Wednesday, January 1, 2020

Top Everything of 2019

Well, looks like we made it to the end of the decade.  I'll be doing some lists of my favorite things of the entire decade soon (and maybe entire posts dedicated to a bunch of movie and MMA categories on top of that), but before getting too far ahead of myself, here is my annual favorite list for this past year.

If you haven't read any of my annual lists before, each year I choose my favorite thing from a variety of categories, ranging from entertainment to MMA to science to current events.  I do it partially because I'm just a doofus on the internet who likes to find excuses to write.  But, also, I don't find a lot of lists like this online- usually most year in review type lists are limited to a single category.

I personally like a variety of things, though, and I figure a lot of people out there do, too.  Hence this list.  I imagine if you're reading, you agree.  Or maybe you just wanna scroll to one particular section on this list so you can just see my pick for Best Meme of 2019 and talk shit.  Either way, enjoy!

MOVIE: The Irishman

Mafia movies usually aren't my thing.  It's not that I think they're bad movies, but I usually don't find their themes to be that interesting.  Usually it's either "being a criminal will eventually catch up to you" or "hey, have you noticed that sometimes the underworld and mainstream society are BOTH corrupt?"  Those are fine themes, don't get me wrong.  But just not ones I personally need to see portrayed for the thousandth time on screen.

But a movie that shows the organized crime connection between politics, unions, celebrity culture, and US history itself?  I'm in.

The Irishman follows Frank Sheeran, played by Robert De Niro, a World War 2 veteran who rises from being a delivery truck driver to a mob hitman and prominent Teamster Union member.  There are a number of other characters in the story, but the two most important are Russell Bufalino, played by Joe Pesci, who is the mob boss who takes Frank under his wing, and Jimmy Hoffa, played by Al Pacino, the Teamsters leader who dramatically grows the Teamsters Union and helps countless people, but also is an arrogant, temperamental man with connections to the mob.

What I found most interesting about this movie was how it (accurately) shows the connection organized crime had to the Teamsters Union, the Kennedy family, Cuba, and a number of other important figures, institutions, and places in US history.  In a way, the mob can be seen as a stand-in for many of the ugly truths the US is built on.  Just as the Teamsters Union legitimately helped its workers but did so in part due to its connections with the mob, so has the US reached its current prosperity and power thanks to some ugly and often ignored truths.

De Niro does a good job as Frank, though the real stand outs of this movie are Pesci and Pacino.  Pesci's most famous roles have him playing boisterous, loud, and openly unhinged characters, but here Pesci has a quiet, composed power that is way more terrifying than any previous role I've seen him in.  Pacino's Hoffa, on the other hand, is a brash, egotistical man who wants to be in charge no matter the cost, but also genuinely believes in the message and power of his union.  Between these great performances and the thematic depth of this movie, The Irishman is another great movie from one of today's greatest living directors.

COMEDY: Jojo Rabbit
 
A lot of the choices on here are ones I'd generally recommend to anyone.  Part of why I write this list is to help give visibility to things I enjoyed so that others can enjoy them, too.  But this movie is not a movie I'd recommend to everyone.  Frankly, if you're not down for a dark comedy that features a naive young boy with Hitler as an imaginary best friend, that's fair.  Jojo Rabbit is not for everyone.

But, if you're willing to take that step in exchange for a heartfelt dramedy about Nazi Germany, then this is a movie worth watching.  The boy this movie follows is a young Nazi who imagines Hitler as his best friend.  His understanding of the world around him gradually shifts as he gets to know a young Jewish girl that his mom (played wonderfully by Scarlett Johansson) is hiding away in their home.

A lot of the comedy comes from the utter oafishness of the Nazis.  Sometimes we forget how truly corny and boneheaded the Nazis were.  They were also literal geeks who loved rituals and just generally were the opposite of badass noble warriors the way they envisioned themselves to be.  This movie is full of moments that expertly take the piss out of Nazis, who are much more similar to their modern internet troll equivalent than one might think.

Jojo Rabbit isn't perfect in its handling of everything.  To quote Matthew Lickona of the San Diego Reader: "There's a deep and sincere sweetness in the work of writer-director Taika Waititi. It's a kind of relentless and innocent good cheer that persists in the face of horror - to the point where the horror is obscured, or maybe defanged."  This movie tries its best to balance a coming of age story for the main character with the realities of the Holocaust, and it doesn't always work.  But when it does, this movie is brilliant.

ANIMATED MOVIE: Frozen 2

This is basically the G-rated Disney version of a Final Fantasy film, so that's pretty cool.

But, moving past that, Frozen 2 is a sequel that is more ambitious than the first movie.  Long story short, the main cast must go on a magical quest into enchanted, unknown lands in order to help two warring societies make peace while also uncovering the real story behind their family, kingdom, and Elsa's powers.  So, yeah, definitely a lot to take on.

For me, when it comes to some of the bigger picture stuff, this movie succeeds wonderfully.  Basically, in the enchanted forest, there are remnants of an old guard of Elsa's/Anna's kingdom who are in conflict with a group of forest people who are basically a stand-in for Indigenous people.  Long story short, the big picture theme of the movie is about how kingdoms are often built on the backs of exploitation and violence, and I was impressed with how a Disney movie handled this theme.

When it came to the personal stuff, though, things were a little less coherent.  The movie emphasizes change, and everyone's situation changes by the end of the movie, but few of the characters truly change internally.  Elsa, for instance, tries to do everything alone.  This includes running off alone to try to uncover secrets about her powers, and... she ends up being right?  She makes it to the island in a way that never would've worked if she brought her power-less friends with her, and helps set things in motion so that Anna can later help make things right.  Anna meanwhile is upset that Elsa does this, but also leaves Kristoff behind, and it just sorta... never really ends up mattering?

Still, those hiccups aside, the movie is a fun, interesting, and thematically thoughtful movie.  Elsa is one of my favorite Disney characters, and I had a good time watching her and the rest of the crew go on an RPG-like quest to get to the bottom of everything.  While I enjoyed Toy Story 4, ultimately I both enjoyed Frozen 2 a little more and found it a little more substantive.

ACTOR: Brad Pitt

Before this year, I don't think I've give Pitt the credit he deserves.  I never had anything against the guy- in fact, I've always liked him- but for some reason I've never considered him a "great" actor.  This is despite the fact that he's played some of my favorite characters in film, from Tyler Durden in Fight Club to Aldo Raine in Inglourious Basterds.  So, consider this something of a Pitt appreciation post.

Pitt starred in two movies I saw this year.  Both were movies I ultimately had mixed feelings about, but thoroughly enjoyed Pitt's performances in.  The first was Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.  I enjoyed the movie, but wasn't blown away by it.  Pitt, however, knocked it out of the park.  Yes, he played a cool guy, which at first seems pretty comfortably within his repertoire.  But upon closer look, aging stuntman Cliff Booth has more going on.

Rather than being aloof, he's a loyal friend with a quiet need for connection that can be easy to miss.  Yes, he's laid back throughout the film, but he is loyal to Rick Dalton (Leonardo Dicaprio) in a way that he wouldn't necessarily need to be if he only cared about financial security.  There are multiple times where he could've packed up and left, but didn't.  Mix in his aforementioned charisma, as well as looks, and you get the impression he'd be fine wherever he went.  Yet he does care about Dalton, even during times when Dalton isn't the best friend.  It's a surprisingly layered role that Pitt absolutely nails.

The other movie I saw him in is, in some ways, the opposite of his Cliff Booth role.  In Ad Astra he plays Major Roy McBride, an astronaut with major father issues.  Like his father, he puts his love of reaching for the stars before his need for human connection.  He has spent his life pushing others away while focusing on the mission.  This movie is incredibly introspective and character focused, which demands a lot of Pitt.  There are countless quiet, poignant closeups that Pitt absolutely nails.  Even if the overall movie is less memorable than I hoped, I remember being fully engaged with Pitt's performance.

These roles show that Pitt has presence and range.  Whatever Pitt does, it's usually memorable, and almost always good.  He may be my favorite current actor in Hollywood- the only people really stopping him are Michael B Jordan and Oscar Isaac (also, Chris Hemsworth's abs).  Whoever is truly my favorite actor, though, I respect the hell out of Pitt's abilities and can't wait to see what he does next.

ACTRESS: Ana de Armas

Ana de Armas first stood out to me in Blade Runner 2049, where she did the most with what she was given in her role as Joi, the main character's AI girlfriend.  So it was nice to see her again in 2019 with a bigger role.  She starred in Knives Out as Marta Cabrera, the caretaker of a famous old author played by Christopher Plummer.

What's great about this movie as a whole is its fresh approach to the mystery genre.  The movie gives you an incredible amount of information toward the beginning, including information that may make it seem like almost every question has been answered by the end of the first hour, from the alibis of every family member to who was there for the author's death.  But it's those little missing details that make all the difference.

What this movie is about at its core, though, is that being a kind, empathetic human being can save you from needing to worry about the tangle of lies, deceit, and regret that less caring people can get caught in.  Ana de Armas anchors that theme by being a beacon of empathy and humility as Marta, who is literally incapable of lying without throwing up.  She is kind to the point of only wanting to look out for herself due to her family's immigration status- but even then, she isn't a perfect person, and that helps make her character still feel like a human being, rather than a flawless angle.

This movie comes together because of smart writing and memorable performances all around (especially Chris Evans and Daniel Craig), but ultimately it's Ana de Armas who stood out to me.  I hope this is the beginning of her rise, because she brings a vulnerability and kindness to the screen that I think we could use more of in Hollywood.

TV SHOW: The Good Place

For the second time ever, I have a repeat choice from a previous year (the first time was giving Michael B Jordan actor of the year in both 2015 and 2018).  The producers of the show are welcome to send me a giant check for giving such generous praise and publicity for the show; I will accept payments in normal US dollars, gold bars, or Iraqi dinars.

But in all seriousness, The Good Place is a brilliant show that takes ideas from the philosophy of ethics and packages them in a show that is hilarious, witty, and charming.  I truly don't understand how they do it.  By the end of watching this series you'll be able to explain complex philosophical concepts without even realizing you were learning along the way thanks to the show's entertainment value.

There's more I could say, but to avoid writing as much as I did for last year's Good Place entry, I'll stop there.  All I'll say is that if you love shows that can make you laugh and think at the same time, complete with well-realized characters and a constantly forward-moving plot, you must check out this show.

MMA FIGHTER I'D LIKE TO SEE BOUNCE BACK:
Renato Moicano

Renato Moicano is a grappler by trade, but he has the jab, leg kicks, feints, and footwork of a striker.  He uses all of those to set up stronger punches, fancier kicks, and the occasional intercepting knee.  In 2018, that brought him success against both Calvin Kattar and Cub Swanson, both of whom are top level fighters.

Unfortunately, in 2019, those attributes weren't enough to keep him in the win column.  In February he fought Jose Aldo, who likes to rely on some of the same fundamental moves as Moicano, but in a stockier body and more offense-minded style.  In a first round that saw a battle of feints, counters, feinted counters, and counters to counters, both fighters seemed even.  Aldo, however, being more experienced, began winning these mind battles in the beginning of the second round, thanks in part to punches to the body and better timing.  The knockout came when Aldo wobbled Moicano, threw to the body to distract Moicano, and went in with some beautiful combinations to get the W.

The knockout from Korean Zombie in June came only thirty seconds into the first round, so there isn't too much of a detailed story to tell.  Zombie weaved one of Moicano's punches and came up with a right hand that Moicano didn't see coming.  Moicano dropped and Korean Zombie did a beautiful job staying on him in order to get the finish another thirty or seconds later.

Moicano is still young, however, like a lot of the featherweight division.  He has incredible grappling and great striking fundamentals.  I'd like to see him sharpen his feinting abilities, choose one more strike to hone as strong as his jabs & leg kicks, and maybe even mix in some wrestling.  Lanky strikers like Alexander Gustafasson have shown the occasional shot can help throw your opponent off.

Whatever he does to improve, though, I can't wait to see him back in the cage.  With a division full of young, exciting names like current champion Alexander Volkanovski, former champion Max Holloway, Zabit Magomedsharipov, Brian Ortega, and of course Korean "incapable of a boring fight" Zombie, the featherweight has a bright future ahead.  I can't wait to see it, and Moicano's part in it.

MALE MMA FIGHTER: Kamaru Usman

While Usman only had two fights this year, but they were two of the most significant fights of the year.  The first was against Tyrone Woodley, considered by many to be the best welterweight champion of all time next to Georges St-Pierre (and, depending on who you ask, Matt Hughes).  In that fight Usman used his incredible pace, toughness, and wrestling ability to dominate Woodley from the beginning to the end of the fight, winning basically every round.

His next fight, of course, is the one that really got everyone- even those outside the MMA world- talking.  His fight against interim champion and dipshit troll Colby Covington became culturally significant and symbolic in a way that few MMA fights have.  Covington wears a MAGA hat, uses racism to get in the headlines, calls everyone things like "virgins" as a form of trash talk, and just generally acts like an obnoxious dipshit.  Usman, on the other hand, is an immigrant from Nigeria who rarely trash talks his opponents.

So, yeah, it was one of those kinds of fights.

Usman won with a combination of grit, great conditioning, straight punches, and ultimately minding his defensive Ps and Qs better than Covington.  The end came when Usman dropped Covington multiple times in the final round, beating the paste out of him long enough for the referee to stop it with about a minute left.  Since then, much of the post-fight coverage has portrayed the fight as Usman's strength and athleticism against Colby's grit and determination, an ugly historical remnant of racist 20th Century sports coverage where every black fighter always won due to some combination of sneakiness and/or natural physical gifts, whereas white athletes won because of intellect and toughness.

But, as my friend Elias Cepeda points out in his own article about the fight, Usman deserves heaps of praise for his toughness that he simply hasn't been receiving.  He also showed a great fight IQ in the fight, making little adjustments to his approach the further into the fight they got.  He deserves credit for both his toughness in living in US society as a black immigrant who has to endure "USA!" chants against him despite being an American and for his toughness inside the cage, because keeping up that pace isn't easy.  For defeating the two best welterweights in the world and becoming something of a symbol in the process, Usman was one of the easiest picks for me of this entire post.

FEMALE MMA FIGHTER: Amanda Nunes

Here we are with yet another pick from the previous year.  Last year, Nunes beat Cris Cyborg, who many people consider the best female MMA fighter of all time.  This was on top of having already beaten Ronda Rousey, Valentina Shevchenko, Meisha Tate, and Sara McMann, among others.  She now had the most credible claim to best female fighter of all time.

Then, in 2019, she beat both Holly Holm and Germaine de Randamie. In other words, she had now beaten every single women's champion of both the 135lbs and 145lbs divisions.  Most of them she had finished.  I normally don't think it makes sense to state an opinion as a fact, but in this case, it's pretty clear Nunes is the greatest female fighter of all time.

We've also seen Nunes round out her game in the process.  In the fight against Holm, Nunes mixed her kicks and punches well, and feinted more than I've seen her feint in the past (seriously, if you have the ability to, rewatch the fight at a lower speed and see just how much Nunes pretends she's about to hit).  Holm, a counter-fighter, was often left swinging at air.  She didn't know how to respond with so many faked movements from Nunes; her reactions began to dull, which is trouble against someone who hits as strong as Nunes.

After Nunes began to hurt Holm she started throwing a lot of punches with the occasional body kick.  It's normally bad to lower your attack variety, but Nunes had a specific strategy in mind.  She got Holm thinking about punches and body kicks.  The end came when Nunes feinted a right hand, Holm reacted to block, Nunes feinted another attack, Holm half-heartedly tried to both block and counter with a lead leg side kick, reconsidered, then relaxed just as Nunes threw the headkick.

It only takes one strategic miscalculation to lose a fight.  Especially against Nunes.

Frankly, I only saw her later fight against de Randamie once, and it was at a party, so I wasn't paying the closest attention.  But, as everyone has discussed since, it had Nunes bring back her wrestling game.  It was nice to see Nunes mix it up more and land some strong ground and pound.  Going into 2020, I can't wait to see a true great of the sport continue setting records and impressing everyone.  Just as there was the Anderson Silva era, the Georges St-Pierre era, and many more for the sport, we are currently in the Nunes era.  Let's enjoy it while it lasts.

MMA FIGHT: Adesanya vs Gastelum

My favorite fights are always those that have both adrenaline-pumping fireworks and technique, and this fight had both.  Kelvin Gastelum played the bull while Israel Adesanya played the matador, yet both came with an excellent bag of tricks.  Both of them made good use of their lead hands despite being in a southpaw vs orthodox matchup, both had good head movement, both had good footwork for what they were trying to do, and both used constant feints to disguise their attacks (seriously, watch this fight slowed down for a bit and take note of how many feints they use vs actual attacks).

Each of them had their own special tricks, too, and it's how they put everything together that really made it all click.  Striking in MMA has come a loooong way from the days when Anderson Silva could just dance around brawlers who walked forward in a straight line and didn't know how to feint. Gastelum may have been swinging his powerful left overhand, but in addition to the aforementioned thing both fighters did well, he was using intelligent pressure and punches to the body to attack.  Any offensive-minded fighters should study his performance here.

Adesanya had his bag of tricks as well.  He switched stances constantly, throwing off Gastelum.  He not only threw kicks to a variety of places, but also threw kicks that changed direction mid-attack.  For example, a few times he threw a kick that looked to be a snap kick up the middle, but then changed direction into a sidekick halfway through.  He used a full variety of strikes, even a few knees and a beautiful spinning elbow thrown from a feinted takedown attempt.

Toward the championship rounds, Gastelum began to wilt under Adesanya's more well-rounded arsenal.  He didn't fold by any means, but he attacked to the body less.  His footwork became less sophisticated.  His intelligent pressure slowed down.  These changes allowed Adesanya to get the upperhand, though Gastelum did regain momentum in the fourth round by feinting a punch and throwing a headkick that Adesanya didn't see coming.

Still, it wasn't to be.  Adesanya recovered in the fifth round, where the two fighters had an all or nothing war that Adesanya emerged the victor of.  Both fighters looked excellent, though, and had their moments.  The fact that striking in MMA can rise to this level while still being entertaining is a beautiful thing to see.

SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY:
Ancient Human Environmental Change

What's wild about the modern era is that the industrial revolution began in the United States and Europe only a couple hundred years ago.  Human beings- that is, homo sapiens- have been around for a little over 300,000 years.  That makes industrialization extremely recent.  Like, really, really recent.  It defines so much of our modern world that we forget there was a very important step between the beginning of the human species and industrialization: agriculture.

See, before human beings figured out how to industrialize, we had to figure out how to create societies.  We had to figure out how to come together in a large, organized way.  That began with agriculture, which allowed human beings the ability to mass produce food in a way that they couldn't simply as hunter-gatherers.   We started agriculture on a large scale about ten thousand years ago, which allowed enough food to be produced by farmers that other roles previously held by various community members could become full-time occupations.

If humanity were a thirty year old person, we only started agriculture about a year ago, and only started industrializing a week ago.

All of this is to say that agriculture was a super, super important step between where we are now and where we were when we first emerged from our ancestors.  Now evidence is coming out that agriculture had a much larger environmental impact than we previously imagined.  In fact, by around 3,000 years ago we had what scientists are now calling a "significant" impact on the Earth.

This breakthrough is important both because it drastically challenges our understanding of the past while also giving us potential new opportunities to learn things that can help us in the present.  What exactly were these impacts?  What was the good and bad that came from it?  What agricultural practices had a better environmental effect than others?  I'm no expert in the field of agriculture or archaeology, so I have no idea what the answers will be.  But I'm excited to learn, and to see what that knowledge can do to help our planet.

SCIENTIFIC ACHIEVEMENT: Black Hole Picture

What was once thought impossible became possible this year: taking a picture of a black hole.  The reason it was seen as impossible before was because scientists didn't know how you could take a picture of something from which light cannot escape.  How can you take a picture of something literally devoid of light in the darkness of space?

Scientists had always toyed with the idea of solving that problem by taking a picture of a black hole's silhouette, but it was a task far easier said than done.  Over the last decade, they built a series of telescopes that together they called the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) to try to capture the image.  The EHT is so sophisticated that it works about 4,000 times better than the Hubble Telescope.

This year they finally used it to snap a picture of the silhouette of black hole M87*, which is the black hole at the center of the galaxy Messier 87.  M87* is 6.5 billion times the size of our sun, so to call it big is an understatement.  With the EHT and a team of dedicated scientists from around the world, we finally achieved the impossible.  It's pretty cool what we can accomplish when we work together as a species when we're not busy being shitty to each other.

BULLSHIT NEWS STORY:
Just... Everything About Ilhan Omar

Ilhan Omar is a Somalian refugee who managed to become a member of the United States Congress.  That's an impressive achievement by itself, but what's even more impressive is what she's done in Congress.  She's been an outspoken proponent of worker, immigrant, and human rights, including the human rights of Palestinians.  Personally, she captured my heart when she grilled Elliott Abrams.

For anyone unfamiliar with Abrams, he's an absolute ghoul of a human being who helped illegally give aid to Nicaraguan death squads in what came to be known as the Iran Contra Scandal.  He also covered for the extreme human rights abuses of the military dictatorships of Guatemala and El Salvador.  He's responsible for immense human suffering in Central America, but because Republicans and most Democrats don't care about that, he's never faced any consequences.  He currently serves as an envoy to Venezuela to continue his legacy of harming Latin America.  Omar's grilling of Abrams is probably the closest he'll ever get to answering for the death, violence, and poverty he helped create.

Unfortunately, being a female refugee of color who speaks up for labor, immigrant, and human rights means that much of the world will be against you.  Omar has faced an onslaught of conspiracy theories, vitriol, and outright threats against her.  Most of this has come from the right, but that hasn't also stopped Democrats like Nancy Pelosi from passive aggressively taking jabs at her, either.  All year I've seen bullshit on my Facebook feed from my few right-leaning friends, but also stuff from those toward the center, too.

These conspiracies and attacks against Omar show the depths people will plunge to against a refugee woman of color taking a courageous stand.  Normally I use this category on my end of year lists to focus less on politics and more on society as a whole.  But, with so much gross information against Omar, choosing anything else wouldn't seem right.  I don't normally argue in favor of politicians on this blog, but I stand with Ilhan Omar.

ACTUAL NEWS STORY: Protests Around the World
Protest in Colombia

One thing we are terrible at understanding in the United States is that democracy isn't a spectator sport.  Society in general isn't.  The modern age is so seeped in individualism that we've forgotten that we're part of a greater web of humanity.  In our day to day lives, that means we're feeling lonelier than ever.  In our politics, that means we only know how to participate through each casting our individual vote.  We have collectively forgotten about the importance of collective action, which is historically how we've achieved the most change.

For the world as a whole, things are changing.  The post-World War 2 order is melding away as increasingly powerful multinational corporations continue to drain the wealth from previously well-off countries.  Though this is a shame, the post-WW2 order was also built on the suffering of many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, and even left a lot of people from well-off countries in the dark, too.  Still, the current decline of the post-WW2 order means some ugly things are coming back.  Xenophobia and authoritarianism are on the rise everywhere.

But people aren't helpless.  Historically, change has always come from people coming together and demanding more.  From various South American countries (whose protests I dedicated an entire blog post to) to Hong Kong, from France to Iraq, 2019 truly was a year of protests.  I cannot make a general claim about what each of these protests are about, as each place has their own unique set of issues rising from their own circumstances.

What is important, though, is to be reminded that politics isn't something you passively participate in when elections come around.  It's something you should participate in whenever you can, as politics is part of society, and society is ever-going.  That's not to say you should always be involved in politics, of course, but at least go to the occasional rally, sign the occasional petition, volunteer or donate to the occasional community organization.  Because pressuring those in power gets results- the protests a couple months back in Ecuador, for example, succeeded completely.

We all have that power.  We all have the ability to win.  The only uncertainty is if we are able to realize and harness that power, not if it's there.  People from all over the world continue to show us the way.  It's up to us to decide if and when we'll use it.  With so many issues plaguing both our country and our world right now- climate change, wealth inequality, debt, xenophobia, even democracy itself- our choices will impact generations to come.

MEME:  Helpful Buff Guys Meme

I mean, what's not to love about counter-intuitive, wholesome memes that make people feel good?

VIDEO: Neon Genesis Evangelion
Episodes 25 & 26 Are Good, Actually

Like many casual anime fans, I'd heard of Neon Genesis Evangelion, but hadn't really gotten into it before.  When it dropped on Netflix earlier this year, I decided to check it out; despite the very abstract ending, I absolutely adored it.  Even the ending itself.  After watching the series I went online to look up different analyses of the show.  In doing so, I learned how deeply polarizing the last two episodes were.

Part of me understands.  I would've liked a lot more plot resolution.  But, at the same time, the series finale is wonderful in that it gets to the core of who our main characters are and what is holding them back from finding inner peace.  For all the abstract weirdness contained within, at its core the last two episodes are about understanding who our main characters are.  The last episode focuses on our main character, Shinji, entirely.  By the end he finally achieves self-acceptance, and is even ready to try liking himself and to try connecting more with other people.  It's complicated, it's simple, it's messy, it's beautiful.

CodexEntry, which is a really good video essay channel that everyone should check out, has an incredible video that makes basically the same argument I am making, but with real depth.  This video isn't for everyone- it's an hour long- but if you want a really thoughtful exploration of the show, both overall and its last two episodes in particular, there isn't a better video you can find.

You may be asking yourself: even if it's an impressive video, why choose a video about an anime when there's more important fish to fry?  Well, in a world where we're increasingly feeling lonely and alienated, and depression and anxiety are up as a result, a lot of people can probably relate to Shinji's feelings of isolation and low self-worth.  I chose this video hoping both to encourage people to check Evangelion and to defend its ending.  Because in a world where so many people feel disconnected, a character reaffirming their desire to like themselves and reach out to others is something to celebrate.

PHOTO: Protester Taking Down Riot Officer

A picture-perfect double leg takedown from the Chilean protests.  I already wrote about protests around the world a couple entries above.  If you'd like to know more about the South American protests in particular and how they fit into the region's history, check out this post I did a month or so back.  Long story short, they're protesting cuts to public programs and corporate regulations that powerful international financial institutions are pressuring South American countries to implement. 

BADASS: Indigenous Climate Activists
Artemisa Xakriaba, a 19 year old Indigenous climate activist from Brazil

Let me just start by saying I love Greta Thunberg.  It's awesome that she's raised such a high profile at such a young age fighting against climate change, which is arguably the most pressing issue of our time.  She tries her best to put her money where her mouth is, taking public transit instead of cars and even boating over the water instead of flying.  Her highly visible advocacy is really important and deserves praise.

However, it's a shame that young climate activists of color have been largely ignored, or at least not given much attention, despite a lot of the great work being done.  This is especially true of young Indigenous activists.  Indigenous people generally have some of the most sustainable ways of living off the land out of most human societies on Earth.  A lot of people instinctively think "well that's just because they used to literally live off the land.  They didn't really shape their environment the way Europeans and other large civilizations did."

What people miss (or, rather, aren't taught) is that many Indigenous people actually did actively transform the lands in which they lived.  Many have engaged in sophisticated agricultural practices that have shaped the land around them to make it more suited to human need.  The book "1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus" talks about this in depth.  This is partially why the Americas the pilgrims landed upon was so bountiful.  The pilgrims thought it was a natural bounty, but it was actually the result of thousands of years of hard, dedicated work by the people of that land.

All of this is to say that we have a lot to learn from Indigenous people.  Even today, from Standing Rock to the Indigenous-led protests in South America, Indigenous people do what they can to make sure we live off of the Earth in a sustainable, just way.  To Greta's credit, she has tried to point this out, but the media hasn't really obliged.  As even the UN points out, Indigenous people both suffer disproportionately from climate change while also holding many keys to taking it on.

So, here's to the young Indigenous activists doing everything they can to keep our planet safe.  We must do what we can to make sure powerful people are forced to listen.

Sunday, December 1, 2019

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 protestsI'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.