Postmodern commentary

Here is some excellent commentary on recent commentary on the events in Bolivia:

Two different takes on Bolivia’s political crisis, one from Larry Birns and Jessica Bryant, and the other from Marcela Sánchez. The first argues that the escalating tension is a result of a pattern of American disrespect to Latin American democracy. The second argues that Latin America showed a great deal of maturity in resolving the problem themselves, neither waiting for Washington nor using the crisis as a pretext to take pot shots at the Bush administration. I find Sánchez’s argument about ten million times more convincing.

Not everyone who blames the U.S. at every moment should be accused of blaming America first, but Birns and Bryant certainly seem predisposed to pointing the finger at Washington. Evo Morales kicks Ambassador Philip Goldberg out of La Paz, and its Goldberg’s own fault because “he failed to be helpful.” That’s a pretty high standard. Why is it in incumbent on a foreign ambassador to help in an internal political crisis? Any time there is a crisis in a foreign capital, should the American ambassador be tossed if he fails to be helpful? Also, how could the U.S. help by inserting itself into a complex and longstanding local political issue? Hasn’t that usually been a recipe for problems? Short of endorsing Morales, what could Washington do to satisfy Birns and Bryant? It essentially avoided stepping on Morales’ toes publically, which shows admirable restraint, given the number of times Morales has thumbed Washington in the eye, and that Washington is ideologically more closely aligned with the opposition than with Morales. At the risk of supporting W, it seems like the U.S. played this one right. It’s better to let Latin America solve its own problems without U.S. mediation.

The Birns-Bryant piece is also needlessly (and bizarrely) wordy. For instance, the phrase “the baleful consequences of the inherent disrespect the U.S. historically has exhibited toward the region” has about a third more words than necessary. Later, they refer to the need to “architect a new relationship with the region that can be deemed credible.” Architect as a verb? Why, when the Queen’s English offers us build, construct, create, develop, erect, carve out, and many other possibilities that are, in fact, verbs?

By the way, after the scare from the marches, it looks like things are calming down in Bolivia.  Evo deserves props for putting his constitution on the table and agreeing to sit down and talk with the opposition governors about the new constitution. 

(Semantic note:  the Bolivian title is in fact “prefect.”  A symbol of the crisis was, in fact, the self-promotion of the Santa Cruz “prefect” to “governor.”  That said, they've already got more power than the English “prefect” implies, so I'll be sticking with “governor” as my translation of “prefecto” until convinced otherwise.  I'll also stick with “province” as my translation of “departamento” because it sounds way way better and less confusing than “departament” in American English.)            

Comments

[Toby]

Latin America showed a great deal of maturity in resolving the problem themselves, neither waiting for Washington nor using the crisis as a pretext to take pot shots at the Bush administration.

This is an ubelievably racist comment. It implies that Latin Americans are typically "immature" (another way of saying stupid, childish, inferior to Northerners, etc.). The comment also implies that if Lation Americans could just "grow up" a little, they might be able to solve their problems.

I'll go ahead and read Sanchez's commentary, but I'll tell you right away, that comment is racist.

[Toby]

Okay, let me point out the problems in Sanchez's commentary:

"But the Cold War has been over for nearly two decades. And while some Washington officials still seem to have a hard time letting go, no political leader in the Americas today stands out as more willfully stuck in that past than Chavez himself."

Oh really? I'd kindly remind Sanchez that Chavez was overthrown just a few years ago by a US-backed, and US-financed coup, and the US ambassador quickly ran down to the presidential palace and greeted the incoming dictator. As democratically-elected Chavez sat in jail, the palace was filled with people on the payroll of USAID and NED, those people who had orchestrated the strike and media black-out that led to Chavez' overthrow.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/29/venezuela.duncancampbell

Meanwhile, in 2004, the US military kidnapped the president of Haiti, and shipped him off the Africa, and US-financed rebel groups were approaching the capital. This is the second time they have backed the overthrow of Aristide since the so-called "end" of the Cold War era.

Now, in Bolivia, the US has sent the same ambassador to Bolivia that was involved in the US-supported division of Yugoslavia. He has been caught meeting in secret with the Bolivian governorns that want to separate from Bolivia (the same role he played in encouraging independence movements in the Balkans.)

So, if anyone is willfully "stuck" somewhere, it is Sanchez, and its apparently not the past, but rather under a rock that she is stuck. You have to be trying pretty hard if you can't see the hand of the United States in all this.

"No other South American president felt compelled to do the same -- including left-of-center leaders such as Cristina Fernandez of Argentina, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, Michelle Bachelet of Chile, and Tabare Vazquez of Uruguay."

Oh really? How about this quote from Lula:

Lula: "If it is true that the U.S. ambassador was meeting with the opposition to Morales, then Morales was right to kick him out. It is definitely not an ambassador’s role to engage in politics inside the country...And this is not a new thing, the interference of American embassies at various moments in the history of the continent is infamous. So I think a diplomatic incident occurred, if the ambassador was meddling in politics there, then Evo is right."

http://tupiwire.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/if-the-us-ambassador-was-meeting-with-separatists-morales-was-right-to-kick-him-out/

"The Bolivian crisis is rooted in political and geographic divisions, exacerbated by the rise of indigenous power in a country once tightly ruled by a white minority of European descent."

This is just hilarious. She kindly leaves out the last 100 years of history in which the United States firmly supported the rule of that minority of European descent, overthrowing leftist leaders and proping up dictators. She also cleverly leaves out the fact that the US has always opposed the rise of Evo Morales, financing groups in opposition to him, running the campaigns of his electoral opponents (Goni) and labeling him a narco-terrorist.

Bolivia can indeed be characterized by what Sanches says above. But it is what she LEAVES OUT that is most important: the role the US has long played in maintaining the status quo.

I could go on and on about this, but I won't waste my time.

[Toby]

"At one point, Chavez's insistence on conjuring up the ghosts of past U.S. interventions threatened to undermine the summit."

I assume that by "ghosts of the past" she is talking about the 2004 overthrow of Aristide in Haiti, or the 2002 coup attempt in Venezuela? Or is she talking about the 1989 invasion of Panama, or the 1996 tightening of the Cuban embargo? Maybe its the 2004 expansion of Plan Colombia, or the IV Fleet roaming Latin American waters?

[Doug M.]

This is an ubelievably racist comment. It implies that Latin Americans are typically "immature"

So, if I say that Mexico's President is thin, I'm implying that Mexicans are fat?

Oo kay.

Also, I have trouble seeing how Ambassador Goldberg could have been "involved in the US-supported division of Yugoslavia" when (1) the Bush 41 administration opposed the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1990-91, and (2) Goldberg didn't set foot in the country until 1994, three years after Yugoslavia had ceased to exist.

Doug M.

[Doug M.]

-- you seem like the type to pick nits, Toby, so I should add that yes, I know Serbia continued to claim the name "Yugoslavia" until early 2003.

Also, calling Noel a racist? Just stupid.

Doug M.

[Jussi Jalonen]

To be fair, Doug, Toby wasn't actually calling Noel a racist.

If you read closely, he was stating that Marcela Sánchez's comment about "how Latin America showed a great deal of maturity" was "racist".

(Yes, I know. Just as stupid.)

Cheers,

J. J.

[Toby]

"So, if I say that Mexico's President is thin, I'm implying that Mexicans are fat?"

Nope, you aren't very good at analogies are you. A more accurate analogy would be if you reported finding a "thin" Mexican as a surprising change from the norm. Then you would be implying that most Mexicans are usually fat.

That's exactly what the commentary above does. It reports Latin American's "maturity" in solving their problems as a change from their usual "immaturity".

In other words, Latin America's problems are attributable to their "immaturity." It is using personal characterisitics of their race to explain social phenomenon. We've heard this before, haven't we? "Blacks are poor because they are lazy and dishonest."

Here we have the same kind of comment. "Latin Americans are poor because they are immature."

It's racist. I'm not calling Noel a racist, just pointing out that a commentary that he apparently agrees with is racist.

[Noel Maurer]

We have just hit Godwin's Law territory. Toby, you've been warned.

Please apologize and reveal your full identity or stop posting here.

[Toby]

OH, sorry. I didn't know that making a convincing argument was against the rules.

Could you please tell me which rule I am breaking by responding to the above two commenters? (which, by the way, called me stupid)

[Toby]

That's what I thought. Since you can't give a reasonable answer to my questions, you'd prefer to simply delete my comments.

The irony is stunning. He who criticizes Chavez for a "lack of tolerance" cannot even tolerate one lonesome dissenting commenter on his own blog?

Hahahahaha! Chavez, by the way, tolerates criticism 24 hours a day broadcast on national television. You might take a lesson.

[Jussi Jalonen]

Hey, Toby? I didn't call _you_ personally stupid. To use your own vocabulary, I was "just pointing out that a commentary that you made was stupid".

I've said some stupid things in my lifetime as well; thankfully, other people have pointed it out to me.

As for your own personal qualities, you actually seem like a smart guy, apart from your confrontational nature and the serious Edmund Burke-complex that I once mentioned.

But, tell you the truth, I sort of envy you. After all, as I've said, it must be _nice to really have something to believe in_.

Cheers,

J. J.