Week 13: Towards and Uncertain Future

For this week, I decided to write about Chile. Chile is in the middle of a decisive moment as students went to the streets to protest against a rise in metro costs. The unrest is surprising as Chile lauds itself for being one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America. For my articles this week, I picked two opinion peaces that look into the nuances of the situation.

The first piece, by the New York Times, titled Chile Learns the Price of Economic Inequality, examines the protests in the context of economic prosperity. While the Chilean economy is quite strong, the economic inequality means that only a few benefit from the wealth. Public spending on hospitals, public welfare, and more general methods of distributing wealth are virtually nonexistent. The article also points out that while the protesters began their movement after the rise in bus fare, tensions have existed for a long time due to this evident wealth inequality. The wealth gap in Chile is incredibly visual; Santiago has a district called Sanhattan, a reflection of its large buildings and prosperous wealth similar to Manhattan. Yet outside city limits are shanty towns and public works projects that are falling apart. This piece did take a critical angle of those involved in the protest because of their destruction of property yet I think that this interpretation ignores the power of the upper class and also the human rights violations of the Chilean government. 

The second piece I looked at was posted today by Al Jazeera as an update surrounding government mentality and response to protest. A senator this week was quoted saying that human rights violations are and will be necessary to restore order in Chile. This senator, Andres Allemand has a close relationship to the president sparking massive amounts of concern. The protests have already gotten violent with 26 dead and 2,300 injured; unchecked military responses would only further casualties. Rather than attempting to create policies that could alleviate economic inequality, the government is more interested in using force to subdue the public. I feel like this will only create more distress and larger protests as the public will continue to have concrete reasons on why the government is failing them. Protests and revolutions are hard to stop with force; people are incredibly resilient and will always find small forms of resistance. 

Comments

  1. UnknownNovember 27, 2019 at 4:27 PM

    Hi! I really enjoyed reading your blog this week and found that I was interested to learn more about how the current events in Chile can be reflected through the colonial past of wealth inequality that existed throughout its history. It is so important to see the roots and causes behinds the reasons people protest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Carolina MirandaNovember 27, 2019 at 5:37 PM

    Hey Daisy :)
    Your first article on economic inequality and the protests made me realize one possible reason for why increases in bus fares (in specific) cause protests that reveal broader motives for rebellions in Latin America. They strongly affect the largest portion of society: the working class. And, at least where I come from, the upper class (and even upper-middle-class) don't travel by bus. Period. The increase in the bus fare is a reminder of something that seems obvious: that there's an abyss between the highest rank of society and the rest, which is something that might be forgotten in the busy day to day life of workers.

    ReplyDelete
  3. UnknownNovember 28, 2019 at 4:17 PM

    Hey! I liked your post and found your second paragraph especially interesting.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 7: Porfirio Díaz

I think this primary source was the most interesting yet for me to read. Having always thought of Díaz as a violent dictator, it was really fascinating to see an American account of how he was the democratic ideal. There were a few spots in the article that I found particularly compelling. The first was how Díaz referred to an opposing political party as "enemies." It seemed so obvious to me at this moment that he was incredibly disingenuous about his political processes. Democratic discourse is not a question of enemies but rather fair opposition. In light of the fact that he rigged the election against Madero in 1910. The second was the American sentiment that saturated the piece. As an American myself, there is often this sort of trope of someone who starts from nowhere and then picks himself up and becomes wealthy. I think the idea that Díaz came from little and was able to become the father of modernization in Mexico was particularly consumable to an American audience.
Read more

Week 12: Speaking Truth To Power

This week's reading was incredibly powerful to read. I have learned about the Madre's before; their white bonnets seem to have become a symbol of resistance. The concept of the disappeared within Latin American politics is an interesting positionality. In the eyes of the state, individuals are reduced to bodies where no rights are guaranteed. Its such a devastating position as there is no sense of justice; the feeling is alien to me as I have always lived somewhere with a certain extent of due process. The Madres were successful because of their position as older women; the government could not kill mothers and grandmothers in the public sphere without large reproductions. This could be attributed to significant gender roles. As women were seen as fragile, homemakers, and child-bearers, there was an element of weakness associated with their murder. However, I believe this was true for the Madres because they had already gained global attention. The Argentinian government had no
Read more