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.