analysis – Diario de una Aventurera

Agency and Protest: Paro Nacional (21N)

Colombia has been going through a lot recently. Honestly, I look around and I think the world is going through a lot right now. And perhaps it always has.

What have the protests in Colombia been about? Anybody who watches international news or claims some awareness of world events (even by glimpsing it via memes or article clickbait) knows that in South America there have been a lot of protests. Chile was the first place I recalled getting a lot of attention. Colombians were soon to follow.

The simple answer to this question is that: they are protesting what people are always protesting in capitalist societies. Education is undervalued and underfunded. Teachers, including university professors, are underpaid or even not paid at all (much less on time) for months. There is a notorious problem in Colombia with the unequal exchange of services for money. Most consumers still seem accustomed to the system upon which the Americas was sadly founded: slavery. They want your labor and the product of it for free, or at least for dirt cheap.

I can’t begin to tell you (although I know it falls into the category of anecdotal evidence, but still) the number of people I know which work in the service industry for scraps – and then their employers don’t pay them a full wage. And it’s almost never paid within the agreed upon time frame.

So yes, economic unrest. Another issue seen in the States as well as here is the cutting of pensions and social security. This has a negative impact on the old and those planning to retire. Although they may have worked hard every day for their entire lives, they are expected to be happy with making a minimum or less wage. Not to mention that minimum wage in Colombia is only 800.000 some pesos – that’s well less than $300 USD – and the economic reform people are protesting called for that amount to be cut by 75%.

Many cities (like Valledupar) are in crisis because of an influx of refugees, a lack of institutions in place to manage them, and the strain this interaction has caused in already fragile border economies. Now the poorest of the working class is forced to compete with desperate refugees who legally cannot be hired, have families to take care of, and therefore are willing to work for the bare minimum of the bare minimum in order to survive.

The effect of this is obvious: whenever a local person demands their pay, the employer cuts them off and replaces them with a desperate refugee, not unlike what has been seen in the Southern region of the states when refugees surge. The cities become more and more poor as Colombians feel more and more resentment towards incoming foreigners. Many are tired of the government’s weak approach to handling labor laws and accommodating (or not) for refugee populations.

Those community leaders who have struggled to give their people a voice are quickly snuffed. Violence (paramilitary and police and otherwise) is rampant, with no acknowledgment of a peace settlement with the radical guerrilleros in sight.

But my question, looking at the situation here, is who wouldn’t be radical? Accepting these conditions is absurd. I watch my friends unable to find jobs when they have degrees in a myriad of subjects – the same thing that is happening in the states right now. I watch degrees postponed due to on-going strikes because teachers aren’t given a decent salary – much less paid on time.

That led to the protesting, which has been on-going since November 21st (21N makes reference to the 21st of November). It was launched in universities, especially, all over the country after minors were killed by the military in a community once dominated by the FARC. Only 2 days after the protests began, a 17 year old was killed in a protest at the hands of the police who were shooting grenades into the crowd. Bogota and other cities became militarized – supposedly for the protection and safety of the people, but the feeling of those protesting was anything but one of safety. The violence had gotten so bad, the disgust with Duque, and the cut to social service packages in the country, that these peaceful strikes were mixed with some intense displays of frustration. I’ve heard and seen some destruction caused in major cities like Bogota and Cali, but rumors claim that the police and paramilitaries are just as likely behind this as individuals that mar the image of the Paro.

A problem the world over is the people on top telling the people that are suffering on the bottom how they should react to their own oppression. What’s the “right” way to protest. For the most part, people have followed the law while standing firm in their rights and convictions. During the weekend following 21N I attended several protests, all peaceful, but equally trembling with outrage at the actions and attitude of the Colombian government and military. Dry laws were set up during the weekend of the initial strikes, assuming that drinking would lead to hooliganism among the protesters. In some cities, curfews were established to keep people in their homes or else face the impunity of the police as they squash the backlash – I mean, maintain order.

I attended a Velaton, an event where everyone lit a candle outside of the city hall, chanting, remembering those social leaders that have fallen defending their rights, a muted cry for justice and an end to Duque’s presidency. Some do not wish for it to end considering him legally and democratically elected, but do assert that more needs to be done to fix the mess of reforms and address the big problems.

Duque himself has been something of a puppeteer in the eyes of the Colombians. Currently he has around a 28% approval rating. He is a young – 43 years old – the youngest president Colombia has had – and a clear ally of controversial political figures like Alvaro Uribe. Uribe’s regime (to give you an idea) consisted in lots of paramilitary violence and covering up of injustices committed to silence communities disadvantaged under his regime – indigenous, AfroColombian, workers, women, guerrillas – which the rest who protested were defaulted. He’s a “liberal” in the neoliberal sense, and held power officially for 8 years. His legacy continues, and that’s why most do not trust Duque to actually be acting and thinking on his own. Because in spite of all of this, Uribe has a cult following – which mainly falls into two ironic camps: the very poor and the very rich.

Sounding familiar to any US Americans out there? I know to me it does. In many of these post-colonial countries, and even the colonizers, the population is divided into two camps: haves and have-nots, landowners and laborers. Well, Uribe and Duque represent the landowners, and their treatment of people outside of their class has been violent and atrocious, at best. The amount of corruption in institutions like schools and among the police has gone up remarkably.

21N started with a march. Just a marching of all that identify with the movement – the poor, working, and middle class, teachers, professors, Afrocolombianos, indigenous people, elderly, women – and yes, even foreigners like me. I look at these issues and I see world issues reflecting in every story, the same pattern. I know this pattern did not start with the corruption here. If anything, it has a foreign sponsor – the US, lest we forget the US’s own intervention in the 90’s and early 2000’s.

I could write a book, and books have been written (Colombia: The Drug Wars is a great place to start. But suffice it to stay, I stand with the Paro Nacional. I stand with Paros all over the world – Paris was in the middle of one when I went early this month, mainly for the same reasons. It’s a lot of data, and a lot to take in – more complex than this simple summary from my perspective that I have written here. But it matters. And it needs international attention.

Right now, the Paro is rebooting. It’s still standing firm on the same issues, which have not improved or even been addressed as far as anyone can tell. Protesting is a long, harrowing path. One mustn’t wonder why some would rather fight bloody wars to be treated fairly and be able to live in peace. It’s a contradiction, but when the mechanism of power is so strong that even workers all over are unable to cease to work without dying, where even when they stop working, they are ignored (let them die, the attitude seems, fewer to worry about), well, sometimes it’s even led me to ask myself: what more can be done?

The most cathartic part of that paro weekend was the Cacerolazo – a term coined in reference to when Latin Americans take to the streets with pots and pans, banging them in a cacophony of protest (there’s a long history of this in Latin America – I felt pretty tripped out participating in something I’d only read about in Latin American history classes before). We met in Parque Viajero, a haunt in the heart of the city where young people usually gather to smoke and talk. Some usually play dominoes there or share their music or a drink. That night, it was Sunday, and yet the park was full. All because of the Bailaton, or dance off that was proposed as part of the continued strike.

Many cannot afford to stop working. Many do not even have work. So what’s left is causing a small disturbance to remind everyone around them of why people are protesting. Many chanted angrily about the president, about the slaughter of social leaders, about the lies and corruption, as the throng struck their pots and pans in a war-like rhythm. People are tired, tired of not having a voice or agency in their society. Of not having a future. Of not having employable prospects, unless they choose to leave or know the right people. People are tired. Of how unsustainable our situation has become.

And not only in Colombia – the world is feeling the same strain. We must be willing break that which is already broken, to revolt, to create something new, a mix within the mess. And that’s what the people of Colombia who are protesting hope for, trapped in a Sisyphusian cycle of struggle and pushback in order to attain it.

La Pantera Negra: an analogy of resistance against colonialism

When you see a great film, it’s almost impossible to let it go without noting just how fucking great it is. Now, any film is subject to criticism. The greatest works generally are not without their flaws, because, well, they were produced by a team of humans, and yes, we are all flawed. However, the concept of Black Panther, after seeing it, has left such an impact on my mind so as to overlook or deem less important its flaws as a work of fictional entertainment and to praise it, not simply as a work of popular fiction, but to appraise it intellectually for the concepts it draws out of the psyche upon watching it.

While I loved this film a lot, I don’t just want to explain what was great about it (though I will, inevitably, be doing that throughout), but I’d rather discuss just why this film is important for so many as a definitive reflection of culture and the desire to preserve it in spite of colonial and globalizing influences.

Maybe it’s because I’m reading My Ishmael right now, I don’t know, but I can’t help but relate this film to the struggle that the book explains – that primordial struggle between the survival of the Leavers society in face of the Takers unending march toward advancement – and self-destruction. Some of my criticism will be put into those terms, so to provide definition for those who haven’t read any part of Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, Takers are considered the champions of our modern society, the root of our industrial revolution and, ultimately, capitalism. Leavers are those we consider the “vanquished,” the fringed indigenous societies that have lived off the land for millennia and fought to preserve their own culture and ways of life, which also bespeaks a complete preservation of the land itself which they are native to.

myishmaelcover — Obviously, this is a cross-over waiting to happen.

In Black Panther, the Wakandans are the epitome of a Leaver culture, an isolated society struggling to preserve its essence and the secrets its lands possess – especially its abundance of natural resources. It does this by maintaining a closed border and a non-threatening facade. Like so many Leaver societies, it is tempted repeatedly by the seductive promises of the Takers: influence, recognition on a global scale, and (inevitably) endless warfare in order to maintain that position.

The plot thickens when racial relations are added into the picture. Many are forced to question (and the film does this itself as a major plot point which I will try not to spoil) why it is that such a rich, advanced, powerful country would hide away and masquerade as a poor, third-world nation of little status or importance in the world arena. Why would Wakandans turn their backs on the struggles of Africans during the Triangle Passage and slave trade days? The answers, however, become more and more obvious through the internal and external struggles of the protagonist, T’Challa, serenely and sympathetically portrayed by Chadwick Boseman. He fights to maintain a clear head and right the wrongs of his father’s legacy (well, one in particular which rises to haunt him). For the Wakandans, as for most Leavers, the preservation of culture and folkways, of peace and balance, is far more important than the involvement in world affairs that could destroy it.

Doesn’t that face just have serene and kingly written all over it?

Pan left, and we see the Takers’ side of things through the eyes of a young, ruthless Erik Killmonger. Cousin of T’Challa, as his name suggests, his goals are to avenge his father while violently seizing the resources of Wakanda in order to establish a new world order. His goal? To bring justice to those affected internationally by the African diaspora, communities impoverished and disenfranchised by the consequences of the slave trade and the systematic racism. Erik knew this struggle growing up as an orphan in Oakland, California. When his father is murdered by T’Challa’s father for betraying his nation and putting their secrets in danger of being compromised, he is left with nothing but a violent city and memories of his father’s vision to bring him to maturity.

Angry, angry eye-candy: Michael B. Jordan as Erik Killmonger.

One could say that Erik is a bicultural character, the son of an immigrant who never experienced his father’s culture firsthand and therefore was bound to misinterpret it and even intentionally rebel against all forms of traditionalism. Being only partially initiated into the culture of his father, he knew it only on the most superficial level: resources of boundless power and (in his mind) selfishly stark isolationism, a world that does not accept or want him. Erik does not jibe with what he views as a senseless withholding of the powers Wakandans hold which, in turn, contributes his own personal sense of entitlement to take those for himself. He is inevitably affected by the militant visions of his father’s revolution, and rightfully so as they serve an essentially noble, humanitarian cause: bringing justice to the Black community via violent revolutionary means.

If we back up, we can see the references made throughout The Black Panther to the real life consequences of colonization. Africa has been ravaged by the British, the US, and other Western countries for centuries, leading to a complete corruption and fragmentation of identity of some groups within the continent. From diamonds to human beings and the labor they provide, Africa’s riches have very often attracted outside attention and that attention has led to the bloodletting of those tribal societies. In essence, the Takers have done exactly what their name implies throughout African history on a broad scale.

So, let’s imagine that Wakanda did exist. A country with the power to camouflage itself and go unnoticed by the rest of the world while perfectly preserving its cultural pride and way of life. Is there any question that the outcome would be for the country to do just that, even at the expense of its African relatives and displaced descendants? It would be the only country in Africa never to be colonized, which would create a bond so great so as to make such a proud, closed society completely conceivable.

Outside of Africa, the diaspora created a bond of sorts not previously known in Africa – for many, it created a monolith by ripping Africans from their homes and denying them the practice and knowledge of their own native cultures. This is why, while Caucasian Americans generally know their ancestral origins and proudly proclaim themselves x% Irish or y% German, African-American is the term most widely used in the United States, with little recognition of Africa as a diverse, incredibly complex continent of 54 official countries.

Killmonger falls into the African-American, post-diaspora camp with generations worth of anger and little understanding of the complex context in which his relatives live. He sees himself as part of the larger culture of post-slavery pain and disenfranchisement – literally, he lost his kingdom and his father in one fell blow – and one which Wakandans cannot relate to. However he doesn’t know the world he wishes to rule or the urgency the Wakandans feel to protect it at all costs.

And it’s important to note that it isn’t just the Wakandans’ own culture and future they wish to protect. After all, they have no ambitions to impose their culture upon others or to be a ruler in the world arena the way Killmonger does for clear reasons – they are aware of how small they are in terms of population and how big the resources are which they possess. Leavers are now a scattered minority, trying to protect themselves from the corrupting influences of commercialism (this would be why selling Vibranium is so looked down upon by the Wakandans – it is not just a commercial resource, but like the water of the land, it is a part of their very identity as a nation).

On the other hand, Wakandans have seen exactly how far the Taker culture will go to exploit the natural resources of Leaver cultures – from the coal and fruits of South America to mining in Australia and the torture and decimation of Aboriginals. And the movie makes evident that this corruption could lead not only to destruction of the Wakandan way of life but a destruction of the very planet, brought low by endless fighting and the misuse of the mythical Vibranium.

Only through looking inward and outward for guidance can T’Challa overcome this struggle for the future of Wakanda. How will they enter the world arena? He decides by remaining levelheaded and safely grounded in the values of his culture while also keeping an open mind and heart to those struggling around him. He sees the wrong his father did by taking Erik’s father and does everything in his power to right it, even going against the wishes of Erik himself by trying to save him. That is what makes him such a great king: he does not act simply on base emotions of vengeance, anger, and self-preservation (even though he certainly could) but with empathy, even for his enemy, as he meditates and seeks the greater good for all.

Even though Wakanda is a fictional place, it serves as a clear analogical metaphor for so many countries and cultural groups that seek and have sought to stick to their own path in an ever-evolving world. Latin America has also faced this struggle, with many countries having to make the decision to isolate itself, like Paraguay and Venezuela, or become a pawn in the world arena that results in debt and dependence on outsiders for resources that could just as easily be produced on native soil.

Ultimately, Wakanda chooses to “step into the spotlight,” neither as a warring nation seeking to avenge the oppressed and dish out just deserts to the oppressors nor as a pawn for those bigger nations, but as a force of peace striving to protect and provide aid to those disenfranchised outside of its borders. Like a true Leaver society, T’Challa and the Wakandans choose peace over power.

I loved this concept because it goes against the blatant machismo seen in other Superhero movies (and brilliantly expounded on by Adam Chitwood of Collider). The focus is not placed on the number of explosions but on the internal strength and character of T’Challa and the unity of his people which face a serious dilemma brought about by the antagonist’s actions. The way that they choose to handle this struggle shows their love for their culture. Wakanda Forever echoes throughout the movie and reflects the enviable bond of the Wakandans and a deeper desire for unity and preservation of African cultural values across the diaspora.

Also, the characters, costumes, and sets are stunningly gorgeous. The soundtrack bumps with the rhythms of Kendrick Lamar and The Weeknd and other urban wonders and sucks you into the action in a way that sends your pulse bumping along with it. The female cast that brings General Okoye (top warrior and the bodyguard), Princess Shuri (T’Challa’s sister and tech extraordinaire), and Nakia (War Dog spy that manages not to be pigeonholed by “love interest” despite her romantic ties to T’Challa) to life is absolutely superb and reflects the importance given to the role of women and the (hopefully) continuous expansion of female roles in movies, especially for women of color. Pleasantly, they were untouched by the usually glaring filter imposed by the male gaze when dealing with “empowered” female characters. All of the cast was nuanced, individually interesting, and real, while also being really badass.

See this film. See it to witness the analogy of resistance and strength in the face of colonialism. See it to understand the struggles faced by Leaver cultures forced to choose between preserving themselves and reconciling the past with the present by providing a safe haven for its descendants shattered by the consequences of colonialism on community and psyche. See it for…Wakanda, a place of wonders and hope for a new generation.

**Edit: this will probably be updated (think of it as a draft) because I was ridiculously tired this week and writing was not coming easy. Feedback welcomed!

Addendum: Favorite Quotes from 1984

Something I love to do when reading is underlining my favorite quotes. Sometimes they inspire big thoughts along the lines of their content, thoughts I would like to share.

Here are some of my favorite insights and quotes from 1984:

“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself – that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word ‘doublethink’ involved the use of doublethink.”

Wow. What a fucking quote. These are the sorts of moments when you wonder what would have happened if someone had told Orwell to dial back and leave it on the cutting room floor. Frankly, every line and loop and contradiction does exactly what it’s supposed to do – it draws the reader into the maze of doublethink. It leads you to questioning: does this really happen? Are there people that do this now, that brainwash themselves in order to maintain tacit ties of loyalty to specific groups? I would say, the answer is a resounding yes. I think of my racist grandparents. (Prejudice in general seems rife with this “doublethink” business) Both would love to blame people of other ethnicities for their problems, for the troubles with the US economy, with crime and the dissolution of American moral values or what have you. Yet they love and respect several people that fit within the exact category they hold contempt for by justifying it within their heads, by effectively making concessions that contradict their absolutist mentality.

Now maybe it’s the absolutism of not questioning a very narrow set of beliefs which actually leads to these sorts of conundrums. Hmmm…

The book within the book holds a number of really compelling gems of text.

“…the object of waging war is always to be in a better position in which to wage another war.”

How true that was, especially in the post Great War era. This statement still holds water today, as it is what our perpetual warring state is basically striving for from all angles (even in wars that have nothing to do with it).

“The primary aim of modern warfare (in accordance with the principles of doublethink, this aim is simultaneously recognized and not recognized by the directing brains of the Inner Party) is to use up the products of the machine without raising the general standard of living.”

Imagine: War for war’s sake. But not just for war’s sake, but for the sake of turning a profit. Sound familiar? One of those things that makes Orwell’s writing stand the test of time – exhibit A!

“The older kind of Socialist, who had been trained to fight against something called ‘class privilege,’ assumed that what is not hereditary cannot be permanent. He did not see that the continuity of an oligarchy need not be physical, nor did he pause to reflect that hereditary aristocracies have always been short-lived, whereas adoptive organizations such as the Catholic Church have sometimes lasted for hundreds or thousands of years. The essence of oligarchical rule is not father-to-son inheritance, but the persistence of a certain world-view and a certain way of life, imposed by the dead upon the living.”

The merge of religion and secular party doctrine made me realize how a party and a religious organization could serve the same purpose using the same tools to lull and buffer the masses, mostly by having them accept and inculcate beliefs which contradict themselves and go against the rational welfare of those same masses. As someone that leans towards socialism and radicalism, I totally reject this use of the term as anything other than an example of the perversion of the ideals the term “Socialism” represents by those who know full well that ain’t socialism. But the devil is in the details. That exact logical contradiction and confusion is what could make the masses rally around something that innately does not benefit more than a minority.

Furthermore, this shows the self-sustaining and preservationist attitude of capitalists, even as the system of capitalism is at times unpredictable and haphazard depending on the general economic boom of the moment. Regardless, it’s not about who holds the power but how they are able to obtain and maintain their position. Which is what makes charity and trickle-down thinking useless and most benevolent acts within this system ill-fatedly self-serving, no matter the intention.

“And the people under the sky were also very much the same – everywhere, all over the world, hundreds or thousands of millions of people just like this, people ignorant of one another’s existence, held apart by walls of hatred and lies, and yet almost exactly the same – people who had never learned to think but were storing up in their hearts and bellies and muscles the power that would one day overturn the world. If there was hope, it lay in the proles!”

So much good. We are all the consumers, really. The proles described in the novel. The ones that have limited means of production yet are forced to do most of the labor, that go off and die in wars that mean nothing to them based on ideals that have been fed to or sometimes beat into them. And we are all the same. This system is not an isolated one. It has no borders. Yet we are taught to hate based on those imaginary divisions. And as long as we accept we are taught and hate, we fail to see just how same and united we are. And if we, the proles, realize how strong we are when we are united, we would bring an end to the very system that we feed, the one that oppresses us.

Class consciousness, people. This is straight out of Marx. And I quote:

“Where there is equality there can be sanity. Sooner or later, it would happen: strength would change into consciousness.”

“‘Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.'”

I feel this speaks for itself. The idea of re-writing the past to benefit the party that happens to hold power at the time is an old one. Orwell saw it happening in his day, and we can easily pick it out today. It starts with the way children’s history books frame things, always in favor of white, nationalist America, the victors of the World Wars and the sponsors of many others. Those who hold the power write the history books and tell the stories and control the media. They control the present and the past, and that’s what shapes our grim-looking future.

“‘We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power.'”

Imagine a politician standing up to give their speech, to sway the masses and promote themselves and their world view as they often do–imagine them saying this. That would, of course, be cognitively dissonant as it would go against everything it means to be a politician. In effect, this is the ugly truth. Power is what those capable of obtaining it seek. It is one of the strongest drugs as it impacts an entire society.

“‘Reality is inside the skull. …Invisibility, levitation–anything. I could float off this floor like a soap buble if I wished to. I do not wish to, because the Party does not wish it. You must get rid of those nineteenth-centry ideas about the laws of nature. We make the laws of nature.”

Anti-intellectualism is another theme that appears in 1984. There’s a whole rant towards the end of the book, an argument between Winston and a powerful member of the party about the state of reality. If records are altered and nobody officially “remembers” an event, did it really happen? Does it really exist? Of course, Winston’s answer is yes, as is the answer of any rational person. But the answer of those controlling the masses via media and spreading lies to a subconscious level of acceptance is a self-assured “no.” The reality of people on a mass scale can be altered and led astray. However, as Winston asserts, that doesn’t make the facts any less apparent to a rational human being.

To quote outside of the book, the themes of 1984 call to mind the song “Savages” by Marina and the Diamonds and its description of the brutality of human nature. “I’m not afraid of God. I’m afraid of man,” she states in the bridge. The endless wars. The extremes we are able to go to in order to merely survive. And not only to survive, but to dominate that which we call home, the very Earth, with our every whim. This too is the essence of 1984. Bureaucracy, party-worship, roles that we play do not mask some of our most base features. It points to a fact which is often overlooked even though it has happened from culture to culture and throughout disparate contexts in history: we invented the gods to benefit us, not the other way around.

And yet, we are also rational beings capable of distinguishing logic from falsehood. Given the right amount of assessment, as Winston’s inability to suppress his own logical rejection of doublethink suggests, human’s are able to understand innately and articulate via education and exposure the lies that are fed to them. That being said, one must first have the education and exposure to think critically. It is a learned rather than innate skill, so it is quite conceivable that a society that wishes to stamp critical thought out could simply try to mold generation across generation not to question anything, to focus on the world painted by the media and dressed up by celebrity.

Orwell had an incredible way of writing about these Political and Social Science themes. He made them both accessible to a casual, curious reader and completely analytical and inspiring for those familiar with the theories they are based around. His style is clear and concise yet layered with history and truth.

Do you have a favorite quote from one of Orwell’s works? I would love to hear it and discuss any analysis of it or the concepts discussed that it inspired as well.