El hombre Boo?

Hi,

I have not been actively posting on the internets for a while, but I have been lurking. Last night, on Booman’s “Blogroll” diary on kos, I saw a comment of his stating that he has money troubles and may not be able to sustain this blog anymore. I’d like to put an idea out there that might help the site with traffic.
Some regular posters on this site are latinos, and this community, as a whole, is quite international-minded.  If some of us starting posting diaries in spanish, directed to latinos/latinamericans, perhaps it would attract a new wave of readers/posters to BT. If this was tried in a huge place like Dkos, it would only clutter up the site, but here I think there is enough space for a second language. It wouldn’t be necessary to change the layout of the site or anything; only that spanish speakers feel comfortable posting in spanish.

Of course, blogs are the shared property of the blog owner and the community that makes the site come alive. So I hereby ask the proprietors of this site wether you think it’s a good idea, and if you know spanish.

Swearing: the fookin’ sequel

So, recently scribe gifted us with a wonderful diary on swearing, in a funny but soulful Dave Sedaris sort of style.  Soj then added some nerdy comments on that diary that got me, a fellow nerd, thinking about the nerdy historical/sociological aspects of swearing. These are my 1.95 cents (it’s late and I have a big day tomorrow, so I’ll have to owe you the $0,05)
Soj says that the hangups with swearing in english go back to the days of Oliver Cromwell, when “proper” language became a national obsesion in Britain and that was carried to the US. He also says most other countries don’t have as much hangups as the US.

I think the matter is a bit more complicated. For example, spaniards swear quite heavily (spanish television and movies included). But it’s not because Spain was, historically, such a free, unrepressed country where language was free, but because of the opposite.

During the days of Francisco Franco (who, if I remember correctly, Nixon lauded as a worthy and brave ally) language was as repressed as everything else. In the Spain of Franco, you could go to jail for holding hands in public. Not only was swearing off the table, but any language other than Spanish was forbidden to spaniards.

The region around the capital city of Madrid is where Spanish is from. Other regions of spain, like Catalunya (catalan) or the Basque region (euskera), have their own native toungues and have a distinct culture from the rest of Spain, as well as a desire to be a country of their own. At the same time that Franco violently repressed the urge to secede he violently repressed euskera and catalan. In Catalunya not only could you not speak catalan, you could go to jail for whistling a song with catalan lyrics.

When Franco finally kicked the bucket, all the sexual and linguistical repression in Spain burst like a dam (damn?). Here are a few common swear phrases from Spain with their literal translation:

Me cago en ti: I shit on you
Me cago en tu puta madre: I shit on your whore of a mother
Me cagio en el coño de tu puta madre: I shit on your whore of a mother’s cunt.
Me cago en la hostia: I shit on the communion wafer
Me cago en Dios : I shit on God.

If you are REALLY pissed:

Me cago en Dios, en la hostia, en tí y en el coño de la puta madre que te parió. (God, wafer, you, the cunt of the mother that gave birth to you)

My feeling is, spaniards wouldn’t swear so much if they hadn’t been as repressed historically (also, this is the country that spawned the counter-reformation and gave rebirth to the inquisition). Likewise, a person who was sexually repressed as a youth is likely to become sexually obssessed (or cold) as an adult, whereas a person who was not will have a healthy attitude towards sex. So swearing, specially swearing a lot, is not necessarily a sign of honesty nor of being a free spirit.

The process that all european countries went through, from being a loose collection of feudal states to becoming a single nation state always involved the unification, and thus repression, of language. Every fiefdom had a local dialect, that had to conform to the new standard dialect of the nation. So the idea of a “proper” french, english, spanish, italian, must have come at roughly the same time for all those countries. There is politics in language; Webster’s dictionary, which changed colour into color, was a US nationalist statement.

So those are my very nerdy 1.95 cents. I guess what I’m saying is that the issue of language is always political and historical, and therefore complicated.

Why we hate you (which we don’t) pt1: Bananeras

This is going to be a series on how the United States, and the first world in general, is viewed by the third world in general and Colombia in particular (the country I’m from, it’s spelt with an O). The idea is for each diary to feature one of the United State’s “greatest hits” abroad (in this case, The Bananeras Massacre of 1928) and a little reflexion on the relationship of the US to the rest of the world.

I guess an explanation of the title is in order…

Immediately after 911, many gringos (sorry, I can’t bring myself to call you “americans” because, say, chileans are american too- but trust me, it’s not really an offensive word nor do I mean it that way), as I was saying, after 911 many gringos seemed to be asking indignantly “why do they hate us?, why do they hate us?” referring, apparently, to the rest of the world, because fear activates tribal us vs them instincts.

Now, this would be a great question to ask, if the people asking it were, in fact, interested in an answer. But they were asking the question rethorically, under the assumption that the US had never in history done anything that would merit enmity from any sensible person anywhere in the world.

The thing is, there’s a couple of things the US has done that merit enmity from “foreigners”. Of course, one has to clarify what is meant by “The US” in the previous sentence.

By “the US” I probably don’t mean you. When “the US” does harm outside it’s borders, it is usually a corporation or the US government, not US citizens. That is one of the reasons for the “(which we don’t)” clause in the title. We don’t hate YOU, we hate what your government and large corporations do.

The second reason we don’t really hate you is because, while many people loathe the actions of your military/industrial complex, we put a lot of our hopes in you. We rooted for Kerry ardently, we sincerely hope you re-join the Kyoto treaty and lead the world against global warming. We’d rather have you as a superpower than Russia or, probably China (though we’d enjoy a stronger and principled European Union leading the world). You have the potential to do a lot of good.

But for that, you must recognize what your country actually does around the world. Today, I will give you an example of how the US fosters fascism around the world:

“Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power.” Benito Mussolini

In the year 1928, in the northern coastal region of Colombia, specifically what is now Magdalena, there was one major land owner and employer: The United Fruit Company, named so because it was the result of the merger between to large banana companies which, in turn, were the result of previous mergers.

By this year, the Colombian Conservative Party had been in power for many decades. As a result, labour registration and worker’s rights were very modest. Basic things like sundays off and healthcare were given to workers trough legislation, but not much more. * The United Fruit Company, however, ignored all the worker’s rights that existed in Colombian law. It did this by using a loophole in the legislation: instead of hiring banana collectors as normal employees, it paid people to hire the workers for the day as a private deal.

In this way, the UFC saved itself a lot of money. It did not give workers sundays off nor healthy working conditions and paid them miserable wages, not in pesos but in scrip, to be redeemed only at the company store. The life of a banana farmer was indeed a miserable one.

With the help of communists and socialists, the banana workers organized a strike. They demanded nothing more than that the UFC comply with Colombian law. The leaders of the strike were Erasmo Coronel, Pedro del Río and Nicanor Serrano, all local banana workers.

The very next day, the conservative government of Miguel Abadía Méndez named Carlos Cortes Vargas military chief of the Zona Bananera. Troops were dispatched to Magdalena to replace banana workers, loading bananas into boats. In subtle and not so subtle ways, the Colombian government had been bribed into protecting UFC’s interests over those of Colombian workers. The governments own regional labour inspector, Alberto Martínez, was jailed because he had proclaimed that the strike was lawful and legitimate.

The Colombian government issued  a decree (decreto no 1 de diciembre 5) whereby it called the strikers “gangs of evildoers” and decreed “estado de excepción” in the Zona Bananera. “Estado de excepción” means a suspension of normal law because of extraordinary circumstances: it basically gave a blank cheque to the military, which had no qualms about using it.

A government official read the decree in the town Plaza of Ciénaga to a gathering of banana workers, while the Colombian army surrounded them with machine gun nests, “for security”.  There were boos from the crowd when the part about the strikers being “gangs of evildoers” was read. At that point, a drunken general Cortes Vargas told the military to shoot upon the crowd, and to continue to do so even after the survivors cried for mercy.

What ensued was the pillaging of all of Zona Bananera by the army. Liquor stores were raided, women were forced to dance with the soldiers and were then raped. Strike leader Erasmo Coronel was murdered by a US citizen who, of course, was never charged. The death toll reached 1, 500. (By the way, there is a fictionalized account of the massacre in Gabriel Garcia Marquez’s book “Cien años de soledad”).

The conservative government gave medals to the military involved, and called the whole thing, more or less, a courageous defense of the fatherland against communism. However, the truth came out soon enough. The military could not hide all the bodies, some of which were later found. Due in large part to the populist liberal Jorge Eliecer Gaitán, witnesses were found, the mess uncovered and surviving strike leaders released from prison. The conservative monopoly on power was broken and liberal Olaya Herrera became the next president.

This episode of Colombian history is viewed as an example of gringo imperialism abroad. Why? Weren’t the troops who fired on the workers colombian? Yes, but the corrupt upper class who allowed this to happen was corrupted by a US company. And that is generally how gringo imperialism works: they find some puppet abroad to do their dirty work for them. Another example is the Shah of Iran, of whom I will speak some other time.

I sometimes see the US as a rich suburban family where the parent, the only one who works, is a hitman who lies to his family about his job. The family sort of knows that he is a hit man but doesn’t WANT to know, because they realize that it’s their father and husband’s job that keeps them rich. People in Colombia and elsewhere feel that the US’s high quality of life (which, btw, people like Reagan and Bush are ruining) is the fruit of screwing over the rest of the world.

If I may ramble on for a bit more, I’d like to say something about capitalism. Capitalism is an expanding force that excludes other ways of life that may be better adapted to a given region or culture. People in places that are not traditionally capitalist may feel, and have felt, that the western world, symbolized by the US, destroys alternative ways of life and imposes capitalism. US capitalism, full of money and unstoppable, replaces native lifestyles (which normally foster less concentration of power and are more eco-friendly) with Corporatism. This is perhaps the main reason for enmity towards the United States: people abroad see their lifestyles, values and  livelihoods destroyed by the advancing juggernaut of Corporatism, and blame the most capitalist country in the world.

Finally, I’d like to have a little fun with you gringos. I want to test your supposed, and famous, ignorance about the rest of the world. Only answer the poll if you are a gringo (and no research is allowed, just answer off the top of your head):

How to win the peace

The more I live, the more I am convinced that morality and pragmatism are not opposed but, rather, the same thing. Doing the right thing is the same as doing the expedient thing. The opposite is also true: Iraq is a military, political and fiscal mess BECAUSE it was a moral mess, from the start.

The rubik’s cube wrapped in a gordian knot that is finding peace in Iraq has a solution.
It involves righting the moral wrong that caused the mess in the first place.

The United States can’t just leave Iraq. Every careless, immoral action has negative consequences in the future. The US aided Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, and paid dearly, for example. Simply leaving Iraq would probably cause a regional conflict to arise, with Saudi Arabia and Iran as the main players. Yes, US troops would be “out of harms way”, but the whole world would be in danger, especially since it is likely that any one of those counrties could become a nuclear power in the future.

The US must end the war, but it must also leave behind a sustainable, desirable situation. That situation is a united and stable Iraq that can serve as a buffer between Shia and Sunni countries in the region (as was the case with Saddam Hussein).  

How can this be done? As I said, a great moral wrong was commited going into Iraq; it must be righted with great moral clarity.

Simply put, the US went into Iraq for profit. George Bush and his minions are not neocon ideologues trying to prolong the US empire, nor are they religious fanatics attempting to bring about armageddon. The Bush cabal is not noble enough to fight for ideals, however misguided they may be. George Bush and his cronies started this war because they were after the Iraqi oil.

Peace in Iraq can be achieved by giving up the oil. That’s right. Iraqi youth fight in militias partly because there is no other dignified alternative for them. Everybody wants to live in peace and prosperity, but such an option is not available to Iraqis, who have no choice but to fight or become sitting ducks.

The different factions of Iraq could unite if a dignified and peaceful life were offered to them. Such a life can by nationalizing petroleoum. This would be the plan:

  • Create a loose federartion of states along the lines of religious affiliations, so that only foreign affairs and an army, designed for protection, not invasion, is handled by the federal government. Matters of law, morality, etc are decided by each state, but foreign policy is centralized, and handled by an executive power divided in three: a Sunni, a Shia and a Kurd (a similar system exists in Lebannon)
  • Nationalize petroleum so that profits are divided evenly between the PEOPLE. The profits must not be handled by the state but given as an allowance to all Iraquis.
  • Iraquis are free to determine the price of the oil, and have no commitments to any foreign petroleum company, but rather have a national petroleum company (like Venezuela’s PDVSA)

The US would make this offer (which would involve changing the Iraqi constitution) in exchange for cessation of hostilities between the factions and the commitment of a new Iraqui government to keep the middle east stable. Militia leaders would go for the deal or risk becoming unpopular. If the US makes a frank, moral, honest appeal to the Iraqui people, it will turn them around.

*

Would the oil companies let this happen? Of course not! That’s why George Bush must be impeached, and the people awakened to the Corporatist takeover it is subject to.

The case for Edwards/Richardson

DISCLAIMER 1: There are two years to go and these are slow news days; this is basically for fun

DISCLAIMER 2: I’m from Colombia, so this is an outsider’s perspective. I follow US politics closely because electoral results over there, in many ways, impact my country more than results over here. Somos provincia del imperio.
THE CASE FOR JOHN EDWARDS
There are three top contenders for the democratic presidential nomination: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards. Of the three, only one candidate has proposed a clear, coherent and progressive vision for the United States and the world.

Hillary Clinton is a very able politician and she has a fairly progressive voting record, but she has never taken a strong stand against 21st century american fascism. Her stance on the Iraq war varies from vague to wrong, and cannot be woven into a coherent vision.

Barack Obama speaks as if he had a vision, but often this vision consists of nothing more than platitudes and truisms.  His courting of the religious right, his criticism of fellow democrats, his “bipartisanship” and his tacit support of Lieberman in Connecticut belie that he does not understand that radical ideologues with a desire for complete power are taking over the country. Such people cannot be negotiated with, nor common ground be found. He is an inmensely intelligent man, who is actually right about many things, but he needs to mature a little bit.

John Edwards has, in my mind, two major blemishes. His vote for the Iraq War resolution and his 04 presidential candidacy. The first showed either cynicicsm, lack of judgement or both, the second showed excessive ambition. However, his vision for his campaign, the country and the world is powerful, coherent and clear.

John Edwards is inviting all citizens to make a change for the better. He is espousing honesty and forthrightness as a way to both campaign and address policy. He is re-assessing the role of the US in the world, saying that it can only lead if it regains the moral authority to do so.

This all fits into a single theme, one that has a place even for admitting his IWR was a mistake, and for apologizing for it. The theme is responsability: the responsability of every citizen to make his country better, the responsability of politicians to acknowledge and correct their mistakes, the responsability of the US as the world’s only superpower. Perhaps, with John Edwards the US will embrace the Spiderman principle on the world stage: “With great power comes great responsability”.

Not only is John Edward’s vision honest and clear, it is also dead on. The US cannot afford to be selfish or petty; the only way for it to survive is to become altruisitc.

THE CASE FOR BILL RICHARDSON
John Edwards has two major failings as a presidential candidate: lack of experience and, specifically, lack of foreign policy chops. The latter will be quite important in 08 and beyond, because the fire that George Bush started in the middle east will be far, far from extinguished.

Two people come to mind as possible VP candidates for Edwards who have experience and accomplishments on the world stage: Bill Richardson and Wesley Clark. They would both make great VPs for Edwards, but Bill Richardson has more experience and is a smarter choice electorally (and leaves Wesley Clark free to become secretary of defense).

Bill Richardson’s resumé is nothing short of impressive:

Staff member for the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee
Congressman from New México 03 for fourteen years, where he worked extensively in the field of foreign relations. He negotiated face to face with Saddam Hussein and secured the release of two US aerospace workers. As governor, he has also talked to delegates from North Korea on the subject of nuclear energy.
US ambassador to the United Nations
US Secretary of Energy
Governor of New Mexico.
Chairman of the democratic governors association
Chairman of the 2004 democratic convention.

Bill Richardson’s enormous experience and diplomatic ability would surely make an Edwards/Richardson ticket credible on experience and foreign policy.

Electorally, Richardson would virtually ensure the presence of New Mexico and Nevada in the blue column, and would be helpful in sothwestern states and states with a large latino population: Arizona, Colorado, Florida.

It may seem trivial to non-spanish speakers in the US, but Richardson’s command of spanish is important electorally. For spanish speakers, it was positively jarring to hear the tortured spanish of both George Bush and John Kerry during the 04 campaign. It seemed fake and pandering. That a candidate could speak to latinos in their properly pronounced mother toungue would be refreshing. Even though most latinos in Florida are not mexican, the fact that Bill Richardson could speak to them in good spanish would endear him to cubanos and other latinos there.

So anyway, that’s my two cents on the matter of presidential primaries. I’d love to hear what you think…