Blog (1)

  I was talking to my friend when the captain’s voice interrupted to announce that the planewould be landing in twenty minutes. I took a deep breath and went into a profound silence. As the plane wheels squeezed over the runway, my mind puzzled with thousand question about my destiny in a new country. Secretly, I cheered my achievement getting to the promise land after a lengthy trip through Central America. I spent some time in Nicaragua and Cuba which embedded in my believes that economy one of the most motivating element for human struggle and movement. I saw with my own eyes in Havana and Managua how the American dollars inflect its magical touch on all aspect of live. Every time I walked from my hotel room in Havana to the Beach I wounded around to be stunned by the hunger and the poverty that replaced the “Marxist promise” of equality and prospers. Throughout the human history people organized and rebelled to satisfy their basic need such as food, clothing, and shelter; likewise, all different ideological theories tried to

diagnose the defect in human societies and write the treatment description for our suffering. From the French Revolution in 1789 to the Russian Revolution in 1917 humanity still looking for answer. One of the hottest spot of revolutionaries is Latin America for its obvious reasons. The continuous intervention of the United State of America in the internal affairs of Latin America countries, the lack of unifying identity, and the poor economy they inherited post colonial era. Therefore the rise of nationalist ideologies and movements throughout the region was the natural outcome of such circumstances. Nationalism met the psychological and the physiological needs of the masses in Latin America. It created the unifying identity and elevated national by rejecting all thing foreigners and promoting nativity. In addition, nationalistic movements provided the basic economical need for the poor and created a welfare state that supported a large population. On the other hand, the rapid industrialization of Latin America countries created small meddle class and cause a mass migration from ruler areas to cities which lead to unequal development . Increased inflation and sanctions that United State of America imposed on nationalist countries cripples their economy. The collapse of the Soviet Union added another reason for nationalist tone to fade away. As a result of the ideological vacuum the collapse of nationalism created, Latin America embraced the neoliberalism ideology. Neoliberalism movement throughout Latin America focused on solving the economic problems such as inflation and huge debt by encouraging free trading, market deregulation, and export production. Neolibralism is credited for paying most of Latin America debts and increasing the individual income. However,how those two ideal economical goals were reached is controversial. The impact of

neolibralism on social condition and rise of inequality was huge “The most striking fact is the resilience of high inequality”. http://lasa-2.univ.pitt.edu/larr/prot/fulltext/vol39no3/huber.pdfNeolibralism

deregulated the economy and slashed any law was created by nationalist to protect  local factories. In addition, Neolibralism reduced the national spending and most of the time completely stopped any public program was created by nationalist to help poor people. Due to the Neolibralism approach of free marketing worker unions became weak and labor cost became cheap. Few people were able to make money,while the majority of poor Latin Americans felt the pinch “The consequences of neoliberalist policies are far reaching for any nation, but particularly hurtful for the majority of Latin American residents.”citizenspress.org › Editorials

Posted 16 minutes ago by Rashid Osmannuri

0

Add a comment

Add comment

A DEADLY COMBINATION OF DRUGS AND VIOLENCE

A DEADLY COMBINATION OF DRUGS AND VIOLENCE

Columbia is the fourth largest country in South America and has a reputation of being one of the more socially unstable countries in the region. This is due to the overwhelming amount of drugs and violence in the country. Columbia is by far the world largest producer of cocaine. . It currently produces over 80% of the world’s cocaine. This drug problem currently affects its progress as a nation. The drug trade in Colombia took root in the mid 70’s and early 80’s where the notorious kingpin Pablo Escobar smuggled in more than 13 tons of cocaine into the United Sates every day. Ironically enough Colombia’s biggest trade partner and biggest supporter of the Colombia’s coca eradication efforts happens to be the biggest consumer of cocaine in the world, and that happens to be the United States of America. According to the U.S. Department of Justice’s 2010 Cocaine Signature Program, 95.5% of the cocaine seized in the United States originates in Colombia. America has long been known for its role in the war on narcotics, but the fact remains that America has the largest demand for narcotics and is also the largest consumer of narcotics in the world. The drug trade has affected Latin America in a negative way because drugs and violence go hand in hand.

The drugs are also linked to another Colombian issue, which is the problem of internal conflict and insurgencies. Insurgencies are group rebellions against political authority with the use military force and civil violence. Insurgencies act as a separate state within a state, some of them set up their own institutions and are armed with their own weapons. Since these insurgent groups are cut off from the government and are criminals they have no other way to fund their activities than the illegal drug trade. When you couple their activities as insurgents with their involvement in the drug trade what you have are narco-terrorists. Insurgents are very active in Colombia and an example of one is the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC).  The FARC uses the illegal drug trade as a means to fund their objectives. One of their most notable customers is the Mexican drug cartels, and with the FARC supplying the drug cartels with narcotics it makes for more violence in both countries. As the biggest guerrilla army in Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia operates in different regions of the country mainly in search for financial sources to fund their 40-year old war against the government and upkeep their army. It has long funded its political agenda and military battle against the Colombian government by kidnapping, extortion and by participating in the drug trafficking business.  The FARC possess a range of areas in which they operate and these areas controlled by them.

Alvaro Uribe, the president form 2002-2010 defeated the FARC militant groups several times and has severely decreased their power. He managed to secure Colombia and bring about progress on the civil and national front.  In addition, more than 20,000 members of the FARC and other illegal armed groups have individually surrendered their arms .There has been a drop in the production of cocaine in Colombia over the last 10 years.

Born In Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aQfKk3ykBBes

http://colombiareports.com/colombia-news/news/11815-farc-biggest-drug-cartel.html

Emancipate Yourself From Mental Slavery: Brief Neo-Liberalism Blog

In Resistance Since 1492!

For a Northern Illinois University student writing about Neo-liberalism, it is interesting that this economic practice was ‘perfected’ just 65 miles away from this campus.   From the corn fields to the concrete jungles of Chicago, one will find the University of Chicago’s school of economics, now called the Milton Friedman Institute.  It was here that the Neo-liberal doctrine implemented by Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys took shape.  In sum, Neo-liberalism is a policy which removes state-sanctioned barriers such as high tariffs - which benefited national industries – and essentially rid the nation of anything which deters multi-national corporations to operate without restrictions.  According to Chasteen, “Neoliberal jettisoned all trappings of economic nationalism and embraced basic liberal faith in the free market. So they sold off, or privatized, the state-run corporations and public services that nationalist had created…”[1] 

                

        Back to Milton Friedman, a man loved by Chilean elite but a derogatory word in Chile’s Poblaciones (shanty towns).  After the US backed coup of Chile’s President Salvador Allende, 11 Septiembre 1973, Chile was in a state of shock and crisis.  Naomi Klein termed this the Shock Doctrine in her book with the same title.   Thousands of bodies of Allende supporters, like that of Victor Jara (popular Chilean folk singer), piled up around el Estadio Nacional de Chile in Santiago for days after the bombing of La Moneda.  Chile, excluding those elites del Barrio Alto, was in a state of panic.  The military coup left the political, economic, and social climate in a state of crisis; a perfect time to derail all of Allende’s social projects and welcome multi-nationals.  Chile was now in the hands of the pro-business, conservative, US trained Dictator Augusto Pinochet.

      

       With the Chilean economy now in the hands of Milton Friedman and the neoliberal Chicago boys, Chile’s elite gained much while the majority of the population lost most. Chile became one of the countries with the highest disparity in distribution of wealth in the world.  To better understand this neo-liberalistic phenomena, we must first analyze Friedman’s own words.  According to Friedman, “Corporate conscious is impossible. The corporation really has no choice, so for those who want corporations virtuous, it’s not possible; that is unless it makes some cash for the shareholders…So if you want your freedom, let the corporate seize the day, there really is no better way.  Let’s privatize.  Choice is the way, let corporations run our schools, [and] let the free market make the rules, choose to privatize, I say.”

               

        No. This so-called ‘free market’ benefits the few while destroys the have-nots.  For too long our homelands have been treated as casinos for foreign interests who gamble with our economy, take our resources, and destroy our environments.  These foreign interests leave the country poor, which is why we saw millions displaced due to NAFTA in the 1990s as well as thousands of bodies broken, bruised and killed due to the sweatshop labor of the maquiladoras. 

To quote Immortal Technique:

 “Latino America is a huge colony of countries whose presidents are cowards in the face of economic imperialism. You see, third world countries are rich places, abundant in resources, and many of these countries have the capacity to feed their starving people and the children we always see digging for food in trash on commercials. But plutocracies, in other words a government run by the rich such as this one and traditionally oppressive European states, force the third world into buying overpriced, unnecessary goods while exporting huge portions of their natural resources.”

                

         In conclusion, Latin@s in the US are in the belly of the beast.  If you watch documentaries such as “Harvest of Empire,” “South of the Border,” or “The War on Democracy;” you will see why many of us are here.  Whether you are second, third, or fourth generation US citizens you must never forget how you got here and how you are connected to those people who are now called undocumented.  As Ecuador’s President Rafael Correa said, “es prohibido olvidar” (it is forbidden to forget).  Emancipate yourself from this historical amnesia that they push out in your Texas-based textbooks.  

   

---

[1]John Charles Chasteen, “Born In Blood and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America,” (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2011), p 320.

Neoliberalism and the Deforestation of South America

The one piece of information that particularly caught my interest in this chapter is that Latin America’s neoliberalist government was the driving force behind the deforestation of the Amazonian rain forest. Chasteen explains that the rain forest was basically untouched until the 1960s. The neoliberalists saw deforestation as a way to attract larger corporations to Latin America. They did not seem to understand, or care, that not only were they destroying the most biodiverse environment on the planet, but also that the land they were getting would not stay fertile for long. They argued that the deforestation of the United States boosted their agricultural economy. One problem. THEY ARE NOT THE SAME ENVIRONMENT! The soil found in the United States is completely different than that of the Amazonian rain forest in South America. The soil of the rain forest is thin and washes away quickly. This means that the land was basically useless after just a few years. Is it worth destroying an ecologically fragile and diverse environment permanently for a few short years of farming?

The saddest part to me, however, is that the deforestation still has not stopped. Neoliberalism set the stage for decades of struggle for environmentalists. An article from the National Geographic puts the situation into perspective by explaining that “during the past 40 years, close to 20 percent of the Amazon rain forest has been cut down – more than in all the previous 450 years since European colonization”. This is astounding. It is frustrating to watch people destroy such an important part of the world’s ecosystem and not care. It is about land, economic progress, and exploitation. It reminds me of how in Blood and Fire, Chasteen continuously says that Latin America looks to Europe and the United States as models for their own government and economy. In this case, Latin America follows their example by encouraging ranching. This is another piece of the puzzle that makes no sense to me, because ranching requires the use of a lot of land but does not require very many employees. Plus, most of the time the landowners live in cities and leave their ranches to someone else to run. The deforestation of the rain forest is purely a moneymaking venture for the elite. Cattle ranching has been a cause for deforestation for many years, but has gone from contributing to 38 percent of the deforestation in the 1960s and 70s to closer to 60 percent today.

However, in past year or so Brazil has released that their deforestation levels are at an all time low. An article from mongabay.com explains that “[s]ince 2004 the rate of deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon has fallen nearly 80 percent to the lowest levels recorded since … the late 1980s”. This is very encouraging, and makes you wonder how this could be. It seems that, at least in the case of Brazil, the economy has begun to disentangle itself from the rain forest. Their stability no longer seems to rely on deforestation due to the enforcement of environmental laws, satellite forest monitoring, the expansion of reserves and protected areas, and other efforts made by the Brazilian government to educate the people on the importance of the ecosystem of the Amazonian rain forest. Let's hope this trend continues in the years to come.

Sources:

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/last-of-amazon/

http://www.mongabay.com/brazil.html

Born in Blood and Fire - John Charles Chasteen

Contras

I found the Contras to be especially interesting in this chapter, from how they are falsely considered the "freedom fighters" to the U.S. support to help them rise. Since the Nicaraguans weren't under U.S. control, the U.S. had to find ways to turn the majority of the people of Nicaragua on those who had control of Nicaragua, the Sandinista's. The U.S. managed to do this in multiple ways. First, the U.S. would force the world bank and inter-american development bank to terminate all projects and assistance in Nicaragua. Then, the U.S. turned as many people as possible against the Sandinista's, causing boycott's and also the making of the Contra's. The boycott's forced Nicaragua's developing economy to a halt, and the rebellious attacks from the Contra's forced Nicaragua's government to fight back. Both of these were taking a major toll on the economy, not allowing the Sandinista's to rebuild what was wrecked during the Contra attacks. It also forced the Sandinista's to deal with terrorism while trying to form social projects in their country. The constant Contra attacks were taking a toll on the Sandinista's, and the U.S. made it clear that if the Sandinista's won the election, these attacks would keep on occuring. Although the election was supposed to be fair, it was quite obvious that it wasn't, and even under these circumstances, the Sandinista's still acquired a hefty 40% of the votes!

The formation of the Contras came from the U.S. government, which was under Ronald Reagan's control. Their main purpose was to cause a disturbance in Nicaragua, forcing the Sandinista's to send aid, military support, and reconstruction to the areas of attack. The U.S. formed the Contra's and supported them financially for only one reason, to gain control of Nicaragua. The formation of the rebellious Contra's was a strategical plan and caused Nicaragua to be eaten from the inside out and it's safe to say, the Contra's helped destroy themselves.

Sources:

Born in Blood and Fire

http://libcom.org/history/1970-1987-the-contra-war-in-nicaragua

Neoliberalism, All for One, and One for One.

     Throughout the centuries, Latin America has proven that it is a special case when it comes to the government and the ideologies behind them. Many outside influences such as the United States,
Britain, Spain, and many more have always had an impact on the structure of the government each country would have. However, just as Karl Marx stated, the government is dependent on the state of the economy. This is why there is such variation in Latin America such as Mexico with a Republic, Cuba with Communism, and Venezuela with a supposed Republic ruled by a Dictator.  Many Latin American country has gone through several government types and beliefs. One of these would include Neoliberalism.
     Neoliberalism is theory in which the belief that privatization, free trade, export production, and minimal government intervention. It is an attempt to have changes go through political debates rather than revolution, a focus on economic growth, and resembles Capitalism very much. Why did Neoliberalism work in Latin America though? Neoliberalism worked in Latin America due to the success that the Middle-class had through Neoliberalism. It is through the Middle-class that other theory's such as Marxism were not received as well due the belief that social mobility is possible. It is through success that Lower to Middle-class workers had faith in Neoliberalism. And with the success that Neoliberal leaders had in Latin American Countries, it supported the argument that Neoliberalism works. It worked so well in fact that Groups such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was born due to the belief that foreign capital is encouraged in Latin America. In some Latin American countries however the aid of foreign countries is not needed as much.
     Neoliberalism gave some of the minorities groups a form of unity but still each had their particular culture. Whether it be believing that leaders like Zapata should be recognized as opposed to talked down upon. Nationalism for one's country was still around but not in the same sense that the aid of foreign countries should be turned down. Instead it was welcomed. This is another reason as to why Marxism is as popular to Neoliberalism since the working class also known as the Proletariat were not as unified in order for a government like Communism to work properly. Latin America in this relates heavily to the United States and why Marxism never reached it as well.
     How has Neoliberalism worked out for Latin America though? It began very successful and the working class enjoyed the new job opportunities, the social mobility, the foreign imports and exports. However through recent years, Neoliberalism appears to be getting old, and Nationalism is becoming a competitor once again. Mexico experienced their worst economic crisis during the 90's after the President Carlos Salinas Administration. In Brazil a nationalist attitude is what began stabilizing the economy through Luiz Inacio da Silva. In Venezuela a nationalist dictator Hugo Chavez, the opposite of da Silva, rose to power, and though the people may not have as many options, Chavez gave them more than any Neoliberal had done before him. The list goes on. Neoliberalism appeared to be a glimmer of hope that Latin American would have in order for the countries to have a stabilized government and economy. However as Karl Marx states in his Communist Manifesto, a government is based on the economy, and no matter the government type, it will always create its own seed of its destruction. Neoliberalism was too much foreign trade, corrupt governments, and the false promise of social mobility for many. It is also why I am so skeptical of political leader's decisions today and why I am so concerned for the economic stability for so many people in U.S.as well. However, I still do firmly believe that no matter what the elite do, or what they attempt to enforce the responsibility of the structure of the country is on the majority, which is the middle and lower class.

http://newleftreview.org/II/52/emir-sader-the-weakest-link-neoliberalism-in-latin-america
http://citizenspress.org/editorials/neoliberalism-in-latin-america
http://batr.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/nafta.gif

Ecuador, presente!

                  CONNECTIONS FROM THE PAST
            From the book “Born In Blood & Fire” the one chapter that catches my full attention and brings it back home is Chapter 9: Reaction.  The chapter describes the inhumane treatment of the Chile military towards their own people in the 1970’s when Salvador Allende was in the presidency.  Salvador Allende was an advocate for his country to become disengaged from United States forces, by nationalizing Chilean copper, coal, steel, banks and land reform (Chasteen, pg. 299). The dreams of socialism and a just Chile was a red flag for two of Allende’s opposers, who later  became allies with the United States CIA to unite forces for Allende’s overthrow as stated in the book “that Allende be overthrown by a coup” (Chasteen, pg. 299). 
              The date September 11 is not just a date of condolences for the United States, but for Chile as well.  On September 11, 1973 Salvador Allende was assassinated by the Chilean army with the help of U.S. CIA. This crime was committed due to the successful “Unidad Popular (UP)” which was an organization that motivated people to directly take over the factories that were taking too long to catch up with the shift of a new Chile.  During the mid-term elections of 1971, la Unidad Popular very successful by far, which gave its people victory, but not for too long.
            These instances in our history demonstrate the power of a nationalized Sur America in the 1970’s. But the people of Chile and Allende were not the only victims from the North’s oppression, president Jaime Roldos Aguilera had to suffer the same injustices when he took presidency of Ecuador in 1979.
               Jaime Roldos Aguilera started making great changes for the people of Ecuador by developing the “Plan de Desarollo” translated to “Development Plan”, in this plan, Roldos’ priority was to house the poor people of Ecuador, and increased education in all grade levels.  Roldos knew he needed to take a stance for his country and make changes that were very necessary.  With all the changes Roldos started to make it was very clear that he was not going to be a puppet for any “powerful” nation. Sadly, Roldos and his wife were killed in a plane crash on the border of Peru and Ecuador, others like John Perkins, a valid source would say it was not an accident, but a plan to kill him from the U.S. CIA explain with further details in his book “Confessions Of A Economic Hit man”. May 24, 1981 Ecuador mourned the death of a great leader for the people.
                Many would like to this these acts of violence and violators of human rights stop in history books of the 1970’s, well it is something I once believed.  Unfortunately, in September 20^th 2010 while hanging around my apartment my mother calls and frantically tells me to turn on the tv to Telemundo, the huge red letters “emergency news” grabbed my attention while the news reported stated that Ecuador was under an attempted coup. At the time I did not fully understand what that meant, I asked my mother what it was and she rapidly explained to me.  I could not believe the president of my mother land was in the middle of an attempted coup.  Some critics do say that it was no such thing, but the videos of the police shooting at what they believed was his car, show something different. Some say this attack was brought because of the nationalization of the military base of Manta where there was U.S. military facility and others say it might have been because they miss-interpreted his new laws.
                In October 2010 it was broadcasted in Democracy Now! (min 6:23) that the commander of the barracks where President Correa was attacked, was a graduate from the School of the Americas by the name of Manuel Rivadeneira Tello… how “ironic”.  Great news were shared by Presidente Correa to his people during his weekly sabatina in June 27, 2012 that he was going to sign into law the removal of all Ecuatorianos that were being trained in the famous School of the Americas.  He repeats himself multiple time with the great words of “es prohibido olvidar” meaning “it is forbidden to forget”, and what he means by that is that we cannot forget the history of our people and the battles they faced, because we are still battling the oppression placed on our people. 

Coup in Brazil

Military Coup in Brazil

Joao Belchior Marques Goulart was born on March of 1919 and a son of a rich farmer and as well as a land owner. Who gave an order to the troops in Rio during the revolution in the 1930s, this brought power to Getulio Dorneles Varges. Joao Studied law and social science at Porta Alege, Graduating in 1939. But Joao gave up his career as a lawyer and began to work in the family business. In 1945 Joao found himself involved with politics when he met with a man Verges. Joao joined a Labor party and was also elected to the state of legislature of Rio. On March 31, 1964 in Brazil with the defeat of President Joao Goulart by the armed forces, helped by the United States on April 1, 1964. The coup put an end to the government of Goulart.  Jango which is member of the Brazilin Labor Party who had been elected Vice President in the same election that led Janio Quadros, from the National Labor Party and backed by the N.D.U (National Democratic Union) to the presidency. In 1946, Goulart have automatically replaced Quadros as president, but he was on a road trip to China. After a long negotiation, leads mainly by Jango's brother-in-law Leonel Brizola, then the government of Rio Grande de Sul, Goulart's supporters and the right wing reached an agreement.               Janio Quadros resign on the month of  August 25, 1961. August 29, Brazilian congress heard and vetoed to stop Goulart from being named president, by the heads of the three branches of the military and some politicians, who claimed Goulart's inauguration would put the country on the road to civil war. Brazil then would become a parliamentary democracy, with Goulart as President. He would be the head of state, but with limited powers of head of government. Tancredo Naves was named as the new minister. January 6, 1963 Goulart changed the system of government back to presidential democracy, won by a large margin. He found him-self back in power with a deteriorating political situation. During this period, Goulart was politically isolated, with a foreign policy which was independent of any alignment he openly criticized the Bay of Pigs invasion by the United States, but criticized the Cuban regime of Fidel Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis.                            This reminds me of the movie I am Sam directed by Jessie Nelson. He had to overcome adversity and many social aspects of normal person, but being an intellectual disabled man that is significantly impaired, he dealt with many struggles and empowered  it. He had to learn the ways of the being a father  while at the same time dealing with societies views on his condition and his difficulties of learning and  grasping a new routine other than the one that he knew and also fighting for custody of his seven year old daughter . In the process teaches his cold-hearten lawyer the value of love and family.

Sources:

http://www.archontology.org/nations/braz/braz_rep2/goulart.php

http://www.answers.com/topic/jo-o-goulart

http://www.archontology.org/nations/braz/braz_rep2/goulart.php

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0277027/

Communist Revolution

What necessarily is Marxism? It is simply the fundamental ideology of what is today’s modern communism. Marxism itself was the idea brought up by one of the most influential German philosophers and social thinkers Karl Marx, alongside Friedrich Engles. Their ideas were simply to have the disposal of any means of social class. He was in favor of rather than having the rich or the poor to simply having the equal. In my opinion it was a great idea in order to get rid of any type of social order. Though many of the lower class/poor were obviously followers of the movement, you always have the opposing party. In the Marxism movement that party would consist of the middle class as well as the upper class, due to the fact that they would lose everything. Many countries believed that Communism or Marxism was the solution to problems within their nation. Therefore the ideology of communism was then adopted by many of the southern countries. With the creation of the “Communist Manifesto” It helped to inspire the lower class societies to rebel and create equality. The manifesto explained the injustice of the capitalist economic system. It also went on including the pointing out of the abuse of the working class by the Bourgeoisie (capitalist). With the Bourgeoisie gaining control of the production in addition to control of property, it was essentially centralized for their own welfare. Marx and Engels created the manifesto as a theory to the service of building a movement. The manifesto did just that and became the base of a very important movement, the Cuban Revolution. Lead by one of the world greatest revolutionists Fidel Castro. At the time at witch Fidel was very unpleased with the running of his countries under Felgencio Batista, he decided to take action. After his accusations of Batista’s corrupt and tyrant ruling he decided to take a hold of the ideology of Marxism and make a change. Alongside Ernesto “che” Guevara they began to spread there revolutionary ideas and later on replacing Batista’s regime with that of the present communist party of Cuba. In the end Marxism and its creation had a great impact on many countries. Though not many feel that it fulfills the needs of its countries for example the United States, I have had thoughts about how the United States would be if it was a communist country. I feel as if we were a communist nation things would be much different more in a sense as being considered a second world country besides the thought of probably being behind in everything as well as isolated from the rest of the world . Hence I am glad the U.S decided to make sure they stayed away from communism. In the long run Cuba made the decisions they needed to take by rebelling with the leadership Castro and becoming a communist country. Though they are one of the most known, there were an extensive amount of countries that at the time also choose the ideology of communism. To name a few there was Angola, Albania, Afghanistan and of course the Soviet Union. Presently Cuba is one of the only five communist countries in the world along with China, Laos, North Korea and Vietnam.

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bookchin/comman.html

http://www.deepspirits.com/great-people/marx-engels/

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/

Who Is To Blame For Colombia's Drug Problem? A Look Into the Mirror

Photograph: Roger Ressmeyer/Corbis

                As the Cold War was ending, the United States’ priority in Latin America shifted from the War on Communism to the War on Drugs. In the 1980s, the United States focused their attention to Colombia, where 90 percent of the world’s cocaine is produced. During the Cold War, Colombia had stayed fairly quiet as the Colombian government was already conservative, anti-communist. Although the United States had not intervened against communist forces in Colombia, that does not mean the communist party was unrepresented. The Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC; Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) were originally the military wing of the Colombian Communist Party. Over time, the FARC became involved with the hugely profitable illicit drug trade. Around the same time, these drugs were sweeping through the United States at an alarming rate. Since the FARC were believed to be using drug profits to fuel their campaign, the United States called for the War on Drugs. It was believed that the War on Drugs would reduce the supply of cocaine and other drugs such as marijuana and heroin, while also inflating prices to unreasonable levels for most people. It was hoped that the destruction of the drug market would help bring an end to the communist voice in Colombia. Unfortunately, the War on Drugs in the United States has largely been a failure. Neither supply, nor prices or demand have decreased as a result of the War on Drugs. In response to the FARC generating revenue from drug trafficking, the right-wing paramilitary groups that rival FARC also began to collect drug money. This bloody conflict was endangering the lives of Colombians who had to live in fear of being killed for supporting one group or not supporting another. This issue hits particularly close to home for me because my girlfriend was born in Apartadó, Antioquia, Colombia and was forced to abandon her family’s home and relocate to Bogotá as a child or be killed by the FARC.

                The United States’ approach to the War on Drugs has been a complete disaster and has potentially created more problems than it has solved. Inside U.S. borders, levels of drug use have not declined. Additionally, millions of Americans have been condemned to prison for often non-violent drug offenses; disproportionately minority. The demand for illicit drugs in the United States is still high, providing incentive to the suppliers in Colombia. As a result, the illicit drug trade has not been much affected by the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs is, however, contributing to the devastation of Colombia and other Latin American countries. As drug profits in Colombia increase, so does the power of the FARC and paramilitary groups, while the Colombian government is stuck somewhere in the middle. The War on Drugs has given power to the drug cartels, the FARC, and the paramilitary groups. Not bound by any set of rules, these groups can be notoriously violent. Collateral damage also occurs to the average Colombian citizen who decides to become involved with the drug cartels. Ordinary people who turn to drug muling because of widespread poverty are frequently obtained and arrested. I believe the United States holds the power to correct this blunder. By ending the War on Drugs, perhaps the United States can help Colombia in its quest for peace as well as improve the situation at home. Other countries such as Portugal have shown that legalization and regulation of drugs can help the government have a control of the situation as well as reduce the demand for illicit drugs. Whatever the solution may be, the first step is to realize that the War on Drugs is not working.

References:

Born In Blood & Fire by John Charles Chasteen

Driven by Drugs: US Policy Toward Colombia:

https://www.rienner.com/uploads/48208845e4df6.pdf

Rethinking the “War on Drugs” Through the US-Mexico Prism: http://www.ycsg.yale.edu/center/forms/rethinking-war-on-drugs.pdf

Getting Beat By A Woman

Women's UFC Champion Ronda Rousey (Source: http://www.cagereligion.com/2012/12/rousey-vs-carmouche-henderson-vs.html)

There’s nothing more damaging to a man’s ego than to be beaten by a woman in anything, especially in feats of strength or skill.  With society playing its part in implementing gender roles, it’s no wonder that men today are more concerned about their masculinity than chivalry.  This is not to say that all men are raucous wild men who have to flip a table and a few chairs over every time they walk into a classroom, just generally speaking that most men are focused on keeping their manly image as the alphas in society.  So how does this apply to sports?  In any sport that is played in the world, the men’s division gets much more attention than the women’s division, and in my particular topic, the world of martial arts is a male dominated sport.  Any time you hear about a martial artist, the first thing you think of is probably Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, or some other famous Asian martial artists.  Apart from the fact that 99% of people will think of the martial artists as stereotypically Asian, they also will stereotypically classify the martial artist as a male.  Why is that?  Why is it that we cannot picture a woman as a martial artist and a damned good one at that?  Society has painted males and females to fit a certain category of traits, personalities, and physical abilities and anything that goes against these socially constructed norms are considered foreign, out of place, and unacceptable.  This is a non-inclusive blanket mentality that completely idealizes what a man and what a woman should be.  On one hand we have the dominating male who is physically superior and obviously more skilled while on the other hand we have the submissive, significantly more fragile woman who must have a man take care of most things.  If you thought that idea of what a man and a woman is was ridiculous, don’t worry I was with you on that as well.  I for one know firsthand that a woman can be just as vicious as a man is in martial arts, possibly even more so.  Martial arts’ philosophy was to understand the human physical capabilities as well as gain physical prowess and defense against all worldly obstacles (full article on the history and philosophy of martial arts can be seen here: http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_80.html).  Through this idea, humans can learn about themselves and about the world around them.  So who had the idea that men were the only ones capable of performing such a feat?  Women are just as capable of breaking wood as men.  Women are just as capable of pushing their physical limits and understanding their own bodies as men.  Women are fully capable of exercising, staying in shape, and conditioning in the same ways just as men (questions and answers to the physicality, roughness, and attractiveness of women can be seen here: http://futuriztik.com/sports-and-recreation/fragile-no-more-women-taking-martial-arts-training/).  So why do we automatically assume that women are not able to handle the physicality and discipline of martial arts?  Some strides have been made to publicize the women of martial arts, but the bulk of society view these women as entertainment value and not to be taken seriously.  I feel this can be a mistake, especially if I was on the wrong end of a beating by say, UFC Women’s Champion Ronda Rousey from the bantamweight class.  UFC 157 will be showcasing their first ever women’s fight on pay-per-view and if you’ve watched any of the preview footage leading up to this fight, these women can fight just as viciously as men!  Being a martial artist myself, I’ve been on the receiving end of a beating by a female martial artist and they hit just as hard as men.  Do I have hurt pride?  Of course I don’t.  Do others think I’m weak for being beat in a sparring match against a woman?  They most likely do.  In the end it doesn’t matter about gender, especially when it comes to sports.  That’s the beauty of sports: gender roles were never written into the rules.  So the fact that women in martial arts are finally getting some spotlight is a step in the right direction, but it took long enough don’t you think? Below are some links to some videos that might put into perspective what I mean.