|
| |
Nora Ventura
November 20, 2011
“The Inheritors of the Exploits of
Columbus,” Neoliberalism, and
Transnational Families
Initially my intent was to research
Diaspora writers living in the
U.S.
and then look at the current issues revolving their home countries. This
interest was based on wanting to learn more about immigrant children and their
experiences of cultural adaptation once they arrive to the U.S. However,
while running database searches for “United States,”
“immigrant children,” and “Central America” I continued to come across recurrent
terminology: transnational childhood, transnational motherhood, free-trade,
neoliberalism, globalization, immigration, and
U.S.
policy. Through a mental block from not finding articles that sparked interest,
I added
“Columbus” to the search terms, which led me to James
Petras and Steve Vieux’s article “Twentieth-Century Neoliberals: Inheritors of
the Exploits of Columbus.” I read it. The connection from
Columbus to immigrant children living in the
U.S.
allowed for all above terms to fit within that historical trajectory, and this
post will summarize my perceived understanding of it.
In 1991 then Colombian President Cesar Gaviria referred to the
presidents of Latin America as the “inheritors of
Columbus’
exploits.” Petras and Vieux’s research leads them to compare the U.S. to the Spanish hegemony over Latin America. Spanish hegemony over
Latin America left half of a continent in shambles, and it has yet
to recover, most of its counties remaining in a third-world status. By the
1980’s, the elite from south of the U.S. border all the way down to the bottom
tip of the continent “hailed the advent of unregulated capitalism as the panacea
for the region’s development crisis” (Petras and Vieux 25). This “messianic
vision” reflects “historical amnesia.” The authors identify the similarities
from Latin America’s history of colonialism to the policies and practices of the
1980’s and 1990’s in regards to the U.S.: policing that ensured low wages thus
promoting competition from the proletariat and indigenous and accumulating
wealth to the rich, exportation of minerals and produce, access of natural
resources to foreign exploitation, and debt payment and large-scale transfers of
wealth to avoid “punitive measures from the imperial powers.” A movement towards
privatization in “the decade of ascendant neoliberalism” resulted in a gross
domestic product (GDP) drop of eighth percent to twenty-six percent in some
countries. The gap between the rich and the poor widened dramatically, and
“political theft of public property” by regimes of
Peru,
Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina,
Uruguay, and Chile became
prevalent. Political instability in Latin America
was paramount for neoliberalism, resulting in the slaughter of millions of
civilians. During this decade, the U.S.
contributed with “$6.5 billion worth of military and economic assistance into
Central America,” mainly in Honduras,
El Salvador, and Guatemala (42).
Under the pretense of development, neoliberalism became the new and improved
form of colonization.
Being a Mexican immigrant, I then
narrowed down my research to neoliberalism in Mexico. The North American Free
Trade Agreement (NAFTA) of 1994 allowed for “open markets of all types to
outside investment by including special rules that insure outside investors a
safe and attractive return on their money….These special rules or treaty
provisions are designed to limit governmental regulation of those markets…and to
require each country’s legal system to protect and favor the outside investors
over local governments” (McCarty 106). NAFTA contributed directly to the
impoverishment (ranging from poverty to extreme poverty) of an additional three
million people in Mexico
by 2004. The Mexican Revolution of 1910 had ended in the protection of land for
peasants, but the protection of communally owned lands was reversed in 1992, and
peasants and farmers were not able to afford the land without government
subsidies. “Free trade […] destroyed [rural people’s] economic system, leaving
them the choice of migration or starvation” (McCarthy 109). Children and
families in rural Mexico
are the most affected by neoliberalism, not only because of economic hardships
but by family separation due to immigration. Although it would be inaccurate to
attribute transnational migration exclusively to neoliberalism, the sharp
increase of transnational migration from Mexico
and Central America after neoliberal policies
cannot be ignored.
Transnational parenting has become a challenge to parents on
both sides of the geopolitical border. Feelings towards leaving their children
behind to seek employment in the U.S. range from
feelings of guilt to feelings of pride and sacrifice for being able to provide
not only capital for nourishment but also the possibility for a brighter future
through educational opportunities in the children’s home countries. The Mexican
economy is vastly dependant on remittances. “These remittances have grown since
NAFTA and are now the second largest source of income for Mexico, ahead of
tourism and comparable with that of oil” (McCarthy 115). With the nuclear family
split across borders, transnational families struggle to “do family,” a struggle
familiar to “families of color in the U.S….in the face of divisive forces like
slavery, immigration policies, or economic and political conditions” (Orellana
et al. 585). Another significant change in immigration has been the shift from
cyclical to permanent immigration. This change is the result in immigration
enforcement laws that make it difficult for immigrants to travel back and forth.
Because the economic hardships in the home country have not improved but rather
deteriorated, immigrant behavior has had to adapt to policy changing, often
resulting in an additional strain to familial ties. Additionally, decisions on
whether children are reunited with their parents are made considering risks of
the journey to the U.S.,
financial ability, childcare availability (both in the U.S. and home
country), and age of the child (Dreby 2006). Transnational families, for the
most part, manage to maintain ties through emotional and financial support, but
families may go years or even decades without seeing one another. The concept of
home disappears.
Neoliberalism is the new colonialism, and the façade of
eventual development makes ignoring its collateral damage easy. This brief
research allowed me to have a better understanding of neoliberalism by examining
it though the perspective of family, which is easier to identify with compared
to policy. In terms of literature, I am left with a want to read a book composed
of children’s narratives from different Latin American countries at different
times in the 19th and 20th century. The voices of the children are what I am
specifically interested in and I did not find. Research is limited to parental
perspectives of transnational migration, foreign policy, and socioeconomic
effects of neoliberalism. I do not know if such book exists.
Works Cited
Dreby, Joanna. "HONOR AND VIRTUE: Mexican Parenting In The
Transnational Context." Gender & Society 20.1 (2006): 32-59.
McCarthy, Dawn. “The Impact of The North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) on Rural Children and Families in
Mexico: Transnational Policy and Practice
Implications.” Journal of Public Child
Welfare. 1.4 (2007): 105-123.
Petras, James., and Steve Vieux. “Twentieth-Century
Neoliberals: Inheritors of the Exploits of
Columbus.” Latin
American Perspectives 19.3 (1992): 25-46.
W.S.E. Lam,
et al. "Transnational Childhoods: The Participation
Of Children In Processes Of Family Migration." Social Problems 48.4
(2001): 572-591.
|
