Profits at the Expense of Ecology

Document 11.1 is a summary of the court proceedings of Aguinda v, ChevronTexaco in 2011. The report mentions that Texaco dumped production water into Equadorian surface water between 1972-1990 near indigenous territory (378). Texaco, a part of Chevron since 2001, defended their actions by claiming that it was "common practice" during that period of time (378). To say that something is "common practice" as a legal defense says nothing more than 'because my friends are all doing it, I also jumped off the cliff'. However, in convincing the audience it is an argument to try to naturalize their actions, rid them of being spectacular and instead reducing them to the ordinary, every day actions of many. This defense is used every day. It is repeated multiple times until it is widely considered to be common sense. Once it becomes common sense, people do little to try to challenge, prosecute, or even acknowledge their true significance. Texaco then admits that they know the damage unlined pits have on the environment but decided not to improve their methods because unlined pits are profitable. Do they not understand that without the environment they profit from, there will be no resources for them to build their business? Capitalism holds profits as the most esteemed value. But it results in short-sighted actions. Texaco prefers to spend less money now in order to maximize their profits. But if they continue in this direction, there will be nothing for them to profit from! Our parent's generation consistently blames our generation for being lazy, for being anti-social, for being the 'me generation'. I beg to differ! If there is one generation we can call the 'me generation', it would be the generation in current control of transnational corporations, such as Texaco!

Should it be a crime to damage the environment for personal gain and exploitation? Would it be possible to pass a law that criminalizes this kind of behavior when liberal democracy is founded on the principles of the free market and de(un)regulated practices?

Document 11.2 report on Chevron Corporation v. Steven Donziger presents two claims one presented by Chevron and one presented by the Lago Agrio Plaintiffs. The LAP representatives claimed that the poor, indigenous people of the rain forest cannot be properly represented nor sued in New York. Chevron claims that Ecuador's judiciary system is corrupt, thus it cannot provide adequate forum for the trial (388). The report then goes on to explore these claims. It addresess LAP's claim in a few sentences and then devotes 5 1/2 pages to giving context for Chevron's claim. It concludes that Ecuador's judicial system should be deemed as inadequate due to its corrupt nature. He states that the judges who do not rule in favor of the president are at risk of being met with "public condemnation, removal from office, and even criminal prosecution" (393), He also mentions the factoid, "Ecuador was ranked in the lowest eight percent of the economies studied with respect to 'Rule of law'".

Has the author sufficiently addressed the indigenous concerns? Was he right to end the conversation of the LAP's claim on the fact that indigenous people of Ecuador sued in the United States in the past? Is the report obscuring evidence that could back up their claim?

Further Readings on Dawson, Chapter 1: "Independence Narratives, Past and Present"

The independence narratives of Simón Bolívar and José Martí are crucial to the understanding of modern politics in Latin America. Their visions of independent nations in solidarity against Spanish imperial control is reflected in Hugo Chávez's and Fidel Castro's struggle for autonomy from the United States and domestic dictators. These populist leaders call on independence heroes to strengthen their narratives and maintain their power. By way of this process, the legacies of Bolívar and Martí are kept alive. All four of these individuals are highly controversial, therefore the framing of the media's perspective of them is essential to criticize.

Source 1: Post, Jerrold M. "“El Fenomeno Chavez:” Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Modern Day Bolivar."The Counterproliferation Papers 39 (2007): ii-38. Print.

            "El Fenomeno Chavez" is a report by Jerrold Post, a professor of political psychology at the George Washington University in the United States. It is a fifty page document analyzing Hugo Chávez's invocation of Simón Bolívar as the president of Venezuela. It is heavily bias towards the American media's representation of Chávez as a dictator of a non-democratic nation from the far left. However, the document gives an enlightening analysis of the psychological manipulation Chávez arguably subjected the Venezuelan public by calling on Latin America's most esteemed independence war hero, Simón Bolívar.

            Chávez is framed by Post as a manipulative political mastermind. One who knew very well the popular support he would receive by channeling Bolívar. He is painted as a unilateral leader that silenced opposition parties by revising the constitution and creating his personal media mediums, such as his own TV show. Post argues that Chávez managed to manipulate the public, violate the constitution, pass undemocratic laws, and maintain presidency by masking his actions with his charismatic personality and his advocacy for the poor. Post makes a direct attack at this "myth" by diagnosing him as having a narcissistic personality. He sharply states:

Chavez is an authoritarian narcissistic leader who has dreams of glory, and can be overly sensitive to criticism. The arrogant certainty conveyed in his public pronouncements is very appealing to his followers. But under this grandiose facade, as is typical with    narcissistic personalities, is extreme insecurity. (12)

Therefore, due to Chávez's psychological condition, he blames others for his own mal-doing. By stating the above not only does Post undermine Chávez's charm, but he undermines his political stance against the United States, the significance of the Bolivarian Revolution and his competency as a leader. He frames Chávez's position as a symptom of his psychological problem; a consequence of his mental capacity and not a validated revolutionary struggle against imperial powers. Chávez is, thus, rendered as an inadequate leader and his criticisms of the States as ludicrous.   

            At the general assembly of the United Nations in 2007, Chávez “ [referred] to President George W. Bush who had addressed the U.N. general assembly the day before, stated, 'The devil came here yesterday [. . .] And it smells of sulfur still today.' [. . .] He also stated that the United States was “the first enemy” of its people” (26-27). There is a resemblance between Chávez's passage and the following passage from Bolíva's popular “Jamaican Letter” written in 1815. Bolívar writes, “We have already seen the light, and it is not our desire to be thrust back into darkness. The chains have been broken; we have been freed, and now our enemies [Spain] seek to enslave us anew” (doc 1.1 in Dawson, 22). They both use powerful allusions, they demonize the hegemonic power and Other it as the enemy of the state. Post captures Chavez's use of rhetoric as a strategy to embezzle and awe to increase enthusiasm: “Chavez has cultivated a larger-than-life self-image, approaching messianic proportions, yet is not out of touch with political reality. However, at times he seems to become captive of his own inflammatory rhetoric” (12).  

            Chávez's success is due to his crafting of his self as an image, an ideal, an idea backed by military action and supported by populist legacy. He is able to do this by channeling the idea of Bolívar. Hugo Chávez intentionally embodied Simón Bolívar's personality and ideologies to help him rise to and maintain power for 14 years (2). Jerrold Post puts it in harsher terms:

Hugo Chavez is a skilled political manipulator, who is adroitly Machiavellian. His continual emphasis of his mission of championing of Bolivarian ideals, his oft stated pride in his being a mestizo, and his continuing emphasis on his own roots in poverty is employed to maintain his hold on power. (15)

It is predominately Chávez's active adoption of Bolívar's personable personality traits, political ambitions and ideologies, deft ability to entertain, and legacy that wielded Chávez's popularity among the members of the Bolivarian cult. Chávez's  invocation of Bolívar is not Bolívar as a man in his exclusivity, but as an idea that can be used as a political tool for ulterior motives.

Source 2: Castro, Fidel. "Excerpts from "History Will Absolve Me"" Trans. Richard Slatta. (n.d.): n. pag. College Cengage. Web. <http://college.cengage.com/history/world/keen/latin_america/8e/assets/students/sources/pdfs/87_fidel_castro.pdf>.

            In October 1953, Fidel Castro gave a four hour speech in his own defense after the attacks on the Moncada Barracks. Castro’s defense was an attempt to attach his name to the great independence hero of his country, José Martí. It was arguably successful given that he became the Prime Minister of Cuba and remained so until his health deemed him incapable. This speech makes it clear that he is against the Batista dictatorship and their neglect of the poor agricultural inhabitants of Cuba. Castro stresses the importance of equal access to education and land rights. It reads like a manifesto for the revolution he advocates and the rights of the people. But, most importantly, he stresses the required solidarity of all citizens of Cuba, and the locked potential of the country (nature and state).  

            In the sixth enumerated revolutionary law, Castro states:

Furthermore, it was to be declared that Cuban policy in the Americas would be one of close solidarity with the democratic peoples of this continent, and that those politically persecuted by bloody tyrants opposing our sister nations would find generous asylum, brotherhood and bread in the land of Martí; not the persecution and treason they find today. Cuba should be the bulwark of liberty and not a shameful link in the chain of despotism. (5)

Castro is advocating for Cuba's rightful place to be that of the liberators and upholders of democracy for Latin American nations. He is drawing upon Martí's more succinct and poetical call from "Our America", "Let the world be grafted onto our republics, but we must be the trunk" (doc 1.2 in Dawson, 27).  Castro speaks to Cuba as the "land of Martí". While Martí referred to Cuba as the land of those who inhabit it and as the spirit of the nation, Castro has taken Martí and made him into the embodiment of his ideas. Thus, the "the land of Martí" refers to the independent, fully flourished, and local perseverance of the land and its people. Castro continues, "The greatness and prosperity of our country depends on the healthy and vigorous rural population that loves the land and knows how to till it, within the framework of a State that protects and guides them" (5). This echoes Marti's powerful phrase, "Let the heart’s fires unfreeze all that is motionless in America, and let the country’s natural blood surge and throb through its veins!" (Dawson, 29). Martí, here, is summoning the local, national potential of the land and those who are most intimitate with it, the farmers, to rise and become active in their own production, as Castro does in his words.

            Castro has a sincere devotion to Martí revolutionary struggle and has channeled in his own revolution. He perceives his efforts as a fulfillment of Martí's cause. The attack on Batista of which he is being charged were valiant acts of heroism in his name and wishes to be commemorated as such. Castro ends his speech with “Condemn me, it does not matter. History will absolve me!” (6). This speech is more than just a defense, it his successful attempt to win over the people by channeling a national independence hero from Cuban history. 

Hear Our Cries

The first video 10.1 "Madres" was heart wrenching for me to watch. Las Madres de Playa de Mayo have stood in front of La Casa Rosada (the equivalent of the white house in Argentina) from 1977 to 2006 demanding to know where their children are and the status of their lives. My parents missed being taken themselves by a slim margin given their age during the dictatorship that held the nation in terror from 1976 to 1983. Both of them have told me of horrific stories. When my mother was in school, it was locked down because men carrying guns had entered and demanded everyone to stand silently in a straight line. She observed that these men moved like trained military of the state. My father was detained while on his way to a nightclub. He was frightened because he had forgotten his ID. Thankfully, something more important came up and they let them go before they checked asked my dad for his identification. In the period of the dictatorship, everyone was forced to bring their identification everywhere they went. This was a time of high surveillance and the country still wreaks of it. In my parents home-city, Córdoba, they have tried remodeling the buildings the military used to occupy. Turning their head quarters to a museum, turning the women's prison into a luxurious dinning and art center. However, when you walk those streets the terror still lingers. And it lingers across generations. I, who wasn't even born at the time, feel the terror when I see not police officers in their everyday attire, but when they assume their protest management outfits, with their helmets and guards, I become petrified. My grandparents were the lucky ones, many mothers were robbed of their children. 

How can the people of a nation trust their government after having been terrorized by those who vouch to keep them safe? How can mothers forget the pain that the nation they are taught to love took away their children? 

The dirty wars foresaken the lives of these children and the cries of their mothers.  The absence of their bodies, crucial to the process of mourning, has left them in despair, and in a traumatic state where progress is impossible. Mourning creates a spiral in which time does not seem to pass and their lives come to a halt. The mothers in 10.1 and the citizens of Mexico (10.8) cry for solidarity "to unite to create an agenda that unites the nation and believes in a state of real governability". (10.8). Because when the lives of those under a dictatorship that exercises ruthless violence based on color, race, ethnicity, religion, political opinion, it renders all citizens bare life. The nation becomes one where law is suspended and everyone is exposed to death. It is through solidarity that one's voice can be heard. 

A similar cry has been made in Ferguson,United States this weekend. Michael Brown's family and those who have stood in solidarity Michael and for other young black lives that have unjustly taken away by police men attacked the media once more with powerful images. The problem with using the media for justice is that technology has a way of letting things die too quickly. In the rapid times of the internet, it is hard to keep peoples attention. The following link is a pictorial narrative of the protest showing people laying down with chalk outlines around their bodies to remind the world that they have not forgotten and nor should we. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/protesters-stage-a-die-in-to-mark-100-days-since-michael-bro 

How can we compare the militarization on American soil in response to the protests in Fergusan, the media's spin on the shooting, and the response of the mourners of Brown's death to this weeks readings?

Terror, Violence and the Nation in "Peru in an Age of Terror"

The key words in these documents is terror and violence. Through the terror created by decentralized violence, people can be manipulated, and changes can take place. "The Massacre" by Mario Vargas Llosa reports on how the massacre of 8 journalists in 1983 were conceived through the fear that they were enemies. Terror makes people erratic. It distorts their judgement and makes it harder to trust others. El Diario's interview of Chairman Gonzalo in "The Interview of the Century" tells his conviction that violence is the only means one can achieve total revolution and complete change. He says, "With regard to violence we start from the principle established by Chairman Mao Tsetung: violence, that is the need for revolutionary violence, is a universal law with no exception. Revolutionary violence is what allows us to resolve fundamental contradictions by means of an army, through people's war" (240). His use of "people's war" poses the question, 'who is included in the word people?'. He strategically using the word people when speaking about revolution to imply that the revolution is for the betterment of the nation and the people within it. However, the first document (9.1) shows how the "people", typically assumed to be the peasant, general population are scared of the Senderistas (the party of which he supports). It is interesting to read this in light of Llosa's cautionary statement in the last paragraph of the excerpt in which she states, "The story of the eight journalists reveals how vulnerable democracy is in Latin America and how easily it dies under military or Marxist-Leninist dictatorship"(240). Additionally, Gonzalo's interview justifies upholding power through violent "terrorism".

Gonzalo goes on to say that "Lenin taught us that the times had changed, that the bomb had become a weapon of combat for our class, for the people, that we're talking about is no longer a conspiracy, an isolated individual act, but the actions of a Party, with a plan, with a system, with an army. So, where is the imputed terrorism? It's pure slander" (241). It is unclear to whom he is referring to as 'us' and to whom he is referring to as 'them'. However, it is clear that Gonzalo has been accused of being a terrorist and thus he argues in his defense that how can he be a terrorist when the bombs they use are not individual acts but are planned, systematic, and backed by armies, thus they are actions of the state. This distinction has been made by the United States in its relentless War on Terror. When an individual acts in an "anarchic" fashion by bombing people or a place it is terrorism. But, when a state does the same but through the army and backed by a party it is in the name of securing the nation and protecting its citizens. Another layer of hypocrisy has been added when the US, has accused Peru under his regime to be terrorists.

Does this added layer have to do with the fact that these actions were committed on internal soil (within the nation and not on other nations) or that they were a leftist government or perhaps it's something else?

The use of Language in the Media

Sometimes it isn't about what is said but how it is said. The language used when shaping a story is consequently shapes our world view. We often refer to this as how a media source spins a story. The four documents in the 7th chapter of Dawson's text are exemplary of how the media's spin on an event/story can radically change people's perception of said event/story. The first document threads in conspiracy theories and critiques of the authenticity of Argentine's democratic government under peronistas. The New York Times subtly tacks on the following statements at the end of their report, "Two members of the council were forced out a few days ago for having advocated the placing of Col. Domingo Mercante, Governor of Buenos Aires Province, in second place on the ticket. Colonel Mercante started an official trip through the province on Monday that would keep him out of the city through today"(179). These statements appear to be objective in their claims, however their purpose is to paint Peron and Evita as having conspired to be the only party present during this important day to ensure their reinstatement and public support. The New York Times strategically placed this at the end of the article so it is the last impression Evita and Peron have on their reader, thus shaping their perception of the two, at least leaving them with doubt of their support, if they had any.

Conversely, the second document spins the speech to look like Evita Peron is devoting herself to a life of servitude for the people, to raise them from poverty and aid them in their struggles against those who have put them there. It is thoughtfully phrased as to rule Peron and herself out of the group of elites who created the state of poverty in Argentina. The readers are left with an image of the Peron duo as political Robin Hoods, as the saviors of the people. The language in the Peronista report is such that all that is said is read as if it were common sense. For example, "They fully understand that prior to the arrival of General Perón, they lived in slavery, and above all, they had lost all hope for a better future. They know it was General Perón who gave them social, moral, and spiritual dignity" (179). So it is blatantly obvious that before General Perón the people were enslaved and it is also common knowledge that they are free now because of him. The language used in this document is very different to that used in the first document. Despite common assumption, reporting is not an objective act meant to only spew out the facts. These two documents comes to show that the way the media uses language is political, it has an agenda, and its purpose is to persuade the reader to take a specific perception of a person, party, or event.