The 500 Year Fight

This week’s movie Cocalero was not just about Evo Morales as a presidential candidate but also about the Coca farmer’s union that helped to back him up. This movie became even more interesting when compared to the movie from last week Our Brand Is Crisis, about Guni another presidential candidate. It was interesting to see how they both ran their campaigns. On the surface level the watcher receives the message that Evo is the indigenous honest figure while Guni was trying to twist the people with his multinational strategists. Through the movie we learn of Evo’s background and also the fight to keep alive the Coca leaf industry.

           

“The pilgrimage became an aperture through which to exhibit indigenous collective political identity and national distinctiveness.”

The Suzana Sawyer article talks about the mass indigenous protests that were discussed in the movie. It is specifically talking about the ones that took place in 1992 in Ecuador. These protests were much the same in the approval they received from other places and the way in which they went about expressing themselves. Sawyer explains this so eloquently by describing how the social movement of united indigenous progress has been fueled all over Latin America. She describes also how the indigenous groups have taken up causes that were left behind by other organizations especially the preservation of the rainforest. But, there have been consequences. One that has been only alluded to in both films is the fuel that protests have given to the theory of the indigenous barbarianism. People of non-indigenous descent and foreign birth see the indigenous protests as them acting out in their nature going along with the already engrained racism that exists in these countries. This was seen in Guni when the strategists could not understand the march that Evo was taking part in. It was seen in this movie when Evo visits Santa Cruz and people publicly call him explicit names. In Ecuador as Sawyer explains the “white” sector saw the indigenous as lazy and saw no reason to give them land because of this engrained notion. But, in response as the indigenous no longer let their political right been taken away they fight against these notions and even go as far as electing one of their own a trend on the rise in many of these countries.

“Drug policies that ignore market realities and coercive methods that undermine democratic governance are counterproductive.”

One of the largest debates that took place in the movie was from Evo Morales’ own Caco growers and the policies that have been forced on them because of the cocaine that results from the leaves. One farmer in the movie had a very insightful quote about what it means to him, he says that it is not their responsibility what people in America do with the Coca leaves. He felt that they were being faulted because of the misuse of the leaves. The last scene of the movie actually shows three women chewing the leaves, which is what the original purpose for the leaves was. Evo even describes to the military how a Harvard study has said that this is very healthy for them to do. Kenneth Lehman describes in the chapter from his book what should be done to combat illicit drug use but also not destroying indigenous livelihood and the infrastructure of Latin American countries. He says that they must be patient and begin with open dialogue. This could then avoid human rights violations also. The scene in the movie where the soldiers are ripping up the plants shows the current policy of how they are stopping the producing of cocaine. But this is not an answer. What this has created is fuel for an already marginalized sector of society to become politically active after 500 years of discontent.

It’s been a great semester,

Mattea Sanders

Our Brand is Deception

“For better or worse, neoliberalism-with a familiar emphasis on free trade, export production, and the doctrine of comparative advantage-reigned supreme in Latin America at the turn of the third millennium.”

This week’s movie “Our Brand Is Crisis” was important in explaining two policies that relate to the latest developments in Latin America. These are the United States continued blind influence on the region with no thought to the effect on the actual people. Also the other development is that the people in Latin America especially the indigenous were no longer willing to accept the status quo and were standing up against their oppressors. This neoliberalism that is talked about in John Charles Chasteen’s book “Born in Blood and Fire” had an urgent flare in Latin America. The policy was fueled in more by the United States that agreed with the policy. So how did an area fueled in nationalistic ideologies become so globalist?

To answer those questions one has to look at closer at the actual people being effected and participating. One sector of society was benefitting, the middle class and above. But, in reflection there was a whole portion of society mostly the indigenous that had not forgotten their nationalistic roots and were not willing to go along with the cogs of the neoliberal globalization politics. In the face of all of this as Chasteen explains, a reconceptulization of the race relations in the region was taking place. People used nationalist rhetoric of the past to instill their own fight for their rights in the region.

One important lesson that the movie and Chasteen touches on is that the United States understanding of the people residing in Latin America needs to be reshaped if there is going to be any kind of positive relations between the two areas. Chasteen explains that the United States sees all peoples of Latin America as Latinos. He shows how this is only a concept that applies once they immigrate to the United States where they become an amalgamated whole under the “umbrella” name Latinos. The actual people of the region see themselves as Bolivians, Mexicans, Brazilians, and so on. To understand this is to show that each country has a history that must be understood and the effect that this still has on their country today. In the case of Bolivia, the United States strategists did not understand that protesting in the street is the way that their people effect political change. In their push towards globalization in these countries they forgot the peoples that were being marginalized. They forgot these people’s histories and their engrained beliefs that they would forever stand for.

“Increasing poverty, stagnant or falling real wages, and a further and steady widening of the distribution of income in virtually every nation has also become omnipresent and largely ignored social context of the neoliberal era.”

In James Cypher’s article on the “Washington Consensus” explains the essential weaknesses of neoliberal economics in Latin America. One argument he makes is that the kind of funds that came into the Latin American countries was one very limited in who they helped and two did not bring the employment that they promised. This is one argument that the people in the movie make against Goni’s own policies from his first presidency from 1993 or 1997. They say that although he created social security he did not bring an increase in jobs whatsoever.

The article by John Perkins reveals the understanding these people have in what they are doing and the harmful effects that it has on these countries. But what is even more startling is that they know what they are doing. They want these countries that they are lending to, to be forever politically and economically tied to them. They do enough to make the highest elite in the countries happy and forget the rest. They willingly deceit these people to make larger loans than they know they can afford. They also in the process break down the fragile government structure in that country by alleviating the people’s trust in their government. It is very much like the movie when the strategists may not know or care if Guni was the right candidate for that country but they still made sure he got into power with deceptive tactics.

Till next week, 

matteavs

“Focus on the journey, not the destination. Joy is found not in finishing an activity but in doing it.”

“The historical dimension in every object, person, and occurrence provokes our questions and provides an important part of our understanding”

If I can say that I learned anything this semester I would say that I learned that historiography goes beyond the Civil War. But the Civil War is still a very relatable example for most things!! Also, having to accept that the sole female in the class makes mistakes in regard to assuming the gender of authors. That slip up will probably live with me for the rest of my life.

For most of the semester I have live in a cloud of self-confidence when it came to writing this thesis paper. I have felt that from my combined previous experience and from what I have learned this semester that I could pull out a senior thesis. I did not give any hesitation to this fact. But, honestly after reading the Yale Guide I became nervous when it comes to the paper. This guide should have had the reverse effect. While it spells out everything you should do it gives great advice on how to efficiently do your thesis and make it a wonderful rewarding experience. My major worry when looking at my topic and next year is my thesis. I worry that I have a good subject and a really great resource of primary sources but that I will not be able to translate the information into a significant argument about or against the War Commission. I would like to talk about veteran’s choices versus the War Commission choices. But I am worried that this is not going to be enough of an argument. Before I had a bunch of good arguments but not one strong one. Hopefully through significant research into the subject I can develop a strong central argument.

“History making and history made are scientifically inseparable and separately unmeaning.”

This semester I have completely reformed my idea of how you develop a competent thesis. I feel that everything I have done before now was not properly done. From learning from nineteenth century scholars such as Carl Becker and Lord Acton; Even more importantly Wilhelm Von Humboldt and Leopold Von Ranke. The professionalization of the academic historical field created a guild and a set of steps to get into that field. This process of professionalization has set up the idea that every conclusion is contingent on evidentiary practice. Also learning about the important shift from great man history to history done from below. The impact of historical Marxism on this. Learning that structures are not the patterned social practices that make up social systems, but the principles that pattern these practices. A historian cannot use ethnocentrism when they are deconstructing a society. Just as language is not transparent, neither is society. Everything must be taken in it’s own context. Learning the methods of how to read primary sources was incredibly important also. Before this semester I always though you just read primary sources without any kind of method. But using your primary sources as proper evidence to a well backed up argument will make my paper stronger. I think our argument about context was very helpful to me. The time period, the structures, the author’s position, and the intended audience are all important.

Another important aspect is learning the object of the research and the subject of the argument. Discovering the difference between these two helped me and will help me to make a paper that has a reason. A paper that is not just information but a well structured argument.

 TIll next week, 

matteavs

Streets Lined with Blood

The movie from this week La virgen de los sicaros, was a very intense look at the recurring problems in Columbia because of the drug trafficking there. It shows what the actual repercussions are on the individual people living there. The biggest way it does this is through generational gaps that show the changing society in Columbia especially in the city of Medellin. The older man Fernando knew what the city was like before the drug cartels took over. He is able to tell the story of his humble childhood. In comparison the boys Alexis and Wilmar show him the city that they are growing up in; a city where the streets, houses, and even more extremely the churches are not safe. The churches are now a place where cocaine is sold and taken. It is where deals go down and people use their religion to kill in the name of what they sell. Where little children sniff glue to the point that there bodies become lifeless. Also to these children who have more harsh experiences than most adults, death is a common occurrence. The killing of another is just a way to stake your claim of what you want. If someone looks at you the wrong way they can be shot. What is the most shocking at the end of the movie is when Fernando goes into the morgue and all of the boys around the same age are lying there. Wilmar has died but before him Alexis was killed because he killed his brother and many more before him. Their lives lost. It gives the example that a whole generation is being wiped out in this same manner of one for another. One death just leads to another. Another very important aspect of the film is the symbolism. One scene in particular is after Fernando goes and visits Alexis’ family. He is walking down the stairs and it begins to rain. The rain-washed away tons and tons of blood. It comes down the stairs and through the gutters. This is symbolic of that every household in the ghetto of Medellin has had cold-blooded murder. They all have lost young men. This bloodshed has covered the streets till that is all that is recognizable.

The first set of documents for this week, which were from the National Security Archive, discussed the United States role with funding and backing the Columbian military in 2003 immediately after the death of potential candidate Luis Carlos Galan by the Medellin drug cartel. These specific documents and the ones that follow show that the United States was only committed to funding the military when they were working at counter-drug activities. The United States was able to work under the label that they were helping to fight the guerrillas that were undermining the government in Columbia. But, there was always specific interest in the guerrillas that were working with the drug cartels. Specifically when they began to attack areas where the growers were specifically being targeted. The United States even switched from funding the government to funding a police force that they felt were busting the cartels more efficiently than the military. The United States was aware of the human rights violations of the army and in some cases was not willing to turn the other check to what was actually going on.

Ricardo Vargas’ article explains how mafia type groups are able to flourish in countries. He explains that there are certain situations within societies that fuel the existence of this. All of the examples that they give are what is occurring in Medellin. One of the parts of this is control over the city that develops because of a lack of government restrictions. The society creates a form of court and execution system develops outside of the one that already exists. This has occurred within Medellin. The system of control has now been placed on gangs that shoot out one another. Another example from the movie is how when a shipment of cocaine is processed into the United States fireworks go off. This shows the institutionalized weight that cocaine as an export has on the city. It was important for the whole city to know when it occurred.

 Till next week, 

matteavs

My Revisionist Point of View

The articles this week are teaching us about archiving and the very important positives and negatives that can come from trying to save our precious historical resources. The first article by Louis Bickford, discussed the preservation of documents relating to human rights injustices in the Southern Cone of Latin America. These documents specifically ones produced by HRNGOs stand in grave danger of being reduced to dust because of improper treatment of these documents. One argument for why this has occurred is because there has not been enough time to pass for the country to really realize the importance of discussing nationally what atrocities have occurred in their country. They give a prime example that it took almost a hundred years before the United States could really discuss its activity in the transatlantic slave trade. One of the biggest dangers that makes the documentation that they do have so important is that many documents were destroyed to try to cover up what has occurred. This is inherent in nations wanting to manipulate their past’s history. Stemming from some nation’s do not want their archives of human rights problems to become available because they know people will research it and find out about it. Also the historiography on that subject matter will expand internationally. Within this there are two camps that have developed on who stress remembering the other who advocate forgetting. These arguments are not new in the study of history. These arguments about the importance of remembering history have come up in a number of dialogues. One part of this facing the development of these archives is budgets. If these government believe that they should leave their pasts behind, they are not going to fund projects that support the progression of the remembrance of their past. There have been strides made in these countries to try to gather these materials but have fallen short in preservation. One discussion that has come up a number of times this semester is privatization. Just because it needs to be kept private does not mean it should not be preserved. It still could tell us something in the future. Another discussion is releasing these documents to libraries and archives in other countries. Some are very unwilling to do this and will be a time limit on when they can have them available.

I have always been very against using online archives as a major resource for primary research. But, after looking at these websites I am convinced that it is a positive move not just for preservation but also for the berth of information that we can get now with archives being on a website. On the National Security Archive the Chiquita papers intrigued me. I was so impressed how looking at the copy on the website was pretty close to having that document in your hand. What made them even more useful than even being at the archive was that it gave a lot of background information on the individual archives. This made them even more powerful. I have seen on other websites how works that have to be transcribed are already done for you such as with the Lincoln Papers at the Library Congress where 20,000 of Lincoln’s papers were transcribed and digitized.

The next article “Scan this Book!” reveals the impact of digitizing books. This was a startling article because I had not thought about how far this could go in a number of years. Kevin Kelly compares the potential wealth that will be in a digital archive to the library at Alexandria. One of the impacts that he says is that no book will be an island. No book is isolated in itself. Especially with a search engine, before a person had to do the legwork to the see the pertinence of a book. Now they can have a search that picks what is pertinent for them. This will also help people to pull sections from different books. Books will no longer be complete entities in themselves. They will be mixed with other books to create interwebs. A couple positive changes that Kelly makes is that one it will increase readership especially on items with very few readership at the moment. The feeling of completeness and authority over having it all in one place will increase. For me I see the importance of works being on the computer but I am partial to pen and paper.


Till next week, 
matteavs
 

Cocaine Cowboys

This week’s movie, Cocaine Cowboys talks about the evolution of the spread of the cocaine trade in Miami. It talks about the many contributing factors and the way it spread from a small trade to a huge multi-billion dollar industry. It also talked about the violence that erupted as cause of it. Then it discussed how they cracked down on it, and was able to slow the trade down. The articles that coincide with this movie support it but also show that the trade has not died and that the United States has taken unethical measures to try to eradicate this problem.

“Washington has slid down the slipper slope of increasing involvement in yet another quagmire in Latin America.”

Another problem that is discussed in this article is when the United States started trying to stop the drug problem at the source. But, through trying to do this many problems have arisen. In Coletta Youngers’ article “Collateral Damage: The US ‘War on Drugs,’” the author discusses the impact of the drug trafficking in the cities of the Andes.  This ties very well into the movie because the main city they discussed was Medellin and the trade out of this city. The other part of the argument that was not discussed in the movie is the impact of the United States policies to combat the International Drug Trade. The wake that these policies have made in some countries has been extreme.  One of the biggest impacts that Youngers’ states is that by the United States having a strong anti-drug military presence in the Andes it undermines local and national civilian-military relations in those countries on a good level. To the local population it is as if their country is being occupied for it’s inadequacy for their drug trafficking problems. It can also make the civilian’s distrust even more their own military because of the types of tactics their military are forced to take against them. This in turn stops the spread of democratic governments after years of militaristic governments. Even worse, the United States is helping to fund militaries that are corrupt and have extreme human rights violations. This puts the United States in a very bad position. One part that comes up in the article that has to do with the movie is that the Medellin cartel was cracked down upon in the movie was replaced by another cartel the Cali cartel. Once that was taken out it became small regional oriented trafficking. This shows that although they are able to get it once, it will always come back. Surprisingly, the cocaine trade has helped the economies of these countries. While not being a positive enforcer of the economy, it has brought about lucrative farming and employment opportunities. This is spoken about in the movie how farmers can make a lot of money by farming the leaves for cocaine. Even with efforts by the US Government to try to put money into the economies of countries that are destabilized by the eradication of Cocaine it still debases the economy significantly. Also, one point made by Youngers is that there is no way to measure success in the war on drugs.

“You will recall that over the years Manuel Noriega in Panama and I have developed a fairly good relationship.”

Another source that was in the reading for this week was declassified documents that show connections between Contras that were used during the United States back Contra War in Nicaragua in the 1980s. What is the most shocking is these documents include documents from NSC aide and Iran-contra figure Oliver North that shows that they had known knowledge of the connections between the contras and drug trafficking. One example of this is that an April 1, 1985 memo explains how two new commanders have either past or present history with drug trafficking. Another even more startling note was one of February 10, 1986, Michael Palmer who is one of the largest marijuana traffickers in the United States was given $300,000.000 to ferry supplies to the contras. This is an extreme sum especially when his economic exploits were very well known. There were also suspicions that drug money was being used to fund these United States backed contras. The United States was building a relationship with Manuel Noriega. In the documentary, Noriega is responsible for taking the money of the drug traffickers and keeping it in the bank for them. Even this alone shows that the United States was either willing to turn a blind eye to what was going on or was not doing their research. In one message sent by Oliver North to Reagan National security advisor John Poindexter he says that Noriega wants the United States to help him clean up his image.

Till next week,

matteavs

Violence is Certain

In the article, “The Heart that Bleeds,” they discuss what occurred after the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement was signed and the modernity it brought to Mexico. One of the main factors about this the worry that jobs will be replaced by substitutes. This ties in very well with Bus 174. As we discussed in class, after Import Substitution Industrialization had ebbed because of the rise of the domination of 1^st world powers the economic status quo that had existed before was reinforced. So that people were still in their social situations that had existed during ISI but their economic situations went away. This intense shift for Mexico from its time under ISI is emphasized in the article “I Saw a City Invincible.” During the time of ISI in Mexico the government took aggressive control to try to stop foreign competition. This was one of the worries that were talked about in the first article with NAFTA. People were worried that foreign competition would win out eventually.

In the last article that I spoke about before, the authors point out interesting trends that have been seen in the migrant urban centers. One of these is that people bring the connections that they had in the country with them to the city. This was seen in our last movie City of God when Rocket talks about how migrants will come and stay with family members till they find work and a place to stay. They also speak about the police and how they have given up on many centers of Rio de Janeiro. This is seen in the movie in talking about Sandro’s mother. In a town of effective police force this threat could have been cut down. Also this police force is attacking the problems of urban life with untrained and unqualified men. This creates such problems as what occurred at the Candelaria Church Massacre.

In the next reading for this week, Alberto Salcedo Ramos explains the innocence of a robbery occurring on a Friday night. The take that he gives is very interesting and evokes some of the same emotions that occur during the movie Bus 174. Like the people on the bus Ramos did not know the rules and what he was getting himself into when he took the taxi. One thing that occurred in the movie that also occurred in this article was the robber trying to hide their identity. At first in the movie Sandro would try to hide his face. This was very confusing and I could not figure out why he was doing this. But, in his mind he still had a chance to get out and escape. If he kept his identity hidden then people would not try to come and find him. This occurred in the article also. The robbers made Ramos keep his eyes closed the entire time. They would hit him if he opened his eyes. Both in the movie and in the article this gives the robbers an achieved authority over the person being robbed. For that time they are rulers over their lives, whether they are going to live or they are going to die. One thing that through the article is explained is that both Sandro and the robbers in the taxi did not have a personal vendetta at first against the people being robbed. It could be said that at the end Sandro had bad feelings towards Geisa because she lied about having relations in prison. But, at first he just got onto a bus of people who he had never met. It is to the same way with these men. They attack him because he seems to be a wealthy man. Because of his physical showing of wealth they almost feel that he deserves to be robbed. But, in the last section the author finds out exactly why they are robbing him. He states that they did it because someone in their group was killed and they need three million pesos. But, through him being able to keep it together and not freaking out he is let out safe. They even give him money to make it back home. What he realizes is that the society that he lives in has created this situation of mugging that the only thing you can hope for is to get kind robbers when your time comes.

 Till next week, 

matteavs

Jorge de Alvarado

Jorge de Alvarado’s account

Pg. 55-59

His account presents a differing point of view than his cousin Gonzalo de Alvarado. He discusses his campaign of 1527 to 1529 in which led to the Spanish colony in Guatemala. This letter was to the King, written on February 26, 1534. This letter is asking for the King of Spain to make Jorge de Alvarado the governor of the provinces of Guatemala that he states he conquered and pacified. Alvarado uses many routes to show how he deserves this appointment especially over his brother. He first tries to correct the wrongdoing that has occurred in the credit of the conquering of Guatemala. He does this by explaining how he was actually the one to conquer and pacify the land. He then explains how he did this with much personal expense to himself. He also is very careful to show that this conquering was not a simple task, but came at much personal hardship. He explains how they did not just walk away easily but had to be very persistent with the natives. He uses rhetoric that makes sure to sound that he is the only one that was ever able to pacify Guatemala. That no one had been able to do it before, and he went in heroically and saved the day. It is also very evident that Jorge is writing persuasively to the king. He uses vocabulary that evokes his honoring and humbleness to the king. He says “Your Holy Majesty” and “kisses your royal feet.” The reader can feel his desperation to receive what he deserves is his.

The letter comes at a very important time in both the lives of Pedro and Jorge de Alvarado. Pedro would come back from his expedition from Peru in a year. Jorge knew that he had a very small window to explain to the king why Pedro should not receive the governorship at his return. He wanted to explain everything he had been able to do in Pedro’s absence. But, he also knew that the state of Guatemala on his arrival in 1527 would not be known to anyone but himself. This was the weakness of his letter is that to a King half a world away, it could not be explained the depth of the change that Jorge had on Guatemala.

This letter is very important for the historical interpretation of the conquering of Guatemala. Before 2004 it was an ingrained fact that Pedro de Alvarado was the conqueror and settler of Guatemala. But, through the publication of the Jorge’s letter in 2004 it helped to explain his side of the story. This version is also very important because this is the first time it is being published in English.

Because of the context this source is very important for not just verifying to the King who is responsible for conquering Guatemala, but also to history. Jorge had insight and was able to see that his brother once returned would receive credit for what he had done. He wrote this letter to first receive politically what he felt he deserved but also historically. Unfortunately, because of Pedro’s connections he was able to leave history with a more impactful legacy. This source is incredibly important to unearthing what the true history of the conquering of Guatemala was.

 Till next week, 

matteavs