Yes. In various ways – which are your favorite? Also, I forgot to post part II. That is because I am secretly working on course syllabi and websites, but I’ll get to it!
Now Part II is there. It is amazing. A comment reveals that “La casa queda en la esquina de la Av. Salaverry y Mariategui en Jesus María; es la última casa mansion que queda en esa cuadra.”
All the comments talk about how things have changed, how crowded and un-peaceful things are now in contrast to then, but what I notice about family life, even though my family isn’t so fancy, is how much remains the same.
My feelings about these clips are too complex just to toss off in a comment.
Maybe just a little anecdote from my own family:
My grandmother grew up with a body servant who was her first cousin from the wrong side of the blanket, a woman with very obvious Indian features. This woman looked after my mother and her brother and sisters after my grandmother died. When she was very old, she came to live with my mother and died in our home at the age of 82. Now the kicker is that all these people hated each other. But blood is blood.
Wow. That is outright Latin American. And Dixieland, although Da Souf’ is Latin American, too, as Gabo told us. And it suddenly makes me wonder a few things about a few servants I know – that is, ones I hadn’t wondered about before.
P.S. That First Lady in Part III has got to be Enriqueta Garland, wife of President Manuel Prado (until 1948 when the marriage was annulled – so he could remarry – I have to find out more gossip on this). Anyway, notes on the videos indicate this series may actually be about her family / their house, or the house of one branch of it. (This, incidentally, would explain how it is that they go to the PRESIDENTIAL PALACE to roll bandages. Prado was very into his Presidency’s opposition to the Axis powers, apparently, and he, a conservative, had come to power by cutting a deal with Haya de la Torre and APRA. Ah, what one learns by being a dilettante and watching videos late at night which make one look things up!)
P.S. In the last picture on this website http://www.ronaldecker.com/clorinda.htm
there is a picture of Clorinda Malaga (de Prado), the woman for whom Prado left Enriqueta Garland. This is, I am assuming, in his second term as President, and he is with JFK and Jackie Kennedy!
Well of course he wanted to step up to a new model. I’ll bet she insisted that he make an honest woman of her.
What do you think of the notion that colonial societies are based on repression of the majority?
Apparently they had a decades long affair. Reading between the lines, I am betting that was the grounds for the annulment – she was his “real” spouse, or some such thing. Enriqueta looks insecure / unhappy / shy in the short clip of her in the 1944 video … so I am guessing that this is part of the reason.
Colonial societies, based on the repression of the majority, sure – although it’s more involved than that, and one could say capitalism (for example) does the same. Repression of the “native,” the worker, etc. Also patriarchy, or white supremacy plus patriarchy, all are based on repression of the majority, no?
It sounds obvious, I know, but to me this is an insight. The “missing” element in so many places is just that original crime of conquest and oppression. The oppression can’t let up. And it requires the repression of the conquerors as well as the conquered. In the end, the whole endeavor fails.
See the article on my site entitled “blind man’s bluff”. That is how the contemporary repression of the majority works, whilst giving the impression that they actually deserve the contempt and that they brought it on themselves.
I think it is very naive for people to think that they have transcended colonialism, and therefore transcended institutionalised injustice, within the present system.
Actually, in some respects life in a colonial outpost could be a lot freer for the majority than it is in a contemporary bourgeois state. (In other ways, of course colonial states were more violent and autocratic that bourgeois states tend to be — but my point is that the colonial systems could be less efficient in their control mechanisms due to the lack of pervasiveness of the governmental systems.)
I haven’t read it yet, just heard about it, but apparently it documents THE HORROR which is, of course, not the nature of the natives but what was actually required and done.
Is it possible to resist the imposed meanings, based on what was done? Isn’t this Michael Taussig’s thesis, that is it possible through a shamanistic control of the meanings?
Yes. I haven’t read any of the recommended reading above. I’ve been trying to recover from a bad cold, whilst continuing to work, and it has made me a bit strange.
But the subversion of meanings is not to be underestimated. You know, the dominators feed off meaning as much as they feed off material exploitation. And in fact both these things are intricately entwined. For instance, doesn’t it strike you odd that the majority of people perceive the present systems in each of our countries as ‘rational’?
Yes, but they do. So do the Peruvians except for the indigenous tribes currently being slammed, whom everyone calls childish and crazy for not supporting Big Oil. Subverting meanings is what Amilcar Cabral, the Subcomandante Marcos, or way back when, numerous indigenous leaders and intellectuals were all about. That is why they wrote so many books. Caliban learned Prospero’s language, and his profit on it was to curse P. in it.
But at this point Uribe’s in control of Colombia, not the shamans. Tupac Amaru was drawn and quartered and his descendants forced to learn Spanish. Exxon-Mobil is in control of much of the Amazon, not the Aguaruna people, and the U.S. has this new colony, Iraq.
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. (It sounds to me as though you’re asking whether I understand why people might oppose neocolonialism, but I doubt that could be in doubt, so I think I’m misreading.)
I don’t know enough about them to say any more specifically than I would or could about parallel parties elsewhere. However, I note that in Zimbabwe the unemployment rate is 80%, the male life expectancy is near the lowest in the world at 37, and the female life expectancy is 34. And there are ecological issues. It sounds really awful.
On life expectancy: Australia is #4 in the world. The United States is #54 and Peru is #104. Zimbabwe, of countries ranked (219 countries) is #216, i.e. fourth worst. Malawi, Swaziland, and Zambia are its competitors in low life expectancy.
Yes, I am not close enough to judge the real nuances of the debate. My view from afar is that Zimbabwe has dug itself into a hole and needs outsider aid to redeem its economy. However, we also know that such aid rarely comes without strings attached. So if we look at the situation as a giant chess game (without suggesting the exact identities of the players), mugabe’s faction is sacrificing the pawns in the game — members of the common populace — in order to retain power.
What is really at stake, I am not sure. But it seems that all these foreign companies have moved out. I keep sighing at the Peruvians’ love of foreign investment, but it is rather frightening to see NO investment. I’m sure M. is sacrificing people to retain power. I heard today that they have lent money to the U.S.!
Some of the foreign companies have moved out — not all. The real destruction to the economy was in terms of what happened to the agricultural industry. Who has lent money to the US?
Agriculture, yes. Debt: “Zimbabwe” is what I was told … this was word of mouth. I am assuming it means Zimbabwean banks are among those financing us? Although there was a chunk of Zimbabwean debt forgiven or paid a few months ago, no explanation, maybe it was in exchange for giving us money. (I’d love to do a degree in Economics and learn how all of this really works.)
Maybe its just a reference to the neo-Marxist notion of third world dependency and how that works? In that sense, the third world is “financing” you, due to inequitability of remuneration etc.
It was specifically that one of the countries the Bush administration had gotten new loans from was Zimbabwe. What “Zimbabwe” means – a bank, what – I don’t know.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
These videos are amazing. A little creepy, too.
Yes. In various ways – which are your favorite? Also, I forgot to post part II. That is because I am secretly working on course syllabi and websites, but I’ll get to it!
Now Part II is there. It is amazing. A comment reveals that “La casa queda en la esquina de la Av. Salaverry y Mariategui en Jesus María; es la última casa mansion que queda en esa cuadra.”
All the comments talk about how things have changed, how crowded and un-peaceful things are now in contrast to then, but what I notice about family life, even though my family isn’t so fancy, is how much remains the same.
My feelings about these clips are too complex just to toss off in a comment.
Maybe just a little anecdote from my own family:
My grandmother grew up with a body servant who was her first cousin from the wrong side of the blanket, a woman with very obvious Indian features. This woman looked after my mother and her brother and sisters after my grandmother died. When she was very old, she came to live with my mother and died in our home at the age of 82. Now the kicker is that all these people hated each other. But blood is blood.
Wow. That is outright Latin American. And Dixieland, although Da Souf’ is Latin American, too, as Gabo told us. And it suddenly makes me wonder a few things about a few servants I know – that is, ones I hadn’t wondered about before.
P.S. That First Lady in Part III has got to be Enriqueta Garland, wife of President Manuel Prado (until 1948 when the marriage was annulled – so he could remarry – I have to find out more gossip on this). Anyway, notes on the videos indicate this series may actually be about her family / their house, or the house of one branch of it. (This, incidentally, would explain how it is that they go to the PRESIDENTIAL PALACE to roll bandages. Prado was very into his Presidency’s opposition to the Axis powers, apparently, and he, a conservative, had come to power by cutting a deal with Haya de la Torre and APRA. Ah, what one learns by being a dilettante and watching videos late at night which make one look things up!)
As Faulkner said, the past is not dead. It is not even past.
Yes – that is one of the world’s more true sentences!
P.S. In the last picture on this website
http://www.ronaldecker.com/clorinda.htm
there is a picture of Clorinda Malaga (de Prado), the woman for whom Prado left Enriqueta Garland. This is, I am assuming, in his second term as President, and he is with JFK and Jackie Kennedy!
Here is a 1959 TIME article about him – it is fascinating for the information and also the tone:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,894183,00.html
Here is a 1958 TIME article about the anullment of his earlier marriage:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,863562,00.html?iid=chix-sphere
Here is a genealogy page on the Garland family. The last picture is of Enriqueta Garland and Manuel Prado when they were younger and married.
http://www.communigate.co.uk/york/2020/page19.phtml
Well of course he wanted to step up to a new model. I’ll bet she insisted that he make an honest woman of her.
What do you think of the notion that colonial societies are based on repression of the majority?
Apparently they had a decades long affair. Reading between the lines, I am betting that was the grounds for the annulment – she was his “real” spouse, or some such thing. Enriqueta looks insecure / unhappy / shy in the short clip of her in the 1944 video … so I am guessing that this is part of the reason.
Colonial societies, based on the repression of the majority, sure – although it’s more involved than that, and one could say capitalism (for example) does the same. Repression of the “native,” the worker, etc. Also patriarchy, or white supremacy plus patriarchy, all are based on repression of the majority, no?
It sounds obvious, I know, but to me this is an insight. The “missing” element in so many places is just that original crime of conquest and oppression. The oppression can’t let up. And it requires the repression of the conquerors as well as the conquered. In the end, the whole endeavor fails.
See the article on my site entitled “blind man’s bluff”. That is how the contemporary repression of the majority works, whilst giving the impression that they actually deserve the contempt and that they brought it on themselves.
I think it is very naive for people to think that they have transcended colonialism, and therefore transcended institutionalised injustice, within the present system.
Actually, in some respects life in a colonial outpost could be a lot freer for the majority than it is in a contemporary bourgeois state. (In other ways, of course colonial states were more violent and autocratic that bourgeois states tend to be — but my point is that the colonial systems could be less efficient in their control mechanisms due to the lack of pervasiveness of the governmental systems.)
“The ‘missing’ element in so many places is just that original crime of conquest and oppression. The oppression can’t let up.”
Precisely. That original crime is the key element and it is what persists.
Less efficient, yes, it does happen. But see this (long heavy .pdf, slow download from California Digital Libraries):
http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=rcrs_ias_ucb
I haven’t read it yet, just heard about it, but apparently it documents THE HORROR which is, of course, not the nature of the natives but what was actually required and done.
Is it possible to resist the imposed meanings, based on what was done? Isn’t this Michael Taussig’s thesis, that is it possible through a shamanistic control of the meanings?
Meanings, I’d say certainly – at least for oneself. Actions and ideology of the majority, that’s revolutionary.
Yes. I haven’t read any of the recommended reading above. I’ve been trying to recover from a bad cold, whilst continuing to work, and it has made me a bit strange.
But the subversion of meanings is not to be underestimated. You know, the dominators feed off meaning as much as they feed off material exploitation. And in fact both these things are intricately entwined. For instance, doesn’t it strike you odd that the majority of people perceive the present systems in each of our countries as ‘rational’?
Yes, but they do. So do the Peruvians except for the indigenous tribes currently being slammed, whom everyone calls childish and crazy for not supporting Big Oil. Subverting meanings is what Amilcar Cabral, the Subcomandante Marcos, or way back when, numerous indigenous leaders and intellectuals were all about. That is why they wrote so many books. Caliban learned Prospero’s language, and his profit on it was to curse P. in it.
But at this point Uribe’s in control of Colombia, not the shamans. Tupac Amaru was drawn and quartered and his descendants forced to learn Spanish. Exxon-Mobil is in control of much of the Amazon, not the Aguaruna people, and the U.S. has this new colony, Iraq.
and the U.S. has this new colony, Iraq.
And the truth goes marching on!
–Do you see why ZANU-PF factions of the government are worried about “the West”?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at. (It sounds to me as though you’re asking whether I understand why people might oppose neocolonialism, but I doubt that could be in doubt, so I think I’m misreading.)
I am speculating as to why “the West” is seen as such a threat by ZANU-PF.
I don’t know enough about them to say any more specifically than I would or could about parallel parties elsewhere. However, I note that in Zimbabwe the unemployment rate is 80%, the male life expectancy is near the lowest in the world at 37, and the female life expectancy is 34. And there are ecological issues. It sounds really awful.
On life expectancy: Australia is #4 in the world. The United States is #54 and Peru is #104. Zimbabwe, of countries ranked (219 countries) is #216, i.e. fourth worst. Malawi, Swaziland, and Zambia are its competitors in low life expectancy.
Yes, I am not close enough to judge the real nuances of the debate. My view from afar is that Zimbabwe has dug itself into a hole and needs outsider aid to redeem its economy. However, we also know that such aid rarely comes without strings attached. So if we look at the situation as a giant chess game (without suggesting the exact identities of the players), mugabe’s faction is sacrificing the pawns in the game — members of the common populace — in order to retain power.
But what is really at stake?
What is really at stake, I am not sure. But it seems that all these foreign companies have moved out. I keep sighing at the Peruvians’ love of foreign investment, but it is rather frightening to see NO investment. I’m sure M. is sacrificing people to retain power. I heard today that they have lent money to the U.S.!
Some of the foreign companies have moved out — not all. The real destruction to the economy was in terms of what happened to the agricultural industry. Who has lent money to the US?
Agriculture, yes. Debt: “Zimbabwe” is what I was told … this was word of mouth. I am assuming it means Zimbabwean banks are among those financing us? Although there was a chunk of Zimbabwean debt forgiven or paid a few months ago, no explanation, maybe it was in exchange for giving us money. (I’d love to do a degree in Economics and learn how all of this really works.)
Maybe its just a reference to the neo-Marxist notion of third world dependency and how that works? In that sense, the third world is “financing” you, due to inequitability of remuneration etc.
It was specifically that one of the countries the Bush administration had gotten new loans from was Zimbabwe. What “Zimbabwe” means – a bank, what – I don’t know.
stange, indeed.