7. The View from Latin America

edited April 2020 in Environment

Reminder: Zoom today

****Watch Two Worlds Collide on Netflix.****

Alimonda, Hector. 2012. “Debating Development in Latin America” Inside a Champion (actually, read the “Introduction” for the book too, but don’t make a separate reading summary)

Bebbington, Anthony. 2014. “2. New Geographies of Extractive Industries in Latin America” in Subterranean Struggles.

(optional) Sawyer, Suzana. 2004. “3. Neoliberal Ironies” in Crude Chronicles.


I really love the book Inside a Champion. One of the biggest struggles in teaching this class is that what Latin American scholars have to say about Latin America is fundamentally different than what Anglo-phone speakers have to say. Inside a Champion is a critique of sustainable development from those who are living on-the-ground on the frontlines of the hypocrisy of Northern sustainable development implemented in the South. But they don’t just stop with a critique, they look at other ways of understanding the problem and (later in the book, which we will read later in the class) they propose some really compelling alternative approaches to sustainability.

Bebbington is not from Latin America, but his chapter does a good job of tracking the mining infrastructure of the Americas from the moment Columbus arrived to the present.

Two Worlds Collide does an amazing job of showing how this colonial encounter still continues today, and very violently.

Comments

  • I enjoyed reading more about counter-narratives to the usual pool of authors we read who are presumably in differing socio-economic and educational standings than the communities they write about. I find that there is a colonial legacy that continues today in scientific or anthropologic literature. I found the debate around what way to approach 'development' so that it fits within a Latin American context to be an imperative one. The superimposing of a European made, and tailor structure and ideology on what constitutes development and industrialization victimizes many, as we see in the When Two Worlds Collide film. The movie was compelling and equally heartbreaking to see the violence and racism that occurred. The use of words like 'savage' and 'barbarian' as well as 'third-tier citizens' when Lima residents and members of the government were interviewed was appalling. It points to the continuation of racism and hierarchy when thinking about urban and rural areas, resource allocation, and who profits economically from extraction industries. I was wondering how others in the class think battles for indigenous Amazonian land rights will change (for worse or for better, or even at all) with the onset of the devastating fires earlier this year and in the aftermath of COVID19?

  • I agree, @a_hipp- the language used to depict the indigenous people in Two Worlds Collide was devastating and one of my biggest takeaways. We read books in high school like the Heart of Darkness where those types of words are used and it’s thought of in such a past tense manner. It’s shocking, not only by how recent this is, but how it’s the government sending that message to the people of Peru.

    In terms of your question, the alterations in EPA enforcement and the article @julieta sent out about the sneaky new laws regarding fossil fuel protesting in some states are two ways COVID19 will highly impact these battles. I think on the basis of both of those, battles for indigenous land rights will become both harder and more important. In terms of specifically Amazonian land rights, I’m not entirely sure. My guess is that COVID19 can/might serve as an excuse to halt those discussions and focus on other issues that have arisen from the pandemic (I don’t really have any facts or evidence to support that theory though).

  • @caroline22 said:
    I agree, @a_hipp- the language used to depict the indigenous people in Two Worlds Collide was devastating and one of my biggest takeaways. We read books in high school like the Heart of Darkness where those types of words are used and it’s thought of in such a past tense manner. It’s shocking, not only by how recent this is, but how it’s the government sending that message to the people of Peru.

    In terms of your question, the alterations in EPA enforcement and the article @julieta sent out about the sneaky new laws regarding fossil fuel protesting in some states are two ways COVID19 will highly impact these battles. I think on the basis of both of those, battles for indigenous land rights will become both harder and more important. In terms of specifically Amazonian land rights, I’m not entirely sure. My guess is that COVID19 can/might serve as an excuse to halt those discussions and focus on other issues that have arisen from the pandemic (I don’t really have any facts or evidence to support that theory though).

    Caroline, I agree with your assessment of the COVID19 pandemic having the potential to impact the indigenous rights movement in the Amazon negatively. From the negative attitudes expressed by the politicians in When Two Worlds Collide and the relatively slack actions taken to overturn laws after the country-wide conflict, I am confident that a pandemic will be utilized to overshadow land rights. Not to say that other issues are not as important, but the general trend towards ignoring the indigenous Amazonians will not shift during this event. While communities of indigenous people are still disproportionately affected by environmental circumstances, I think COVID19 will similarly threaten them with a lack of resources and means to get proper medical care or preventative measures.

  • I found todays material to be incredibly compelling. I have learned a fair bit about sustainable development in the United States and its many flaws, and then the modification to this model with the idea of just sustainable development to include the importance of equity at the heart of the movement. This idea of just sustainability has been pitched as the golden solution in all of my previous classes, but it is interesting to see that even a concept such as that, designed intentionally to be inclusive, still only caters to our Western capitalistic societal standards. The United States' influence in Latin America is made especially clear in Two Worlds Collide, where it was our involvement and willingness to mine in these areas that sparked the conflict between the Peruvian government and indigenous communities, yet we continued to stay disconnected from the violence which erupted in the wake of these actions. A clear example of elite players in the energy game funding extractions projects and then remaining removed from any fallout that may come, either politically or environmentally. The push from the United States to assert these values of development through industry and proved only destructive, and tacking on the word "sustainable" and even "just sustainable" seems to be an empty and further damaging gesture.

  • @ccstein said:
    I found todays material to be incredibly compelling. I have learned a fair bit about sustainable development in the United States and its many flaws, and then the modification to this model with the idea of just sustainable development to include the importance of equity at the heart of the movement. This idea of just sustainability has been pitched as the golden solution in all of my previous classes, but it is interesting to see that even a concept such as that, designed intentionally to be inclusive, still only caters to our Western capitalistic societal standards. The United States' influence in Latin America is made especially clear in Two Worlds Collide, where it was our involvement and willingness to mine in these areas that sparked the conflict between the Peruvian government and indigenous communities, yet we continued to stay disconnected from the violence which erupted in the wake of these actions. A clear example of elite players in the energy game funding extractions projects and then remaining removed from any fallout that may come, either politically or environmentally. The push from the United States to assert these values of development through industry and proved only destructive, and tacking on the word "sustainable" and even "just sustainable" seems to be an empty and further damaging gesture.

    This is an excellent point about equity and the power dynamics of the extraction industry. The film When Two Worlds Collide also made me think again about intersectionality. When the Amazonian men were protesting at Station 6 for as long as they did, what were the women and children doing back in the villages? Did any women join the protests, if so, how many? Was there sexual violence by the police? I wanted to know the answers to these questions because, in many cultures, women are seen as the protectors of the Earth. In movements such as the American Civil Rights movement, there has been a tendency for men to occupy the frontlines while powerful women back them. Ideas about women's' roles and the patriarchy influence involvement in movements, but I still wished for more visibility for them in the film.

  • @a_hipp said:

    This is an excellent point about equity and the power dynamics of the extraction industry. The film When Two Worlds Collide also made me think again about intersectionality. When the Amazonian men were protesting at Station 6 for as long as they did, what were the women and children doing back in the villages? Did any women join the protests, if so, how many? Was there sexual violence by the police? I wanted to know the answers to these questions because, in many cultures, women are seen as the protectors of the Earth. In movements such as the American Civil Rights movement, there has been a tendency for men to occupy the frontlines while powerful women back them. Ideas about women's' roles and the patriarchy influence involvement in movements, but I still wished for more visibility for them in the film.

    When Two Worlds Collide made me think of the same thing. I thought the on the ground footage in the film was very impactful but I was left wondering where the women were. It is understandable that someone had to stay home to take care of children or other reasons but I think it could have been really interesting to have interviews or B-roll of the women. Equality leads to more sustainable development which makes me think of the readings we did on black environmentalism and how impactful it was and makes me think of how the protests would have changed with more women.

  • I found the reading very interesting regarding the problems of development and the United States influence on Latin America. I thought the documentary portrayed a really scary example of the Untied States' involvement in Latin America and the negative impacts that has not only the native people but also the environment. One thing that I found really surprising and sad about the film was seeing the clear racism against the Native people when they were discussed by political officials or on the news. I also saw a connection between the treatment of Native people in Brazil and in the in the United States. Both countries had complete disregard for following their own laws and regulations regarding the Native communities. During DAPL the united states disregarded treaties and didn't communicate with the impacted tribes. In Peru they didn't communicate their decisions with the indigenous people and refused to compromise until life was lost.

  • @Madison said:
    I found the reading very interesting regarding the problems of development and the United States influence on Latin America. I thought the documentary portrayed a really scary example of the Untied States' involvement in Latin America and the negative impacts that has not only the native people but also the environment. One thing that I found really surprising and sad about the film was seeing the clear racism against the Native people when they were discussed by political officials or on the news. I also saw a connection between the treatment of Native people in Brazil and in the in the United States. Both countries had complete disregard for following their own laws and regulations regarding the Native communities. During DAPL the united states disregarded treaties and didn't communicate with the impacted tribes. In Peru they didn't communicate their decisions with the indigenous people and refused to compromise until life was lost.

    Madison, you bring up a great point about the theme of governments disregarding their own policy. It's unbelievably frustrating- not one government we've look at has been above this. It's some bizarre commentary about the role of politics, it's like you only need to pass the legislation just to please the people- inherently there is such power differences that requests of the enforcement of law, even to those willing to put resources into that, is such a battle of time and money that it becomes almost impossible.

  • I found the intro and first chapter of Inside the Champion simply amazing, the writer does a really good job of explaining how a lot of the Latin American mindset works (such as with the “and now it’s our turn” feelin) regarding issues of environmentalism and development, but also how complex it is and has been through history and movements. Latin America is such a diverse and complex place that is really hard and even frustrating when people simplify it. For example the difference in the economic approach that countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, and Uruguay took compared with those of Chile, Peru, and Ecuador brought a completly different result on the idea of development they had, the ideologies that followed it, and mostly US intervention in these countries for their own agenda.
    @ccstein you named how clear the role of the US was in the movie in the movie Two Words Collaide. I also found it so intresting to see how this involvement is rooted back to 1940s ( and earlier) and was even a key and main participant of one of the darkest moments in Latin American history, which I was very clear about, but never realized on how this also shaped completely how development was percieved in the continent.
    I believe the dependency theory still applies and eventhough it has taken different shapes through times, but at the end Latin America in international relations has and will always have a place of subordination. As the author expressed, this idea of "we are this now to be them in the futue" is false as long as we are in this system, and I think that is what I find the most frustrating sometimes about international relations.

  • I thought the response of the Peruvian government to Indigenous resistance compared to the US was very interesting. Whereas in the US, even though the same racism and disregard for laws exists, the strongest weapon that both sides are vying for is the moral and legal high ground. The Peruvian government, on the other hand, was never willing to give a single inch from the beginning and, when it came down to it, used live rounds to quell protesters. Additionally, the protesters, seeing that the law was being flagrantly violated, reverted to their own ancestral law and did not seek legitimacy. However, I don't think this speaks to the US's restraint in the slightest. While each government reacted differently, both had the same end goal of silencing Indigenous voices and quelling their power. The only real difference at play is demographic: 31% of Peru's population is Indigenous, whereas in the US it is just shy of 3%. I think if the US government had not perpetrated such a ruthlessly thorough genocide in centuries past, Indigenous people in this country would be experiencing the same level of violence.

  • @caroline22 said:
    I agree, @a_hipp- the language used to depict the indigenous people in Two Worlds Collide was devastating and one of my biggest takeaways. We read books in high school like the Heart of Darkness where those types of words are used and it’s thought of in such a past tense manner. It’s shocking, not only by how recent this is, but how it’s the government sending that message to the people of Peru.

    In terms of your question, the alterations in EPA enforcement and the article @julieta sent out about the sneaky new laws regarding fossil fuel protesting in some states are two ways COVID19 will highly impact these battles. I think on the basis of both of those, battles for indigenous land rights will become both harder and more important. In terms of specifically Amazonian land rights, I’m not entirely sure. My guess is that COVID19 can/might serve as an excuse to halt those discussions and focus on other issues that have arisen from the pandemic (I don’t really have any facts or evidence to support that theory though).

    I was also shocked by how explicit the colonial rhetoric used by the president was. It completely otherized Indigenous people from Peruvian nationhood. I was not, however, too surprised. Peru has a long history of conservatism and traditionalism. During the Spanish empire it was the capital of the Viceroyalty of Peru. During the wars of independence, Argentinian forces fought against Peruvian Spanish army troops who sought to keep them from forming an independent nation. It follows that Alan Garcia would not even bother to adopt any neoliberal lies or false promises and instead use very imperial rhetoric.

  • @a_hipp said:
    I enjoyed reading more about counter-narratives to the usual pool of authors we read who are presumably in differing socio-economic and educational standings than the communities they write about. I find that there is a colonial legacy that continues today in scientific or anthropologic literature. I found the debate around what way to approach 'development' so that it fits within a Latin American context to be an imperative one. The superimposing of a European made, and tailor structure and ideology on what constitutes development and industrialization victimizes many, as we see in the When Two Worlds Collide film. The movie was compelling and equally heartbreaking to see the violence and racism that occurred. The use of words like 'savage' and 'barbarian' as well as 'third-tier citizens' when Lima residents and members of the government were interviewed was appalling. It points to the continuation of racism and hierarchy when thinking about urban and rural areas, resource allocation, and who profits economically from extraction industries. I was wondering how others in the class think battles for indigenous Amazonian land rights will change (for worse or for better, or even at all) with the onset of the devastating fires earlier this year and in the aftermath of COVID19?

    In respect to COVID, I'd hope that their isolation serves to protect them. In the long run I sincerely hope that their knowledge of amazonian ecology is validated and appreciated, but I see that only happening when the Peruvian government realizes that they can make more money per acre sustaining the rain forest than destroying it.

  • @fionaw said:

    @a_hipp said:

    This is an excellent point about equity and the power dynamics of the extraction industry. The film When Two Worlds Collide also made me think again about intersectionality. When the Amazonian men were protesting at Station 6 for as long as they did, what were the women and children doing back in the villages? Did any women join the protests, if so, how many? Was there sexual violence by the police? I wanted to know the answers to these questions because, in many cultures, women are seen as the protectors of the Earth. In movements such as the American Civil Rights movement, there has been a tendency for men to occupy the frontlines while powerful women back them. Ideas about women's' roles and the patriarchy influence involvement in movements, but I still wished for more visibility for them in the film.

    When Two Worlds Collide made me think of the same thing. I thought the on the ground footage in the film was very impactful but I was left wondering where the women were. It is understandable that someone had to stay home to take care of children or other reasons but I think it could have been really interesting to have interviews or B-roll of the women. Equality leads to more sustainable development which makes me think of the readings we did on black environmentalism and how impactful it was and makes me think of how the protests would have changed with more women.

    Interesting points. To be totally honest, I didn't even give it a second thought. Now that you both mention it, there weren't any women showed. I think the film followed a few specific people leading the charge or at the crux of the plot but I am now curious what the female role was in this activism, if it was delineated along gender lines which is presumably the case after seeing only men on the frontline. I think a more holistic approach to filming and editing the documentary would fill in a lot o the gaps. However, that set aside, I thought this was well documented and I appreciated its candidness.

  • edited April 2020

    I really loved Alimonda's chapter of Inside a Champion. I was wondering when the dependency theory would make an official appearance in our readings and curb the narrative around "developed/underdeveloped." The dependency theory is very insightful in providing an explanation for forceful subordination by "developed" countries. I also have enjoyed reading about the invention of development and subsequent assignment to some countries and not others. Another part of the chapter which I found especially important was in defining what development means, or should mean which is satisfying the basic needs of everyone in a country first and foremost. My that definition, most self proclaimed developed countries need to reassess their titles.

  • @SpencerFier said:

    @caroline22 said:
    I agree, @a_hipp- the language used to depict the indigenous people in Two Worlds Collide was devastating and one of my biggest takeaways. We read books in high school like the Heart of Darkness where those types of words are used and it’s thought of in such a past tense manner. It’s shocking, not only by how recent this is, but how it’s the government sending that message to the people of Peru.

    In terms of your question, the alterations in EPA enforcement and the article @julieta sent out about the sneaky new laws regarding fossil fuel protesting in some states are two ways COVID19 will highly impact these battles. I think on the basis of both of those, battles for indigenous land rights will become both harder and more important. In terms of specifically Amazonian land rights, I’m not entirely sure. My guess is that COVID19 can/might serve as an excuse to halt those discussions and focus on other issues that have arisen from the pandemic (I don’t really have any facts or evidence to support that theory though).

    I was also shocked by how explicit the colonial rhetoric used by the president was. It completely otherized Indigenous people from Peruvian nationhood. I was not, however, too surprised. Peru has a long history of conservatism and traditionalism. During the Spanish empire it was the capital of the Viceroyalty of Peru. During the wars of independence, Argentinian forces fought against Peruvian Spanish army troops who sought to keep them from forming an independent nation. It follows that Alan Garcia would not even bother to adopt any neoliberal lies or false promises and instead use very imperial rhetoric.

    Thanks for the extra insight Spencer. I was also surprised by the colonial rhetoric. Yes, it was very othering to Indigenous Peoples not to mention that rhetoric being used by the President and other people in positions of government authority make colonial rhetoric and othering sanctioned and arguably encouraged by the country of Peru. This is a case in which the government was able to perpetuate their own extractive agenda by using wily, divisive language.

  • @SpencerFier said:
    I thought the response of the Peruvian government to Indigenous resistance compared to the US was very interesting. Whereas in the US, even though the same racism and disregard for laws exists, the strongest weapon that both sides are vying for is the moral and legal high ground. The Peruvian government, on the other hand, was never willing to give a single inch from the beginning and, when it came down to it, used live rounds to quell protesters. Additionally, the protesters, seeing that the law was being flagrantly violated, reverted to their own ancestral law and did not seek legitimacy. However, I don't think this speaks to the US's restraint in the slightest. While each government reacted differently, both had the same end goal of silencing Indigenous voices and quelling their power. The only real difference at play is demographic: 31% of Peru's population is Indigenous, whereas in the US it is just shy of 3%. I think if the US government had not perpetrated such a ruthlessly thorough genocide in centuries past, Indigenous people in this country would be experiencing the same level of violence.

    The demographic difference between Peru and the United States is an interesting point to mention. I didn't know the population was so large. That makes the violence taken against the protestors even more alarming to me. You would think if demographically your population was 30% indigenous you would be more inclined to take actions that benefit them. I would assume though that most of that thirty precent is not relying on the Amazon for survival.

  • @cara said:
    I really loved Alimonda's chapter of Inside a Champion. I was wondering when the dependency theory would make an official appearance in our readings and curb the narrative around "developed/underdeveloped." The dependency theory is very insightful in providing an explanation for forceful subordination by "developed" countries. I also have enjoyed reading about the invention of development and subsequent assignment to some countries and not others. Another part of the chapter which I found especially important was in defining what development means, or should mean which is satisfying the basic needs of everyone in a country first and foremost. My that definition, most self proclaimed developed countries need to reassess their titles.

    I agree, I really loved this chapter and I think defining what development should mean was a great point. The questions it poses as what the UN should have been asking I really liked. "What kind of development do we want on the planet, what kind do we need, and what can we still achieve in the future?" If the UN actually functioned this transparently and simply it could be beneficial, but instead the question posed by the conference was about the economy. I've read a lot about development for my thesis and it seems pretty understood that the current model doesn't work yet it persists.

  • @Julieta said:
    I found the intro and first chapter of Inside the Champion simply amazing, the writer does a really good job of explaining how a lot of the Latin American mindset works (such as with the “and now it’s our turn” feelin) regarding issues of environmentalism and development, but also how complex it is and has been through history and movements. Latin America is such a diverse and complex place that is really hard and even frustrating when people simplify it. For example the difference in the economic approach that countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, and Uruguay took compared with those of Chile, Peru, and Ecuador brought a completly different result on the idea of development they had, the ideologies that followed it, and mostly US intervention in these countries for their own agenda.
    @ccstein you named how clear the role of the US was in the movie in the movie Two Words Collaide. I also found it so intresting to see how this involvement is rooted back to 1940s ( and earlier) and was even a key and main participant of one of the darkest moments in Latin American history, which I was very clear about, but never realized on how this also shaped completely how development was percieved in the continent.
    I believe the dependency theory still applies and eventhough it has taken different shapes through times, but at the end Latin America in international relations has and will always have a place of subordination. As the author expressed, this idea of "we are this now to be them in the futue" is false as long as we are in this system, and I think that is what I find the most frustrating sometimes about international relations.

    What you're saying about "we are this now to be them in the future" is so clear even in the language used to talked about countries that are "developing." Developing to who's standard? This also reminded me of @ccstein and the point on just sustainability. These terms we have for ideas don't take away the problems with the idea itself simply due to a new term.

  • This makes me think of other instances of U.S. involvement. In Guatemala, the U.S. hired Edward Bernays to consult on how to make citizens believe that the Guatemalan government was communist. In the midst of the red scare, preying on the already questionable fears of U.S. society to maintain vested interests in United Fruit Company and prevent land reforms. The level of deception of the public and profit-motivated manipulation of relations with Guatemala blows my mind. This kind of example just goes to show how the U.S. feels like it can decide what development is and intervene when changes don't serve them.

  • @charlotte said:
    This makes me think of other instances of U.S. involvement. In Guatemala, the U.S. hired Edward Bernays to consult on how to make citizens believe that the Guatemalan government was communist. In the midst of the red scare, preying on the already questionable fears of U.S. society to maintain vested interests in United Fruit Company and prevent land reforms. The level of deception of the public and profit-motivated manipulation of relations with Guatemala blows my mind. This kind of example just goes to show how the U.S. feels like it can decide what development is and intervene when changes don't serve them.

    This concept of deception from governments can apply to so many things too. For example, when the Ecuadorian president is talking and basically spreading rhetoric to the public that the indigenous people are an obstacle to the countries wealth (coming from the resource extraction). This immediately creates an us vs them mentality from the public. This has so many negative effects and it's very wrong to use your power to knowingly manipulate the public.

  • @caroline22 said:

    @Madison said:
    I found the reading very interesting regarding the problems of development and the United States influence on Latin America. I thought the documentary portrayed a really scary example of the Untied States' involvement in Latin America and the negative impacts that has not only the native people but also the environment. One thing that I found really surprising and sad about the film was seeing the clear racism against the Native people when they were discussed by political officials or on the news. I also saw a connection between the treatment of Native people in Brazil and in the in the United States. Both countries had complete disregard for following their own laws and regulations regarding the Native communities. During DAPL the united states disregarded treaties and didn't communicate with the impacted tribes. In Peru they didn't communicate their decisions with the indigenous people and refused to compromise until life was lost.

    Madison, you bring up a great point about the theme of governments disregarding their own policy. It's unbelievably frustrating- not one government we've look at has been above this. It's some bizarre commentary about the role of politics, it's like you only need to pass the legislation just to please the people- inherently there is such power differences that requests of the enforcement of law, even to those willing to put resources into that, is such a battle of time and money that it becomes almost impossible.

    It definitely seems like lots of legislature is just to please the people and the government can overlook it when necessary. I remember thinking that when watching the DAPL documentary. It seems like any treaty I've ever learned about has been broken when its not longer convenient for the US government and it looks like that is true in other countries as well. It seems like it's ok to break these rule in the name of "development" but as discussed by Alimonda that's necessary a good thing.

  • @Madison said:

    @caroline22 said:

    @Madison said:
    I found the reading very interesting regarding the problems of development and the United States influence on Latin America. I thought the documentary portrayed a really scary example of the Untied States' involvement in Latin America and the negative impacts that has not only the native people but also the environment. One thing that I found really surprising and sad about the film was seeing the clear racism against the Native people when they were discussed by political officials or on the news. I also saw a connection between the treatment of Native people in Brazil and in the in the United States. Both countries had complete disregard for following their own laws and regulations regarding the Native communities. During DAPL the united states disregarded treaties and didn't communicate with the impacted tribes. In Peru they didn't communicate their decisions with the indigenous people and refused to compromise until life was lost.

    Madison, you bring up a great point about the theme of governments disregarding their own policy. It's unbelievably frustrating- not one government we've look at has been above this. It's some bizarre commentary about the role of politics, it's like you only need to pass the legislation just to please the people- inherently there is such power differences that requests of the enforcement of law, even to those willing to put resources into that, is such a battle of time and money that it becomes almost impossible.

    It definitely seems like lots of legislature is just to please the people and the government can overlook it when necessary. I remember thinking that when watching the DAPL documentary. It seems like any treaty I've ever learned about has been broken when its not longer convenient for the US government and it looks like that is true in other countries as well. It seems like it's ok to break these rule in the name of "development" but as discussed by Alimonda that's necessary a good thing.

    It's interesting how you're framing "development" as a sort of exoneration from wrongdoing. I think that's really common in political discourse. It seems like regardless of the cost, projects which are under the guise of development seem to get a pass. What you're saying about treaties resonates within borders and it's important especially not to give some of these treaties themselves too much credit in the first place. Even the treaty itself wasn't an act of kindness but literally the bare minimum the colonialist institution of the U.S. government could do after occupying & inciting genocide on indigenous land and people. Breaking a treaty at this point is just a continuation of what happened before.

  • We've seen a lot of films and read a lot of journal articles in this class already about specific protests and environmental issues that I didn't know a lot about before and it has made me think a lot about why. I think the US government having a large role in negative impacts on countries has something to do with the lack of awareness of some issues but that can't be it. Some protests way bigger than well known ones like Standing Rock go unnoticed globally. A large part of the lack of awareness I think is due to how countries are portrayed which we can see in the different portrayals of Latin America we've seen. On the ground portrayal is best and that is often not the case in the media.

  • @fionaw said:

    @a_hipp said:

    This is an excellent point about equity and the power dynamics of the extraction industry. The film When Two Worlds Collide also made me think again about intersectionality. When the Amazonian men were protesting at Station 6 for as long as they did, what were the women and children doing back in the villages? Did any women join the protests, if so, how many? Was there sexual violence by the police? I wanted to know the answers to these questions because, in many cultures, women are seen as the protectors of the Earth. In movements such as the American Civil Rights movement, there has been a tendency for men to occupy the frontlines while powerful women back them. Ideas about women's' roles and the patriarchy influence involvement in movements, but I still wished for more visibility for them in the film.

    When Two Worlds Collide made me think of the same thing. I thought the on the ground footage in the film was very impactful but I was left wondering where the women were. It is understandable that someone had to stay home to take care of children or other reasons but I think it could have been really interesting to have interviews or B-roll of the women. Equality leads to more sustainable development which makes me think of the readings we did on black environmentalism and how impactful it was and makes me think of how the protests would have changed with more women.

    Youa re both rising a really intresting point regading intersectionality within these movements. I do agree that in the movie there is a lack of representation of women, nevertheless I would not say that is how it generally is. There are a huge number of indegenous movements lead by women all around Latin America. During the last protests in Ecuador around September 2019, which were as violent as the ones we see in the movie, the role of women were huge. I
    am attaching a picture of a really famous image tht was circulating the media back then. Still can fall under a pretty toxic romantization of this fight, but visibility of them has increased. I also remember reading an interview back then of one of these women who was saying that people in Ecuador usually see their culture as maschista and tht the men hits the women, but that is an hegemonic approach.
    I still believe that its community and movement is compeltely different and I can not talk for all of them (or any really), but as far as my knowledge gets, I just also wanted to show that side of the movement and the critical role women have. As for example with the Waorani case we are reding for today. Indegenous women do suffer a conjugated oppression, no suprised the poorest person in the world is an indegenous woman, and every environmnetla issue affects them way heavier, but still through this, they have rise up their voices many times through history and continue doing.

    This is the article from the quote in spanish: https://www.elobservador.com.uy/nota/-que-hay-detras-de-la-foto-mas-emblematica-de-las-protestas-indigenas-en-ecuador-y-por-que-las-mujeres-son-clave-en-este-movimiento--201910148058

  • @caroline22 said:

    @charlotte said:
    This makes me think of other instances of U.S. involvement. In Guatemala, the U.S. hired Edward Bernays to consult on how to make citizens believe that the Guatemalan government was communist. In the midst of the red scare, preying on the already questionable fears of U.S. society to maintain vested interests in United Fruit Company and prevent land reforms. The level of deception of the public and profit-motivated manipulation of relations with Guatemala blows my mind. This kind of example just goes to show how the U.S. feels like it can decide what development is and intervene when changes don't serve them.

    This concept of deception from governments can apply to so many things too. For example, when the Ecuadorian president is talking and basically spreading rhetoric to the public that the indigenous people are an obstacle to the countries wealth (coming from the resource extraction). This immediately creates an us vs them mentality from the public. This has so many negative effects and it's very wrong to use your power to knowingly manipulate the public.

    I feel like the US has a check box of all the possible ways they can intervine in Latin America for the good of capitalism and imperialism, and they are really getting it done. Pushed free trade agreements, invasions, wars, sponsored dictatorships, land reforms, economic dependence and foreign investments, armament, drugs, etc. Deception through consulting in Latin American elections is for sure also a huge one, not only in Guatemala, but in many other countries too (Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, etc.). I just took another class with Joshua where we explored a bit more in depth this, and for example in Bolivia, eventhough they were able to get Lozadas into government (who lived a long time in the US and was more of a center right) they did not expect the level of movilizations that came after he signed international treaties for ectraction that put at risk the wellbeing of the population. Latin American people are incredible politically involved, and the level of social movements I believe that exceeds that one of the US, and I think they missed to take that into account. So it is like a full circle where the left opposeses and pushes for more "soveregnity" (which sometimes only means to subordinate to others) and the right-US coalition to go back to neoliberalism. But indegenous communities are always excluded from the equation. With Evo Morales, the first indegneous president in LatAm, this was a bit different, but still not to the level that I expected. So I guess in summary (I went out of topic a bit haha) I want to say that deception is huge, and when this dos not work, they will find other ways to oppress alternative or opposing idoelogies. But still, the people in Latin America are not easily deceptive but highly reactive and the massive left wing movements show that too.

    But I think Caroline your point on how the government divides the population also goes back to the whole notion of Nation-States and this idea that to be part of country you need to be part of the nation which usually involves a certain culture or similarish origin (Super european). For LAtin America that is such a diverse place, this is a difficulty. I guess that is also why Ecuador for exmaple struggle sso much to make plurinational state, such as the one in Bolivia. It is easier for governments to rule under an idea of "we are all part of this". And when someone does not fit into those ideals, they cn be easier oppresed by the government and even the people through racisim. That is also why there is still so much struggle between mixed population and indegenous ones.

  • @Julieta said:
    I found the intro and first chapter of Inside the Champion simply amazing, the writer does a really good job of explaining how a lot of the Latin American mindset works (such as with the “and now it’s our turn” feelin) regarding issues of environmentalism and development, but also how complex it is and has been through history and movements. Latin America is such a diverse and complex place that is really hard and even frustrating when people simplify it. For example the difference in the economic approach that countries such as Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Colombia, and Uruguay took compared with those of Chile, Peru, and Ecuador brought a completly different result on the idea of development they had, the ideologies that followed it, and mostly US intervention in these countries for their own agenda.
    @ccstein you named how clear the role of the US was in the movie in the movie Two Words Collaide. I also found it so intresting to see how this involvement is rooted back to 1940s ( and earlier) and was even a key and main participant of one of the darkest moments in Latin American history, which I was very clear about, but never realized on how this also shaped completely how development was percieved in the continent.
    I believe the dependency theory still applies and eventhough it has taken different shapes through times, but at the end Latin America in international relations has and will always have a place of subordination. As the author expressed, this idea of "we are this now to be them in the futue" is false as long as we are in this system, and I think that is what I find the most frustrating sometimes about international relations.

    @Julieta I think you bring up a really important point here. This idea of stages of development is really critical, and a framework that is pitched so forcefully and yet remains so false. This idea comes up in Debating Development in Latin America, a great quote was “underdevelopment is not a phase that comes before development”. Again, this idea of having to swim up stream through capitalism to reach this goal of "development" is sold by Western nations that seek to profit off of the race for capitalistic stability.

  • @charlotte said:

    @Madison said:

    @caroline22 said:

    @Madison said:
    I found the reading very interesting regarding the problems of development and the United States influence on Latin America. I thought the documentary portrayed a really scary example of the Untied States' involvement in Latin America and the negative impacts that has not only the native people but also the environment. One thing that I found really surprising and sad about the film was seeing the clear racism against the Native people when they were discussed by political officials or on the news. I also saw a connection between the treatment of Native people in Brazil and in the in the United States. Both countries had complete disregard for following their own laws and regulations regarding the Native communities. During DAPL the united states disregarded treaties and didn't communicate with the impacted tribes. In Peru they didn't communicate their decisions with the indigenous people and refused to compromise until life was lost.

    Madison, you bring up a great point about the theme of governments disregarding their own policy. It's unbelievably frustrating- not one government we've look at has been above this. It's some bizarre commentary about the role of politics, it's like you only need to pass the legislation just to please the people- inherently there is such power differences that requests of the enforcement of law, even to those willing to put resources into that, is such a battle of time and money that it becomes almost impossible.

    It definitely seems like lots of legislature is just to please the people and the government can overlook it when necessary. I remember thinking that when watching the DAPL documentary. It seems like any treaty I've ever learned about has been broken when its not longer convenient for the US government and it looks like that is true in other countries as well. It seems like it's ok to break these rule in the name of "development" but as discussed by Alimonda that's necessary a good thing.

    It's interesting how you're framing "development" as a sort of exoneration from wrongdoing. I think that's really common in political discourse. It seems like regardless of the cost, projects which are under the guise of development seem to get a pass. What you're saying about treaties resonates within borders and it's important especially not to give some of these treaties themselves too much credit in the first place. Even the treaty itself wasn't an act of kindness but literally the bare minimum the colonialist institution of the U.S. government could do after occupying & inciting genocide on indigenous land and people. Breaking a treaty at this point is just a continuation of what happened before.

    @Charlotte I think this is a really insightful point you make, the breaking of treaties acting an extension of previous violence. I believe it relates to naming the United States' involvement, along with other Western nations, in current extraction efforts as neo-colonialist. The imbalance of power, disguised as investment to spark "development" is merely a measure to gain control. Yet again, this involvement is not surprising, given the decades of violence and genocide that came far before the discovery of oil.

  • @Julieta said:
    I still believe that its community and movement is compeltely different and I can not talk for all of them (or any really), but as far as my knowledge gets, I just also wanted to show that side of the movement and the critical role women have. As for example with the Waorani case we are reding for today. Indegenous women do suffer a conjugated oppression, no suprised the poorest person in the world is an indegenous woman, and every environmnetla issue affects them way heavier, but still through this, they have rise up their voices many times through history and continue doing.

    I think the points you made about indigenous women are really important. Environmental issues impact them way more and they have used their voices to fight against this. I think the role of women in protests and women led protests in Latin America is amazing. I took a class called "Women in Latin America" and it was one of my favorites at CC because we studied a lot of different movements from women's point of view and it isn't really made clear how impactful these women have been in regular media. Looking into women's protests against domestic violence in Latin America were super inspiring for me.

  • @fionaw said:
    We've seen a lot of films and read a lot of journal articles in this class already about specific protests and environmental issues that I didn't know a lot about before and it has made me think a lot about why. I think the US government having a large role in negative impacts on countries has something to do with the lack of awareness of some issues but that can't be it. Some protests way bigger than well known ones like Standing Rock go unnoticed globally. A large part of the lack of awareness I think is due to how countries are portrayed which we can see in the different portrayals of Latin America we've seen. On the ground portrayal is best and that is often not the case in the media.

    I think this issue of the portrayal of issues in various countries really is an issue seen throughout Anthropology and can be seen in the media. Primarily I think there is this notion of superiority when the media covers stories about indigenous people. Even when reporters from places like the US and Western Europe do go on the ground to report an issue they see the people as 'other' which leads to a complex of superiority. This is something seen in the media and society as a whole. I remember first learning of this idea in an early Anthro class and it is a mindset that field of Anthropology has sought to steer away from, but it can still clearly be seen in the media and other aspects of society today.

  • @Julieta said:

    @caroline22 said:

    @charlotte said:
    This makes me think of other instances of U.S. involvement. In Guatemala, the U.S. hired Edward Bernays to consult on how to make citizens believe that the Guatemalan government was communist. In the midst of the red scare, preying on the already questionable fears of U.S. society to maintain vested interests in United Fruit Company and prevent land reforms. The level of deception of the public and profit-motivated manipulation of relations with Guatemala blows my mind. This kind of example just goes to show how the U.S. feels like it can decide what development is and intervene when changes don't serve them.

    This concept of deception from governments can apply to so many things too. For example, when the Ecuadorian president is talking and basically spreading rhetoric to the public that the indigenous people are an obstacle to the countries wealth (coming from the resource extraction). This immediately creates an us vs them mentality from the public. This has so many negative effects and it's very wrong to use your power to knowingly manipulate the public.

    I feel like the US has a check box of all the possible ways they can intervine in Latin America for the good of capitalism and imperialism, and they are really getting it done. Pushed free trade agreements, invasions, wars, sponsored dictatorships, land reforms, economic dependence and foreign investments, armament, drugs, etc. Deception through consulting in Latin American elections is for sure also a huge one, not only in Guatemala, but in many other countries too (Bolivia, Argentina, Chile, etc.). I just took another class with Joshua where we explored a bit more in depth this, and for example in Bolivia, eventhough they were able to get Lozadas into government (who lived a long time in the US and was more of a center right) they did not expect the level of movilizations that came after he signed international treaties for ectraction that put at risk the wellbeing of the population. Latin American people are incredible politically involved, and the level of social movements I believe that exceeds that one of the US, and I think they missed to take that into account. So it is like a full circle where the left opposeses and pushes for more "soveregnity" (which sometimes only means to subordinate to others) and the right-US coalition to go back to neoliberalism. But indegenous communities are always excluded from the equation. With Evo Morales, the first indegneous president in LatAm, this was a bit different, but still not to the level that I expected. So I guess in summary (I went out of topic a bit haha) I want to say that deception is huge, and when this dos not work, they will find other ways to oppress alternative or opposing idoelogies. But still, the people in Latin America are not easily deceptive but highly reactive and the massive left wing movements show that too.

    But I think Caroline your point on how the government divides the population also goes back to the whole notion of Nation-States and this idea that to be part of country you need to be part of the nation which usually involves a certain culture or similarish origin (Super european). For LAtin America that is such a diverse place, this is a difficulty. I guess that is also why Ecuador for exmaple struggle sso much to make plurinational state, such as the one in Bolivia. It is easier for governments to rule under an idea of "we are all part of this". And when someone does not fit into those ideals, they cn be easier oppresed by the government and even the people through racisim. That is also why there is still so much struggle between mixed population and indegenous ones.

    Julieta, your response makes me think of in the film when the government said in an interview that the indigenous people were essentially not actually Ecuadorians. In response, an indigenous man responded by simply saying "we are Ecuadorian too." It's kind of insane that such a fundamental issue as this is still occurring. Clearly, the indigenous people are Ecuadorian... they live in Ecuador. But as you were saying, their goals differ from the government and so somehow the govt can get away with just abandoning them. It's crazy to me.

Sign In or Register to comment.