Making Sense of the South American Protests

So, as most of you clicking this have heard, protests are currently popping off all over South America right now.  It started with Ecuador, which had tens of thousands of people (especially Indigenous, student, and worker protestors) successfully block "austerity" measures, the full definition of which we'll get to in a bit.  There are now similar protests in Chile and Colombia.  There have also been protests in Bolivia about the recent coup against Evo Morales, which I'll talk about at the very end.

Being a historian of Latin America, I thought it'd be helpful to try to explain a bit of South America's history to help make sense of everything.  Not only because I'm a giant nerd who wants to make use of his history degree to convince himself grad school wasn't a giant waste of time and money, although that certainly is true, but also because there are some really important points here to be made about economics, democracy, empire, paranoia, and what it means to be human.

So, yeah, kind of a big deal.

What I'll do here is start by briefly clarifying a few things about South America, then summarize its history up to and during the Cold War.  After that I'll talk about what has (and hasn't) changed since the Cold War, which is key to understanding these protests.  I'll mostly be giving an overview of the region as a whole, though I'll also occasionally zoom in to a specific country just to give a clearer picture of everything.  I'll do all this the only way I know how: with dumb picture captions and an earnest attempt to be helpful. 

Enjoy!

SOUTH AMERICA

According to really racist people, here's a map of Mexico!

Before we get into the history, we should quickly define exactly what South America is.  Some of the most common questions I get when talking to friends about Latin America are questions like "who are you?" and "why are you in my house, and why do you have an entire bottle of scotch?"  But, on occasion, I also get asked if there is a difference between South America and Latin America.

Latin America is the area colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese during colonization.  Latin America has four main areas: Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean, and South America.  Mexico is self-explanatory.  Central America is the rest of the North American landmass under Mexico (basically, everything from Guatemala to Panama).  The Caribbean is every island nation in the Caribbean Sea.  Finally, South America (pictured above) is the continent south of Central America.

 If you're interested in information about other parts of Latin America, here's a recent post I did explaining the current Central American refugee crisis, here's a post I did about Mexican politics to explain the 2018 presidential election winner, here's a post I did about the complex legacy of Fidel Castro, here's a post I did about Nicaraguan revolutionary/poet Gioconda Belli, and here's one of my first posts connecting Immortal Technique's music to Latin American (particularly Central American) history.

Anyway, with that out of the way, let's get to some actual history!

SOME BACKGROUND BEFORE THE BACKGROUND

"YO, I HEARD YOU LIKE BACKGROUND (and outdated memes)"

South America's history has been a bit different from Central America's.  Its countries are larger, it's further away from the United States, and it's gotten a lot more immigrants from outside the western hemisphere.  These factors, among others, have helped give South America more of its own identity and stability than Central America.

It should be pointed out that South American countries each have their own characteristics.  In terms of population and economic strength, Brazil, Chile, and Argentina are by far the biggest countries.  Demographically, mountainous and jungle areas tend to have higher Indigenous populations.  Bolivia, Peru, and Ecuador are the countries with the biggest Indigenous populations, whereas Argentina has the highest European-descent population (at 97% it's whiter than some European countries), followed by Uruguay at about 90%.  Brazil has the highest African-descent population, followed by Venzuela.

After gaining independence from Spain (or, in the case of Brazil, from Portugal) in the 1800s, each country had their own way of doing things.  Sometimes this meant clashes.  For example, from 1864 to 1870, Paraguay went to war with Brazil, Uruguay, and Argentina.  Paraguay's lost devastated the country; it hasn't been a major presence in South America since.  Another war happened from 1879-1884, when Chile fought with Bolivia and Peru over coastal territory.  Chile's gained territory, which is why Bolivia is now land-locked.

Independence governments were generally defined along their place on two spectrums.  One is the democratic vs non-democratic spectrum we all know.  Another is the liberal vs conservative spectrum, which is not the same sort of liberal vs conservative spectrum from the modern US.  In 1800s Latin America, the liberals were based loosely on the US system of government: free markets, a secular constitution, industrialization, and parliamentary republicanism.  The conservatives, on the other hand, believed in a version of governance resembling colonial governments:  power would remain mostly with the church and large plantation owners, and the economy would change little from how it was structured during colonization.

Most governments, then, were somewhere between democratic and non-democratic, and somewhere between liberal and conservative, with liberalism tending to win out in the long run.  Of course, this was largely among wealthy, European-descent men living in the cities- most other groups were left out until during the 1900s.

SOUTH AMERICA DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR

Me, thinking of the fact that Argentina didn't declare war on the Nazis

and has a population that is whiter than a Kid Rock concert.

Beginning in the 1900s, the US started to create diplomatic and economic connections with South America.  Unlike in Central America and the Caribbean, however, it didn't really intervene with direct force (other than supporting the Panama independence movement from Colombia).  Seeing what the US did further north, though, made South America trust the US less and less.  Then FDR won the 1932 US election.  His Good Neighbor policy, which had the US end its occupations of the region and respect Latin American autonomy, restored Latin American respect for the US.  That was a large part of why almost every Latin American nation agreed in 1942 to break ties with Nazi Germany (except Argentina).

After World War 2 the countries of South America saw US prosperity and wanted a piece of the action. The US, now the biggest industrial producer after Europe had been devastated, used many Latin American resources to fuel its industries.  The leaders of South America- some democratic, some not, most now at least somewhat liberalized- had to ask themselves, what would their economy look like?  What industries would they focus on?  How would the governments organize themselves?  How would tax revenue be spent?

The prevailing model that became popular among leaders, academics, and progressive-minded citizens was called Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI).  ISI meant protecting domestic industries with heavy tariffs that allowed a country to develop without outside competition.  It was almost always paired with a strong welfare state- in other words, a state with a progressive tax system that invested in public services.  The goal of ISI was to create countries that had a strong industrial economy with redistributive policies and public programs to combat poverty.

Ultimately, the ISI model had mixed results, both in the sense that it worked in some places better than others, and in the sense that in general it was neither wonderful nor horrible.  Perhaps, if given longer, the ISI model could've been given time to develop and work itself out.  As anyone from the US who is historically literate can tell you, often the best thing for a developing country (or set of countries) is to be left alone.  Not in isolation, of course, but to at least be able to develop at its own pace without having to worry about outside interference from a nearby superpower.

Unfortunately, this was the Cold War.

A BATTLEGROUND OF IDEAS

(ALSO, A LITERAL BATTLEGROUND

Brazilian soldiers: "We helped beat Hitler! We'll never have to worry about far-right violence again!"

After World War 2, a series of escalating tensions led to beef between the United States and Soviet Union.  Both wanted to promote their political/economic systems to the rest of the world.  They especially wanted to create subordinate spheres of influence nearby, as a matter of both power and safety.  For the USSR, that was eastern Europe.  For the US, that was Latin America.  Though the US was ultimately more worried about Europe (and even Asia) than Latin America, it saw Latin America as its own backyard.

As mentioned above, this was hardly a new idea for Central America and the Caribbean.  For South America, however, it was (once again, other than Colombia).  The United States now took extreme interest in South American politics.  Its mixture of paranoia and racism meant that it tended to see popular movements for economic and political rights as Soviet-orchestrated plots to overthrow US-friendly governments and replace them with Soviet satellites.  Surely these angry brown people couldn't really think for themselves!

Though this post is about South America, two other incidents are important to briefly discuss because of their influence.  One is the 1954 US overthrow of the democratically elected president Jacobo Arbenz of Guatemala.  Arbenz initiated democratic, labor, education, and land reforms; other than the 1952 land reform bill, which nationalized unused excess land from giant agricultural estates, Arbenz was much more FDR than Lenin.  With the 1954 coup, Latin America saw the US was willing to overthrow even non-communist social democrats (that is, a democratically elected government with a strong welfare state).  This radicalized many people across Latin America.

One person the coup radicalized was Che Guevara.  His politics became more militant after seeing Arbenz fall- he came to believe Arbenz had made a mistake by allowing an open political democracy.  Of course, in 1959, he helped Fidel Castro overthrow US-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista.  Fidel's success inspired many across Latin America, and his success through revolution only further radicalized people.  His later victory against the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 (which he anticipated in large part thanks to learning from the 1954 Guatemalan coup) cemented Fidel's status as a symbol of Latin American resistance.

Generally it was workers, students, the poor, ethnic minorities, and Indigenous communities that became attracted to leftism, while the church, the military, and the wealthy stood opposed.  This increasing polarization made ISI's comparatively moderate approach look less appealing.  The fact that the US CIA started messing with South American politics- raising money for pro-US candidates, starting anti-opposition propaganda programs, creating secret deals with their candidates, giving the green light to anti-leftwing political violence, etc- only further undermined the prevailing ISI system.

THE DEATH OF ISI, DEFEAT OF DEMOCRACY

With how frustratingly dumb US policy was, I can't help but wonder if this guy was secretly in charge.

Ultimately, ISI was not given much room to work in South America.  It brought some decent results, but came with drawbacks.  Though it achieved some industrial growth and some wealth redistribution, many were left dissatisfied.  It also accumulated a lot of debt and didn't receive much US support.  Though some leaders from the US sympathized with the center-left leaders who pushed ISI, the hardliners who preferred more "secure" options to guarantee US interests almost always won out in determining US policy.

During the 1950s and 1960s, democracy had either began, reemerged, or continued through much of South America.  The US alternated between supporting and undermining them.  We'll look Chile, which was arguably the most democratic country of South America.  It had become democratic in the late 1800s, and except for a couple years of military rule in the mid-1920s, had remained so.  This democratic tradition, mixed with its size, economic power, and relatively successful welfare state made it arguably the most well-off country in the region.  The US CIA had no serious right-wing opposition to fund.  Unlike in other South American countries, it instead funded a social democratic center-left party, the Christian Democrats.  They won the 1964 presidential election.

In 1970, however, Chile elected a Marxist candidate from the Socialist Party, Salvador Allende.  Allende nationalized various industries (most notably copper and banking), implemented universal healthcare, distributed milk to needy families, sped up land redistribution started by the Christian Democrats, supported Indigenous communities with social programs, and created ambitious public works projects.  This terrified the US.  Their mission was to get Allende overthrown; in the meantime, they wanted to "make the economy scream" in order to ruin his agenda.

Allende's presidency started out well, but US sabotage bore down on the Chilean economy and created severe unrest, which the CIA only helped escalate with more well-funded anti-Allende propaganda campaigns.  In 1973, a military coup led by General Augusto Pinochet overthrew Allende.  As the link from the above paragraph (from the CIA itself!) says, the US at the very least knew about, supported, and indirectly helped the coup.  Whether the US was directly involved is a subject of controversy to this day.

Whatever the amount of US assistance, Pinochet came to power in 1973.  His authoritarian dictatorship killed thousands of people and kidnapped, tortured, and exiled ten of thousands more.  Unfortunately, this was not uncommon across South America.  In fact, by the mid-1970s, every South American country was ruled by a military dictatorship.  In some of these countries, leftist insurgencies emerged in response.  In November 1975 Chile, Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay's dictatorships launched the US-approved Operation Condor, a coordination effort between the dictatorships to violently repress leftists in the region- not just leftist insurgents, but non-violent leftists, suspected sympathizers, and Indigenous people as well.  Democracy and human rights suffered devastating defeats.

AUSTERITY: DICTATOR TESTED, US APPROVED

"Did you get social democracy again?  Mom, we've already had that!"

"Don't worry honey, this time I got austerity flavored dictatorship!"

"Wow, I can't wait to try it!  Thanks mom!"

The South American dictatorships didn't stop at remaking their political systems.  They remodeled their economies based on austerity- in other words, severe cuts in taxes, social spending, regulations, and tariffs, as well as privatizing most public services.  All of these involved drastic overhauls of their economies, but this was especially true in Chile, which went from the most left-wing to the most right-wing economic system of South America thanks to the "Chicago boys"- economists living in Chile from the University of Chicago who believed in extreme free market economics.  They used Pinochet's dictatorial control over the economy to open Chile up to draconian austerity.

Pinochet's policies initially stumbled the Chilean economy before creating growth, especially from 1978-1981, which are considered the dictatorship's prime years.  In 1982, however, Chile's economy crashed hard.  Its GDP decreased 15%, its industrial production nosedived, bankruptcies tripled, unemployment his 30%, what remained of public banking lost 45% of its reserves, and the private banking industry collapsed entirely.  Ironically, this forced Pinochet to return to some Allende-era regulations, as well as re-nationalize most of the banking sector once again.

It should be noted South American dictatorships suffered these sorts of collapses even with support from the US and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).  The IMF is an international financial branch of the UN that implements economic development programs and gives loans to countries in need, but often at a cost, since the loans usually come with requirements.  Many have criticized their loans as predatory, the international equivalent of a shady payday lender whose clients are desperate and have few alternatives.

Thanks to an IMF bailout, Chile eventually recovered.  Pinochet, like most of these South American dictatorships, remained in power.  Though Carter cut aid to some of the South American dictatorships for their human rights abuses, the CIA remained linked to them; then, with Reagan's election in 1980, all regard for human rights flew out the window and the US was back to fully embracing them.

Regardless of who led the US, however, these dictatorships continued to open up their economies to austerity and global capitalism while suffocating political and human rights.  The repression of dissent continued, though it wasn't nearly as devastating as what happened in Central America.  But, y'know, "better than genocidal death squads that threw Central America into despairingly bleak crisis" isn't exactly a high standard.

THE END OF THE COLD WAR,

THE CONTINUATION OF AUSTERITY

Not so fun fact: Pinochet has become extremely popular among alt-right trolls.

By the end of the Cold War, most of the South American dictatorships had returned to democracy.  Those that didn't returned soon thereafter.  Some of the dictatorships bowed out before being overthrown, allowing them to keep some power and influence, such as Pinochet relinquishing power in 1990 and remaining the Chilean military's commander in chief until 1998.  Others were forced out, like Argentina's in 1983, and their militaries more drastically overhauled.

In having to rebuild South America, the region's governments found themselves in a bind.  They had to figure out how they could heal, rebuild democracy, and reform their economies while also trying to navitage the new world they found themselves in.  The US, no longer scared of the USSR, was less paranoid about Latin America.  It was also less willing to help it.  The US motto was "trade, not aid" because it cared little about its southern neighbors now that they didn't have to worry about the Soviets "in their backyard" anymore.

The center-right, center-left, and left emerged as electoral forces.  The center-left generally emerged the strongest in most countries, but this was not the center-left social deomcracy of a generation ago.  The military dictatorships had entrenched austerity into South America.  On top of that, bailouts from the IMF came with austerity requirements.  The center-left, then, had to heal the physical and emotional costs of US-backed dictatorships and push for economic reforms while also having to avoid serious problems, lest the IMF offer a bailout package at the expense of those reforms.  And that's assuming they were working in good faith, when in fact some of these politicians had financial ties to the new free market system.

Some parties, therefore, have had success navigating this balance, while others haven't.  The center-left has often given into austerity, but there have been exceptions.  President Lula da Silva of Brazil is a notable example.  There have also been some candidates from leftist political parties who have won elections, such as Michele Bachelet in Chile and Jose Mujica in Uruguay.  They have generally been more successful in resisting austerity.  Of course, there's also Hugo Chavez, who came to power in 1999 in Venezuela.  He sided more with Cuba than the US/IMF/World Bank consensus, and had a political system where the lines between democracy and authoritarian rule blurred, but he also did a lot to help the poor.

This is where we find South America today: still trying to carve its own path, with the US still a tangible presence in the not-so-far distance.

CLOSING THOUGHTS

The people of Latin America, standing up for a better world.

The protests today are, generally, against corruption, austerity, and inequality.  These are different in different places: Ecuador's were explicitly about austerity, for example, while Colombia's are focused more on corruption (as well as the peace deal with the FARC rebels).  I'll do a bonus section about Bolivia in a moment.  Overall, though, the countries of South America are still trying navigate that balance between cooperation and competition between each other, the US, and the rest of the world.

It's hard to say what'll happen from here.  Aside from general issues of inequality and corruption, there are issues of drug violence, Indigenous rights, climate change, and labor protections, among countless others.  There's much to take care of.  I don't pretend to know the solution to every one of those issues, though I do know they will be tougher to address if the US is focused more on expanding the influence of multinational corporations and financial institutions than the well-being of South Americans.  Still, the people South America have made their own way and achieved impressive feats, even when the US was against them.

All I can say is I wish the people of South America well.  I hope the US learned its lessons from the Cold War- though, considering US corporations and institutions continue to profit from the system it set up, I can't help but doubt it.  On the other hand, though, one of the most pleasant surprises I've had studying Latin American history in more depth is seeing how many people opposed many of the previously mentioned operations (many, often from the State Department but sometimes even the CIA) resigned in protest, and also how many times certain officials managed to prevent bad things from happening.  Perhaps, with us out of the Cold War, voices of reason and empathy can prevail more often.

One could make the argument that a lot of today's problems in Latin America are the result of US policy.  Perhaps, if there were a longer view in US policy, we wouldn't be fighting the drug cartels or trying to figure out how to deal with refugees, who are overwhelmingly just people trying to keep them and their families alive.  Hopefully, we as humans in the grander scheme of things can learn to see both the practical and moral reasons to see each other as people, deserving of respect.

Thanks for reading!

BONUS: BOLIVIA

 Evo Morales

Okay y'all, here's a quick bit about Bolivia.  Basically, Evo Morales won the 2005 election to became the first ever Indigenous president of Bolivia, a country that is majority-Indigenous and was in severe poverty.  He wasn't just a token Indigenous person, either; he did a lot for Indigenous people: he brought Indigenous symbols into office, had a largely Indigenous administration, and tackled Indigenous-related issues.

He also accomplished much for Bolivia in general, including reducing severe poverty by half, reducing inequality by a stunning 19%, nationalizing key industries to provide affordable public services to Bolivians, and legalizing coca growing to fight back against the drug war (which further helps Indigenous people, who have historically harvested coca for both cultural and economic reasons).  All of this while growing the GDP an average of 4.8% each year.

Basically, he was a giant hit.  In 2010 the World Bank even changed Bolivia from a lower income to a lower-middle income nation.  He won two more elections in 2009 and 2014, easily.  By the 2019 election, he had reached his maximum term limits.  Instead of stepping down, he ran a referendum through the popular vote to have term limits abolished.  He lost by a slim margin and brought his case to the supreme court of Bolivia, which ruled he could run again.  Now, while that is shady and I personally like term limits, Bolivia is a democracy and he entered into the 2019 elections as a candidate who could've been outvoted.  This is where things get messy.

Long story short, in Bolivian politics, you need at least 40% of the total vote and a 10% margin of victory to win the election.  If not, you have to do a runoff.  No one, even the opposition, dispute Evo won, nor that the first 80% or so of election returns showed Morales in the lead by a little less than 10%.  What is disputed is that when the last returns came in- mostly from the countryside, where his strongest base is- it showed him winning by over 10%, meaning no runoff.  Morales offered to do a new election with international oversight to make sure it was fair.  The military said no and forced him to resign.

There is still no evidence the elections were messed with, like, at all.  Now, again, I like term limits, and reports from Bolivia do say some people were growing disenchanted with Morales holding onto power.  But when a legitimate election is held, the winner calls for a new election when the results are questioned, the military forces that leader to step down, and the replacement government (which wasn't elected in any way whatsoever) allows security forces to do whatever they want with immunity from prosecution, then yeah, this is definitely not a victory for democracy.

I hope democracy prevails.  It's hard to say how much involvement the US government had in this.  We do know from leaked audio tapes that Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Bob Menendez talked to Bolivian opposition leaders about actions to take against Evo Morales.  It's hard to trust the US government, therefore, but it's also hard to know the exact extent of US involvement.  Is it just some of Trump's cabinet and Rubio, Cruz, and Menendez, or does it go deeper?  It's hard to know, but either way, it's not good.  With there being no set timeline for new elections, and violence escalating, I just hope the people of Bolivia end up alright.  Not just for their sake, but for everyone's.

Heroes and Rebels in the Age of Loneliness

Before I get into this post, I wanna start by apologizing for the break I've taken with this blog.  While it'd be easy to pretend I was too busy, frankly I just wasn't struck by any subject that compelled me to write over the past few months.  I began the year with a number of ideas, but they all became posts within the first half of the year and I simply haven't found anything to write about since.

Or at least I hadn't.

Recently I rewatched Samurai Rebellion, a 1967 samurai movie directed by the anti-authoritarian Japanese director Masaki Kobayashi.  Of course, SPOILERS AHEAD.  The film follows Isaburo Sasahara (Toshiro Mifune) as his family, the servants of a powerful feudal lord, have a concubine forced onto Isaburo's eldest son by that feudal lord after she attacked him.  Isaburo, trapped in an unhealthy marriage for the past twenty years, initially opposes the decision.  He'd rather find someone who makes his son happy.  They are eventually forced to give into the lord's wishes, however.  Then the unexpected happens: the concubine ends up being a wonderful woman.  She attacked the lord not because she was malicious or unstable, but because he was a gross creep.  Isaburo's son and the woman fall in love.

Two years into their marriage, the lord's eldest heir dies.  This makes the son that the woman gave the lord the new heir.  The lord demands her return in order to save face, as he can't have the mother of his heir living with another man.  Long story short, the couple refuses, and Isaburo- the most skilled swordsman in the land- stands with his son's and daughter-in-law's decision.  The third act has the three of them (but really just Isaburo, the young couple are killed rather quickly) fight nobly until the end.  When Isaburo defeats his greatest rival (and friend) in a badass duel, he is ambushed by a large squadron of riflemen and samurai.  He is eventually killed, but not before slowly, ruthlessly taking them out like a demon from the underworld as they shoot and stab at him.

Yeah, I'm definitely not gonna fuck with this guy.

There's a lot that can be said about this movie.  For instance, the fact that a concubine is revealed to be a strong, kind, honorable character, something you wouldn't expect to find in basically any movie from the 1960s.  It's also a joy to watch Mifune's acting range, as he begins the film as meek and subdued, but ends it with the forceful personality he was associated with during much of his acting career.  The movie is beautifully shot, as well as shot in a way that backs up its themes- for instance, the beginning of the movie has mostly sharp edges and neat patterns in the background, while by the end things are much more chaotic.

What I really wanna focus on, though, is the hero meeting a tragic end while standing up against an unjust society.  It's the same thing that happens in his most popular samurai film, Harakiri, which stars Tatsuya Nakadai as another badass grizzled samurai who dies fighting against the cruel feudalism of the time.  In yet another film- his sweeping, semi-autobiographical Human Condition trilogy, which I wrote about a couple years ago- also stars Tatsuya Nakadai, this time as a pacifist-socialist stuck in World War 2 Japan who tries to stand up to Imperial Japan in whatever way he can.  All of of these films, then, feature a rebel who gives their life in a futile, but noble, act of resistance against an unjust system.

The idea of a lone rebel against society is, of course, nothing new.  Especially here in the United States, where the myth of the rugged individual is perhaps our most beloved cultural figure.  We see our founding as led by rugged settlers setting up their own homes amid the perils of the New World; we imagine the westward expansion of our country as being led by lone cowboys doling out frontier justice; we picture the average American after WW2 working a tough factory job of some sort while mentally preparing to fight Soviet-style communism.

 "Support freedom and oppose forced communist conformity!

Do so by adhering to a heterosexual, Christian, segregated suburban family model or else!"

Now, many people reading this are probably (correctly) thinking to themselves how the unstated part of these myths is the ugly underbelly of Native American displacement, the enslavement of African/African descent people, and a whole slew of other ugly truths.  This is all true and important, but there's even more to it.  In addition to the ignored atrocities, none of these images are based on how things actually happened in the first place, even aside from the atrocities.

Colonization, the expansion of the US frontier, and the Cold War all involved an intimate link between the private and public spheres, which included strong communal bonds.  It takes individuals and communities, private and public forces, to make shit happen, whether said shit is good or bad.  The Atlantic slave trade, for example, required a combination of the government, the military, the church, private industries, and private citizens to each play their part.  All of this was done in an effort to use stolen/forced labor for grueling work that enriched all of the European players, which included both governments and private enterprises.

I could write a book about all of this (and sort of am), but what I really wanna get at in this post is why this matters.

We're in an age of profound loneliness, alienation, disillusionment, and cynicism.  People feel disconnected from each other and from their ability to have any sort of effect on the world.  It certainly doesn't help that much of the advice we get to deal with these feelings is often predicated on the idea that these issues are problems of the individual, problems to be solved simply by yoga or a gratitude journal (which, to be clear, are awesome things, but not a solution to such deeply entrenched societal ailments by themselves).

"Okay class, our next pose is called Rethinking How We Relate To Each Other As People"

Margaret Thatcher once said that "there is no such thing as society", that we are instead just a bunch of individuals and families whose main obligations are to ourselves.  Now, it's obvious this is untrue on a practical level.  We all affect each other's lives in too many ways to count- if every firefighter, or teacher, or garbage collector, or retail worker, or steelworker disappeared tomorrow, society would be devastated.  We're too interconnected to truly be strictly individual units.  But it's also just not true of how we relate to each other on a psychological level.  Humans need social interaction.  Humans need to feel we belong.  Hell, we even need to feel physical touch.

What worries me is that we've internalized Thatcher's hyper-individualistic way of thinking to the point where many of us have no way to diagnose and solve the previously mentioned issues of isolation and disempowerment.  Our cultural imagination doesn't allow us to see beyond individualistic understandings of our problems, and our "solutions" stem from that individualistic understanding.  It's as if we were all suffering from chronic migraines, but the only medicine our society had available was cold medicine.

To see what I mean, scroll through your social media platform of choice.  How many times do you see quotes like "don't walk the path of others, walk your own path" or "get yours, don't worry about others", or something along those lines?  Or how about when you see people who you know are lonely post memes that say something like "geniuses are often hated/misunderstood" or "only you are responsible for what happens to you."  How many times do you see Self Care(TM) posts about doing something entirely centered around themselves held up as a healthy act of bravery?

"Excuse me, Lois, but buying kryptonite and ambushing Superman was an act of self care!"

Now, those can be solid pieces of advice in certain situations.  I'm not saying any of this is bad.  Rather, compare how many quotes about walking your own path you see to how many times you see people talking about how we should look to the wisdom of other people who can help us find our path.  Compare how many lonely people share "wise words" that further entrench them in their loneliness, instead of a post about the importance of healthy connections.  Compare how many people's self care posts are about them  buying something for themselves or binging Netflix instead of walking through a park and making a new friend.

Again, this isn't to say you shouldn't do any of those individualistic things, or feel bad about doing them.  Many are defense mechanisms that can help someone get through a rough day, or a rough period in their life.  Rather, the point is that our culture is so focused on individualism that our imagination is stunted.  As the old saying goes, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.  Our way of "fixing" our feelings of isolation is to entrench further into ourselves, to share platitudes about how great it is to be different, to buy ourselves ice cream while binging The Office.  All of those things are valid and sometimes necessary ways to alleviate our pain, but they won't cure our problems. 

This problem of hyper-individualism relates not just to how we think of our relation to other people, but also to how we understand our relation to society, politics, and historical change.  Using the Civil Rights movement as an example for that last part, many people think of the Civil Rights movement as a time when Martin Luther King Jr, Rosa Parks, John Lewis, and a few other prominent activists rose up against racism and inspired a generation to change the country.

In fact, the civil rights movement really started in force after WW2, after black people sacrificed for the war effort only to come back home to a country still entrenched in white supremacy.  Aside from the blatant moral contrast between Americans "fighting fascism to defend freedom" while having segregation at home, WW2 also brought many black Americans together that created social networks that could be used for organizing.  It not only highlighted moral reasons to push for anti-racism, but helped created actual conditions to help organize around the cause, because politics is not a spectator sport.  It was then a mixture of veteran, labor, church, and other community groups that helped push for an end to institutional racism in this country.

Black Soldiers: "So, we're gonna get GI Bill benefits, right?"

The United States: "uhh, new number who dis"

MLK and other prominent figures absolutely deserve credit for their monumentally important contributions, but they were continuing a legacy of community organizing and activism that'd been going strong since 1945.  On top of that, many of these efforts built on top of a legacy of organizing from the first third of the 1900s (the NAACP was founded in 1909, for example), tracing the work leading to the civil rights movement back even further than 1945.  Some civil rights leaders even considered the Civil Rights movement to be a sort of sequel to Reconstruction, which was the effort to help challenge white supremacy in the South from 1865-1877 after the Civil War.

In other words, it wasn't just the actions of a few outstanding people.  It was the continued efforts of countless people through decades upon decades, even arguably generations upon generations, who put in constant work with each other as part of a large, long-going movement toward a better tomorrow.  That's not to say outstanding individuals can't make a huge impact.  But part of their very impacts came from their ability to inspire and mobilize scores of people into organized, sustained action, which would've been impossible without the tireless, thankless work of thousands of organizers who will never get a book or documentary dedicated in their honor. 

That sounds sad, but the truth is that, while I'm sure many organizers from the Civil Rights movement (or labor, feminist, anti-war, etc movements) would've loved a book deal, their main goal was coming together to create a better world for themselves and others.  They did so as part of large networks of people working together toward a common goal, because that's how things have truly changed historically.  People working together, despite their flaws and differences and clashes, over long periods of time.

So how did we get here from Samurai Rebellion?

Masaki Kobayashi, the director of Samurai Rebellion, was no stranger to rebellion himself.  During World War 2, he was drafted into the Imperial Japanese Army.  A leftwing pacifist, he refused to be promoted above the rank of private despite his aptitude as a soldier.  He did so as an act of defiance against Japan's aggressive militarism.  He was forced to fight against his will, and eventually ended up in an Okinawan POW camp.  This had a profound effect on his movies.  Though he made movies set both in the distant past and in the (then) present, every movie contained a criticism of the status quo.  As he put it: "in any era, I am critical of authoritarian power."

Tatsuya Nakadai's character in the Human Condition trilogy, which is loosely based on Kobayashi himself.

I'm not sure if the failure of each of Kobayashi's heroes comes from Kobayashi purposefully urging people not to take up an individualistic approach of opposition to exploitative power structures, or if their failures represent the deep cynicism of a man whose own individual rebellions against the status quo failed to stop Japan from getting swept up in militaristic authoritarianism.  Either way, these movies contain a lesson.  The lesson that no one can change the world single-handedly, even if they're as badass as Toshiro Mifune or Tatsuya Nakadai.

A dozen average men can lift more than the world's strongest man.

If this sounds discouraging, it's only because we're so programmed to think in individual terms.  We're all powerful.  It's just that part of exercising that power involves working with others.  Talk to people.  Open up to people.  Form bonds with people.  Build with people.  Create a new world with people.  I know it's scary.  Personally, I'm right on the line between extrovert and introvert.  Some days I feel more introverted, and it's hard to even talk to a cashier at a grocery store.  But beautiful things can happen if you can push past that.

We are what we are.  Maybe there are sentient beings out there who aren't built like us.  Maybe there's some type of creature a thousand light years away with our level of self-awareness who is fine going everything alone.  For human beings, though, we need each other.  Both in a practical way and literal, evolutionary psychology way.  Do what you can when you can, and don't feel bad if there are times where you just can't.  Reaching out to others is for you, because you deserve to feel wanted, to feel needed, to feel a part of something.  And hopefully that something also helps make the world a tiny bit better.

Good luck.  Thanks for reading.