Voluntourism

I am this meme. This meme is me.

You know that one friend who went on a trip to Nambia (or Haiti, or Ghana, or any third-world locale with an exotic-sounding name) once, and that experience was "life-changing", "earth-shattering", and "humbling". Pictures are then pulled out-- this one friend sitting in between two dark-skinned kids, bandana-ed head, slight sunburn, sunglasses. 

Sigh. 

What is wrong with this picture?

Sometimes it's more than two

Voluntourism is a portmanteau of the terms "volunteering" and "tourism", and it's loosely described as "a popular form of international travel that allows you to contribute to sustainable development while exploring a new country and culture". Breaking it down, it doesn't sound that bad: nice, plump keywords ("sustainable development", "exploring") pad the definition to make it more palatable than it actually is. 

This isn't my friend Jessica, but it could as well be

First of all, who is this benefiting? The local community? How? The introduction of usually-untrained volunteers into small communities displaces the jobs of local workers who could be doing these jobs... And getting paid for it. A house is a house, after all, and the only people benefiting from the money that the volunteers pay for the trip goes towards the travel agency.

And of course, the travel agencies. New travel agencies have popped up everywhere, which aim to get a profit from exploiting the good (if naive) intentions of American college kids. Because of course, no one who does volunteerism goes with the mindset of "oh, let me just ruin someone else's chance at a decent job", or "let me do more bad than good in this community": most volunteers truly believe they are the ideal candidate to help these poor, sub-developed people.

Is it a contest? Do you win the little boy too?

A darker side of voluntourism is, of course, direct damage done to the community. Some travel agencies might deliberately lengthen or slow down a particular project to draw it out longer (and thus entice more volunteers with less resources on their part), or even sabotage the development and growth of the community in order to attract more volunteers to the area.

Furthermore, the most important reason to not do voluntourism (especially with children) is based on the psychological theories by Doctor John Bowlby. He explored the role that attachment has in infants and children, and found out that the amount and types of attachment that are formed during early childhood determine most of the socialization patterns and habits of these children as adults. Hence, if there is a lack of attachment (in this case brought about by different volunteers coming and going throughout their childhood), these children might grow up to emulate this absent pattern of socialization, which would do infinitely more harm than good. 

With all of this being said, I do agree that spending time getting to know a completely different culture is worthwhile; especially in a culture as materialistic as the United States'. However, please call it for what it is: a vacation in an exotic country, in which you might have a deep cultural immersion... But will not help anyone. Because, after all, it isn't your role. The orphans are not asking for help. They need resources and care beyond what you or I, as simple individuals, might be able to provide.

So next time that a service organization organizes (ha) a trip to Honduras, or Haiti or El Salvador... Think twice about what is really being implied. 

Qué Indio

(Alternative title for this post included:

"Another Post About Language (on a blog which wasn't meant to be for language)".

We have this saying in Spanish (specifically in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, I believe):

"Qué indio".

It can be translated to "how indian of you" ("indian" being a term for Native American/Aboriginal people, not from people hailing from India), and it's perhaps one of the most derogatory phrases that can be uttered. It's used when a person expresses affinity for something (be it an activity, food or clothes) that is taken as lesser in value, or characteristic of the "lower class" as labelled by the person doing the insult.

It's basically the Latino equivalent of seeing a farmer who says he likes country (or wearing straw hats), and then calling out, "hey, that's so redneck of you".

Presumably, you, the one doing the insult, are not dressed up as a farmer. But you may be. It can happen amongst the same demographic 

However, it goes way more than that. Clearly, no one thinks: 'oh, I think this person is inferior to me, because (s)he has a different taste. I will shame them into being the same as me, because that is the way to go. I hate diversity, and I hate my heritage'. It's funny, it's snarky, it makes everyone laugh-- even those who have direct Native American lineage. It calls out the person in a way that is gently ridiculing, but can still be ignored

There are countless memes on being indio:

From a quick Google search

I want to focus on this gem: "You're so native/aboriginal/primitive.. that it rains when you dance"

Now, it's hard to put my finger in why exactly is this insult derogatory. Clearly, yes, because it makes fun and offends an entire race and group of people. But the ones who see this as problematic are the educated white people from an outsider's perspective. When in the midst of conversation or joking around, the saying just goes around, everyone laughs and no one pays it any mind. So what's the big deal? Is it only excess political correctness? In a world oversaturated with "offensive" terminology, am I merely imagining the effect it has in conversation?

In my opinion, it stems from the fact that it's meant to shame the receptor; completely trying to erase the fact that we were, once, proud to be called natives. We were once proud of our rain dances, or our taste in music or clothing. The war of attrition that language wages on a culture shouldn't be overlooked. It's not merely about excess political correctness, as the media sometimes paints it:

I want to see your "healed" hip in thirty years.

But about a tangible impact that it has on society. The rejection of what once was, and wanting to do away from any trace of primitive, as if we're ashamed of it. Even worse, it directly calls the person out for having a lower social status: essentially saying, 'oh, you've got very low-income tastes in (music/dance/clothing/TV shows/etc)'. And then everyone laughs? There must be something wrong, I think.

In any case, much and more has been said about how society has become over-sensitive to language choices, or how there are things way more important to worry about than how people speak, and political correctness has breached freedom of speech. I do, however, believe that the way we speak has a direct impact on how we label (and therefore treat and think about) each other. A society that lacks the foundations of mutual respect cannot progress, but merely repeats the same mistakes that have been previously made in history.

What do you think? Oversensitiveness or an actual issue? (This also applies to people calling others "rednecks".)

A Language Unknown

Quitlahpalohua, iknihutli.

I wish I hadn't had to Google that before I wrote it. It's Náhuatl for "greetings, friends", and used to be the native language everywhere from Southeast Mexico to El Salvador:

As you can see, only very few actively-speaking Náhuatl population clusters remain.

After the Spanish conquest of the Aztec empire (based in Tenochtitan, Mexico), in 1521, Náhuatl began to disappear slowly as the lingua franca of Mesoamerica. Driven by Catholicism, Spanish began to infiltrate the population, thus becoming the predominant language in the region.

Regretfully, there can only be one lingua franca occupying a space at a time, and Spanish replaced Náhuatl as such. Instead of preserving both languages as official, or evidence of a culture as great as the Spanish, the Conquistadors decided to throw the linguistic patrimony of Mesoamerica down the drain.

Basically.

Of course, the tossing of languages has been a particular problem for the human race since the beginning of language: as long as there has been war, there have been disappearing races and tribes, and languages. Take the Inuit Genocide, or (even more recently) the Native American mass displacements from their ancestral territories. All of these slow wars of attrition slowly erode the world's cultural heritage; a slow tirade against diversity.

I've always been obsessed with words in other languages that have no direct translation to either Spanish or English (the two that I speak most fluently). One of these is "mamihlapinatapai", which has been denominated "the most succinct word" by the Guinness Book of World Records. It's also considered one of the hardest words to translate, with it meaning something along the lines of "a look that two people share when each one wishes the other one would initiate something, but none of them doing so".

Thanks, Bettafish Resistance, for Mamihlapinatapai

Isn't it wonderful? In this day and age, etymology is not considered to be an important study to pursue. The origin and change of meaning in language hasn't been given the attention it deserves- especially now, that the UNESCO estimates that one language dies every 14 days. In similar lines, over half of the world's 7,000 different languages is expected to disappear by the end of the century.

To be honest, I see the appeal in learning English, or Spanish or Chinese. They're either the majority language in trade (business, economics, mathematics), or knowing one of the predominant languages just makes it easier to communicate with the rest of the world. From an economic perspective, it makes sense.

However, what is the cost? Is a slowly disappearing culture a good price to pay for a one-up in business? This queries come from a place in me in which I'm scared of globalization. I'll admit it; I, as a millennial, am scared of globalization. No, it's not an oxymoron. It's the fact that I don't want cultural heritage to be whitewashed or influenced by the lack of culture that comes with globalization.

Perhaps I'll have to adapt (of course I will), and perhaps the UNESCO will come up with effective languge-protection programs. For now, however, I'll have to be resigned to learning Náhuatl merely as a pastime-- merely to hold a dying ember of my culture.

El Salvador, 1932, Part I

Moving down both the physical and chronological map from Standing Rock, there's a little-known, extremely high-impact historical occurrence involving Salvadoran Native Americans, extreme oppression and a small insurrection that led to the massacre of about 90% of the Pipil population in the country.

Excuse the bad quality, the picture comes straight from 1932

Some context:

But first, some keywords:

Pipiles: A Mayan subgroup, the original inhabitants of the country

Mestizos: Direct mix between a Spanish colonizer and a Pipil

Ejidos: Small plots of land that weren't completely ruled by the great landowners, but completely the property of the Pipiles

Okay, now to it.

It's 1932 in El Salvador, the smallest country of Central America:

The small brown country in the West. 

No, wait. Let's rewind a bit more-- 

1524-1821 (Yes. This far back)

The Colonial period in El Salvador was an agriculture-based economy, and heavily stratified in respect to the "amount" of Spanish ascendence (proportional to Native American) that one had. 

Simply put; the more Spanish a person, the more power and money one had. Nothing new here- this has been a historical and contemporary occurrence globally. 

El Salvador obtained its independence from Spain in 1821, and the country went from being a colony to being a proper state... And with that, the lands that belonged to the Spanish Crown were up for grabs. And not for the indigenous populations, exactly. 

You see, these lands were given dirt cheap... to the already wealthy Mestizos, but weren't available to be bought by the Pipiles at all. Meaning that the lands which had been for public consumption and work passed to the hands of a select few (14 families, in fact). However, the Pipiles were spared some; there were small parcels of land (ejidos) that they could work on and wouldn't have to pay tribute to the lords of the land. 

Of course, it got worse in 1882.

Even the ejidos were taken from the Pipiles, by the new "Ley de Extinción de los Ejidos" (Law for the Extinction of the Ejidos), passed by the then-president Rafael Zaldívar (he also passed a law banning any African, African-American or Arab people from entering the country. Charming). 

Charming

Anyway, this guy. He established that ejidos were to be dissolved and integrated to the larger plots of land which belonged to the big landowners. Of course, now the land truly belonged completely to the aforementioned fourteen families... and the indigenous population was reduced to a kindly-worded form of slavery-- complete with communal currency and forced labor. 

Let's do this.

It's December of 1931 and the president in power, Enrique Araujo, is overthrown in a coup led by his vice president, Maximiliano Hernandez Martinez: 

Out with the old...

... in with the new

This made the oligarchy quite happy, as Araujo was a firm proposer of a severe Agricultural reform. As you might imagine, it didn't make the rest of the population very  happy.

On the night of January 22, 1932, the rebel peasant armies took to the centers of major rural districts, led by Augusto Farabundo Martí, of the Salvadoran Communist Party. In total, the so-called "Peasant Rebellion" lasted three days, and managed to interrupt supply lines from the rural hubs to the cities. 

The number of casualties attributed directly to the uprising (perpetrated by the rebels) was less than 100. 

The government retaliated to the full extent of their power: estimates range anywhere between 10- and 40,000 peasants killed by government forces. A bit louder for the people in the back;

Casualties that were the direct responsibility of the rebels: less than 100

Casualties that were direct retaliation from the government towards the whole lower strata of the country: anywhere between 10,000 and 40,000

And these weren't all part of the rebellion, either. 

There was a "raze" doctrine implemented; any individual that fit the description of the rebels was to be shot or hanged. 

Like this.

or this.

                            

No government or military officials were ever prosecuted for the crimes. 

Why does it matter?

Well, for one, the people killed were mostly Pipil. Which means that, for the most part, the country was completely left without the strong cultural ties that had consolidated the oppressed social class into a united identity. Without these historical ties, society was left suspended in a limbo of "what if"? Where there was a cyclical oppressive power dynamic between the military, government and landowners, and the rest of the civil population... Which eventually culminated in one of the longest civil wars ever waged in America (the continent); from 1980 to 1992. 

However, this post will have to be split in half-- I needed to set the precedent and historical bases for the contemporary civil issues part, which will come the next post.

See you next time! 

I Stand With Standing Rock

Unless you've been living under a rock recently, you've probably heard about Standing Rock:

And there's more

On a more serious note, however, you might have heard of Standing Rock... But are you aware of what is going on?

A brief overview of the facts:

• The Dakota Access Pipeline is an approximately 1,172 mile-long underground oil pipeline project that seeks to take oil from the Bakken field in North Dakota to the Patoka, Illinois oil tank
• The pipeline would originally cross under the Missouri river, but was redirected to avoid a greater impact to the Sioux water supply
• The original route was assessed as posing "great concern" to the local water supply by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in 2016, and needed to be redirected
• There is a massive Native American undertaking at Standing Rock- mostly by the Sioux tribe, but also Lakȟóta, Mayan and Pipil representatives
• The other projected pipeline construction, Pipeline XL, is undergoing similar backlash from Native American groups in both Alberta, Canada and North Dakota, as it threatens both fragile ecosystems and sacred burial ground.

Activists have flooded the area, even braving sub-zero temperatures during the winter

Why push ahead with it?

It was projected that between the Dakota Access Pipeline and the Pipeline XL projects, there would be over 28,000 jobs created. However, one of the principal reasons why the Obama administration didn't go ahead was because around 80% of these jobs would be short-term only: construction workers, early-stage project developers, etc. The Trump administration, on the other hand, has just signed an executive order (as of January 25th, 2017) to "expedite the completion of the Keystone XL project" and a Presidential Memorandum to push ahead with the drilling required for the Dakota Access Pipeline. 

The Protest

Along with the critical threat to the environment, protesters have mentioned the desecration of heritage sites, unjust cultural appropriation of land, and contamination of water sources as the main reason of the protest. Mass arrests and overuse of force by the authorities has been reported to various local and international Human Rights advocacy groups.

As of January 20, 2017, there was a consensus about the Standing Rock camp: it was to be dismantled in the next 30 days (by February 19), after the local community manifested discontent by "the rampant use of drugs and alcohol at the camp", as well as blockage of roads and disorderly conduct. 

It is yet to be seen if the order will be actually executed for the construction to go underway. 

My take

Historically, Native American and First Nation citizens' rights have been trampled on; their religion stripped, their language defiled, their lands re-appropriated. Both the Dakota Access Pipeline and Pipeline XL projects continue with this historical campaign which threatens the livelihood of thousands of people. Culturally and environmentally, the projects make no sense-- aren't we trying to move away from using fossil fuels? Shouldn't there be a heightened awareness for others' cultures? In this day and age, it is still very hard to believe that the Indigenous American populations aren't recognized as the true first owners of the land, and given the respect they deserve.

                                                                            Jenni Monet

From an economic point of view, it's a mixed reaction: with increased supply from Canada (approximately 380,000 barrels of oil would be transported per day), the United States' dependency on Middle Eastern oil would be greatly eased-- a concern of the past administration that wasn't fulfilled. Furthermore, there would be more jobs created, and the increase in supply would mean lower oil prices for the consumer. 

I personally don't believe that the perpetuation of oppression (both cultural and environmental) is a fair price to pay for increased oil supply-- there are alternatives that don't include eventual resource wipeout and oppression towards minorities. Investing in clean, renewable energy would be this administration's best bet... But it's very clear that it isn't an item very close to the top of the agenda.