![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sub_dividedHappy New Year! As promised months and months ago, here are the electronic readings from U.S. Interventions in Latin America (summary of non-electronic reading here):
http://www.4shared.com/dir/864644/f5dc0c72/US_Interventions_in_Latin_America.html
Sorry for the free service. Don't want to get![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
telophase in trouble by putting copyrighted material on her webspace. This will not be the complete commentary I wanted it to be, but here are the highlights.
Stern - Remembering Pinochet's Chile
Okay, this is not actually a must-read, I just felt like copying out parts of my paper on it. ^^; Generally I dislike books like this, which do not allow the reader to form independent conclusions.
Remembering Pinochet's Chile has the strengths and weaknesses of an intellectual history essay. ^^; It's as much about memory as it is about Chile. Each of the book’s first three chapters presents a different "memory camp" or viewpoint, usually corresponding to a different social group, while each chapter “epilogue” presents information which complicates or partially contradicts the neat boxes Stern has drawn in the main chapter. However despite the epilogues it's still important to read the book as one that fits facts into a pre-existing conceptual framework rather than the other way around. Stern is upfront about this, stating in the introduction that he is the child of Holocaust survivors and intends to fit the experiences of Chileans into a discourse about traumatic memory.
It may be that Stern is too eager to classify complex individual experiences into discreet boxes; by presenting certain individuals as “emblematic,” it may be that he ignores or downplays routes of discussion that do not fit his scheme. But it's hard to tell, since he presents only a handful of interviews, which he summarizes rather than give a full transcript. Stern includes as many facts as he believes are necessary for the reader to understand the background of the interviewee, presenting each fact as it becomes relevant. Although this method makes reading for chronologic facts difficult, it helps the reader to see the importance of facts as they relate to Stern’s current argument. In other words, this book lacks the complexity and exhaustiveness of other books on the same subject, and it is difficult to analyze the evidence Stern presents in ways that do not support his conclusions. At the same time, Stern is aware of these fallings and does his best to address them directly. What this basically means is that as an author, he's extremely controlling ^^; He makes it a point to address any and all shortcomings before the reader has had the chance to.
On the one hand, it is impossible to misinterpret Stern’s meaning. On the other, it's impossible to form an interpretation which runs counter to it. ^^; Another effect is that it forces him to be very, very careful, both in saying what he means to clearly and in avoiding overly neat conclusions. For instance he's careful not to extend Chile’s current social divisions further into the past than they belong. In another book about Chile under Pinochet (“Nation of Enemies,” by Pamela Constable and Arturo Valenzuela), the lack of communication between Chile’s various social groups is presented as something that lead to Pinochet. Stern, in an argument which ties into his discussion of the effects of memory, holds that Pinochet was largely responsible. For evidence, he describes the separation of formerly mixed-income neighborhoods under policies that resettled the poor into isolated areas. More centrally, he discusses the difficulty of many individuals in communicating across “memory-lines” with those who are not in their “camp.” The impossibility of open communication, together with differences in the treatment received by various social groups, have lead to radical differences in memory which make current communication extremely painful and in some cases impossible, Stern claims. Trauma resurfaces in this discussion, whose impact Stern carries all the way into a discussion of the current state of Chilean society.
In his interviews, Stern sometimes seems to ask leading questions, for example in his attempts to draw a schoolteacher into a discussion of the political ramifications of memory (“Gabriella resisted entrapment”). However I did like the his distinction he makes between experiences of persecution in the capital and experiences in the “backward” provinces, where both resistance and repression were more likely to be non-ideological. And I liked the fact that he extends his discussion into the present day, in a way that highlights both the difficulties and the importance of memory in historical discourse.
Marti - A Letter to Gonzalo Quesada
Jose Marti is like, really smart. ^^ reading through the articles on Puerto Rico, one of the things you wonder is how come no one on that island had the foresight to see that even when the U.S. says and/or believes it is doing good, the government acts in its own best interest -- which is not necessarily your best interest. Anyway I suppose I should refrain from fangirling Marti too much, but it's really hard, because he is so awesome.
Franqui - Diary of the Cuban Revolution
A collection of Castro's letters from when he was imprisoned. He talks about all the great books he's reading, classes he's running, uprisings he's organizing; you get the impression that being thrown in jail was the best thing that ever happened to him. ^^; There's also a section about working for the country even if all your family and four-fifths of your acquaintances disown you that I found pretty...telling. Ahaha.
Also this was the week I was supposed to present on the reading but because we were behind on last week's reading and also there was a movie (can't remember the title, but it was pretty good) to watch, I did not get to showcase even one of my awesome, carefully-thought out questions. ^^; therefore I am spamming this journal with the discussion-openers I prepared. (Hey, they double as commentary!)
History Will Absolve Me
1. Castro begins this speech by listing all of the people he says are struggling for the revolution: farm laborers, industrial laborers, small farmers, teachers and professors, small businessmen, and young professionals. The only groups he does not include are government officials, foreign investors, and large landholders and businessmen. If true, this would indicate that the revolution is supported by an unusually large social base. What does this indicate about the state of Cuban society prior to the revolution? In addition, how does Castro's explicit inclusion of intellectuals -- and his repeated insistence that the revolution will provide employment for "manual and intellectual labor" -- make his movement different from other (socialist) revolutionary movements? Is it different? What difference does this statement make in the state's post-revolution treatment of intellectuals? Is there a difference?
2. I was struck by Castro's claim that even if Colonel Chaviano has destroyed all documentary evidence of the five revolutionary laws, "I remember them." With this statement, Castro makes himself both a testament to the revolution and indispensable to the revolution. Are there any other ways in which Castro blurs this line, between guardianship of the revolution and embodiment of the revolution? When does he "become" the revolution? If you don't feel that this is what has happened, feel free to disagree.
3. "This exposition may seem cold and theoretical if one does not know the shocking and tragic conditions of the country..." Up until this point, Castro's speech has been remarkably free of emotional appeal. In your opinion, what is the appropriateness of emotional appeal in political rhetoric? In particular, do you feel that there is anything inappropriate or "tacky" in the illustration of human suffering to prove a point? How much difference does it make when such claims are not exaggerated, but are literally true? If Castro largely avoids this device, how is he able to do so? If he doesn't, what considerations lead him to employ it?
4. In this speech Castro outlines a number of concrete objectives: the cleansing of government institutions and mobilization of inactive capital, the imposition of maximum acreage for landowners and formation of bodies to oversee the redistribution of expropriated land, government-mandated rent reduction, and a comprehensive rehaul of the the educational system. To what extent was Castro able to accomplish these objectives? What were the factors that allowed him (or didn't allow him) to accomplish them? Castro claims that the necessary funds will be found when state embezzlement is halted, military spending is scaled back, and the "enormous resources of the country are brought into full use". How accurate was this assement?
This is Democracy
1. "And this fact, to which all of us today have been witness, this truly impressive and unforgettable event, proves the capacity of the Cuban people." Here, Castro equates public display to the reality of unity and patriotic fervor. How will this view play out in his future policy of mandatory mass demonstration? Is he correct in assuming that outward display is equal to, or contributes to, people's understanding of reality?
2. Castro equates disunity with weakness, claiming that Cuba's former rulers were able to maintain power by setting the lower classes against each other. In your opinion, how accurate is this assertion? Does it apply as equally to a literate society as it does to a largely illiterate society? How does Castro use it to suppress dissent?
3. Castro defines democracy as "a government that finds the force of the people and unites it." It's interesting that he chooses to define democracy in a way that almost exactly opposes of the State Department's definition of democracy (that is, as a government that will restore the expropriated property of elites). Is Castro right to distinguish between theoretical "civil rights" and the reality of what most people can actually accomplish? In your opinion, which of these is more important? How do Castro's definitions of -- and distinctions between -- "rights," "needs," and "privileges" differ from your understanding of these terms? Why is he choosing to define them (and "democracy") this way?
Four Women Living the Revolution
1. "But I know I have a debt to society and I won't be satisfied until I pay it back. The day I attain my ultimate goal, to graduate from the University and go out and have a career, that'll be the happiest day of my life." It's interesting that Pilar Gonzales talks about getting a University education as a way to repay society, rather than as a way for her to get ahead personally. Why do you think she makes this claim?
2. Pilar says a number of things in line with official party rhetoric. She says before she was rescued, she never thought about what was happening in Cuba or whose fault it was. She says that she never liked Batista's men. She says that after the revolutionary government took over, conditions in the brothel improved immediately. She says that the rehabilitation program was completely voluntary ("but everyone wanted to go"). In your opinion, how much of her testimony is genuine, and how much shows signs of self-censorship to match up with the official party line?
3. In a footnote Armando Torres, a former secretary-general of the Superior Council for Social Defense, confirms that the rehabilitation of prostitutes was "essentially" a matter of persuasion. "At the beginning, we didn't have any definite plans...It occurred to one of us to go to the brothels and talk to the prostitutes and see if we could persuade them to abandon their way of life...we were a trifle romantic about it." How does this approach -- an appeal to morality at the level of individuals -- fit into the government's general approach to other social ills, like racism? In your opinion, how significant was this tactic compared to other, less romantic approaches undertaken by the government simultaneously?
Race and Nation in 20th Century Cuba
1. Castro's primary approach to eliminating racism was to declare it socially and morally wrong -- he also called it "anti-revolutionary" -- and to condemn its public expression. He refused to pass explicitly anti-discriminatory legislation, saying that the problem would be eliminated gradually through color-blind education and increased opportunities for Afro-Cubans in industry, the professions, and government. At the same time, measures designed to help the poorest sectors of society almost always benefited Afro-Cubans the most. In Cuba, what were the benefits of attempting to solve a racial problem in ways that did not explicitly reference race? What were the shortcomings? How much power did Castro's declaration that racism was wrong actually have? Why do you think he decided to approach the issue in this way?
2. The author points out the assumptions underlying a number of prominent discussions of race -- that race was not an issue before Castro, that blacks did not have status before Castro gave it to them, that under the current system everyone has the same opportunities regardless of race (although racism "still exists" as a holdover from the past at the level of individuals), that and that Afro-Cubans today constitute Castro's "secret weapon" due to their extreme gratitude and indebtedness. How are these assumptions challenged, and what are the implications?
3. In presenting her case, the author draws from numerous sources including the 1987 census, prison and judicial records, employment figures, and public opinion polls. However, she also admits that racial categories are fluid and a person's self-declared race may differ depending on the circumstances. How does her reliance on subjective information weaken her argument, and how does it strengthen it? What kinds of problems arise with sources like public opinion polls in cases where there is likely to be a wide difference between privately held opinion and publicly acceptable opinion?
The Nuanced Lives of the Intelligencia
1. According to the author, Castro from very early on recognized the importance of "co-opting" Cuba's intelligencia into the revolution in order to accomplish state objectives. From the perspective of the author, this represented a violation of the autonomy necessary for true creative endeavor (an autonomy he claims was present prior to the revolution). Is Castro correct when he says that "politics" or thought in the service of the state is the only worthy intellectual endeavor? Is the author correct when he says that rigorous intellectual standards are only possible in an environment that is free of state interference? Are intellectuals socially obligated to work toward the betterment of society, or is their first obligation to Art? Or is the problem not state sponsorship, but the imposition of a mandatory "orthodoxy" dictated by the state?
2. "Always attentive to strategies for broadening the exposure of the masses to quasi-intellectual pursuits, the state's less obvious objective was to modify, ultimately eliminate, elite dominance of many institutions and activities." To what extent is the author's criticism predicated on pro-elite bias, and to what extent does it represent a fair and accurate assessment of state policy and its effects?
3. The author distinguishes between early phases of the revolution, when competing opinions were "marginalized and silenced but allowed to exist," and later phases, when only orthodox opinions were tolerated. He also distinguishes between a time when intellectuals played an active role in the formation of state policy and a time when that policy -- and intellectual activity -- became stagnant. In your opinion, what was responsible for this shift?
So much easier to ask questions than to answer them -_-.
Renda - Taking Haiti
Discussion of the psychology of individual marines in Haiti, as seen through letters. Attempt to understand institutional racism at an individual level.
Burnett - Foreign in a Domestic Senes
About the weird mental contortions the US engages in where Puerto Rico is concerned.
Klein - Baghdad Year Zero
From Harper's. One thing most of the other articles we read for this section failed to do was provide a reason beyond a vague dream of regional conquest for the White House's decision to invade Iraq -- generally the articles were concerned with the U.N., or with the spiraling effect of policy on intelligence, or with American under-planning, or with the Iraqi's natural urge to revolt against an occupying force. Naomi Klein takes a different route, and focuses on the economic realities of Iraq after the invasion. This is a thoughtful article that exposes the free-trade, shock therapy economic rhetoric of the government without itself succumbing to rhetoric. The big irony, Klein says, is that measures design to create a corporate utopia produced an environment in which no corporation is willing to risk investment. She's positive, however, that "corporate raiders" will no doubt one day return to take advantage of Iraq's desperation. Besides being thoughtful, the article is informed -- Klein was one of a handful of reporters on the ground in Iraq.
Another good on-the-ground article is one that was reprinted in Best American Nonfiction 2005, about the market for private security forces in Iraq. I remember it painted much the same picture. Don't remember the name or author, though -_-.
***
In cases where there's a country for which I haven't given a favorite article, the electronic reading was probably optional, meaning I didn't do it. Exception: Philippines -_- I uh, had to much on my plate that week to really get into the reading. Mostly I skimmed it. To the Filipinos reading this, I'm sorry! To make up for it I am in a class this semester titled U.S. Occupation of the Philippines. ^^; Which actually, I wasn't going to mention at all because it is so incredibly embarrassing.
However I am saying it anyway because I figure the time has come to admit that livejournal has changed me in ways that go way beyond fandom. It's changed my interests, my opinions, my habits (IN WAYS THAT ARE TOO HORRIBLE TO CONTEMPLATE) and probably even my future. Though livejournal did not create, for instance, my tendency to be a spaz, I seriously believe that it has deepened problems that were already there. ^^; Also, my grades suffered a lot.
Overall, however, I do think that I am happier. More miserable too, at times, but I figure that this is part and parcel of having an actual emotional life. It's hard for me to overstate just how much of my life was lived through books before I found livejournal. Now, of course, significant portions of my life are lived through computers -- but with the internet, at least, there are actual people on the other end.
Wow, was that sappy or what?
Resolutions: Calisthenics twice a day. Aerobic exercise three hours a week. No all-nighters with nothing to show for it. And NO LATE PAPERS.
http://www.4shared.com/dir/864644/f5dc0c72/US_Interventions_in_Latin_America.html
Sorry for the free service. Don't want to get
telophase in trouble by putting copyrighted material on her webspace. This will not be the complete commentary I wanted it to be, but here are the highlights. Stern - Remembering Pinochet's Chile
Okay, this is not actually a must-read, I just felt like copying out parts of my paper on it. ^^; Generally I dislike books like this, which do not allow the reader to form independent conclusions.
Remembering Pinochet's Chile has the strengths and weaknesses of an intellectual history essay. ^^; It's as much about memory as it is about Chile. Each of the book’s first three chapters presents a different "memory camp" or viewpoint, usually corresponding to a different social group, while each chapter “epilogue” presents information which complicates or partially contradicts the neat boxes Stern has drawn in the main chapter. However despite the epilogues it's still important to read the book as one that fits facts into a pre-existing conceptual framework rather than the other way around. Stern is upfront about this, stating in the introduction that he is the child of Holocaust survivors and intends to fit the experiences of Chileans into a discourse about traumatic memory.
It may be that Stern is too eager to classify complex individual experiences into discreet boxes; by presenting certain individuals as “emblematic,” it may be that he ignores or downplays routes of discussion that do not fit his scheme. But it's hard to tell, since he presents only a handful of interviews, which he summarizes rather than give a full transcript. Stern includes as many facts as he believes are necessary for the reader to understand the background of the interviewee, presenting each fact as it becomes relevant. Although this method makes reading for chronologic facts difficult, it helps the reader to see the importance of facts as they relate to Stern’s current argument. In other words, this book lacks the complexity and exhaustiveness of other books on the same subject, and it is difficult to analyze the evidence Stern presents in ways that do not support his conclusions. At the same time, Stern is aware of these fallings and does his best to address them directly. What this basically means is that as an author, he's extremely controlling ^^; He makes it a point to address any and all shortcomings before the reader has had the chance to.
On the one hand, it is impossible to misinterpret Stern’s meaning. On the other, it's impossible to form an interpretation which runs counter to it. ^^; Another effect is that it forces him to be very, very careful, both in saying what he means to clearly and in avoiding overly neat conclusions. For instance he's careful not to extend Chile’s current social divisions further into the past than they belong. In another book about Chile under Pinochet (“Nation of Enemies,” by Pamela Constable and Arturo Valenzuela), the lack of communication between Chile’s various social groups is presented as something that lead to Pinochet. Stern, in an argument which ties into his discussion of the effects of memory, holds that Pinochet was largely responsible. For evidence, he describes the separation of formerly mixed-income neighborhoods under policies that resettled the poor into isolated areas. More centrally, he discusses the difficulty of many individuals in communicating across “memory-lines” with those who are not in their “camp.” The impossibility of open communication, together with differences in the treatment received by various social groups, have lead to radical differences in memory which make current communication extremely painful and in some cases impossible, Stern claims. Trauma resurfaces in this discussion, whose impact Stern carries all the way into a discussion of the current state of Chilean society.
In his interviews, Stern sometimes seems to ask leading questions, for example in his attempts to draw a schoolteacher into a discussion of the political ramifications of memory (“Gabriella resisted entrapment”). However I did like the his distinction he makes between experiences of persecution in the capital and experiences in the “backward” provinces, where both resistance and repression were more likely to be non-ideological. And I liked the fact that he extends his discussion into the present day, in a way that highlights both the difficulties and the importance of memory in historical discourse.
Marti - A Letter to Gonzalo Quesada
Jose Marti is like, really smart. ^^ reading through the articles on Puerto Rico, one of the things you wonder is how come no one on that island had the foresight to see that even when the U.S. says and/or believes it is doing good, the government acts in its own best interest -- which is not necessarily your best interest. Anyway I suppose I should refrain from fangirling Marti too much, but it's really hard, because he is so awesome.
Franqui - Diary of the Cuban Revolution
A collection of Castro's letters from when he was imprisoned. He talks about all the great books he's reading, classes he's running, uprisings he's organizing; you get the impression that being thrown in jail was the best thing that ever happened to him. ^^; There's also a section about working for the country even if all your family and four-fifths of your acquaintances disown you that I found pretty...telling. Ahaha.
Also this was the week I was supposed to present on the reading but because we were behind on last week's reading and also there was a movie (can't remember the title, but it was pretty good) to watch, I did not get to showcase even one of my awesome, carefully-thought out questions. ^^; therefore I am spamming this journal with the discussion-openers I prepared. (Hey, they double as commentary!)
History Will Absolve Me
1. Castro begins this speech by listing all of the people he says are struggling for the revolution: farm laborers, industrial laborers, small farmers, teachers and professors, small businessmen, and young professionals. The only groups he does not include are government officials, foreign investors, and large landholders and businessmen. If true, this would indicate that the revolution is supported by an unusually large social base. What does this indicate about the state of Cuban society prior to the revolution? In addition, how does Castro's explicit inclusion of intellectuals -- and his repeated insistence that the revolution will provide employment for "manual and intellectual labor" -- make his movement different from other (socialist) revolutionary movements? Is it different? What difference does this statement make in the state's post-revolution treatment of intellectuals? Is there a difference?
2. I was struck by Castro's claim that even if Colonel Chaviano has destroyed all documentary evidence of the five revolutionary laws, "I remember them." With this statement, Castro makes himself both a testament to the revolution and indispensable to the revolution. Are there any other ways in which Castro blurs this line, between guardianship of the revolution and embodiment of the revolution? When does he "become" the revolution? If you don't feel that this is what has happened, feel free to disagree.
3. "This exposition may seem cold and theoretical if one does not know the shocking and tragic conditions of the country..." Up until this point, Castro's speech has been remarkably free of emotional appeal. In your opinion, what is the appropriateness of emotional appeal in political rhetoric? In particular, do you feel that there is anything inappropriate or "tacky" in the illustration of human suffering to prove a point? How much difference does it make when such claims are not exaggerated, but are literally true? If Castro largely avoids this device, how is he able to do so? If he doesn't, what considerations lead him to employ it?
4. In this speech Castro outlines a number of concrete objectives: the cleansing of government institutions and mobilization of inactive capital, the imposition of maximum acreage for landowners and formation of bodies to oversee the redistribution of expropriated land, government-mandated rent reduction, and a comprehensive rehaul of the the educational system. To what extent was Castro able to accomplish these objectives? What were the factors that allowed him (or didn't allow him) to accomplish them? Castro claims that the necessary funds will be found when state embezzlement is halted, military spending is scaled back, and the "enormous resources of the country are brought into full use". How accurate was this assement?
This is Democracy
1. "And this fact, to which all of us today have been witness, this truly impressive and unforgettable event, proves the capacity of the Cuban people." Here, Castro equates public display to the reality of unity and patriotic fervor. How will this view play out in his future policy of mandatory mass demonstration? Is he correct in assuming that outward display is equal to, or contributes to, people's understanding of reality?
2. Castro equates disunity with weakness, claiming that Cuba's former rulers were able to maintain power by setting the lower classes against each other. In your opinion, how accurate is this assertion? Does it apply as equally to a literate society as it does to a largely illiterate society? How does Castro use it to suppress dissent?
3. Castro defines democracy as "a government that finds the force of the people and unites it." It's interesting that he chooses to define democracy in a way that almost exactly opposes of the State Department's definition of democracy (that is, as a government that will restore the expropriated property of elites). Is Castro right to distinguish between theoretical "civil rights" and the reality of what most people can actually accomplish? In your opinion, which of these is more important? How do Castro's definitions of -- and distinctions between -- "rights," "needs," and "privileges" differ from your understanding of these terms? Why is he choosing to define them (and "democracy") this way?
Four Women Living the Revolution
1. "But I know I have a debt to society and I won't be satisfied until I pay it back. The day I attain my ultimate goal, to graduate from the University and go out and have a career, that'll be the happiest day of my life." It's interesting that Pilar Gonzales talks about getting a University education as a way to repay society, rather than as a way for her to get ahead personally. Why do you think she makes this claim?
2. Pilar says a number of things in line with official party rhetoric. She says before she was rescued, she never thought about what was happening in Cuba or whose fault it was. She says that she never liked Batista's men. She says that after the revolutionary government took over, conditions in the brothel improved immediately. She says that the rehabilitation program was completely voluntary ("but everyone wanted to go"). In your opinion, how much of her testimony is genuine, and how much shows signs of self-censorship to match up with the official party line?
3. In a footnote Armando Torres, a former secretary-general of the Superior Council for Social Defense, confirms that the rehabilitation of prostitutes was "essentially" a matter of persuasion. "At the beginning, we didn't have any definite plans...It occurred to one of us to go to the brothels and talk to the prostitutes and see if we could persuade them to abandon their way of life...we were a trifle romantic about it." How does this approach -- an appeal to morality at the level of individuals -- fit into the government's general approach to other social ills, like racism? In your opinion, how significant was this tactic compared to other, less romantic approaches undertaken by the government simultaneously?
Race and Nation in 20th Century Cuba
1. Castro's primary approach to eliminating racism was to declare it socially and morally wrong -- he also called it "anti-revolutionary" -- and to condemn its public expression. He refused to pass explicitly anti-discriminatory legislation, saying that the problem would be eliminated gradually through color-blind education and increased opportunities for Afro-Cubans in industry, the professions, and government. At the same time, measures designed to help the poorest sectors of society almost always benefited Afro-Cubans the most. In Cuba, what were the benefits of attempting to solve a racial problem in ways that did not explicitly reference race? What were the shortcomings? How much power did Castro's declaration that racism was wrong actually have? Why do you think he decided to approach the issue in this way?
2. The author points out the assumptions underlying a number of prominent discussions of race -- that race was not an issue before Castro, that blacks did not have status before Castro gave it to them, that under the current system everyone has the same opportunities regardless of race (although racism "still exists" as a holdover from the past at the level of individuals), that and that Afro-Cubans today constitute Castro's "secret weapon" due to their extreme gratitude and indebtedness. How are these assumptions challenged, and what are the implications?
3. In presenting her case, the author draws from numerous sources including the 1987 census, prison and judicial records, employment figures, and public opinion polls. However, she also admits that racial categories are fluid and a person's self-declared race may differ depending on the circumstances. How does her reliance on subjective information weaken her argument, and how does it strengthen it? What kinds of problems arise with sources like public opinion polls in cases where there is likely to be a wide difference between privately held opinion and publicly acceptable opinion?
The Nuanced Lives of the Intelligencia
1. According to the author, Castro from very early on recognized the importance of "co-opting" Cuba's intelligencia into the revolution in order to accomplish state objectives. From the perspective of the author, this represented a violation of the autonomy necessary for true creative endeavor (an autonomy he claims was present prior to the revolution). Is Castro correct when he says that "politics" or thought in the service of the state is the only worthy intellectual endeavor? Is the author correct when he says that rigorous intellectual standards are only possible in an environment that is free of state interference? Are intellectuals socially obligated to work toward the betterment of society, or is their first obligation to Art? Or is the problem not state sponsorship, but the imposition of a mandatory "orthodoxy" dictated by the state?
2. "Always attentive to strategies for broadening the exposure of the masses to quasi-intellectual pursuits, the state's less obvious objective was to modify, ultimately eliminate, elite dominance of many institutions and activities." To what extent is the author's criticism predicated on pro-elite bias, and to what extent does it represent a fair and accurate assessment of state policy and its effects?
3. The author distinguishes between early phases of the revolution, when competing opinions were "marginalized and silenced but allowed to exist," and later phases, when only orthodox opinions were tolerated. He also distinguishes between a time when intellectuals played an active role in the formation of state policy and a time when that policy -- and intellectual activity -- became stagnant. In your opinion, what was responsible for this shift?
So much easier to ask questions than to answer them -_-.
Renda - Taking Haiti
Discussion of the psychology of individual marines in Haiti, as seen through letters. Attempt to understand institutional racism at an individual level.
Burnett - Foreign in a Domestic Senes
About the weird mental contortions the US engages in where Puerto Rico is concerned.
Klein - Baghdad Year Zero
From Harper's. One thing most of the other articles we read for this section failed to do was provide a reason beyond a vague dream of regional conquest for the White House's decision to invade Iraq -- generally the articles were concerned with the U.N., or with the spiraling effect of policy on intelligence, or with American under-planning, or with the Iraqi's natural urge to revolt against an occupying force. Naomi Klein takes a different route, and focuses on the economic realities of Iraq after the invasion. This is a thoughtful article that exposes the free-trade, shock therapy economic rhetoric of the government without itself succumbing to rhetoric. The big irony, Klein says, is that measures design to create a corporate utopia produced an environment in which no corporation is willing to risk investment. She's positive, however, that "corporate raiders" will no doubt one day return to take advantage of Iraq's desperation. Besides being thoughtful, the article is informed -- Klein was one of a handful of reporters on the ground in Iraq.
Another good on-the-ground article is one that was reprinted in Best American Nonfiction 2005, about the market for private security forces in Iraq. I remember it painted much the same picture. Don't remember the name or author, though -_-.
***
In cases where there's a country for which I haven't given a favorite article, the electronic reading was probably optional, meaning I didn't do it. Exception: Philippines -_- I uh, had to much on my plate that week to really get into the reading. Mostly I skimmed it. To the Filipinos reading this, I'm sorry! To make up for it I am in a class this semester titled U.S. Occupation of the Philippines. ^^; Which actually, I wasn't going to mention at all because it is so incredibly embarrassing.
However I am saying it anyway because I figure the time has come to admit that livejournal has changed me in ways that go way beyond fandom. It's changed my interests, my opinions, my habits (IN WAYS THAT ARE TOO HORRIBLE TO CONTEMPLATE) and probably even my future. Though livejournal did not create, for instance, my tendency to be a spaz, I seriously believe that it has deepened problems that were already there. ^^; Also, my grades suffered a lot.
Overall, however, I do think that I am happier. More miserable too, at times, but I figure that this is part and parcel of having an actual emotional life. It's hard for me to overstate just how much of my life was lived through books before I found livejournal. Now, of course, significant portions of my life are lived through computers -- but with the internet, at least, there are actual people on the other end.
Wow, was that sappy or what?
Resolutions: Calisthenics twice a day. Aerobic exercise three hours a week. No all-nighters with nothing to show for it. And NO LATE PAPERS.