Luisa Valenzuela has an interesting editorial in the New York Times.
THE fervent welcome that greeted President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela during his visit to Argentina a week ago was inexplicable to some Argentines and left others indignant. Many here tend to mistrust populism and demagoguery, finding them redolent of Peronism. But even among the wary, a window of hope has opened, with Mr. Chávez as its symbol.
A lot of water has passed under the bridge since Juan Perón’s time. And it was the expansive waters of our own broad river that defined the vectors of force last weekend. For once, the tensions in the American hemisphere flowed on an east-west axis along the Río de la Plata — which means “River of Silver” and by extension, very appropriately in this case, “River of Money.”
The struggle was about energy, both concrete and metaphorical, and equally combustible in both forms. Across the river in Uruguay’s capital, Montevideo, the presence of President George W. Bush caused red-hot passions to flare, along with sizable protests like those he faced in Brazil. In Buenos Aires, my city, on the opposite bank of that river of money, red abounded as well, though in our case it had a very different connotation. Red was the color of President Chávez’s jacket and of many of the flags brought by the masses who flooded into a stadium to hear the president of Venezuela speak.
Unlike the homogenous rallies of Peronist times, the 30,000 people in this crowd came from very diverse backgrounds. In Argentina, the economic crisis of December 2001 significantly altered not only our social dynamic but our semantics. We no longer talk about the “pueblo” — which means town or village as well as people. Now we talk about the “gente,” which also means people, but with a different nuance, derived as it is from the Latin gens meaning race, clan or breed.
The new vocabulary transcends distinctions of class: the middle classes have now merged with the poor to demand their rights. Hence many students and professionals were in attendance that day, not necessarily attracted by the figure of President Chávez himself so much as by the anti-imperialist opportunity he symbolized. We Argentines, who once imagined ourselves more sophisticated, or more European, than the citizens of neighboring states, were brought closer to the rest of the continent by our impoverishment, and we find ourselves more open to the idea of pan-Latin American solidarity.
Perhaps last week’s crowd also recognized the part that President Chávez’s monetary aid played in our recuperation of that illusion known as “national identity.” For Argentina had virtually disappeared as an autonomous country during the presidency of Carlos Menem from 1989 to 1999, the era of our “carnal relations” with the United States, which took the form of spurious privatizations and a fictitious exchange rate.
While many in Argentina would, nevertheless, not hesitate to call the Venezuelan president a clown or a madman, it’s worth keeping in mind that a very heady dose of megalomania is a prerequisite for even dreaming of confronting a rival as overwhelmingly powerful as the United States — which is also led by a president viewed, in many quarters, as a clown and a madman.
Read the rest. It’s not surprising, given our history, but it still sad to see Hugo Chavez embraced because he offers hope against the oppressive hegemony of the United States. It doesn’t really have to do with Mr. Chavez, who is neither as bad as our government and media would have you believe, nor as innocuous or heroic as his supporters suggest. What’s sad is that a continent could define itself so much by their ability or inability to throw off our yoke and finds wings to fly on their own. This development in not all George W. Bush’s fault. But it has certainly developed to this current pass in the context of Bush’s presidency.
Partly, this is a result of America’s neglect, which should be viewed, historically speaking, as a somewhat benign or even opportunity creating development. Latin America has been able to move forward, or back, during the Bush years, without any CIA backed coups (2002 Venezuela and 2006 Mexican elections possibly excepted), Operation Condors, or Contra Wars.
Perhaps a positive can come out of this and America can develop a more healthy and reciprocal relationship with its southern neighbors. And maybe, one day soon, Latin America won’t define itself so closely by its ability to defy the United States…and maybe we will be worthy of their trust and friendship.
It comes a little surprise to me that an anti-American, anti-Imperialist would be embraced throughout any region of the world at the moment. Even without Chávez there were people all over Europe wearing their Che shirts. There was nothing particularly scandalous about it.
It is natural to be jealous and distrustful of a powerful neighbor who is willing to swing their weight around. In the years since the lead up to the invasion of Iraq that jealousy and distrust has turned to fear and loathing. In their eyes we have become rouge regime, worse because we have teh power to do as we like and even worse because they trusted us with that power.
Latin America has more reason to be afraid the the Europeans I am more familiar with. We have often thought thought of the Americas as our playground with the U.S.A. having the sole right to meddle in the internal affairs of the nations here.
People around the world admire Chávez, we might see his as “evil”, “socialist” and “petulant”, but the rest of the world sees his as “courageous” for being willing to stand up and “speak truth to power”.
If anything the rise of Chávez shows the abject failure of Bush’s plan to spread American style freedom throughout the world with the example of Iraq. South America, like the Middle East, has been provoked into anti-Americanism by the actions of our government.
There is a lot of damage that our next president will have to repair before America will be welcomed again as a neighbor and our leaders can hope to draw an audience of more than protesters when we visit foreign nations.
They calle it “Their backyard“.They should realize HOW OFFENSIVE THAT IS. once they do, then there might be a chance.
I had to look her up. Plainly put, she is from the uper class, who wrote for “La Nacion”. This newspaper is one of the most conservative newspapers from Argentina.
She has traveled and worked in France and of course to the US (New York).
Rio de la Plata is the River of Money???? Just cant stop laughing at her ignorance. It does translate to River of Silver, but if she knew, or remembered her grade school history she should know that the river was named because the Spaniards arrived there and the reflection of the sun in the water gave it a silver color. So I would translate it as Silver River.
That she lives in the US is no excuse for such ignorance. El Pueblo Argentino has been suffering ever sicne I can remember. Furthermore, the middle class has been through a process of proletarization. Argentina had the largest middle class in Latin America. Not so now, thanks to the military and the neo-liberal policies that President Mennem implemented.
I don’t agree with you here. I would say that they embrace him because he offers somthing possitive: the unification of South America. They like what he is doing, mlike the creation of the Southern Bank (Banco Sur), TeleSur, as opposed to CNN, and don’t forget his role in paying of the IMF.
Plus, no one has considered the fact that he has Native descent in him. Just like Evo Morales from Bolivia. Just because of that, they are liked. And then, because of their policies.
Awesome clip and I appreciate you pointing out what a crap translation the NYT writer used.
What makes Chavez so heroic is that he is the only democratic leader alive today who has the guts (and means) to speak the honest truth about the Bush administration.
I watched the Plame hearings and even then, when it was obvious that the administration lied, nobody had the spine to say the L word and instead stuck to blander comparisons like “falsehood” and “misrepresented the truth”.
What’s it going to take before a single American politician has the guts to call Bush a liar?
Pax
Easy: they have to be born again. In the oppresive third world.
I must admit there is a little naivete to say that we need to be something we’ve never been vis-a-vis Latin America.
American Hegemony did not begin with George W. Bush – should be no surprise but it seems the need to say it is. Our toppling and menacing of Latin America went on through the better part of the 20th Century. Our late 20th Century neo-liberalism devasted their economies and created a horrific elite/peasant divide that sustained on-going strife through systematic executions and torture – Reagan contras. I won’t repeat the history of that time. We know the crimes perpetuated in the name of righteous American Monroe Doctrine.
Chavez represents – clearly a – so far – successful movement to reunite the indigenous and cultural and economic wherewithall missing for several hundred years through European followed by American hegeomony. The US Iraq Quagmire has provided the necessary cover for change forces in Latin America to come out from under. Power is never innocuous, but it is essential to change the dynamics.
As far as Venezuela or any other Latin American nation not defining itself against the shadow of the USA, I can only say that I agree that some day that is the hope, but it is, in this short history of “independence” from the North, unrealistic to expect that level of maturity. It will happen if the US keeps its “interventionistic” hands out of Latin America, execpt to the extent that the US founding fathers indicated which is for fair trade and good will relations with its neighbors.
Before designating President Chavez a clown or madman, I’d suggest a clear factual representation of what exactly he has done that would warrent those claims.