Latin America saw a resurgence in Centre-Left candidates in the democratic elections of 2006. In Ecuador Rafael Correa took office, Nicaragua saw Daniel Ortega regain the presidency, in 2005 Evo Morales became the first indigenous president of his country, Hugo Chavez was re-elected to the chagrin of the Bush administration, Chile elected Michelle Bachelet, Peru elected Alan Garcia, in Uruguay Tabare  Ramon Vazquez Rosas took office, and in Brazil Luiz Ignacio Lula de Silva one in the second round of votes. Even though all of the candidates are left leaning they all have somewhat varied approaches to what they promise to bring to the table during their presidency. Chavez and Morales being the most socialistic and radical of the group, and others such as Bachelet, Lula de Silva, and Garcia favoring more socially democratic views when it comes to the market place (ODI). The common threads that do hold these Presidents and their voters together is their severe dissatisfaction with neoliberal free market economic policies that have been implemented under the “Washington Consensus” during the 1980’s and 90’s.  People in Latin America have watched as the divide between rich and poor has grown tremendously over the years, some statistics labeling South America as the most unequal in the world. With trickle down economics failing to provide better lives and more jobs it seems that the people of the Southern Hemisphere are ready to try something new. Coupled with the Bush administration’s priorities, or some would say distractions, in the Middle East and the rising discontent among the marginalized, the 2006 elections became the time for change. What are some of the mechanisms for change that the people of Latin America have used to wrestle power away from the economic elites?

Neoliberal economic policy believes in the private sector over the public and that the invisible hand of the market will efficiently (not equitably) allocate societies productive resources and the ensuing economic benefits. John Williamson’s list of proposals, which came to be known as the “Washington Consensus” lays out the basic tenets of this policy and are as follows, fiscal rectitude (cut expenditures and or raise taxes for budget surplus), competitive exchange rates (accepting market determined exchange rates), free trade, privatization, undistorted market prices (no gov. policies regulating prices), limited intervention, reduced capital controls (removing gov. control of cross border flow of finance), deregulation, union busting, and export led development.(Wikipedia)

The Capitalist class welcomed saps and this new economic outlook allowing them in 1988 alone to fuse some of the largest capitals resulting in what the UN center for the Study of Transnational Corporations dubbed the billionaire club which consisted of 300 of the largest transnational which by themselves were responsible for 25% of the worlds production (Dynamics pg 24.) The working class up to this point had worked hard organizing themselves and making their voices heard on the political field. This changed in the 80’s due to plans launched by the capitalist class. By the 90’s the working class had changed radically and their traditional sector (construction and manufacturing) had been all but decimated creating the base for another social class, one relegated to street life rather than in factories or offices. They were now “located in the informal sector of the urban economies, subject to conditions of economic insecurity, disorganization, and low pay, with labor remunerated at levels well below its value; subject to precarious and irregular occupational conditions and forms of employment- short contract and temporary work; and characterized by the formation of a huge reserve army of surplus labor, under conditions of unemployment and under employment.”(Dynamics PG 25) Coupled with the marginalization is also the slap in the face that the promised trickle down effects of the fast growing capitalist machine had not occurred. According to the World Bank in 1994 the average per capita income was 4,470, which is more than 1980 but does not really paint the picture of the disparities of this wealth. In actuality 20% of the worlds richest population account for 78.7% of the total income while the poorest 20% account for only 1.4%. Another way to drive the point home is that according to the Forbes 400, just 385 individuals total combined income equal that of the poorest 40%(Dynamics pg 26.) This highly unequal distribution of wealth can be connected with the depression of wages and the shift in national income from labor to capital, under the neoliberal policies of the 80s and 90s. So the real effects of SAPs and economic policies are the splitting of society, allowing the winners to accumulate wealth and relegating the losers into lives of exploitation and social exclusion (Dynamics pg 27.)

Going into the 90’s the international financiers and regimes who had implemented the first round of structural adjustment began to worry that the social inequalities which their models had produced were also giving way to a level of discontent that threatened the respective political regimes. The discontent tied with re-democratization of the continent pushed the IMF and the World Bank to overhaul the SAPs with a “human face”(Dynamics pg 65) The five basic premises of the SAP’s with a human face are participation, decentralization, targeting the poor, specific policies focused on health, education, and productive employment, and lastly structural reforms, which included the privatization of social services (Dynamics pg 65.) Focusing on decentralization we see a number of effects that coupled with participation may have ultimately backfired in the IMF and World Bank faces. The marginalization of large parts of society forced the citizens to band together and create what is known as the informal sector, which neither relied on the markets or the state to care for them. These individuals created highly participatory strategies such as “self help projects, independence and reciprocity in production and exchange of products between the urban poor, as well as the organization of communal soup kitchens and dining halls, and the provision of community housing services.”(Dynamics PG 66) As these groups grew in strength they demanded more autonomy and power in their local municipalities, which the governments were happy to give them, minus financial resources, due to the decentralization process. At first the decentralization and the fact that these local municipalities were not able to effect much change outside of their regions created the drive in these social movements to continue to bond together and organize their selves in a way that would might one day allow them to force social change.

In response to the new human face and the participatory element of the program, has been the development and organization of NGO’s throughout the southern hemisphere. These organizations act as intermediaries between the grass-root social organizations and the government institutions. The NGOs primarily are there to provide assistance to the marginalized population and to formulate issues that have stemmed from structural adjustment. The problem lies that even though the NGOs have the needs of the marginalized people in mind they are there to primarily work with the system and have been unable to form any comprehensive plans to form any sort of new system (Dynamics pg 131.) On the other hand they have allowed the people to realize their democratic voice in the local level, being a catalyst for the people movements to strengthen and grow demanding national recognition.

The most significant mechanism of social change has been the formation of well organized and focused peasant movements, most notably the indigenous peoples of Mexico, Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador. These new movements have been formed with severe distrust in the political system and have developed with out specific ties to any political party. A major difference in the new peasant movements and movements of old are their understanding of the global empire, the importance of mass coordination of forces, and a national agenda. The new movements also understand the importance of alliances with the marginalized urban poor, the necessity of land reform policies, credit, and technical assistance (Petras.)  As groups have formed they have also recognized the power in regional alliances such as Via Compesina who according to their website’s main objective is to “develop solidarity and unity among small farmer organizations in order to promote gender parity and social justice in fair economic relations; the preservation of land, water, seeds, and other natural resources.”(La Via Compesina)

The globe began to realize the power of the indigenous peoples in January of 1994 when the Zapatista’s uprising in the province of Chiapas Mexico shook the neoliberal façade of peace and stability that had been portrayed for years. The fact that the indigenous peoples could band together and form a new sort of social movement that did not align or hope to align itself with any particular political party, perfectly timed with the use of force no longer allowed the ethnic factor to be ignored (dynamics pg 134.)  This provided a new perspective to social movements throughout the southern hemisphere, and since we have seen the Indian movements in Ecuador force resignation of president Bucaram for corruption and trying to impose the IMF’s agenda. In Brazil the MST(Brazil’s Landless Workers) has been able to settle over 350,000 land disputes through land occupation movements and forcing land reform into the center of the political debate.  On its settlements the MST educate 160,000 children from 1^st to 4^th grade, and have “96 small and medium sized farms that provide fruit, vegetables, dairy products, grain, coffee, meat, and sweets.”(MST) In Bolivia the movement MAS (movement towards socialism) was successful in 2005 of getting the first ever-indigenous president, Evo Morales, elected. MAS are made up of indigenous peoples, ex-miners whose labor unions have been destroyed, cocoa farmers, and labor unions from the cities. Morales is now being confronted heavily with the right wing opposition which stems mainly from the area of Santa Cruz where the business elites have economic and political control (Berkeley Daily.) The powers that be and have been for the last five hundred years are having a difficult time watching as the indigenous majority gains a voice and will do all that’s possible to disrupt the process.

We can see that there are a multitude of mechanisms that the people of Latin America are using to produce change and to fight the neoliberal economic policy and imperialism. They are rooted in the organized voice of the masses on the grass root level attempting at first to just survive day to day. As these groups grow and join together developing a national agenda, using true democracy, they will hopefully continue to see the fruits of their efforts materialize. It will be a long and most likely bloody fight, but for people who have been relegated to almost nothing the question should be raised as to what it is they have to lose?

www.odi.org.uk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/neoliberalism 

www.berkeleydailyplanet.com

www.mstbrazil.org/?q=history 

www.rebelion.org/petras/english/newpeasantry170102.htm

www.viacampesina.org

Veltmeyer, Henry. Dyanamics of Social Cahnge in Latin America.

New York, NY: Palgrave Publishers, 1998

            Under this legislation, if you are deemed a terrorist, you can be picked up, hauled away, and never seen again without anyone knowing. Who knows how many people this has happened to because those arrested were unable to tell anyone they were taken. Some of these people are then taken away to another country and tortured for information. Is this the way America was established? Are these American values?  This legislation threatens the public in two ways. First it removes other inalienable freedoms listed in the Bill of Rights and second it opens up the interpretation of who can be defined as a terrorist.

Without habeas corpus, many of our other rights become useless. Look at the Bill of Rights and one will see that once a person is unfairly detained, their other rights go out the window. Amendment 1: Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government. A person doesn’t have these freedoms once they are in prison. Amendment 2: Right to keep and bear arms. Once again, I don’t think you can do this while locked up. Amendment 4: No search and seizures without probable cause. In jail you are searched as much as the guards and anyone else wants. And the list goes on. Once in jail, a person’s rights are much more limited, in fact they are almost completely removed.

The definition of who the government can suspend habeas corpus for is vast and constantly changing. Many people believe we don’t have to worry about the removal of this right because we are not terrorists. But who is a terrorist? While there is no universal definition, most of us think we have a fairly accurate picture of who or what a terrorist is. However, these mental pictures are not necessary accurate. There are many different types of terrorism: political, quasi, domestic, etc. Most people don’t know about a new type of terrorism emerging. It is called eco-terrorism.  Eco-terrorism is terrorism carried out for the sake of environmental or ecological purposes. Note that the definition of eco-terrorism is not the severe harming of environments by people, governments, or corporations. This is referred to as environmental terrorism. Eco-terrorism is term is believed to have come about from Ron Arnold, the Author of Ecoterror: The Violent Agenda to Save Nature. This type of terrorism is very puzzling. How is it possible to have a violent agenda to save nature? Companies such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), Greenpeace, and the Animal Liberation Front (AFL) have all been criticized as eco-terrorists. Therefore, under the current legislation, these organizations could be considered terrorists. Furthermore, if a person supports these groups in anyway, they too could be labeled a terrorist. If the government felt threatened by you, or if they really wanted to, they could arrest and hold you without having to give a reason. Suddenly being a terrorist isn’t so far from the average person. Any group that a citizen supports and the government doesn’t may soon be dubbed a terrorist organization. I may be a terrorist for writing this paper. The removal of this right is much more threatening than the public realizes because soon, whoever the government wants may be considered a terrorist.

President Bush claimed that the passing of this bill was necessary in order for his administration to better carry out their jobs in protecting the American people. What it has done is scared the American people. He also claimed that simply debating the romoval of Habeas Corpus was helping the enemy (Olbermann, 2006). Current efforts to resort the right have been made. A bill named the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act of 2007 was approved by the United States Senate Judiciary Committee on June 7, 2007. This Act would allow Guantanamo Bay captives to access US courts with habeas corpus. Another current installment was that the Supreme Court agreed to hear outstanding habeas corpus, which means they may amend the Military Commissions Act of 2006 or do away with it completely. This debate in the Supreme Court began on September 17, 2007.

The election race is in full swing. The public has seen many of the leading representatives from both parties and are beginning to form their opinions. This election is a very important one, as it seems as though we haven’t had a great leader in over a decade. Senator of Illinois, Barack Obama has vowed to regain the writ of habeas corpus if elected. In a dialogue with young Iowa voters, he questioned current American values and the restriction of personal freedoms. Based on the Senators comments, habeas corpus seems to be a very important issue to him, which could be good news.

Habeas corpus is not something we can afford to lose. It is not a loss that can be ignored. We need to fight to restore this right before it is too late, and the nostalgia of our previous rights and freedoms sets in. The destruction of habeas corpus leads to the loss of other rights, as well as unfair classifications of terrorists. Democracy is a government in which the people need to be constantly participating and critiquing. It is our duty to realize we’ve been wronged, and stand up for the ideals of our country.  

Bibliography

Thomas, Steve. 2006. “War on Terror.”

 http:// http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP5087

Olbermann, Keith. 2006. “The death of habeas corpus.”

            http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/.

The means by which a group of human beings choose to sustain their lives is a basic corner stone to the doctrines of survival. The methods or methods used play a major role and some would argue the main role in the making and passing of culture. If we look at culture as the ways and means by which a group of people survive and grow as a society we can easily see that the economic system that is used is a key block in the social structure. What happens when a society changes its economic base or when the economic model is changed for them by force or coercion?

When a society changes its primary economic system what it also changes is its primary method of building its culture and maintaining the culture that is built. We read about societies having grave difficulties after changing to a system that is mainly capitalistic. Where the goal is to produce and sell your products to others for money to buy what one needs. Where once the people basically grew or collected and or bartered for what they needed no they have a completely different system to operate in. This new system I purport is not only a change in how they grow crops or how they distribute them it is a change in how they define themselves and how the defined their society.

It is also not necessarily true that the new way of surviving with the use of capital is bad but that it is such a change in fundamentals that the culture will have little choice but to change it basic identity and world view which could cause very serious growing pains so to speak. I seem to have heard a simplistic viewpoint often in my life that some third world cultures are just not able to “make it” that perhaps they are no intelligent enough and that they are backwards etc. This ethnocentric view point is missing the whole point . For if a person of middle class status from a first world country was flown one night to the villages in Papa New Guinea and told that today you will go out and start to clear jungle for the growing of crops I sincerely believe that the person would have a very difficult time. Why? Because they would have been stripped of
the culture they are used to . Culture is something that perhaps is taking so much for granted that we do not notice that culture and its counterpart of social institutions are with us constantly similar to how our skin is with us. So when institutions are changed and added and basic modes of sustaining life are altered or dramatically abolished what we are seeing is a destroying of a society. It often seems that the sad truth is that the building of a new and cohesive society does not happen as fast as the destruction of the old one. Leaving many to fall in the cracks of change and be displace into a world between cultures.

In our culture in the United States we use the phrase “going to work” as the means used to get what we need to live life. In this country however “going to work” is part of our culture and no matter what one does for work culture is still passed on and built in correlation with the work done.

In places of work people often find other people that become friends. These friends can become one's spouse or even lead to meeting ones spouse. The getting of gossip and knowing what is going on in the world can come from ones work. Knowledge is passed on from person to person in any given field that can be very useful in the future. I was in Humbolt County California in the late 1980Â’s and early 1990Â’s. This was
a time when there where many lumber mills that were starting to close up. When NAFTA was signed the final nail was hammered in and the main paper mill in Eureka was closed. This whole cycle of closing plants displaced thousands of workers. Many whom where 5th or 6th generation loggers. No matter what oneÂ’s beliefÂ’s are about the logging industry these people had lost their main source of employment. However they lost more than a job they lost a way of life. They lost the stories that they told to each other . They lost the basic common thread that keep them together as a community. There where towns where one could say 90% of the people where either in the logging industry or serviced those that where in the industry. This was not just a situation of jobs lost this was a situation of whole communities , generations of cultural connections being severed.

When we speak of the loss or gain of jobs ,when we speak of a changing economic system in any part of the world what we are speaking of is also a change in the cultural fabric and in the social institutions and
therefore the society at large. It is not an issue that can be over simplified. When methods of farming are drastically changed when bullets and guns are given to a people for the first time in order to help them “hunt better” , what has happened is the basic structure of that society will be altered. It does not have to be altered for the worse but the understanding and acknowledgement that the society will be changed is crucial to any endeavor .If problems arise ,and they will, it will take action to stabilize the society and bridge the old
with the new in a way that benefits all. Perhaps it is hard to see or hard to understand for many because what is being lost is the fact that usually it takes a very long time for a society to change . At least historically this can be seen to be true. But the wave of capitalistic globalization is analogous to a huge earthquake or natural disaster or war that forces a society to change almost overnight. In the case of any of these disasters it is expected that there will be an upheaval and difficulty. However this current type of change is known. People plan it , it is not an act of god. Therefore the needed actions to help the people in these areas that are undergoing change should and needs to be available. Of course the other option is to not allow the manipulation and change to occur at all. Never the less what needs to be made very plain is that societies are living entities and that if any one part is drastically changed the whole organism will also change. This is a fact that I am sure many governments and corporations know and use to their advantage. However the general populations of this country and the whole world for that matter should look at the
change of economic systems as a change in the whole society that will need support and a guiding hand to ensure they do not get lost and or manipulated in the transition.

So here we are. It's 2007. The cold war has ended. There are technological advances every day. The world is connected by the Internet. Previously sheltered countries are now able to see what is going on in the rest of the world. People in India, Pakistan, Israel, Germany, etc. know what movie stars and fashions are popular in
America, Great Britain, France, and Japan.

To me, a student studying Anthropology as a major, specifically studies in Native American history and lifestyle, I see many similarities many people might not catch between growing globalization and what happened to the many Indian tribes that lived in this country before Columbus or any other European set foot on this continent.

One problem with what globalization seems to try to bring about as an end result is shifting the focus of various crops and exports that many smaller countries have to offer. We have read about how people have
found success over countless generations in growing certain crops in their own countries, they way it has been done for many years. With globalization, there is a movement to wipe out the traditional way countries and cultures have been doing things, in order to have them grow just one 'cash crop' in order to be more profitable.

Now this may not seem like a loss of culture to most people, but it sends a red flag up to me. All it really takes is one generation to change (most of the time, involuntarily) to a 'new' way of doing things, and the original way of how something was done (i.e. a traditional way of growing rice or grain) is potentially gone forever.

Here is where I start to see the similarities between globalization, and the complete devastation of the Native American culture and people that were here originally.

Once the Europeans came over to the New World, they instantly employed Indians to work for them by collecting sea otter pelts. The Indians were of course paid way less than what the otter pelt was worth, and
they were the ones that did all the hard work. Not only that, but the whites exploited the market so much it nearly caused extinction of that species.

Once this was done, a horrible aspect of this 'trade relationship' moves into focus: dependency on Europeans for their trade goods. This sounded a little too close to the article we just read about farmers in
India who now have to rely on banks and the purchase of new machines or biotechnically engineered grains to continue to run their farm. Companies and financial institutions no doubt know what they can gain with farmers depending on them for survival, they can manipulate and exploit them anyway they want to. Hmm, sounds familiar.

Once European contact was made and Natives in America depended on new European trade goods, their traditional culture started to deteriorate right away. They way to boil water using a hand made basket of tulles and head rocks from a fire is now forgotten because the natives were traded copper kettles for their goods. A Indian woman will most likely not teach her children how to do it the traditional way if they no longer need to.

The loss of culture begins, and only ends when there is nothing left to assimilate. Many Native American studies that are done now fall under "history" because there is nothing left to study of current times. Languages, stories, art forms, and methods of survival are now gone forever due to early "globalization" of the Europeans. This is exactly what is happening on a different scale today.

Based on my understanding of the views presented here, I believe that the idea of globalization as a manifestation of cultural imperialism is fatally flawed. I can't see how it is possible to completely wipe out
someone else's culture by really just trying to make one's one culture better. I feel that although people in every nation are excited by exposure to new things, they don't really want to leave their own heritage behind. I believe that people tend to hang on to their core cultural values for as long as they can, but sometimes it can be made impossible for them. People need to wake up and see that this is history repeating itself. I am not sure why anyone would want to repeat a point of American history that is often refereed to as a holocaust.