Venezuela: the left's paradigm
By Aleksander Boyd
London 23.01.06 | That peoples make mistakes at the ballots is a certainty. That elected officials, product of such mistakes, once in office are, in most cases, to turn against those who voted them in is recurrent. Venezuelans know a thing or two about that. And it seems that 53% of Bolivians decided to enrol the country in a crash course on how to take an already broken nation into the league of pariah states. Mario Vargas Llosa has recently penned a brilliant piece entitled "Race, Boots and Nationalism" in which he expounds into how "barbarian caudillos" exploit the race and nationalist cards to advance their agendas that, need be stressed, are a far cry from what would be the enterprise of true patriots.
Vargas Llosa also contends that racism, when originating from those perceived to have been oppresed, has become not only politically correct, but fashionable among first world 'erudites.' Hence it is correct that a black person refers to his brethren as "nigger," however the same is considered insulting, regardless of friendship, should a white person called thusly a black. This is an advanced societies disease. The terms of endearment used in Venezuela, and much of Latin America, would cause much alarm in London, Madrid, NY or Berlin. Hugo Chavez knows this, and so does Evo Morales. So they set out to milk the race card for all it's worth, adjusting their public presentations depending on the political affinities of the audiences of the countries they happen to visit.
But Vargas Llosa's article felt short upon the overt racism that has come to rule the dynamics by which the aforementioned pundits treat us, individuals from the developing world. Thus Vargas Llosa's criticism is a sign of a servile and pusillanimous attitude towards the giant to the north, which also goes in detriment of his own countrymen. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, on the other hand, ranks higher up in the developed world intellectual league table, for he openly admires Fidel Castro. That is to say, a thinker that expresses quite eloquently the sheer hollowness of the barbarian caudillos' message is to be condemned and ostracised; conversely those who make a living singing the praises of third world authoritarianism are to be heralded as progressive beacons of morality.
European and American leftist opining on South American issues even have the chutzpah of pretending they know what's in our best interest better than ourselves, i.e. poor little indians don't know what's best for them; let us teach them. Such condescending and incredibly disrespectful attitude is also observed, privately, amongst themselves. If in doubt ask any Frenchman what does he think about Italians, Spanish, German or English citizens and viceversa; better yet, sound American when you do so. That'll demonstrate, quickly, the utter contempt they have for one another. If this is the case with citizens from neighbouring European countries that, in most cases, share history, what's to be expected towards those considered lesser individuals only because of their origin? Latin American departments of first world universities and the media are swarmed of such imbeciles, who are absolutely convinced that, reading a dozen papers and spending a couple of weeks a year in any given Latin American country is enough to get membership of the priesthood of intellectual authorities in charge of dictating policy, from afar, so that the little indians rid themselves of poverty and underdevelopment.
This impossible-to-withstand attitude marks the relationships between us and them. They seek to impose on us things that we naturally reject. They have wet dreams with the prospect of a re-enacment of the Cuban dictatorship in Venezuela, yet they wouldn't compromise their freedom and civil liberties for anything, much less for a tacky caricature of a patriot. So why should we? Because they think that's best for us.
Self-described Lat-Am pundits seem equally oblivious to the militaristic nature of the Chavez regime. They contend that the Bolivarian revolution is a democratic project whereby participation is a given and the people, in this case the sovereign, exercise institutional and political control via ballots. The line of reasoning has it that lots of elections mean lots of democracy, despite the fact that said elections fail to meet first world transparency tests and standards. Ergo we see how electoral observers from the European Union and the OAS, who witnessed an audit where a Venezuelan technician -little indian- demonstrated how each one of them had voted in a mock election, downplayed the issue by stating that there existed the "remote possibility" of the secrecy of the vote being compromised. Needless to say that such an event would have sent electoral authorities to the court room in these countries, but since it is Venezuela we're discussing, who cares? Not only did they decided to pay no heed to such a grave situation, furthermore they accused opposition parties -with whom they seem to have unsolved issues- of having boycotted the election. Now if that is not a clear cut example of racism of the worse sort I do not know what is.
There's contempt and much racism towards developed countries. The old colonialist stance is alive and well. Returning to Vargas Llosa's piece we can manage to show the ugly nakedness of barbarian caudillos, that's not a problem. Racism, as perceived and defined in advanced societies, simply does not exist down there, even though Chavez et al are working feverishly to bring it to life with the assistance of first world experts. Us, little indians, know how to treat each other. The issue in my view is what the wretched left wants to impose on those little indians that, due to lack of education, can not differentiate debased nationalism from militaristic populism and kleptocratic authoritarianism. It is the nature of the left's paradigm that we must oppose, for disposable caudillos come and go.
send this article to a friend >>