Interesting precedent...Mexican Farm Workers in Ontario

I just thought that this article was an interesting precedent.  Throughout my LAST major we have discussed the rights of workers in Canada, and the jobs they perform while here.  Ontario has a huge quantity of these temporary workers.  The film, El Contrato documents a group of workers on an Ontario tomato farm and the life they live while here in Canada.  It speaks to the isolation they feel from their own country and government, and the very little bargaining power they have in assuring their rights.  I was impressed to hear CBC discussing this new case on the radio.  Three workers were dismissed and sent back to Mexico without explanation.  I'm curious. Were they labor organizing? Demanding better anything? What happened...??? I'll be interested to see what transpires.

Here's the link to the CBC article:

Mexican farm workers file suit against Canada

Migrant workers say they were fired by Ontario farm without explanation

 
 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/11/24/mexico-farm-lawsuit-government.html

the photographer with the author...daniel chauche

I couldn't help but wonder what images this photographer captured as he visited Guatemala with Perera, and what he must have seen.  I feel like his images put faces to some of what occurred to the Maya of Guatemala...How can that ever be accurately documented. I found his photos beautiful by any means. 

Poor Guatemala...

So it seems to me that Guatemala was just another stepping stone along the road of American imperialism...Ok so we know that.  What was the most prevalent thing for me in Shlesinger's comments was the importance of the 'media' in the coup and the power of the United Fruit Company.  Throughout the days leading up to the fall of Arbenz so much was made of the power of the radio, American publications, and propaganda.  Sadly no one is as adept at using the media to extract results as the good ol' USA.  We can see that capability now and in the events surrounding 9-11.  The construction of terrorists and their threat can be considered a direct result of a Cold War mentality.  I don't think we are aware of the extent to which the American media were complicit in propaganda and continue to be today.  Schlesinger talked of the way in which the Voice of Guatemala radio station intentionally targeted women, soldiers, workers and young people.  To me that sounds like the same audience that many major corporations target in their advertising campaigns.  Which leads me to wonder what percentage of the Cold War was really about economics and what percentage was actually about ideology? So much of what we read about the United Fruit Company and their abuses of so many rights are all because of profit.  How complicit are consumers in what occurred in so many places in Latin America.  It has been said that we like our cheap bananas and coffee and good returns on our stock investments that those prices could possibly been the reason so much violence and human rights violations were permitted.  So much of the chapters we read talked about perceptions in Guatemala during the lead up to the Arbenz overthrow, and how the radio stations and papers (backed by the American government) were able to successfully create a sense of panic and chaos.  I was glad that one of the pieces we read mentioned the resistance and protest that arose from the Americans involvement in Guatemala and elsewhere.  Why is it that there is always more power and money behind acts of exploitation and human rights violations than behind humanity?  The comment was made in the Schlesinger article that, "among the poor, the tradition of political passivity always dictated that they sit back and await events rather than attempt to influence them" (198).  This may have been the case during the 50s in Guatemala, but it seems to me that there is a very alive and active protest movement in Latin America that has a large quota of poor or lower class members.
Another thing that stood out to me in the article was the use of symbolism during the campaign to depose Arbenz.  The United Fruit Company came to represent the USA, pink sunglasses implied communism, and dead mules were used to imply successful army attacks where none had occurred.  I'm not quite finished the article yet but I'm wondering about the involvement of the School of The Americas.  It sounds like they may have had a huge impact in what occurred in Guatemala. I'm going to keep reading.

WoW! This is shocking...

This YouTube link is to a video I came across about Guatemala...I can't believe the extent to which the USA intervened in Guatemala...This is a serious violation on so many levels, including so many rights. Anyway...


http://youtu.be/nha9MsSSKvE

A Clandestine Expression of the 99%

I can’t help but think about the similarities between what Rodolfo Walsh writes, and what is occurring in much of the world today.  I think of the Occupy movements, and the structural violence that is driving much of their protest.  It seems that Walsh speaks of similar disparity being consciously orchestrated in Argentina during the military junta of the 70s.  Essential this violence could be equated with a violation of so many basic rights.  Not only were people being deprived of a right to life, liberty and property, but they were being told they should not have a voice, should not bother to vote or organize, or even have faith in their government at all.  They were living in fear.  People should be entitled to a right to NOT live in fear.  Aside from these violations of human and civil rights in Argentina, I was struck by Walsh’s claim that although the international community was stirred by what they heard about torture and disappearances, they could be said to have participated in the structural violence in Argentina, as much of the national industry was privatized.   The CIA had certain military leaders on its payroll during this period, and Walsh explains that there were many international corporations operating in Argentina under questionable auspices as well.  Something I’d never thought of before was the way in which an exodus of doctors, trained medical personnel, or others with the means would have been brought about by a coup where a military junta was instated.  The intellectual and professional capital that left the country would have also been terribly detrimental to the social fabric.  I imagine that those who were able to secure exit of the country would have done so, leaving the country without many of the services it would have most needed.     I recently watched the movie, The End of Poverty, where I heard that the richest individuals and corporations in the world hold over 300 trillion dollars in offshore accounts, far away from the reaches of taxation in their respective countries.  Policies by the IMF, the World Bank, (read: Washington) and even the United Nations (champion of human rights?) are all responsible for the current disparity in wealth in the world. Could much of the international community be held accountable for some of the atrocities and structural violence that occurred in Argentina in the 1970s?

Did the exiles have it good?

Wow what a diversity of perspectives on Argentina and their military dictatorship of the late 70s and early 80s.  I have typically only thought of the disappearances, the torture, and abuses of human rights.  Sure I wondered at the complacency of most of the nation, and what options they had for civil disobedience that wouldn’t have affected their lives, but I had never really thought about the military, and the many young men that were forced into positions of abuse without really having much say otherwise.  Speranza and Cittadini’s piece on the various voices of military men shed some light on what it may have been like in the military during this particular junta.  One line from Gustavo Pedemonte’s testimony summed up the lack of insight, involvement, and intention on the part of most soldiers during the 1970-80s military rule.  “What we didn’t have was leadership, information, trust.” Not that one can be washed of all blame for atrocious acts committed merely for lack of the above, but the feeling imparted regarding the military  was that so many of its members had no idea what was coming  and what would be required of them.  It was about survival, and about having a job. 

The military position was strongly contrasted for me with Perlongher’s poem about Corpses.  Why did he sometimes capitalize the first letter, and other times not?  The lines: “In the hem of the train of the silk gown of the bride, who

            never gets married

                        because her fiancé has

……………………………………………………....!

There are Corpses”

struck  me by their sheer physicality, and also by the image that they conjured in my mind.  It is as though every element and moment of Argentine society is permeated by the corpses that no one sees, but knows exist just the same.  The entire poem conjured so much through my five senses.  Not only was I picturing things in my mind, but I almost felt like I was touching things and smelling things while reading the series’ of disjointed but related images.  Perlongher’s use of verbs implied the sheer violation and physical rape of Argentina as seen or not seen in the corpses of the country.  I wonder if it is possible to escape the Corpses?  In the same way that Mercado talks of Argentines in exile and their inability to let go of their country despite what it forced upon them.  Premising his comments with this, “Nothing could be more anodyne or stupid than to say: ‘the exiles had it good.’” Formed an interesting framework. I assumed that he began like that in order to make the reader question.  I thought that the exiles probably did have it better than those locked up in Argentina.  But he gave me a new understanding of exile, and of longing for one’s country.  Our memories can be powerful.  

Las Casas and the Destruction of the New World=“Radix malorum est cupiditas” Love of money is the root of all evil…

Las Casas mentions that the indigenous peoples, all of them of the New World were considered legally free.  They seem anything but free to me, and according to all of the violations and abuses perpetrated on them.  How much did the laws of Spain govern the life of the Spanish in the New World?  I feel like being in a new place allowed them the freedom and anonymity to do what they wanted, and not worry about the consequences.  The sheer time and distance between them and the courts of Spain gave them great leniency to create havoc and destruction in order to suck wealth from their colonies.  Greed seems to have justified they actions; That and their service to the crown of Spain. 

Through his commentary on the destruction wrought on the native peoples, he shows the indigenous as socio-politically organized, self-sufficient, wealthy, spiritual and knowledgeable.  He does depict them as weak children however, but he also implies their great capacity for so many things.   I can’t tell whether he has a love for the indigenous people, or whether he is just trying to set the record in a matter-of-fact way.  

His writing disturbed me in all its gory detail.  I was forming graphic images in my head while reading.  How strange that so often the indigenous people of various people are called “savages” and barbarians, and yet here Las Casas depicts a scene where the supposed civilized peoples are the ones committing the savage acts of barbarians.  What a contradiction!! 

Also, how is it possible that so many nations ravaged in this way ended up with the idea of the mestizo? What is it about these Spaniards that drove them to such violence, and yet to mix with the very same people they had abused and violated?  He mentions an instance when a Spaniard claimed that there was no problem in violating a promise Las Casas had made to the indigenous in that they would not be burned alive.  This Spaniard argued that he was justified in burning them alive because sooner or later he would have to do that anyway as punishment for a crime they would certainly commit.  Yes Las Casas argues that these indigenous people rarely had the capacity to commit actions that would be considered crimes either by the standards of the bible or the laws of Spain.  He seems to be talking about rights according to the law, and the ways in which they were unevenly applied.  How advanced of him. 

I wish that Las Casas had documented more of the indigenous resistance.  Sure he mentions that they were readily unprepared for what happened to them, but at the same time it sounds as thought they could have done more. If he is mentioning so many leaders of various groups that were loyal to the crown of Spain, wouldn’t they also have adopted some of the firepower and military might from Spain as well? 

education as right...scapegoating, and presidential elections...

I've been following the USA presidential election on and off, and the following article deals with a number of issues related to our class and ideas about human rights.  I'm particularly interested in border politics, and the relationship between Mexico and the United State of America...This article makes me think.
Here's the link:
http://www.elpasotimes.com/news/ci_19022046?IADID=Search-www.elpasotimes.com-www.elpasotimes.com

Mutua...Wow! Blowing the lid of eurocentric views of universal human rights...

I am so engaged in reading Makau Wa Mutua’s article on the ideology of human rights.  Sure, I may be a white, so-called liberal, European democrat, but I am re-thinking my space in the scheme of human rights discourse and democracy.  We’ve been discussing the “fundamental,” “intrinsic,” and “universal” aspects and flaws of human rights discourse, and its associated declarations. Sure we’ve been discussing what is missing from these writings, and foundations of what we arrogantly have considered universal and fundamental human rights. But we’ve only been doing it from a Western framework.  That makes a large part of what we’re reading Eurocentric and one sided. 

            Mutua discusses the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights and it’s formation in 1948.  While we have agreed that there are many elements missing from this document, it is still considered globally, a precedent and standard of fundamental, basic human rights.  Mutua throws a stick in this wheel of rights on page 605 of his article.  Mutua tells us that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights claims to be the “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.”  But in contrast he tells us that non-western views (those of Africa and Asia) were not represented because those nations were colonies or former colonies of western/european nations, and third-world countries were mostly Latin American, and therefore held European viewpoints as a result of the conquest.  I am caught off guard here by the notion that these quintessential rights documents are not as universal as I once thought.  Sure, I can see their failings in areas of gender, environment and, say water rights. But I never considered them to be failing multiculturally, or to be promoting a liberal democratic agenda.  Mutua claims that the doctrine and theory of human rights as we know it is actually a political ideology that may be considered the offshoot of western, liberal democracy.  Thinking like this would make the doctrine anything but universal, and would certainly, “shear it of the pretence of non-partisanship.” (607) 

            This article is like a wake up call to me.  Where are the rights of various countries to the kind of economic and social rights they deem expressive of who they are? The IMF and the World Bank may claim to be working for the “greater good,” or the financial independence and strength, of various developing countries, but essentially they are pursuing a neo-liberal economic strategy that favors industrial democracies instead of universality. 

            Don’t get me wrong. I think democracy is essential, and that perhaps industrialization has benefitted me.  But at the same time, if I want to say I’m proud to live in Canada because we support human rights, then I’d like to think of those human rights as being more universal, and more inclusive. 

            Mutua makes a valid point in saying, “There are fundamental defects in presenting the state as the reservoir of cultural heritage. Many states have been alien to their populations and it is questionable whether they represent those populations…” (641).  I think about this when I think about nations ratifying various conventions and declarations, but continuing to violate what they just agreed were human rights.  And Mutua has a point when he questions what elements of a nation’s population the government represents.   I’m not as cynical as Mutua to agree that governments may be no more than cartels organized to maintain access to resources and power.  But I do think that he makes a valid point.  How well do our governments, in our liberal, industrialized, democratic societies actually represent us? Do we all, equally have a voice? Should we have that voice?

There is so much more to consider in what he writes, and I feel that this non-european perspective needs to be considered in greater depth, and with more legitimacy.  

I'm still thinking about Goldcorp and UBC...Just doesn't seem right...

I received a link to a film that was going to be shown at the Goldcorp Center for the Arts, part of SFU's contemporary arts school...And this got me thinking. Had UBC received a similar lurid donation? So I looked around, and yep, sure enough, we at UBC have also received a similar donation.  I went to the Goldcorp (http://www.goldcorp.com/corporate_responsibility/sponsorship/) website to see what they had to say, and it seems that they are sponsoring a number of initiatives at UBC.  This all transpired after I watched the film, Cry of the Andes, in May. While that film may not deal specifically with Goldcorp, it displayed the wretched way in which Barrick Mining went about manipulating municipal elections, polluting mountain lakes and lands, and ignoring indigenous rights and pleas to leave their mountains intact.  Has Goldcorp done similar things? Is UBC part of the plan to buy off people that may otherwise cause a ruckus protesting Goldcorp's involvement in Latin America?  Then I came upon this Ubyssey article.

http://ubyssey.ca/opinion/goldcorp-raises-questions/

I agree with what Krissy has to say, and am feeling more and more shame daily, for what I used to take pride in: my university.

Really amazing art in some Brazilian favelas...

Just some examples...But the website is worth checking out as well...The artist, JR calls himself a photograffeur...I kinda like that.
Here it is: http://jr-art.net/

Woah...holy rights and fundamental freedoms, Batman!!?

Reading all of these rights, freedoms, conventions, amendments, declarations, charters etcetera made me think of a laminated poster I have, titled: How to Build Global Community.  This poster has little quips that encourage us to think differently about the world in which we live.  Things like, "Think of no one as 'us' nor 'them'," and "Question nationalism," and "Remember, there are three Americas; North, South and Central." I've always liked this poster because it made me rethink my place in the world, and the ways in which I engage. And I suppose that reading all these various charters and whatnot has done the same.  But the difference here is that I came away feeling that despite this attempt to explain that there are intrinsic and basic human rights, some people can and will be denied these rights depending on where they are, when, and where they're from.  For example. the European Union's Convention.  Article 16: Nothing in Articles 10, 11 and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.  So I read this as limited rights and freedoms, not fundamental, nor intrinsic nor basic. Sure these "aliens" are entitled to peaceful assembly, freedom of expression, and the right not to be discriminated against, but aside from that, the powers that be can still prevent them from political activities.  Maybe I am misunderstanding...I think the term "alien" rubs me the wrong way.
   All these documents strive to improve the world, prevent wrongs, empower people, and yet they all give me a strong sense of what I shouldn't do, or can't do, not necessarily a sense of hope.  In fact, and Jon  you may be right, what is the point of all of these documents. What power do they have, and what power do the institutions that back them have?  Many of these documents were drafted, ratified and signed in response to and following major global abuses of rights and freedoms. However, major global abuses of rights and freedoms followed the creation of many of these documents. So what good to they do.  Women still continue to receive clitorectomies, children are still trafficked like chattel, apartheid in South Africa existed until 1994, the worlds largest democracy still maintains and accepts a caste system, and here in Canada girls as young as 14 and 16 can be married to a man five or six times their age.  What good at all are these rights and freedoms if abuses like those mentioned above are allowed to continue and seem almost acceptable to many governing bodies?  Don't get me wrong I love the United Nations, the ideals we espouse in our charters, declarations and bills, but I am losing faith and hope in them.  I don't really have a better alternative yet, and that doesn't help anything.  But like Sara said last class. So many things are missing from these documents, and I think steps to have them be more inclusive, less exclusive and static would make them more effective.  Giving power to remove rights to the government makes me fearful...Especially since we don't have the right to bear arms to protect ourselves from the very government that is meant to represent us...So much to digest.  We need more superheroes in the world to make it a better place. That's the only thing I can suggest.  Anybody have any better ideas?

   

me!

Hi everyone,
  So I'm Jen Gebert, or Jenny too.  This is my last semester of my Latin American Studies major...phewf.  I love this major, and am so glad it exists.  I've spent some time in Mexico, have a Mexican husband, and a half-mexican daughter. She already says "gracias." :)  Any news related to Latin America seems to grab my attention, but I am most interested in gender issues, things to do with the borderlands of Mexico and the United states, and how we are all implicated in global issues and ideas.  From previous classes, issues of human and civil rights have always been a source of contention, debate and interest in Latin America, and I'd like to learn a bit more about them in relation to that area.