Renegades of imperialism

Mazao (http://erevo.blogspot.com · 18th January 2006, 04:16

Renegades of Imperialism.

In retrospect, the political situation of my country makes perfect sense. In a nation that was colonized by the Portuguese empire, with the sole purpose of exploiting natural resources by enslaving Indians. And when these started to die out as a result of rebellion or never experienced before disease, the Portuguese had to import slaves from its African colonies to maximize its profit. By establishing a monarchy, and gaining more territory than previously tough because of the infamous Catholic Church line of demarcation, which divided the South American continent into Spanish and Portuguese territory. In a country that was solely established in order to make another more powerful, as opposed of establishing a nation based on freedom of expression, and democratic values. Unlike the United States, we started on the wrong foot. Corruption was our father, and injustice our mother.
After centuries of occupation, we did not even emancipate our slaves on purpose.
They were rather freed by mistake when ruler Don Pedro had an emergency meeting to attend with the Portuguese royal family, and left his ingénues daughter in charge. Somehow she managed to sign a document in which she freed all slaves, in what becomes one of the most unexplainable acts in Brazilian history.
I hated all this corruption from the core. It seemed as if the country was stabbed many times by an imperialistic tyrant, and its people were bleeding. Turns out that the same elitist group of people, who colonized the country five-hundred years ago, are still exploiting it. The only difference is that we have no more gold and slaves. Now we had exploitation of labor and the miserably poor. They still found ways to control us; however they sucked the blood from an infected animal.
The more underdeveloped the nations the bigger the corruption in the government, thus dictatorships flourish. This invites pressure, like a bubble roaming around the wind screaming to be popped. When under pressure, humans have a tendency to rebel. The poor majority will wait for somebody to give them hope, like Ernesto Guevara; to assure them that they’re dreams must be kept alive. In one of his speeches; “El Che,” as Guevara was warningly called, believed that the United States was dividing the Latin American continent by encouraging conflicts, such as the separation of Panama from Colombia, in favor of North American monopolies. This division fell short of destroying the economies of already weak nations. “All this resulted in a monstrously distorted economy which has been described by the shamefaced economist in a innocuous term that reveals the compassion they have for us inferior beings.” Guevara also demonstrated his sympathy for the disenfranchised minority, “They call our miserably exploited Indians, little Indians; all Negroes and mulattos discriminated against are called colored. For us the people of Latin America they have another polite term refined as underdeveloped.”
What is underdeveloped? Guevara’s definition of underdeveloped is: “A dwarf with an enormous head and a swollen chest is “underdeveloped,” in as much as his weak legs or short arms do not match the rest of his anatomy. He is the product of an abnormal formation that distorted his development. That is really what we are, we, who are politely referred to as "underdeveloped," but in truth are colonial, semi-colonial or dependent countries. We are countries whose economies have been twisted by imperialism, which has abnormally developed in us those branches of industry or agriculture needed to complement its complex economy.” You have to understand that many if not all the Latin American Countries depend on one product for its capital, this was used by the wealthier nations to control them. “A single product whose uncertain sale depends on a single market that imposes and fixes a condition, which is the great formula for imperialist economic domination.” Like in most of his speeches he puts everything into perspective; “It should be added to the old, but eternally young, Roman slogan Divide and Conquer!” (Guevara, Ernesto; Verde Olivo, the magazine of Cuba's armed forces)
With the birth of “EL CHE,” the struggle to liberate Latin America through guerilla warfare was initiated. Indeed some may recognize this as extreme, and thus make a connection with Marxism. Yes, Guevara shared some ideology, which could be connected with the communist manifesto. There were a couple of factors that explain Guevara’s point of view; they were his upbringing, and the traveling of Latin America. These led to the formation of his theories of social justice, which were influenced by the philosopher Alfred Adler.( S. Cloninger; p106-107)
Many historians share different opinions over his beliefs. Some believe that his guerilla war effort cannot be justified, and by trying to do so Guevara is playing the same token his enemies were. You may agree that violence is never the answer. Unfortunately in the world we live in, war is always the answer. From the Middle Ages, to the Spanish inquisition and reconquista, in the middle eastern conflicts, all the way to world wars and the world trade center. American freedom and independence was gained by war. What makes us so hypocrite is that we gained our freedom through guerilla war. Our victories against the “red coats,” in the American Revolution, were only made possible by our astuteness’ in refusing to fight a conventional war. We did it the most convenient possible way, hiding in the trees and blowing their imperialistic brains out one by one.
Concerning Marx's theory, this exemplifies the relationship of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. In Latin America, this was the Gringo Imperialists against the people of Latin America, where "...oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, ..."( Marx and Engels; p31)
If Che is a communist than president Bush is a ruler who is unconstrained by law (like a colonial dictator), who invades other countries with no real premise and is always looking for scapegoats like Sadam Hussain. But how can the leader of the free world be a dictator?
In retrospect, invading other countries with no premise is wrong. Bush invaded Iraq to free the poor Iraqui people of the tyrannical dictatorship of Sadam Hussain. In comparison Che Guevara invaded Cuba to free the people of a country heading towards the abyss. However, unlike President Bush, Che did not crack his had at the bottom of the pit, because the people supported him. Of course there was always those who were not pleased with Che and his partner the infamous, America’s bastard son Fidel Castro. Although people are not pleased with Bush, and his policies of sending American lives to die in Iraq (based on a fictitious war), we appreciate having Hussain out of “office.” What about other dictators? Moammar Al Qadhafi is still chilling in Lybia, but he’s our friend now, really, he became a nice guy overnight. What about Kim Jong-Il in North Korea? He even admits he has nuclear weapons, and we just ignore What about communist China? Oh yea, their not communist anymore. Whenever we have free trade, the denominations change from communism to socialism.

**Luís Henrique** · 12th January 2007, 13:24

Originally posted by Mazao (http://erevo.blogspot.com@January 18, 2006 04:16 am
In retrospect, the political situation of my country makes perfect sense.

Where did you take this from, or did you write it yourself?

It is typical Brazilian self-bashing.

a country that was solely established in order to make another more powerful, as opposed of establishing a nation based on freedom of expression, and democratic values. Unlike the United States, we started on the wrong foot. Corruption was our father, and injustice our mother.

Because yes, the US was really stablished on freedom of expression and democratic values... which leaves without explanation the little fact that slavery was a part of North american history as much as of ours.

After centuries of occupation, we did not even emancipate our slaves on purpose. They were rather freed by mistake when ruler Don Pedro had an emergency meeting to attend with the Portuguese royal family, and left his ingénues daughter in charge.

That is a condescending lie. The emancipation of Brasilian slaves was the result of a wide mass movement. Naïve princesses cannot do those things if there isn't social and political background for it.

I hated all this corruption from the core.

It is no worse corruption than every other country knows.

It seemed as if the country was stabbed many times by an imperialistic tyrant, and its people were bleeding. Turns out that the same elitist group of people, who colonized the country five-hundred years ago, are still exploiting it.

It is certainly no longer the same elitist group, it has changed many times over history.

The only difference is that we have no more gold and slaves. Now we had exploitation of labor and the miserably poor.

Having no more slavery is no minor change.

They still found ways to control us; however they sucked the blood from an infected animal.

?!

The more underdeveloped the nations the bigger the corruption in the government, thus dictatorships flourish.

Or, rather, in more developed countries corruption isn't a great issue because resources are not so scarce.

The poor majority will wait for somebody to give them hope, like Ernesto Guevara;

However, Guevara looks much more like an idol of the petty-bourgeois youth than a hope of the "poor majority"...

With the birth of “EL CHE,” the struggle to liberate Latin America through guerilla warfare was initiated.

Eh?

American freedom and independence was gained by war. What makes us so hypocrite is that we gained our freedom through guerilla war. Our victories against the “red coats,” in the American Revolution, were only made possible by our astuteness’ in refusing to fight a conventional war. We did it the most convenient possible way, hiding in the trees and blowing their imperialistic brains out one by one.

That's ridiculous, the Independence War was mostly conventional warfare, and if USans ideologically distort history, is to downplay the role of guerrilla rather than to overestimate it.

In retrospect, invading other countries with no premise is wrong. Bush invaded Iraq to free the poor Iraqui people of the tyrannical dictatorship of Sadam Hussain.

Eh?!?!

In comparison Che Guevara invaded Cuba to free the people of a country heading towards the abyss.

:wacko:

Really... what is the purpose of this "essay"?

Luís Henrique

**Dr. Rosenpenis** · 16th January 2007, 10:50

To say that this blog sums up a kind of general Brazilian world view is terribly misleading.

Furthermore, the establishment (and settlement) of the United States was far more a capitalist movement rather than an act of colonialism like in most of the rest of the Americas. This fact coupled with imperialism indirectly explains most socio-economic rifts between North America and us.

**Invader Zim** · 25th January 2007, 21:15

Because yes, the US was really stablished on freedom of expression and democratic values... which leaves without explanation the little fact that slavery was a part of North american history as much as of ours.

Well not really, slavery in the United States as an institution has been significantly over-rated, in comparison to say Brazillian slavery. Outside of the Caribbean, no area was more involved with, or recieved more slaves than Brazil, accounting for perhaps 35% of the 10 million slaves transplanted from Africa, the USA recieved perhaps 5%.

Thread: Renegades of imperialism

Thread Tools

Similar Threads

Imperialism help

US Imperialism

US Imperialism

Joseph Conrad - Pro-Imperialism or Anti-Imperialism

Any "Renegades of Funk" in da house? - Dance teams are like.

Posting Permissions

Tags for this Thread