< < <
Date > > >
|
< < <
Thread > > >
Colombia's History Puzzle(1/2)
by Emilio José Chaves
02 August 2000 01:02 UTC
Hello WSN. This time let me share with you my interpretation of the history
of Colombia. It is sent in two posts and it may have some common points with
other colonized nations. Here, Usona means United States of North America,
and usonian refers to its people. Thanks, Emilio
**************
Colombia's History Puzzle
Colombia's last 500 years have not been peaceful. Three centuries of spanish
colonialism plus 180 years of republican life under equally excluding,
corrupted, racist and violent elites never solved the inherited unequal
distributions of land, income, opportunities nor the structural dependence
on neocolonial powers. We have elections but not real democracy, and two
main elite parties -consevatives and liberals - control the nation. Dozens
of civil wars between them caused the death of millions of peasants,
afro-colombians, mestizos and youth taken from popular classes, because
elites used militars or contracted people to fight for them. Last time that
elites sons went into combat was in 1900.
During XX century we had one declared civil war, three undeclared ones and
two dictatorships. Left candidates and representatives, union leaders,
teachers, university students, human rights workers, honest periodists,
judges, peasants have been assasinated by thousands per year during last two
decades. In 1960s a militar bombing with napalm of 48 peasant-families
(supported by Usona planes) became a 1000 fold bigger guerrilla known as
Farc; the repression of a university strike became a guerrilla called ELN;
the electoral fraud of 1970 ended in another guerrilla called M-19, and the
church harrasment to father Camilo Torres social-discourse sent him and
other priests to combat and death on the side of ELN guerrilla.
Surprisingly, we were called the most stable democracy of Latin America by
usonian political-science experts.
In the 1950s, pressed by Usona Gov, a colombian militar batallion made of
peasants (always they) was sent to fight in Corea; those that survived still
do not know why they fought there, but were happy to travel abroad.
During the last 42 years liberal-conservative parties learned to share
power, disolved their theoretical differences, gradually became fervent
neo-liberals obedient to imperial orders, and established a modus vivendi
with drug barons -including Usona-Europe mafias-. They recently agreed with
guerrillas to dialogue for peace -while fighting war- , and have aproved the
usonian war project called Plan Colombia, plus new debts for war.
This peace process has several obstacles: 1) Elites declare that peace is a
precondition for social justice -in spite of their 400 years failure- while
guerrilla argues that social peace is a precondition for peace. 2) Elites do
not want to share their lands, but expect that somebody pays them for it. 3)
Elites are using the army and their narco-paramilitars in violations of
human rights of people. 4) Usona intervention in our internal problem is on
elites side, is interested in our strategic position and resources, uses
drug as a pretext, forms part of an andean policy of domination, fears the
anti-neoliberal stand of guerrillas and considers the whole thing as a
technical problem of killing-machines and strategies. 5) Colombian top rank
militars, which administer a good percentage of government budget and are
heavily corrupted, do not want to be reformed by a peace-dialogue.
In summary, present colombian civil war is still trying to solve problems
more than 400 years old, at a time when neither Usona neither Marx existed,
neither drug-traffic was a crime. Usonian official versions reduce the
problem to the last four decades.
Next there are mentioned some elements present during last five centuries
after spanish colonization started. Some of them belong to the field of
necrophylia:
1) The practice of dismembering victims was heavily practiced during spanish
domination with the plain support of christian hierarchy (to suppress
indian, slaves and criollos resistance, as a lesson against popular
insurrections). Conquerors used to throw indian women and their children to
feed big dogs when they rejected to serve them sexually (they even had the
word "emperrar" for this practice). After 1810 independence, during XIX and
XX centuries, we had dozens of civil wars between the two main elite parties
(Conservatives and Liberals); soldiers were obtained from small villages,
plantation slaves and haciendas' peasant-indians and put to kill
theirselves. If you look at the first edition of book "La Violencia in
Colombia", there is a picture of around 1950, where many army soldiers play
soccer with a victim's head.
2) The racial pyramid and the land problem.
Colony meant the take over of the best lands which included docil servants
as part of them, which were given to spaniards. Indians that were not killed
entered to serve haciendas, or were simply pushed toward jungles and high
mountains. Spain also imported african slaves to work in their suggar
plantations and mines. After a time, many slaves escaped and created
independent communities; since then, they became our afro-american natives,
with their own particular cultures. Soon, it also appeared an important
percentage of mestizos (mixes of all races), which were neither slaves,
neither servants of haciendas. In order to distribute land rights, Spain
created a complex scale to classify people based on "blood purity", with
more than 36 different words for possible spanish-afro-indian combinations.
In some regions, today, racism exists from euro-descendants toward the rest,
from indians toward afros, from mestizos toward indians and afros, etc.
Today's landlords are predominantly decoloured, and a 4% of them owns close
to 60% of rural property, while the poorest 60% of peasants only have 15% of
the lowest-quality land-area, far from markets. So after 5 centuries, our
elites never solved the unequal property of lands created by the spanish
conquest, and maintained the racist, authoritarian and patriarcal tendences.
3) Colombian elites mentality and their political parties.
During the last half of XVIII century, a new kind of criollo's landowners
appeared. Educated at Europe, and good travellers, they brought the liberal
ideas from masonic groups, new science and Illustration. Finally they
succeeded with Bolivar. (Remember that 80% of the signers of Usona
Independence Declaration had masonic ties, huge lands and slaves). Our
heroes of independence only wanted to push Spain out of here, but as far as
racist ideas, land-ownership and slavery, they remained equal -with few
exemptions-. Due to the hard-mountains topography, big rivers, and dense
jungles, communications were slow, and the nation was controlled, and still
it is, by a few regional caudillos, quite hard to handle by Spain, or by
the central government of the new republic.
After Bolivar, two elite parties appeared: Conservatives, which promoted
ties with the church declared Bolivar as their icon, and Liberals, with
"free-thinking", masonic influence, and radical anti-clericalism, chose
Santander as icon. The two of them, plus the church, were of course huge
landowners, slave-owners, and racists. Church elite, as it may be supossed,
has always been a close ally to conservative party. After a violent process
of 180 years of wars, mutual electoral frauds and rivalty, today (2000),
the two parties and the church elites support neoliberal ideas and elite
global order, with a few exemptions inside their ranks. In the process,
millions of simple peasants, and urban dwellers, learned to hate theirselves
and to kill theirselves, in defense of their masters ambitions. But land
reform, urban property reform, human rights, or workers wellfare has never
been acomplished as required in proportion to our development.
4) Colombian relationship with colonial or neo-colonial powers.
After independence, our heroes had a hard identity problem and question: "To
whom shall we look like?" Bolivar chose England as his cultural model. He
brought british mercenaries and got support from the Crown which implied a
debt that took several decades to be paid. Bolivar mistrusted Usona. He
ordered vice-president Santander to convoque a Panamerican Congress without
Usona. But Santander invited them and spoiled the idea of a continental
block to balance Usona. British influence was important during XIX century.
Usona neocolonial influence over us became definitive at the start of the XX
century, asfixiating after WWII, and unbearable during last three decades.
In a famous letter, (1929) Bolivar wrote: "Usona seems predestinated by the
Providence to plague America with misery in the name of freedom". During the
independence war, Bolivar troops captured a usonian ship loaded with guns
for spaniards. Usona protested, and some agreement was reached. It is easy
to see that the interest of Usona in hispanoamerican independence and
democracy never existed, and Monroe's doctrine "America for Usonians" is
just the formulation of a continental domination project.
8) Bolivar and Afro-Americans
Libertador Simon Bolivar was a complex and interesting personality. He spent
his whole huge fortune, his energy and health for the cause of independence.
In contrast, most ot the other heroes claimed huge lands, pensions and
haciendas as compensation for their participation. During his last years,
Bolivar lost power to the liberal radical sector and tried to retain it
through an autocratic style, and even proposed a monarchic constitutional
system as the only way to keep unity. He was a hyper-dynamic guy, impatient,
stuburn, good organizer, a lover of adventures, with a romantic concept of
heroe, mainly interested in fame; generous with friends, he normally
despised beaurocratic and possesive minds. He was good in convincig and
joining regional leaders around his ideas.
Bolivar's mother was a very sick woman, so he was breast-fed and cared by an
afro-american slave called Hipolita, a very important feminine presence in
his life.
His father died when he was 3, her mother when he was 9. He inherited a huge
fortune, had private tutors, and travelled through Europe when young.
After the failure of a revolutionary trial in 1812, he seeked refuge in
Haiti, the first free nation in the non-british colonies. Petion, the
afro-american president, gave him arms, ships, soldiers and money to start
again, with the condition that he should decrete slaves freedom as soon as
independence were obtained. After Napoleon's defeat, the Sacred Allience
formed by european monarchies joined and attacked Haiti. At the time, Usona
remained quiet; reasons are easy to guess.
After independence Bolivar tried to push slaves freedom, but the
constitutional assembly defeated the idea, and just declared that only new
born afro-americans would be free -thus getting the time to sell their
slaves to other nations, prior to the final freedom law-. Slaves were only
freed like 12 years after Bolivar died.
In some moment Bolivar calmed local elites by saying "I will not permit a
brown-cracy".
After the failed conspiracy of radical-liberals to kill him, he signed the
death penalty of Admiral Padilla, an afro-american heroe of the naval war
who was in jail during the events; however, he exiled vice-president
Santander (a criollo heroe), one of the two main complot organizers.
Bolivar defended public services in health, education, care for poor
children, payment in currency for any work, social care without exclusions
and natural resources preservation. His idea of progress was designed on
three axes: industry, work and science. Besides the executive, legislative
and judicial branches of power, he proposed a Moral branch to control the
other ones.
Also, he made a terrible warn against the use of army force: "Beware of the
army that points the guns against its own people". This sentence is not
tought by those that train our militaries at the School of Americas.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
< < <
Date > > >
|
< < <
Thread > > >
|
Home