Don't Trivialize History

To the Editors of The Crimson:

This is a letter concerning the editorial written about Peru in the April 10 issue of The Crimson ("Post-Coup Peru"). My comments are not in reference to the author himself, but to all those people who hold the views and stereotypes towards Latin America expressed in the article.

As a Peruvian citizen, I have experienced firsthand the grave and persistent problem currently confronted by Peruvian society. While the editorial pretends to address theses problems, it trivializes the facts, grievously failing to give an accurate analysis of the deep political, social and economic crisis in my country.

But perhaps this editorial is most damaging and offensive because while it contains many kernels of truth, the sarcasm with which it was written and the patronizing, self-indulgent attitude taken by the author fosters false stereotypes and misperceptions about Peru and Latin America.

The opening paragraphs set the tone of the article: "Peru? Where the hell is Peru? Well, it was first found by Francisco Pizarro, an illiterate swinerherd. It's west of Brazil and north of Chile. First faltering democracy on your right. You can't miss it...It's a messy society...and the economy is a basket case..." The naive geographical description fails to do justice to the fourth largest Latin American nation, homeland of the Inca Empire, the most advanced civilization in pre-Hispanic America. In fact, most of the population takes its roots from the Incas, not the Spaniards.

Later, the author goes on and states:"...the only time foreign investors got really excited about Peru was during the 19th century when 80 percent of the government revenues were derived from the export of guano (which is, well, bird shit)." Guano is a fertilizer obtained in the coastal islands that was used extensively to spur agricultural output, feeding an increasing world population. Does it matter to Peru's current crisis that it exported guano in the 19th century?

Why does the author choose to describe quano as he does, rather than mention its important role in meeting increased demand for agricultural production? Meanwhile, the author fails to mention that Peru was the first world exporter of fish meal in the 1960s and '70s, when considerable foreign investment took place, and that its vast natural resources make it among the richest countries on the continent.

The editorial's treatment of Peruvian politics is just as insulting and parochial. The author's description of the return of democracy in 1980 is a blatant falsehood: "the brass realized Peruvians were getting sick of them and returned power to--of all people the befuddled Belaunde." In fact, Belaunde was elected by all Peruvians in a free and democratic election called by a Constitutional Assembly (to which representatives were also freely elected) in 1979 with the supervision of international observers from the United Nations and the Organization of American States.

The comparison of Fujimori's recent military takeover to the "smoking of a joint but not inhaling" is offensive. Isa the imprisonment of political leaders, the censorship of the press and the loss of liberty and rights something to jest about?

Characterizations such as "Haya de la Torre, your standard Latin American charismatic type," "Belaunde, the Herbert Hoover of Peruvian politics: and "Furjimoro [sic] known as the karate kid" (Fujimori, the last name of the current Peruvian President was misspelled throughout the entire editorial as Fukimoro) only serve to create a stereotype which depicts Peruvian leaders as being cartoon characters. I hardly believe that Javier Perez de Cuellar (former Secretary General of teh United Nations) and writer Mario Vargas Llosa (who will shortly be a visiting professor at Harvard), both current leaders in Peruvian society, fit stereotypes that the author is trying the portray.

The author's statement that the Peruvian government has been "by, for and of rich white people" reflects the misperception held by many Americans that Latin America has been ruled by a few families since its independence. During 15 of the last 20 years, Peru has had rather progressive governments. As the author acknowledges in his article, the military Junta which ruled in the '70s showed "great sympathy for the landless poor and implemented a reform agenda."

The government implemented a sweeping agrarian reform which distributed all the land from the wealthy landlords to the poor peasants. Alan Garcia, president from 1985-90, served Peru under the banners of "anti-imperialism" and "social justice" nationalizing private banks and calling for "war on the business class the serves imperialist purposes." I think that these can hardly be called "governments of, for and by the rich white people."

The economic problems confronted by the Peruvian poor are probably the harshest that any Latin American population has ever confronted. This was clearly expressed by the the United State Secretary of State at the Organization of American States meeting on Monday April 13: "No nation and no people face a more daunting, dangerous or terrible set of crises than those inherited by the new democratic government of Peru less than two years ago. No nation and no people need and deserve international solidarity and support more than the Peruvian nation and Peruvian people. They confront the deepest economic crisis of their history, the violence and corruption of narcotrafficking, and the most murderous and dangerous terrorist movement that has ever appeared in Latin American."

For this reason, it is offensive for the author to trivialize the causes of economic crisis that led to the current situation. In describing the 1968 crisis, he suggests that: "the economy took one look at [Belaunde] and promptly plunged into chaotic inflation." Similarly, when describing the conditions in 1980, he states, "Guess what? The economy, still allergic to Belaunde, went blooey again." I wish that the millions of Peruvians who struggle to make a living on a daily basis knew that the causes of their problems are simple enough to warrant the laughter of university students as they are dying of hunger.

Trivializing the plight of 20 million Peruvians by writing such a parody is completely unacceptable. What else could the author have had in mind when he glosses over history ("then it got really weird"), asks "where the hell is Peru?", misspells the name of the president throughout, compares a coup to "smoking a joint," and issues calls for the military to "stop doing stupid and brutal things to the Peruvians." I agree that the use of military repression is unjustified and unlikely to solve Peru's daunting problems.

What I cannot agree with is the use of conditions as painful as the loss of democracy to ridicule a Latin American republic for the entertainment of a university community. This only leads to the formation of stereotypes and enhances the patronizing attitude that many Americans hold towards Latin America.

To ridicule the history of Peru is to undermine a national identity and to make fun of a suffering population that strives for subsistence. Such an editorial only reflects the cowardice and self-indulgent nature of an author who mock the history and painful struggle of a sovereign nation. Jose Gavilano '94