C. (2007, July 2). Downtown delights: livability, character (Letter to the editor). The Oregonian, p. B5
Some would say that living in an urban area versus living in suburbia, or living in a rural environment, is simply a matter of personal preference. While I would not argue that point, there is much more that lies under the surface explanation for why we choose to live where we live. In the United States, choosing to live in the inner city or downtown is very much a lifestyle preference. My main reason for choosing Portland upon my return to the states was for its excellent public transportation system. Having lived in Montreal, with its phenomenal subway, bus and commuter rail network, I became accustomed to not relying on a vehicle. In Portland, I could continue this way of life and feel good about it knowing that I was also reducing my carbon footprint on the world. In addition, the development of ideas such as “The 20-minute neighborhood”, where building and transit is geared towards citizens living within walking distance of amenities including schools, grocery stores and restaurants, highlights the many advantages of urban living.
Choosing to live in the city instead of the suburbs, which more and more Americans are doing, is very much counter to the American Dream. Since the creation of Levittown, New York, the prototype for post-war suburban living, more than 60 years ago, tens of millions of Americans have considered it their destiny to live the dream and move to the suburbs. It is ingrained in the culture; in fact, other cultural icons, such as the car culture, sprang from the dream of home ownership and suburban living. After all, it is the car that is necessary to take you from your house in the outskirts to your job in the city, not to mention the freedom people feel on the open road. It is all part of the dream.
An unfortunate outgrowth that accompanied the rise of suburban living was “white flight” a demographic term for the trend of middle class whites fleeing the city for suburbs, presumably to get away from people who are different from them. It appears that “white flight” or something eerily similar is alive and well today. One of my co-workers told me, to my astonishment, how she continues to move farther and farther out into the suburbs, despite the high price of gas and traffic nightmares. Interestingly, it is the combination of the end of cheap fossil fuel and the mortgage/foreclosure crisis that is forcing many suburbanites back to the traditional urban environment. The sociological impact of this trend could be profound, as these folks are integrated into city living, some for the first time.
One common reaction to the downtown experience, or even Portland neighborhoods like Hawthorne, that I have heard from suburbanites is “I wish those people would go back to where they came from.” It is when I hear these comments that I am reminded of what I was looking for when I decided to live in or near downtown. I want to be in an environment where my quirkiness is lost in the sea of eccentricity; a place where I can enjoy the “parade of different” on a daily basis. Many who live in the suburbs or the country do not appreciate this aspect of city living, and their attitudes create a defensive posture among urban dwellers. On a personal level, this manifested itself in my reaction to a letter to the editor in the Oregonian in the summer of 2007. A suburban reader submitted a litany of downtown Portland “turnoffs”, including bike lanes, the trolley, light rail and street people. In my response, I refer to the character of downtown life and what mayor-elect Sam Adams promotes as the “creative capital” of our city. Portland’s urban neighborhoods have character, and those of us who live here thrive because of it. I also stated that “I will take street musicians and panhandlers any day over the soulless boulevards of suburbia, with its never-ending string of chain restaurants and stores, all of which you have to drive to because of inadequate transit.” But what bothered me most about the “downtown turnoffs” letter was the dismissive reference to street people; another case of suburbanites seeing them as “those people”, to be shunned and marginalized.
For me and my fellow urbanites, our choice of lifestyle is also grounded in what could be described as existentialism. There are those among us who find the solitude of the country or forest or mountains the right place to find their inner voice. My needs in this area are quite the opposite. How can I discover my true path If I close myself off from humanity? For me, nature is an occasional escape which provides a much needed respite for the weary mind and body. However, I believe there is a reason so many artists of every stripe live in places like New York or Paris. They need to be part of the cacophony of the masses; the tension, vibrancy and serendipitous interaction with the human animal that the city provides.
Also, the close proximity of my urban neighbors, a generally higher level of tolerance for differences and more and easier access to common meeting places, fosters a greater sense of community in the inner city neighborhoods. In Jane Jacobs’ book Dark Age Ahead, she finds the opposite to be true in suburbia. She observes “One can drive today for miles through American suburbs and never glimpse a human being on foot in a public space.” She adds, “This is a visible sign that much of North America has become bereft of communities. For communities to exist, people must encounter one another in person.” In contrast, I have seen neighbors in a Northeast district clubbing together for a community yard sale and marching en masse for a dozen or more blocks to the site. I attended a Trimet hearing and dozens of citizens from areas adjacent to downtown came to voice their concern over the proposed elimination of fareless square. It is my experience that urbanites are more likely to take advantage of their environs to form an active and engaged community.
Growing up in the country was a good experience for me. However, I sensed at a very young age that I needed more than small town and rural life had to offer. I was a city boy lost in the country. I had to break away and look for an environment where I could make the most of my divine potentialities. It is away from the familiar that we discover ourselves and find what is “home.” In my urban domicile, I have found what I need to feed my soul.
References
Jacobs, J. (2005). Dark age ahead. New York: Vintage Books
Trevett, C. (2007, July 2). Downtown delights: livability, character (Letter to the editor). The Oregonian, p. B5
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
