|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:25 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
Gopher, instead of blithely dismissing Galeano as anti-American crap you could try pointing out where you see Galeano as having gotten things wrong.
Are you simply 'the American apologist' for activities in Latin America? Certainly yanquis have been the whipping boy and taken undeserved blame for many incidents, but I get the impression from you that you feel America has nothing to answer for in Latin America, that all actions have been justifiable? |
First, I wholly reject the notion that if someone wants to expand the discussion so that we are treating more issues than the narrow one concerning U.S. complicity, that this person is somehow acting as "the American apologist."
It is not an either/or proposition. Saying that people go way too far in their criticism of the U.S. is not to deny U.S. involvement or apologize for it. This U.S.-centric fallacy resists until the bitter end any effort to shift focus away from a strict indictment of the U.S. -- which appears to be the historiographical objective. That is, those who embrace this analysis wish only to investigate and discuss U.S. complicity. There is nothing else that interests them. And this is unscientific.
Galeano and many others do suffer from this U.S.-centrism, and to various degrees. U.S.-centric analysis ignores the contributions local conditions and actors have made to their own history, which were, by the way, the decisive contributions. Proponents of U.S.-centric analyses tend to focus, instead, on ranting against the Yankee, blaming the U.S. for each and every political, economic, and social problem that exists in Latin America. (See any of the works I cite above.)
Yet the U.S. govt was disproportionately involved in Latin American affairs, particularly in the early twentieth century through the Cold War period, where, at times, it played an especially important enabling role, and all Americans therefore share in the responsibility for the various historical outcomes we have seen there over the last two-hundred years.
The Soviets, the Cubans, and, to a lesser extent, the Chinese, and other opponents of the U.S. were also all over these events that are discussed here, not quite as involved as the U.S., but involved enough to have significantly contributed to the specific historical outcomes that we have witnessed nonetheless. U.S.-centric analysis, unfortunately, tends to wholly ignore or simply dismiss Soviet and Cuban involvement as "a lie."
How much time do Arevalo, Galeano, and the others spend discussing non-U.S. contributions in their books, for example? Where is there room for the other very relevant contributors in Big Bird's diatribes?
Throughout all of these multiple foreign interventions, however, I repeat, local actors and conditions were the decisive factors in explaining the events that unfolded there. This is inconvenient for local elites, who prefer to shift the attn away from themselves and their shortcomings.
Moreover, if you can show me how Galeano and the others need no revision, let alone major revision or a change in tone to a more professional and less "outraged" rhetoric, in the face of the vast amounts of new data that the post-Cold War world has produced, then I guess I'll have to admit that I am way off base here.
When Sigmund commented in 1977...
| Sigmund wrote: |
| The lessons to be derived from a careful examination of the Chilean experience are in danger of being lost in the partisan propaganda which has followed the coup. |
...he could not have been more prophetic, and not just with respect to Chile. The mythmakers have thus far dominated the debate concering the U.S. role in the entire Third-World during the Cold War and beyond. This is unfortunate.
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:00 pm; edited 18 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| As far as my background goes, I think it is fair to say that I've read much more on this issue than Big Bird could ever dream of. Simple statement of fact. |
If it's a simple statement of fact, it follows therefore that it can be proven.
Can you prove it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| As far as my background goes, I think it is fair to say that I've read much more on this issue than Big Bird could ever dream of. Simple statement of fact. |
If it's a simple statement of fact, it follows therefore that it can be proven.
Can you prove it? |
No.
From what she says above, I infer it with a high probability of it being a correct inference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Manner of Speaking
Joined: 09 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Okay.
That's as much as anyone can be certain of in life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Edited out
Last edited by Big_Bird on Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| G wrote: |
You also seem to believe that Chavez is a democrat. |
Glad to see the word 'seem' in there. This is your interpretation of what I 'seem to believe.'
| Quote: |
| By the way, please do let us know your thoughts when he alters Venezuela's constitution again to stay in power when the current "extension" of his rule expires. |
I wholeheartedly support the majority of Venezuelan population and respect their choice of elected leader. As long as that leader doesn��t choose to invade other nations, or otherwise bring death and misery to the world, I have no quarrel with him. If he becomes a 'lifelong' president that his people no longer want, I will fully support their attempts to topple him. At the moment, you don't know what he will do, so don't be a prat. We don't go hauling young men off to jail because they may later become robbers or rapists...even if they've already established a previous history of it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Manner of Speaking wrote: |
| Gopher wrote: |
| As far as my background goes, I think it is fair to say that I've read much more on this issue than Big Bird could ever dream of. Simple statement of fact. |
If it's a simple statement of fact, it follows therefore that it can be proven.
Can you prove it? |
No.
From what she says above, I infer it with a high probability of it being a correct inference. |
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| PQR��XY��Z |
| Gopher wrote: |
What about A T and V!?! And you didn��t mention M N or G!!
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
We are presently discussing PQR and XYZ
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Big_Bird only mentioned PQR and XYZ! That means she doesn��t know the rest of the alphabet! I know the alphabet more than her!!!
|
| MoS wrote: |
Er...  |
| The increasingly puerile Gopher wrote: |
Well, er..OK I can��t be sure that she doesn��t know about ABC, or EFG, but she only spent a few minutes writing a few short posts which only touched on half a dozen letters, rather than spending a couple of days writing a 20, 000 page essay on every other letter of the alphabet and the many complicated ways in which they can be aligned & entwined, so that clearly indicates to me that only I know the full ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ and she doesn��t!!!
Oh yes! I am the biggest authority here on the alphabet!  |
Have you any idea how silly you sound?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, unlike you it seems, I lead a very busy life of which most takes place outside this ESL Cafe, so I don't have time to deal with every point you have made. So here is a brief answer to all you foolish mischeif:
You are unable to sustain a linear argument. Go check the OP. We are not discussing any imminent intervention in Venezuela by China, the Soviet Union or anyone else. It is the Bush Administration that are implicated in these new rumours of a coup – not the coldwar era Soviet Union, 19th century Spain or 7th century Saudia Arabia! You are going round and round in circles bringing up irrelevant issues. The thread is not titled: a thorough examination of Latin American history through the centuries. Nor is it titled: The relationship between Cuba, the Soviets and Chile in the 70s. So stay on topic. We were discussing Venezuela and possible future US intervention.
I hope you are not attempting to teach reading comprehension at your Haggie! I see you need explicit explanations. Let��s go back and look at the course of this ��discussion.��
The gist of my first post goes: I��m very pleased that the Venezuelan people have managed to hang on to the leader they chose, despite the US��s considerable displeasure. I really hope they don��t have the rug pulled out from under them. But here is an article concerning what many believe may now be in the works�� [article] �� let��s hope it is not going to happen.
Then, other posters hinted at their disbelief that the US would do any such thing.
So, I pointed out this is not such a far fetched scenario, and that that the US has an established history of this kind of thing, and pointed out a few examples where the US did indeed succeed in very violent and messy ways, Nicaragua, El Salvador etc. I gave a brief explanation of exactly why the US feels threatened by left of centre governments (i.e. not good for American big business).
Then Gopher comes along with in ill defined and poorly articulated post that went something like:
but I��ve got a zillion URLS here that no-one would ever have the time to read about Chile and Cuban and the Soviet Union�� ��and I��m feeling very emotional and pissed at Big_Bird blaaaaah!
And Big_Bird scratched her head and thought��er, what is this crazy goon going on about? How is this relevant exactly – Cuba and the Soviet Union are not implicated in Operation Bilbao, so why is he banging on about them? Perhaps he��s trying to rationalise that the US needs to usurp popular elected governments in Latin America because of security interests? (Or – more likely- perhaps he��s very emotional – his temper fired at being reminded of something he��d rather not acknowledge – and rational discussion is now off the table hehe ��) Well, security interests are generally cited as the official rationale for these actions, while the true motivation is widely acknowledged (even in corporate America) to be about maintaining US economic interests.
So, I chose to highlight Butler – very relevant indeed - as this is part of the evidence of an established pattern of US interfering for her own material welfare long before the cold war and any shenanigans of Cuba and the Soviet Union with regard to 70s Chile.
| Gopher wrote: |
| Citing disgruntled Marine officers (Smedley Butler was unhappy that he was not appointed Commandant) does not justify your hostile attitude or support your predictable "analysis." We are in 2006, and works from 1935 are a bit dated, don't you think? |
And if we are only supposed to discuss 2006, why are you banging on about 70s Chile? Bell end.
Then Gopher posts a few ��lost the plot�� rants where he goes off on more unrelated tangents. He then makes it particularly clear that he feels (a rather childish) ownership of this topic, which he guards jealously – peeved at anyone who may not have a carboncopy Gopher opinion on the matter. And apparently, he more widely read on the subject than I could ever dream of being. This may or may not be true (and I kind of doubt it as for many years I have a passion for international relations, politics and history – including that of his own back yard, of which he feels such ownership – and have devoured hundreds of books and thousands of articles from left and right perspectives��and from what I��ve seen of Gopher's writings he is either poorly informed or highly selective about which information he chooses to believe), but even if it were true he looks even sillier for having made such an adolescent boast. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| does not justify your hostile attitude or support your predictable "analysis." |
One reason you find Big_Bird so predictable is that the particular Big_Bird, at whom so much of your childish diatribe is directed, is largely a construct of your own imagination. I recall getting into a ��discussion�� with you once before, in which opinions (and even emotions) that bore little resemblance to the true thoughts and feelings of this writer, were assigned to your Big_Bird. Clearly, the Big_Bird of your creation was a very different creature to the writer that some people know in the flesh. Your reconstructed Big_Bird will continue to be predictable, because whatever this writer posts, you will somehow manage to construe particular meanings and opinions from the text, and create a context around her writings that fit with your invention of who Big_Bird is and what Big_Bird believes. So, in effect, you will continue to engage in a discourse with yourself! Fine with me. I��ll leave you now to get on with barking at your own shadow�� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How much time do Arevalo, Galeano, and the others spend discussing non-U.S. contributions in their books, for example? |
Actually, it's been a while since I've read it but I recall a fair amount of Galeano's open veins focusing on not just Spain, Portugal, and the US but also 'domestic enablers' (for lack of a better term) of inequality, which explains why it was banned by dictatorships in Chile,Argentina, and Uruguay.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/openvein.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
brento1138
Joined: 17 Nov 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:47 am Post subject: Re: Venezuela Vows to Blow Up Oil Fields if Attacked: Chavez |
|
|
I think this Hugo Chavez guy wants to be attacked! I keep seeing him on the media, all angry, saying how they'll fight America if they attack... and the American response is always the same... the US president saying, "Huh? Who's this Chavez guy and why does he think we wanna attack him?"
It seems Chavez is jumping up and down trying to get attention, saying look at me, look at me! Sorta like Kim Jong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
[deleted]
Last edited by Gopher on Sun Jun 11, 2006 3:01 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bulsajo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| How much time do Arevalo, Galeano, and the others spend discussing non-U.S. contributions in their books, for example? |
Actually, it's been a while since I've read it but I recall a fair amount of Galeano's open veins focusing on not just Spain, Portugal, and the US but also 'domestic enablers' (for lack of a better term) of inequality, which explains why it was banned by dictatorships in Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/openvein.htm |
Yeah, Bulsajo, I probably wasn't clear enough above.
I did say this, though...
| Gopher wrote: |
| Galeano and many others do suffer from this U.S.-centrism, and to various degrees. |
I think of all of what I call the "Yankee go home!" texts I listed above, Galeano's is by far the most sophisticated and less U.S.-centric among them.
Still, most Latin Americans suffer the bias that one Chilean historian describes in one of the articles I cite above...
| Quote: |
Antiimperialism or "antiNorthAmericanism" has been a powerful motor of Latin American politics and its vision of the world. In Chile all political forces and ideas have been either pro- or antiNorthAmerican at different times during the twentieth century. All have asked for NorthAmerican intervention or something like it at one moment or another, and obviously not at the same time. Chilean Communism was proNorthAmerican during the Second World War...The Chilean Left, including the Communists, from the end of the '70s to the end of the '80s, was asking for a kind of NorthAmerican intervention against the military government (an intervention which some said already existed [think especially of the Carter Administration -- g]). The Right showed more than a trace of "antiYankeeism" during these same years.
Antiimperialism has been a favorite recurring weapon in public politics in Latin America. Underlying this is the thesis that the United States is the principal culprit for the general problems of societies south of the Rio Grande. This has been the El Dorado of the antiEstablishment forces of the region, although it also global adherents in that the United States arose as a global power during the course of the twentieth century. Certainly it is the emotion that dominates every "conspiracy theory"...not only regarding interAmerican relations but also regarding any kind of diagnosis of our societies. We believe we have found the thread of the plot that leads to the culprit, to the puppet master sprawled on his chair in some large NorthAmerican city. |
This is the "analysis" that informs Chavez and his hysteria about U.S. invasions, etc. It also accounts for more than a little of Castro's popularity at home.
And it also apparently drives Big Bird and many others' thinking about the United States here on this board as well.
I hope at least you can agree with me, Bulsajo, that even though there is much room for the U.S. govt to modify its behavior in foreign relations, particularly with respect to regime change, that this kind of thinking, the kind of thinking that the above historian criticizes, does indeed exceed the bounds of reasonable criticism. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bulsajo
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chavez' rhetoric panders to the anti-US populist base which democratically elected him.
But of course you know that this anti-Americanism in the region didn't just spring up overnight due to Soviet and Cuban ideology, the US' overall relationship long before the Cold War has been- for the most part- a coercive and exploitive one with regard to Latin America. As you pointed out to me in another thread- Anti-Americanism didn't start with Bush.
And it has seemed to me (and of course many many other, some whom are Americans) that it's always been an ongoing 'reap what you sow' backlash.
And events like the Iran-Contra affair, the invasion of Grenada, the invasion of Panema, etc. seem to indicate to everyone watching that the US' critics were right.
But back to Chavez- he is using loud blustery rhetoric to get people like Pat Robertson stirred up because A) it's the tradition of the region, as you well know, Latin American elections are pretty bombastic at the best of times, and B) It seems to be working for Iran and and the Norks- make loud dangerous statements and the State department will call you up and bring you to the negotiating table; failing that, you score local credibility points anyway.
Everyone should give the guy a little less coverage and thought.
Stop taking him seriously what he says he's going to do, see what he actually does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
