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?