[Marxism] There did exist a state in Latin America (two)

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Sat Jul 29 11:37:17 MDT 2006

Respuesta a:"Marxism Digest, Vol 33, Issue 87"
Enviado por:marxism-request at lists.econ.utah.edu
Con fecha:29 Jul 2006, a las 6:16

Irritable Lüko Willms (not without reason) quotes my:

> > I am afraid Yoshie is wrong on this assumption.  

And bursts:

>   Ah, this time at least the reader may know whom Nestor is answering
>   to

Yes, I know it is tiresome and hard to find out who I am answering 
to.  But the problem is that I answer to the "digest", and thus 
change the "Subject" line each time I reply.  Sorry for the 
inconvenience.  To avoid such, this time, I had to search the digest, 
find the original name of the thread, copy it and paste it on the 
"Subj." line, which takes a lot.

Then, L. quotes my:

> > On this, there exists a common starting point 
> > for Arabs and Latin Americans.  There _did_ exist 
> > such a state (or equivalent thereof) in Latin America, 
> > which was the Hispanic Empire (and its counterpart, 
> > the Portuguese Empire).  

And still goes on with his justifiable anger:

>   Now, I don't know _which_ message by Yoshie Furuhashi you are 
> referring to, so I can't try and find out the context, 

Once anger vents away, he says:

> but what both
> overlook is that before the Ottoman empire, there was the Arabs
> themselves who had conquered half of the Mediterranean rim, large
> parts of Asia and Africa. 
>   There was an Arab empire, and there is an Arab nation, whose unity
>   and
> common language was not imposed by a foreign colonizer. 

Two issues here:

(1)  No, I don't forget that there existed an Arab empire before the 
Ottoman empire.  What I would contest, however, is that such Arab 
Empire is a basis for the Arab Nation, which also exists.  I would 
rather say that between the Arab Empire (for example the Empire 
centered in Bagdad) and the Arab Nation the relation is more or less 
like the relation (or rather lack thereof)  between Otto's Holy 
German Empire and modern Germany:  that is, almost none _but for the 
bourgeois apologists of "eternal nations"_.

2) The second implication is that in L.A. the unity and common 
language were "imposed on our peoples from outside", which is rather 
irrelevant in the sense that what really matters in the building of a 
nation is the existence of that unity as a cause and a consequence of 
an extended and ever deepening web of mollecular relations between 
the members of the nation through millions of daily contacts through 
the market.

The Latin American Nation comes to life with the expansion of two 
languages (almost two versions of the same language, in a sense) on 
all of America South of the Río Grande (save for small enclaves whose 
cultural independence must be respected to the last comma).

If Evo Morales can defend the rights of Bolivian Aymara and Quechua 
indians (70% of the population of the country) so adequately, it is 
because he can do it in Spanish, not the other way round.

It is not a moral issue we are dealing with.  It is an objective 
process. And in that process, it would be disruptive, divisive, 
ethnocentric and reactionary for a L.American to reject the enormous 
and essential legacy that the Iberian peoples gave to us.  Our Nation 
is, like the Arab nation, still on the making, it belongs to the 
future and thus to revolution.  It cannot be predicated _from a 
mythical past_.  It must be built up from what we are now, in order 
to become ourselves (für sich).

>    There were also efforts to unify the separate states which came out
> after Ottoman and european colonization; e.g. the creation of the
> "United Arab Republic" of Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, which didn't last
> long, 

And this is why I insist in that the Arab nation is somehow more 
advanced, on its road to completion, than the Latin American Nation.  
We are still recognizing ourselves as a unity in the making, the 
Arabs are fully conscious of that unity.  That's an enormous step 
ahead, and the role of Hugo Chávez in all this drama is precisely 
that he is helping Latin Americans in this essential, Bolivarian, 

BTW:  L.Am. (particularly Hisp. Am.) flags also have traces of the 
lost unity.  The three flags of Bolívar's Greater Colombia (Ecu, Col, 
Vnzl) are an expression.  But also is the blue (or light-blue) and 
white of Arg, Uru, and many Central American countries.  And even 
Paraguayan blue-white-red is linked with the original Federal flag of 
Artigas and the countries of the River Plate.  Can't speak for the 
Chilean flag (which is anyway also red-white-blue, but AFAIK has had 
little to do with the great unifier of the River Plate), or the 
Peruvian flag.  

The Brazilian flag simply repeats the old Imperial flag of the 
Braganças with a Positivist touch (coat of arms replaced by a globe 
with the legend "Order and Progress" around it), which is directly 
related to the way in which Brazil entered independent history.  And 
the Bolivian flag, which refers to the natural riches of the country, 
is the ultimate example of Balkanization, but this is an entirely 
different subject matter.

Este correo lo ha enviado
Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
[No necesariamente es su autor]
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"La patria tiene que ser la dignidad arriba y el regocijo abajo".
Aparicio Saravia
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 

More information about the Marxism mailing list