Skrivet av jnc 2013-06-05 17:07

xx

kan du inte skriva ihop ett svar?

Skrivet av Peter 2013-06-05 20:21

Det kommer ett svar av Nina Björk

Nina Björk skall tydligen skriva ett svar till Dennis danska dumheter. Hans text för tankarna till 1930-talets grovt generaliserande folklynnesskildringar. Generande läsning...

Skrivet av Arvid 2013-05-16 14:02

-

Jag tyckte programmet var tragikomiskt. Man tog ett antal händelser där en handfull journalister har gjort tvivelaktiga vinklingar eller beslut. Och med det som belägg ville man säga att man inte får debattera integrationsfrågor i Sverige? Snälla nån...

Skrivet av Jueko 2013-05-11 18:00

Jueko

I'm just listening to the interview on ABC with Geraldine Doogue. I'm Colombian and I think (from what I'm hearing from you in the interview) that you have a very bad knowledge of the Colombian history, or, in the best of cases, you deform it in such a way (trying to mold it according to your political agenda, maybe?), that you make it totally unrecognizable for someone who is familiarized with it. you depict the war in the country in such a simplistic, white-and-black and distorted way, and you fall in so much false generalizations and wrong facts that is embarrasing. For someone who says to have fall in love with Colombia, you insult the country by lowering the quality of the discussion about its political situation so much.

Skrivet av magnus 2013-05-12 11:28

that was very general mr jueko for being a critique on generalization. any chance you could be a little more specific on the "wrong facts"? of course the talk was full of generalizing, as any attempt to sum up a country in one minute. simplifying is what media does. read the book instead and return here with objections if any remain. it’s an in-depth account revealing things that are quite horrific regarding what both the guerrilla and the state has been up to. you certainly don’t have to worry about a political bias unless you belong to one of the two extremes that so sadly dominate the colombian communities abroad. both communists and uribists will hate the book, which i see as a sign of quality. and to be honest: i have never ever discussed colombia with folks from one of those sides without getting accused for lack of knowledge of colombian history… it’s part of the sad story; people still think there is ONE history of colombia. there isn’t.

that said im sure the answers in the interview were bad. it was pre-recorded and geraldine asked me things i hadn't expected and then it was cut down to a third or so and perhaps it ended up not making any sense at all just reproducing old stereotypes about colombia. very sorry if so. haven’t listened to it. but again; read the book. its literally the contrary to a simplistic story.

Skrivet av magnus 2013-05-12 14:42

just listened and realize it can't be any mentioned facts that disturb you since there are hardly any of those, but more the fact that colombia was talked about without the guerilla being mentioned as the only problem. that's a "fact" that always will piss right wingers off, and im afraid i will repeat it.

Skrivet av Jueko 2013-05-17 02:00

Jueko

Escribiré en español porque se me da mejor. Supongo que tú al haber residido por un tiempo en Bogotá ya podrás leerlo.

No sé de dónde sacas esa idea racista de que toda historia relacionada con Colombia está relacionada con las drogas. Pareciese que quisieras alimentar los lugares comunes sobre el imaginario que se tiene sobre el país. Mi familia es del Altiplano Cundiboyacense, y no conozco a nadie, ni tengo amigos o conocidos, que tengan alguna relación con el tráfico de drogas o con grupos criminales asociados a esta. Y sé que eso es cierto para muchísimos colombianos, incluso en regiones históricamente asociadas al cultivo de plantas de uso ilícito. No existe una "sociedad colombiana" homogénea, esencial, más allá del discurso político y de los medios, es un constructo social, y de existir no veo por qué ha de definirse en asociación con las drogas. Aún peor es la parte en la que, según la entrevistadora, afirmas que los colombianos no tenemos ya ningún "compás moral". ¿Se puede ser tan increíblemente racista, simplista y desentendido de la realidad social del país? Y no sé qué te hace pensar que esa violencia de la que hablas es homogénea a todo lo largo del país, que todos la sufrimos por igual y en la misma magnitud.

Tampoco es cierto en absoluto lo que dices sobre los movimientos sociales y cómo la totalidad de personas adherentes a dichos grupos han sido asesinados. ¿De dónde sacaste esa idea tan caricaturesca y grotesca? Y todo sazonado con esa visión simplista, generalizadora, a blanco y negro, sobre los conflictos sociales en el territorio de "Colombia". Ahora, el periodo de "La Violencia" tampoco es en absoluto como lo pintas, las víctimas no fueron ni mucho menos únicamente "liberales progresitas", había muchos otros intereses en juego y muchos bandos en disputa. Tampoco era una simple disputa ideológica. Además, la violencia viene de muchísimo más atrás, de la fundación del país, pero supongo que tú, al carecer de todo rigor académico y desconocer la historia de guerras civiles del país durante el siglo XIX y XX (un ejemplo: "Guerra de los mil días", ¿te suena?) lo desconoces. El conflicto en el país no empezó hace 50 años.

Lo que dices sobre la pobreza y la falta de control del estado sobre extensas áreas del país como las causas de que Colombia se convirtiese en "la capital de la cocaína" es tan ingenuo (muchísimos países del mundo están en tales condiciones, en mayor o menor grado) y tan pobremente argumentado que me hizo sonreír.

Por otra parte, para haber estudiado a fondo el mundo de la cocaína, estás pésimamente informado. El 60% de la cocaína no proviene de Colombia; Perú produce tanto como Colombia y hay otros países productores, así que, por aritmética básica, es imposible que Colombia produzca tal cantidad. También pareces desconocer datos básicos de la demografía del país. La coca no es cultivada en "todo" el país, es cierto que los cultivos no se concentran en "el sur" o en cualquier otra parte del país pero los cultivos sí están localizados en áreas bien definidas, entre ellas, el Catatumbo, el Putumayo, la costa Nariñense, la antigua zona de distensión, entre otras áreas, y la cantidad de personas dedicadas a su cultivo es ínfima en relación con el total de la población rural colombiana, que es de unos 10 millones. Quizás quisiste decir que los cultivos ahora eran pequeños y dispersos (y que ahora se cultiva en áreas tales como parques nacionales), pero eso es totalmente distinto a afirmar que en "todo el país" nos dedicamos al cultivo de la coca, como te traicionó tu racismo al decirlo. Y Medellín sí es una ciudad muy grande, y lo fue durante los 90s. Es más grande que muchas ciudades europeas grandes/capitales y una de las grandes áreas metropolitanas de las Américas.

Otra cosa: No veo cómo el término "feudal" no es anacrónico y totalmente inaplicable a la situación histórica de Colombia, y menos aún veo cómo podría ser aplicable a todo el territorio del país, o tan siquiera a la de una región en un periodo histórico. En ningún lugar del país la historia del conflicto por la tierra se puede enmarcar dentro del feudalismo, ni por asomo.

"colombia was talked about without the guerilla being mentioned as the only problem."

¿Y tú crees que ese es un gran descubrimiento?. Cualquier colombiano sabe eso mucho mejor que tú.

Lee a gente como Alejandro Reyes, Darío Fajardo, Alfredo Molano, Catherine LeGrand, entre otros, e infórmate mucho mejor sobre el problema agrario en Colombia.

Y no sé qué te hace pensar que soy uribista. De hecho, de casi ningún colombiano puede decirse que su posición política se defina unívocamente como "uribista" o "progresista" o que nazca de razones puramente ideológicas. Tampoco compraré tu libro, pues probablemente sea bastante malo, aunque quizás te alegre saber que muchos europeos lo comprarán y podrás desinformarlos a tu gusto.

Skrivet av magnus 2013-05-18 01:46

Thanks for specifying things Jueko. The way you have interpreted the interview I certainly understand you got extremely upset and frustrated. The good thing is that almost all of your interpretations are wrong. The bad thing is that it seems like you deliberately misinterpret what Im saying. If I, for instance, say I "love" Colombia I think you have to be quite stupid to interpret that as an intention from someone to say that he or she loves every aspect of Colombia. Of course there is no such thing as a homogenous "Colombia" or "Colombians". We agree completely on that. Nothing, in fact, makes that clearer than my book. But if you dont want to read it and prefer to keep on arguing against what was said in a very short and quite confusing interview Im afraid we wont get very far. I should, of course, have protested loudly when the interviewer talked about the lack of "a moral compass", but to me it was so obvious that she didnt mean colombians in general and in fact I didnt understand what she was actually saying and just took it for granted that she referred to the ethical chaos (confusión de valores) among SPECIFIC SECTORS of Colombian youth that I discuss briefly in the book (and which, of course, is just a result of social, economic and historical experiences). As you might know this fenomenon is discussed in detail by several Colombian authors, such as Alonso Salazar in his legendary book "No nacimos Pa semilla: la cultura de las bandas juveniles en Medellín", Fabio Castillos "Los jinetes de la cocaína" as well as in filmmaker Victor Gavirias documentaries and lots of other works of brilliant Colombian intellectuals. Below a few comments to straighten things out:

a) I have never said that Colombias entire history has to do with drugs. What makes you fabricate that idea?

b) I have of course never said that all Colombians are involved in drug production or trafficking. That would for sure be an absurd and completely false statement. Most people, even in drug producing areas, are not involved in this. Again: this is very clear in the book. What I meant is that all Colombians in one way or the other today are AFFECTED by the consequences of this fenomenon. Dont you agree that the conflict during the last decades has been affecting the entire nation and its people? The roots of the conflict, as you correctly say and as I state in the book, are far deeper than the drug trade. But dont you agree that the conflict has been fuelling the war considerably and that this is affecting everyone?

c) When it comes to the violence you again exaggerate and make it completely black and white. As Im sure you are familiar with there is an entire field of literature on this topic and a number of Colombian scholars who have contributed with very important in depth works, such as Orlando Fals Borda, Arturo Alape, Alfredo Molano, Gustavo Duncán and many others (all of whom I have personally interviewed, the two former ones long before they died). I have never said that the violence in todays Colombia is present everywhere, the statement on endemic violence came as a very hasty attempt to say something about the background on the falsos positivos scandal. The intention was of course not to suggest some bizarre primordialist explanation on Colombian culture, just to say that there are some specific historical factors that - for a number of social reasons of course - have resulted in killings being a more common way to (try to) solve problems in Colombia than in most countries. Dont you agree on that?

d) On the killing of unionists, leftists, human rights activist etc: in the interview I certainly say that "all" leaders of this kind have been murdered and interpreted literally that is, of course, a both false and absurd statement. But how could you believe I meant literally? What I was referring to was the historical collective experience of the murder of Gaitán, Galán, the leaders of Unión Patriótica, many unionists (in Urabá, Magdalena Medio and elsewhere) and the horrific number of human rights leaders, journalist, feminist activists, radical priests etc that have been killed as quick as they have started to gain real popular support (power) or reveal delicate information. Similar things happen in many countries but what I tried to say is that this collective Colombian experience is historically quite unique. Dont you agree?

e) On the victims during La Violencia: I have never said that the ONLY victims were "progressive liberals". It was Geraldines question about the role of the church that made me focus on "secularists" and "liberals". People on all sides were killed and this is of course exactly WHY it is considered a such a unique decade in the countrys history. I have interviewed former leader of Polo Democrático Carlos Gaviria on the religious aspects of La Violencia and written extensively on that, and your will to misinterpret here is a bit ridiculous I think. So dont worry Jueko: Im of course aware of all different interests involved in that scary civil war.

f) On when the Colombian conflict actually started: there is an enormous academic (and, not the least, political) debate on this topic, but most scholars agree that the decade following the assassination of Gaitán in 1948 was very DECISIVE for what would become the modern Colombian conflict (and then the formation of the Farc in the 1960s). That was what I talked about. You are free to come up with whatever critique on that thesis you feel like, but it was hard, as you might understand, to sum all details up in a minute.

h) On the reasons why Colombia became the main cocaine producing country in the world in the 1990s and 2000s you - again - seem to deliberately misunderstand. I dont know if its your or my bad English or just bad will, but of course there is not ONE answer to why this happened. I just mentioned poverty and conflict as two crucial ones, but in the book I discuss all sorts of causes in detail: geographical, economical, social, historical, conflict, cultural isolation, racism, archaic structures in rural areas, infrastructural, etc. If you are interested and not convinced that you already know everything you need to know; please read Gustavo Duncáns "Los Señores de la Guerra", Francisco Thoumis "Illegal Drugs in Colombia: From Economic Boom to Social Crisis", Paul Gootenbergs "Andean Cocaine - The Making of a Global Drug", Tom Feilings "The Candy Machine - How Cocaine Took Over the World", Fabio Castillos "Los jinetes de la cocaina" or any of the other books on the topic I deal with in my book.

i) On "Colombia producing 60 per cent": There is an entire chapter on this in the book and the number Im using refers to the global production during the last decade for which data exist (2000-2010). Some years Colombia has been producing 80 percent and some years 40 percent, but if you add it up it comes a mean value over the decade of around 60 per cent for Colombia, Peru being the second biggest producer and Bolivia the third. You find all these statistics in the UNODC annual Drug Report. Do you really think I have written a book on cocaine production without being familiar with all this? The year 2010, last year with available statistics, the number of hectares "affected by coca bush cultivation" was 140 000 in Colombia and 65 000 in Peru, but, as UNODC states, "The dynamics of coca bush cultivation are different in Colombia than in the other two countries. The high eradication pressure in Colombia, through airborne spraying of coca bush cultivation sites, as well as intense manual eradication activities, has led to a highly dynamic situation. Cultivation sites are frequently shifted, they change in size, they are abandoned, reactivated and abandoned again within relatively short periods." I have done first hand research in many places with this "dynamic" so dont worry: my book is not just discussing the official statistics, but also uncovers stories and facts behind those numbers. Its true that production in Colombia, thanks to an enormous increase in the amount of hectares sprayed aerially (145 000 hectares were sprayed or eradicated in 2010), has decreased significantly during recent years and today there are no statistic from UNODC that makes it possible to compare Peru, Bolivia and Colombia. Wether that decrease will persist or not (Colombia might be down on something like 40 percent at the moment) is certainly not for sure (it seems to require that you have to spray around 150 000 hectares every year which, of course, in the long run wont be possible for obvious environmental reasons). If you are really interested in this you should read the book in which I in detail explain reasons for why aerial spraying is not a lasting tool and why it doesnt make sense to use the statistics from just one or two years. You may also read the Washington Office on Latin America report "A Failed Strategy: the spraying of illicit crops in Colombia" or any of the many other reports and works of academics on the topic I deal with in the book. As you might know all these numbers (sprayed hectares, blown up laboratories, seized kilos, etc) are also highly politicized and used (and often manipulated) for many political reasons. Again: my book deals with exactly all this in detail.

j) On coca cultivation in "all" Colombia. I have lived years in the country and done first hand research in most part of it and what I refer to here should, of course, not be interpreted literally. Do you think I mean that you can find coca grown on every sidewalk in Bogota? Come on. What I refer to is the fact that when Plan Colombia started 2000 coca cultivation was concentrated in six provinces and ten years later, after millions of hectares had been sprayed, coca cultivation could be found in 24 of the nations 32 provinces. If you are interested you may read more of about this in, for instance, Marco Palacios "Plan Colombia - antidrogas o contrainsurgencia?", Alfredo Rangels "La Batalla Perdida Contra Las Drogas", Gerry Leechs "Beyond Bogota - Diary of a Drug War Journalist in Colombia", the reports from UNODC, ONDCP, European Union or any of the many other works my book takes into account.

k) On Medellín mentioned as "not a big city". Everything is relative and with all the respect for the Medellín I think we both, in many ways, love; the city has around 2,5 million inhabitants and compared to most main cities in Latin America that is not very big. Compared to a village its very big. You pick your baseline. My statement was referring to its murder rate during the Escobar years (more than 3 000 during some years) and just to make sure listeners had a tool to understand these incredible numbers I put it in context to cities like Mexiko city or Bogota, that are many times bigger. The entire COUNTRY of Mexico (116 million) had "just" 22 000 drug related deaths between 2007 and 2010. Do your math. The era of Escobar was absolutely unique regarding violence, and it was just in that context i figure it was appropriate to say that "Medellín is not even a big city". But you are for sure right in that the interview should have made it much clearer that Colombia today is something completely different. I was myself very frustrated by the way different time eras got confused in the talk making it look just like long history of never ending violence. That was bad and I should have made a much greater effort to explain what Colombia is like today compared to during those years, in what ways it has become better and in what ways it has become worse. The book, though, is full of that kind of reasoning.

Well Jueko, if you really dont want to read Cocaína perhaps you could look into some of the literature mentioned above and then you are more than welcome back here to discuss Colombia, drug production and the war on drugs. One last thing though for which I again really would like to apologize: the statement on the lack of a "moral compass" among "Colombians". As touched upon earlier, it was said by Geraldine in some kind of attempt to sum up some episode in the book and of course she didnt mean "colombians" in general even though that was what she said and I totally agree with you that it is completely absurd and indeed sounds extremely racist. The interview was prerecorded and I asked her to rephrase the question since I didnt understand, but she used the same term again and Im very very sorry but I had some kind of black out or it might have been my unaccustomedness with the australian accent and i just didnt get what she meant by "moral compass". Listening to it now I hear how incredibly insulting it sounds and I would like to apologize you and all Colombians for not being capable of objecting clearly there. Of course there is nothing in the book suggesting such a crazy thing.

Skrivet av jueko 2013-05-18 07:16

jueko

por supuesto que amar a Colombia no implica ver todo color de rosa, pero lo que dije lo dije porque la entrevista (que la escuché 2 veces) me dio la impresión, por la forma en que te referías al país, de que lo ves como una tierra distante que realmente no te , un lugar en las antípodas, de gente amoral y violenta incapaz de hacer frente a ese carácter violento. como el turista que se va después de dos semanas y luego escribe en su blog una reseña estereotipando al país, con cierto desdén. y me parece que usar términos como "feudal" como me parece que lo usaste, ayudan más bien poco a acabar los estereotipos respecto a países "en desarrollo" por así llamarlos. pues mucha gente no leerá el libro (y eso lo sé por experiencia) sino que se quedarán con lo que creen que dice el libro o con las reseñas que haya del mismo. es lo que, a mi juicio, ocurrió con el libro "Cocaine, Death Squads, and the War on Terror" de Oliver Villar, que es un libro muy malo con muy poco rigor periodístico, pero que muchos mencionan como un buen libro para apoyar la tesis de que "la lucha armada antiimperialista" es el camino para "liberar a Colombia", cosa que he oído de un puñado de extranjeros.

como dije, escuché la entrevista 2 veces y estoy más o menos seguro de que dijiste que todas las historias relacionadas con Colombia involucran la droga, o algo muy parecido a eso. quizás mañana vuelva a escuchar esa parte para clarificar, pero creo estar seguro. también me quedó una fuerte impresión de que, por las palabras que usaste, veías la época de la Violencia en términos de "una poca gente buena y progesista que quería sacar adelante al país, que se vio exterminada por el resto del país, malvado y reaccionario" o algo en esa índole.

respecto a lo demás, ahora que leo tu último comentario se nota mucho mejor que sí conoces la temática y la literatura al respecto, y estoy de acuerdo en términos generales con lo que escribes, pero, como dije, la entrevista estuvo lejos de darme esa impresión.

lo de medellín y su tamaño es algo sin importancia y lo dije más por burlarme y por provocar más que por otra cosa, aunque sí me llamó la atención que consideraras que una ciudad de 3.5 millones de habitantes en su área metropolitana es "pequeña". y por supuesto que Medellín era ridículamente violenta en esa época, y lo sigue siendo.

muchas otras cosas también las escribí por provocar nada más

"What I refer to is the fact that when Plan Colombia started 2000 coca cultivation was concentrated in six provinces and ten years later, after millions of hectares had been sprayed, coca cultivation could be found in 24 of the nations 32 provinces."

por lo que tengo entendido, es al revés, y en el pasado en casi todos los departamentos del país se encontraban cultivos, ahora estos están mucho más localizados (recuerdo haber visto varios mapas al respecto). y por experiencia propia, como habitante de la zona "oriental" del país (Cundinamarca, Boyacá, Santander, norte del Tolima, etc) también tengo la fuerte impresión de que los cultivos que pudieran haber en muchas áreas de la región se han reducido o eliminado por completo. seguramente están más dispersos en las regiones de mayor cultivo pero no encuentro lógico que estén regados por casi todas las regiones del país. verificaré esas fuentes e informes que mencionas, en todo caso.

"most scholars agree that the decade following the assassination of Gaitán in 1948 was very DECISIVE for what would become the modern Colombian conflict (and then the formation of the Farc in the 1960s). "

tengo otra impresión. la verdad es que Colombia siempre fue un país de despojos, élites que hacían uso de la violencia (hacia los colonos, hacia los indios, etc) para mantener el poder sobre el territorio, fronteras agrícolas en las que imperaba la ley del más fuerte, manejo del estado por parte de ciertas élites para su propio beneficio, etc, y esto figura permanentemente en la literatura histórica, antropológica, socioeconómica, etc, del país; la producción de drogas es a mi juicio uno de los más bien pocos "nuevos" elementos que han entrado a jugar en las dinámicas de la violencia en el país, la mayoría siempre han estado presentes.

Skrivet av magnus 2013-05-21 12:09

Good Jueko it seems like we agree on most things then and Im glad you realize its a very serious work. Sad that the interview gave an impression of a shallow book when the truth is actually the opposite: its a profound, unique and very nuanced account with an explicit ambition to kill stereotypes about Colombia rather than reproduce them.

The word "feudal" wasnt used to reproduce stereotypical images of “developing countries” but just to refer to the rural archaic land situation (o course not the urban areas) in which certain white elites are de facto governing with arms and economic oppression over poor peasants, indigenous, and afro-Colombians using the state (local, regional or national) institution as a tool. I have written other books on Latin America (se for instance "Americanos", Atlas 2005) in which I in detail discuss exactly how racism and Eurocentrism is a huge problem in most books on the so called “third world” written buy Europeans and North Amercans. Such a critical approach characterizes also Cocaína.

You certainly not have to worry about that this is a simplistic revolutionary book suggesting that the armed struggle is the solution for Colombia. Any Swede know that Im very critical towards the Farc and I have in many works over the decades revealed their, in my view, extremely backwards world view and methods. In Cocaína there is absolutely no lack of criticism of simplistic left wing rhetoric.

Your impression that decades ago you could find coca fields all over the country is wrong, at least if we talk about large plantations during the era in which Colombia has been the main global cocaine producer. The year 2000 for instance, 40 percent of all the plantations were concentrated to one province: Putumayo. The provinces you mention (Cundinamarca, Boyacá, Santander, etc) have never had any noticeable areas cultivated. The coca grown in the eastern provinces is today and has for long been concentrated to sparsely populated regions such as Meta, Guaviare, Vichada and Caqueta, and in my book you can follow how “new” provinces along the Pacific Coast such as Chocó has been dragged into the violent cocaine producing drama. The decrease in cultivation shown in the reports during the last years is in general due to the fact that large plantations are no longer possible and production today (both when it comes to growing and refining) is much more flexible, dynamic, mobile and decentralised which also, as touched upon earlier, have made all the oversight and measuring much more complicated and thus all statistics less credible.