May 2011, Volume 5足足
The international magazine for The Claremont Colleges
Extravaganza
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR In 2008, President Obama was swept into office on a wave of enthusiastic support that believed in his message of “hope” and “change.” Representing a change from the conservative Republican administration of George W Bush and the centrist Democratic administration of Bill Clinton, Obama promised a revolution in the politics of America: a departure from “business as usual” in Washington. Obama closed Guantanamo Bay, fought for universal healthcare, and promised the pullout of troops in Iraq and seemed, for a while, to herald real change. Yet three years into his presidency, Obama’s revolutionary zeal seemed to falter. Bogged down in vicious Congressional fights over Obamacare and the federal budget, Washington is back to “business as usual”: even as troops are being pulled out from Iraq, more are being sent to Afghanistan and Predator drone strikes have been authorized in Libya. The suspension of Guantanamo Bay, with the passing of the Defense Authorization Bill, has also been put on hold. What happened? Has Obama, like so many revolutionaries lost his way after the overthrow of the old establishment? Had he overstepped, not realizing the enormity of his revolutionary dream, and succumbed to the cold gravity of reality? Obama’s plight is not unique among revolutionaries. Communist revolutionaries, for example, have commonly faced the disjoint between economic realities and their ideals. The Bolsheviks were the first to realize, after a 1921 revolt, that the catastrophic drop in agricultural yield was not simply a product of bad harvests, but rather due to ineffective economic policies dictated by Leninist ideology. The New Economic Policy adopted in 1921 overturned the previous policy of “war communism” and marked a return to capitalist principles. The Chinese Communist Party embarked on a similar turn in 1979 when Deng Xiaoping reversed decades of state controlled economic policy characterized by the spirit of the Great leap Forward and implemented the economic reform that resulted in China’s successful and very capitalist economy. Revolutionaries, acting under the name of the people, so often overthrow establishment, only to realize, in power, the justifications of the preexisting system. As protests and battles rage across the Middle East, revolution is truly the spirit of the times. Revolution, however, is difficult, and sometimes even gradual: though the French revolution occurred in 1789, it was only after two Emperor Bonapartes, a restoration of the monarchy, and three republics that France finally achieved, to some extent, the ideals of the original revolutionaries. Today, Libyan rebels are locked in a protracted civil war, the Egyptian public grows uneasy under military rule, and Syrian protesters weather the bullets of their own national defense. The question remains: even if the entrenched regime is overthrown, will the true spirit of the revolution endure?
Alan Hu
The Revolution Issue TABLE OF CONTENTS
[RUSSIAN] OLD REVOLUTION? NEW REVOLUTION? by IGOR TISCHENKO
4
14
6
[BENGALI] COLORED IN MY BROTHER’S BLOOD: MULTILINGUALISM IN THE AGE OF GLOBALIZATION by SHOAIB ALAM
[ITALIAN] EXTREME VIOLENCE IN CINEMA: SALÒ OR THE 120 DAYS OF SODOM by RODRIGO RANERO
12
[CHINESE] A PERSONAL STORY OF THE “REVOLUTION” IN CHINA: THE DETAINED SECRETARY ZHANG BY WENDY QIAN
[SPANISH] SOCIAL CHANGE IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE LEGACY OF “EL CHE” by COURTNEY MILLER
10
11
[THAI] REVOLUTION FROM THE TOP IN THAILAND? BY VANESSA LEE 3 ― Extravaganza|2011
Old revolution? New revolution?
BY IGOR TISCHENKO (CMC ‘13) Observing the ongoing developments in Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan and other parts of the world, gripped by mass dissent with the ruling regime, it is difficult to refrain from drawing comparisons with the October Revolution of 1917 in Russia – the classic “old” rebellion. Yet is it all that old? What lessons can we learn about the fundamental ingredients of radical upheaval and the enduring consequences of the advent of the new regime? Let us remember. Revolutionary tendencies emerged in Russia during the first two decades of the twentieth century, stemming from discontent with the Tsarist regime. At the beginning of this process—in 1898—the ‘Russian Social Democratic Party’ came into being. Many members of this party followed Marxist ideology. In 1903 this party fractured into the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions. The Bolshevik movement came to be led by a young lawyer Vladimir Ulyanov, better known to the world as Lenin. The significance of an organized political creed, coupled with the role of prominent leadership, relentless in its pursuit of fundamental change, cannot be overstated. These vital components are seemingly lacking in some of the contemporary revolutionary processes taking place in the Middle East and Northern Africa, or exist in nascent stages. In 1914 war was declared on Russia by Germany at the outset of WWI. By the summer of 1915, the warfront situation for Russia was extremely dire. Russia’s economy was ill prepared for war, and food shortages became widespread. In February of 1917 Petrograd (now known as St. Petersburg) began to experience civil disturbances. Strike groups and self-management committees began to crop up in factories. The Tsar abdicated, concluding a 300 year old legacy of rule by the Tsar dynasty. A provi-
Russia, October 1917. sional government was formed, which located itself in the Winter Palace. Here we can perceive clear analogies with present revolutions where economic hardship and rise in prices, alongside deprivation of human rights and dignity, served as critical catalysts of upheaval. In April of 1917 Lenin returned to Russia from his exodus in Switzerland. On the night from the 25th to the 26th of October Lenin’s followers stormed the Winter Palace. The signal for the assault was a canon shot from the cruiser Aurora. There were few fatalities as a result of the siege, as the defenders put up virtually no resistance. On the 26th of October, the All-Russian Congress of Soviets convened and handed
Революция
4 ― Extravaganza|2011
power over to the Bolsheviks. In essence, the October Revolution was a well-planned and executed government coup. In the subsequent general elections the Bolsheviks received but a quarter of the votes. Their party had voter support in the larger cities but not in the rural areas. As such, in order to preserve their hold on power, the Bolsheviks engaged in “red terror,” repressing opposition through mass arrests and executions. In March of 1918 Russia signed the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and exited the war with considerable losses of territory, which prior were holdings of the Russian Empire. In July 1918 Tsar Nikolai II along with his wife and five children were executed by the Bolshevik forces. From 1918 to 1920 the country was engulfed in a brutal civil war: the Bolsheviks waged war with the opponents of the revolution. The Red Army, composed of workers and peasants, claimed victory over the anti-Bolshevik White Army despite foreign intervention, in part due to superior organization and aptitude of military leadership, who fought on the side of the Red Army. Even upon the conclusion of civil war the stability of the Soviets remained precarious. In the country, in particular in the cities, there was pervasive hunger, while industrial production stagnated to reach barely a quarter of what it was in 1913. In 1920 and 1921, hunger reached alarming levels. In an attempt to address the crisis, the Bolsheviks introduced NEP—the New Economic Policy, which represented a partial return to capitalism, introducing a state organized mixed economy. In December of 1922 the victory of the Bolsheviks became undisputed. This led to the establishment of a new state, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). It encompassed Russia and a large portion of the territories previously governed by the Russian Empire. The Soviet Union existed for 69 years. The lessons of the Soviet period, from 1922 to 1991, compellingly establish that the true success of revolutionary change is determined by the type of society that is erected from the ruins of the fallen regime. Slogans like “everything for the people” do not always end with a people’s democracy, and a party dubbed “our helmsman” can turn into a tool of domination, oppression and terror. As one watches revolutions taking place in Egypt, Yemen and Libya, one can only hope that in the end they will bring about a better, more just and decent life in stable and peaceful countries.
Россия, Октябрь 1917 г.
Старая революция? Новая революция?
Наблюдая за событиями в Египте, Либии, Йемене, Бахрейне, Сирии, Иордании и других странах, охваченных массовым недовольством правящим режимом, трудно удержаться от сравнения с октябрьской революцией 1917 года в России – классической “старой” революцией. Но такая уж ли она старая? И не напоминает ли она нам об ингредиентах революционного переворота и важности долгосрочных последствий прихода к власти нового режима? Давайте вспомним. В первые два десятилетия XX века в России появились радикальные течения, недовольные царским режимом. Уже в начале этого процесса – в 1898 году – возникла Российская социал-демократическая партия. Многие члены этой партии придерживались марксистских взглядов. В 1903 году эта партия разделилась на большевиков и меньшевиков. Лидером большевиков стал молодой юрист Владимир Ульянов, получивший позднее мировую известность под именем Ленин. Значение организованного политического течения, и роль выдающегося лидера, неутомимого в разжигании революции, трудно переоценить. Эти важные составляющие отсутствуют в некоторых современных революционных процессах на Ближнем Востоке и в Северной Африке, или присутствуют в зачаточном состоянии. В 1914 г. Германия объявила войну России, и началась Первая Мировая Война. К лету 1915 года обстановка на фронтах была для России крайне сложной. Российская экономика была не готова к войне, нехватка продовольствия в России приобрела угрожающий характер. В феврале1917 года в Петрограде (нынешнем Петербурге) начались волнения. На заводах возникли забастовочные комитеты и рабочие органы самоупраления – Советы. Царь отрекся от престола, тем самым закончив 300-летнее правление царской династии. Было сформировано Временное Правительство, разместившееся в Зимнем Дворце. Здесь мы видим отчетливые аналогии с современными революциями, где экономические тяготы и рост цен послужили триггером восстания, наряду с ущемлением прав и достоинства людей. В апреле 1917 г. Ленин вернулся в Россию из эмиграции в Швейцарии. В ночь с 25 на 26 октября сторонники Ленина штурмовали Зимний Дворец. Сигналом к штурму Зимнего дворца послужил пушечный выстрел с крейсера “Аврора”. Погибших во время штурма было немного, поскольку защитники практически не оказали сопротивления. 26 октября Всероссийский съезд Советов утвердил переход власти в руки большевиков. В сущности, октябрьская революция представляла собой хорошо спланированный государственный переворот. На последовавших вскоре всеобщих выборах большевики получили всего лишь около четверти голосов избирателей. Их партия была популярной в больших городах, но не в сельской местности. Поэтому, чтобы сохранить власть, большевики применили “красный террор”, расправляясь с противниками с помощью массовых арестов и казней. В марте 1918 года Россия подписала Брестский мир и вышла из войны с потерей большой территории, которая раньше принадлежала Российской империи. В июле 1918 года царь Николай II вместе с женой и пятью детьми был расстрелян большевиками. С 1918 по 1920 год по стране прокатилась гражданская война: большевики воевали с противниками революции. Красная Армия, состоявшая из рабочих и крестьян, одержала победу над белогвардейцами благодаря лучшей организации и таланту военачальников, воевавших на стороне Красной Армии. Даже после окончания гражданской войны положение Советов оставалось шатким. В стране, особенно в городах, царил голод, а промышленное производство едва достигало четверти от уровня 1913 года. В 1920-1921 годах голод принял угрожающий характер. Пытаясь поправить положение, большевики ввели “нэп” – новую экономическую политику, представлявшую собой частичный возврат к капитализму. В декабре 1922 года победа большевиков стала окончательной. Это привело к образованию нового государства, Союза Советских Социалистических Республик (СССР). В него вошла Россия и большая часть терриорий, ранее входивших в состав Российской империи. Советский Союз просуществовал 69 лет. Уроки советского периода, c 1922 по 1991 год, убедительно доказали что истинный тест успеха революционного переворота состоит в том, какое общество будет построено “на обломках империи”. Лозунги “всё для народа” не обязательно заканчиваются народной демократией, а партия именуемая революционерами “наш рулевой” может превратиться в оружие контроля, подавления и террора. Наблюдая за революционными процессами в Египте, Йемене и Либии, хочется верить что их итогом будет лучшая, справедливая и достойная жизнь в стабильном и мирном государстве.
Extravaganza|2011― 5
Social inChange LatinandAmerica the Legacy of
“El Che”
BY COURTNEY MILLER (PO ‘12) More than 40 years after his death, Ernesto “Che” Guevara remains one of the most famous figures associated with social revolution in Latin America. Guerrillero Heroico, the iconic photo to the right captured in 1960, has perpetuated the memory of the dead hero in global popular culture. But it has been neither the remembrance of his mission to bring social justice to the oppressed nor his espousal of violent practices to do so that has constituted the predominant collective celebration of Che over the past few decades. Rather, in spite of his scathing criticisms of consumerism and American capitalism during his years as a revolutionary, the fierce, unwavering eyes of the Guerrillero Heroico now stare back at the world from countless t-shirts, coffee mugs, posters, bikinis, and even designer handbags. The actual life and goals of the subversive guerrilla are often little more than legend to many of those who don his romanticized image. Notwithstanding the irony of Che’s current ubiquity as one of the world’s most merchandised images, the recent emergence of leftist political movements in Latin America in has led to a revived championing of Guevarismo, perhaps indicating a resurrection of the struggle for a Latin American revolution to which Guevara gave his life. As Bolivian President Evo Morales, Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa, and Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez implement radical policies of social reform in their own nations and simultaneously pay homage to Che as a paradigm of social change, the true nature of the revolutionary martyr’s legacy and the relevance of his beliefs to
current Latin American political affairs are worthy of examination. Historically, Che Guevara is best known for his portentous motorcycle expeditions through Latin America in 1950 -51 (detailed in the book and film The Motorcycle Diaries), his relationship with communist revolutionary Fidel Castro, and his role as a key leader in the Cuban Revolution during the 1950’s. Guevara’s actions were predicated on his vision of armed, guerrilla revolution in any nation whose leader was supported by the U.S. but not by its own citizens. Che believed that once a revolution was successful in one Latin American nation, the rest of the continent would follow. After the revolution, all citizens would become equally integrated into a society drawn together by work. In the 1960’s, Guevara left Cuba to lead unsuccessful attempts to initiate rebellions similar to the Cuban Revolution in the Congo and Bolivia. In 1967, Che was captured and executed by members of the Bolivian Special Forces. Though contested, Che’s famous, alleged last words (“I know you have come to kill me. Shoot, coward, you are only going to kill a man!”) confirmed his status as a martyr of the revolutionary left and as a legendary icon for the counterculture movements of the late 1960’s. In recent years, Presidents Morales, Correa, and Chávez have all publicly commemorated Guevara as they advance socialist reforms within their respective nations. Morales, the leader of the MAS (Movement for Socialism) party elected to the presidency of Bolivia in 2005, is himself a revolutionary figure in that he is the first indigenous president of Bolivia and since election has implemented sweeping policies of land redistribution among communities and peasant unions and the nationalization of Bolivia’s oil and natural gas resources to promote the social and economic empowerment of the nation’s indigenous and poor communities. Morales has evoked Che’s legacy numerous times throughout his political career, stating on one occasion that “After 40 years, Che is still a symbol of liberation, of sovereignty, dignity and above all of justice and equality.” Morales was the first top Bolivian leader ever to pay tribute to Guevara. Correa, the PAIS Alliance (Proud and Sovereign Fatherland) leader elected as the President of Ecuador in 2006, based his presidential campaign on the promises of a “citizen’s revolution” and the swift, profound political reform of institutions that had been largely viewed as corrupt for years. Since his election, Correa has introduced sweeping economic changes to Ecuador, including the nationalization of oil fields, the repudiation of billions of dollars of foreign debt he declared to be illegitimate, since it was procured by prior, despotic regimes, and the expenditure of billions of dollars on social projects to reduce poverty. Like Morales, Correa has made references to Che’s enduring influence in multiple speeches during his presidency, calling him an icon for humanity as well as a symbol for the Ecuadorian revolution because of his extreme sacrifices for his ideals. Correa has stated that the social change currently underway in Ecuador is not only a “citizen’s revolution” but also a “Guevarist
Chávez, Correa, and Morales
Revolución
6 ― Extravaganza|2011 Extravaganza|2011 ― 6
revolution”. Though presidents Morales and Correa have propelled significant social change in Bolivia and Ecuador since their elections, it is Hugo Chávez, elected as the President of Venezuela in 1998, who is said to have been the primary instigator of the wave of leftist reform that has swept Latin America over the past decade. A year after being elected, Chávez oversaw the creation of an entirely new national constitution that provided for the comprehensive protection of human rights with special protection for traditionally marginalized groups such as women and Venezuela’s indigenous population, an overhaul of the national judicial system, a large expansion of the role of the state in the Venezuelan economy, and the establishment of a participatory national democracy. Chávez, who is probably best known on the international scene for his eccentric and incendiary style of public speaking and his overt criticisms of the United States, was included in 2005 and 2006 in Time magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential people. And, of course, Chávez has praised Che Guevara as a vital inspiration for socialist reform in Venezuela. In 2006, Chávez traveled with Cuban President and Guevara’s former revolutionary comrade, Fidel Castro, to visit Che’s childhood home in Alta Gracia, Argentina. He has also made publicized visits to memorials to Che in Cuba and Bolivia. But just how relevant is Che’s legacy to contemporary Latin American politics? Today, despite their myriad tributes to Guevara, the governments of Chávez, Morales, and Correa seem to have little in common with the man who fought to the death for the emancipation of the poor. Like Che, they all reject U.S. capitalism and support social reforms that benefit their nations’ impoverished and marginalized communities. But whereas Che’s main strategy for producing systemic change was that of armed warfare, Chávez, Morales, and Correa were all democratically elected, and the social changes they have overseen have occurred, for the most part, in peaceful fashion. Although coups have been attempted on all three presidents (Chávez in 2002, Morales in 2008, and Correa in 2010), massive popular uprisings in support of the presidents led to their swift restoration to office. Latin America as a whole has changed significantly since Che’s death. The civil wars and military dictatorships that fueled Che’s revolutionary fervor have largely subsided, making armed revolution redundant. In a recent interview, Correa stated, “Che was one of the greatest Latin Americans in history, but. . . .We believe it’s possible to bring about profound, radical, socialist change using current structures, democratic means.” So, although the Latin American Left’s renewed reverence of Che as an ideological inspiration for radical social change is more fitting than his apotheosis as anti-establishment symbol for the affluent youth of the western world, perhaps the true principles of Guevarismo are fading with the years. And, as consumer trends change far more rapidly than political structures, Che’s global celebrity as a pop culture icon will probably not persist for long. But as long as glaring social and economic inequalities exist, Che’s legend will likely continue to be called upon to inspire hope for a new, more just world.
¿Viva la
Revolución? El cambio social en Latinoamérica y el legado del Che
Más que 40 años después de su fallecimiento, Ernesto “Che” Guevara sigue siendo una de las figuras más famosas asociadas con la revolución social en América Latina. Guerrillero Heroico, la foto icónica sacada en 1960, ha perpetuado la memoria del héroe muerto en la cultura popular mundial. Pero no es ni el recuerdo de su misión de traer justicia social a los oprimidos ni su adherencia a prácticas violentas para lograrla que ha constituido la celebración colectiva y predominante de Che a lo largo de las últimas décadas. En realidad, a pesar de su crítica cáustica del consumismo y el capitalismo de los Estados Unidos, los ojos feroces y fijos del Guerrillero Heroico ahora miran el mundo desde innumerables remeras, tazas de café, carteles, bikinis, y aún bolsos de diseño. A menudo, la vida y las metas verdaderas del guerrillero subversivo son pocas más que leyendas para muchos de ellos que se ponen su imagen idealizada. Pese a la ironía de la ubicuidad actual de Che como una de las imágenes más comercializadas del mundo, la aparición reciente de varios movimientos políticos izquierdistas en Latinoamérica ha llevado al resurgimiento del apoyo del Guevarismo, tal vez indicando la resurrección de la lucha para una revolución latinoamericana a que Guevara dio su vida. Mientras Evo Morales, el Presidente de Bolivia, Rafael Correa, el Presidente de Ecuador, y Hugo Chávez, el Presidente de Venezuela, ejecutan políticas radicales de la reforma social en sus países y simultáneamente rinden homenaje a Che como una paradigma del cambio social, el carácter verdadero del legado del mártir revolucionario y la relevancia de sus creencias a la política actual de Latinoamérica merecen un examen. Históricamente, Che Guevara es más conocido por sus viajes proféticos por motocicleta a través de Latinoamérica en 1950-51 (detallados en el libro y la película Los Diarios de Motocicleta), su relación con el revolucionario comunista Fidel Castro, y su rol como un líder clave de la Revolución Cubana durante la década de los 1950. Las acciones de Guevara se fundamentaban en su visión de la revolución armada y guerrillera en cualquier país donde su líder recibía el apoyo de los Estados Unidos pero ya no de sus propios ciudadanos. Che creía que una vez que la revolución tuviera éxito en un país latinoamericano, el resto del continente seguiría. Después de la revolución, todos los ciudadanos se integrarían en una sociedad igualitaria basada en el trabajo. En la década de los 1960, Guevara salió de Cuba para conducir a intentos infructuosos de iniciar rebeliones parecidas a la Revolución Cubana en el Congo y Bolivia. En 1967, Che fue capturado y ejecutado por miembros de las Fuerzas Especiales bolivianas. Aunque son discutibles, las últimas palabras famosas de Che (“Sé que has venido para matarme. Dispara cobarde, que sólo vas a matar a un hombre!”) confirmaron su estatus como mártir de la Izquierda revolucionaria y como icono legendario de los movimientos contraculturales de los 1960.
En años recientes, los Presidentes Morales, Correa y Chávez han conmemorado públicamente a Guevara mientras avanzan reformas socialistas dentro de sus naciones respectivas. Morales, el líder del partido MAS (Movimiento Al Socialismo) elegido a la presidencia de Bolivia en 2005, también es una figura revolucionaria en vista de que es el primer Presidente indígena de Bolivia y desde su elección ha implementado políticas radicales de la redistribución de tierra entre uniones campesinas y la nacionalización de los recursos naturales del petróleo y el gas para promover el mejoramiento social y económico de las comunidades pobres e indígenas del país. Morales ha evocado el legado de Che varias veces a lo largo de su carrera política, diciendo en una ocasión que “El Che, después de 40 años, sigue siendo el símbolo de la liberación, el símbolo de la soberanía, la dignidad y -sobretodo- de justicia e igualdad.” Morales es el primer líder de alto nivel de Bolivia que ha rendido tributo a Guevara. Correa, el líder de la Alianza PAIS (Patria Altiva I Soberana) elegido a la presidencia de Ecuador en 2006, basó su campaña presidencial en las promesas de una “revolución ciudadana” y la reforma rápida y profunda de las instituciones políticas corruptas de la nación. Desde su elección, Correa ha introducido cambios económicos radicales a Ecuador, incluso la nacionalización del petróleo, el repudio de billones de dólares de deuda external que declaró ser ilegítima por ser procurado por el régimen despótico anterior, y el gasto de billones de dólares en proyectos sociales para reducir la pobreza. Como Morales, Correa ha hecho referencia a la influencia perdurable de Che en múltiples discursos durante su presidencia, llamándole un icono para la humanidad y también un símbolo para la revolución Ecuatoriana por sus sacrificios extremos para sus ideales. Correa ha declarado que el cambio social actualmente en proceso en Ecuador es no solamente una “revolución ciudadana” sino una “revolución Guevarista”. Aunque los Presidentes Morales y Correa han inducido cambios sociales significativos en Bolivia y Ecuador desde sus elecciones, es Hugo Chávez, elegido a la presidencia de Venezuela en 1998, que es el instigador principal de la oleada de reforma Izquierdista que se ha extendido por America Latina a lo largo de la década pasada. Un año después de su elección, Chávez supervisó la creación de una constitución nacional completamente nueva que provee para la protección comprehensiva de los derechos humanos con protección special para los grupos tradicionalmente marginalizados como las mujeres y la populación indígena venezolana, la revisión de la judicatura nacional, la expansión del rol del Estado en la economía venezolana, y el establecimiento de una democracia participativa nacional. Chávez, que probablemente es más conocido internacionalmente por su manera excéntrica y incendiaria de hablar en público y sus críticas abiertas de los Estados Unidos, fue incluido
en 2005 y 2006 en la lista de las cien personas más influyentes del mundo de la revista Time. Y, por supuesto, Chávez ha elogiado a Che Guevara como una inspiración crucial para la reforma socialista en Venezuela. En 2006, Chávez viajó a Alta Gracia, Argentina para visitar al hogar juvenil de Che con el Presidente Cubano y ex-camarada de Guevara, Fidel Castro. También ha hecho visitas públicas a los monumentos a Che en Cuba y Bolivia. Pero, ¿es relevante el legado de Che a las políticas contemporáneas de America Latino? Hoy en día, a pesar de sus tributos miríadas a Guevara, los gobiernos de Chávez, Morales y Correa no parecen muy comunes al hombre que luchaba hasta la muerte para la emancipación de los pobres de la tierra. Como Che, todos rechazan el capitalismo de los EE.UU. y apoyan reformas sociales que benefician a las comunidades pobres y marginalizadas de sus países. Sin embargo, mientras que la estrategia principal de Che para producir cambios sistémicos era la de la guerra armada, Chávez, Morales y Correa fueron elegidos democráticamente, y los cambios sociales que han inducidos ocurrieron, en mayor parte, en una manera pacífica. Aunque se han intentado hacer golpes del Estado en todos los tres países (Chávez en 2002, Morales en 2008, y Correa en 2010), revueltas populares masivas llevaron a la reinstauración rápida de los Presidentes. America Latina en general ha cambiado mucho desde la muerte de Che. Ahora, la posibilidad de la revolución armada es superflua, ya que las guerras civiles y dictaduras militares que estimulaban el fervor revolucionario de Che en gran parte han disminuidos. En una entrevista reciente, Correa declaró que Che “fue uno de los más grandes latinoamericanos de la historia” pero a su vez, “Esto es el socialismo del siglo XXI. Nosotros no creemos en la lucha de clases ni en el materialismo dialéctico. Creemos que se puede dar el cambio profundo, radical, socialista, utilizando las estructuras actuales, los medios democráticos.” Entonces, aunque la reverencia renovada para Che de la nueva izquierda latinoamericana como una inspiración ideológica para el cambio social radical es más apropiado que su apoteosis como un símbolo del inconformismo para la juventud rica del mundo occidental, quizás los principios verdaderos del Guevarismo se están desvaneciendo con los años. Y, porque las tendencias de consumo cambian mucho más rápido que las estructuras políticas, la celebridad global de Che como un icono de la cultura popular probablemente no durará mucho. Pero mientras que existen las enormes desigualdades socioeconómicas, es probable que la leyenda de Che seguirá siendo evocada para inspirar esperanza para un mundo nuevo y más justo.
Extravaganza|2011― 7
Color Revolutions A wave of popular demon former USSR and Balkan millennium; united by the nonviolent resistance.
Yugoslavia (2000), Georg (2003), Ukraine - Orange Kyrgyzstan - Tulip Revol
Canada - Quiet Revolution (1960s) A period of change in Quebec, Canada, during which a society was secularized and a welfare state was created.
USA - Election of the first black president (2008) Three years ago, Barrack Obama, the first black president of the United States, was elected.
Revolutions of 1989 The Polish public elected a new non-Comm government, on June 4th, a few hours after crackdown in Beijing. This change of gove off a wave of similar reforms in other easte pean nations such as Hungary and Czecho Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia (Velvet tion), Bulgaria, Romania
2011 Unrest Sparked by the self-immolation of a cabbage vendor, the revolution in Tunisia and following unrest in the Middle East took foreign observers and analysts by surprise. Tunisia (Jasmine Revolution), Egypt (overthrow of Mubarak), Libya (Civil War), Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Oman, Yemen
Democratic Republic of Co End of Belgian Rule (1960) The setting of Joseph Co The Heart of Darkness, t Congo finally achieved au my in 1960 after nearly a of foreign rule. Latin American Wars of Independence The early nineteenth century in Latin America was rife with wars of independence from colonial powers, most prominently, the Spanish Empire. In this period emerged iconic national heroes such as Simón Bolívar and José de San Martín. Venezuela (1811), Colombia (1819), Ecuador (1822), Argentina (1816), Uruguay (1828), Paraguay (1811), Chile (1818), Peru (1821), Bolivia (1809), Mexico (1810)
Zimbabwe (2008) Following a political turm hyperinflation in the yea a power sharing agreeme between Mugabe and Tsv
REVOLUTIONS AROUND THE WORLD
8 ― Extravaganza|2011
nstrations that swept n states in the new e common theme of
gia - Rose Revolution Revolution (2004), lution (2005)
munist r the violent ernment set ern Euroslovakia.
Singing Revolutions As Eastern Europe revolted against their Soviet masters, so did the Baltic nations under USSR control. On August 23, 1989, an approximately 2 million people wide human chain was formed across between the Baltic States in peaceful demonstration. Iran: election protests (2009) Following the Iranian general election of 2009 in which Ahmadinejad’s victory was disputed, the so-called Green Revolution erupted across major cities in Iran and across the globe. The color green was chosen as it was the campaign color of opposition candidate Mousavi. Tiananmen Square (1989) The notorious student uprising in Beijing, China that eventually led to the crackdown on June 4th, 1989.
Revolu-
Japan - Meiji Restoration 1868 The restoration of imperial power in Japan, and the acceleration of the industrialization of this once-feudal nation.
Thai coup d’état (2006) On September 19th, 2006, the Thai military staged a coup d’etat, removing the elected caretaker government of Thaksin Shinawatra from power. Partition of India (1947) On August 15th, 1947, the two states of India and Pakistan became free from British rule. Kashmir, which was not included in the partition plan, remains a significant source of conflict between the two newly formed nations.
ongo: ) onrad’s the utonocentury
Singapore - Expulsion from Malaysia (1965) Following racial tensions between the Chinese and Malay population in Malaysia, which then included Singapore, the Malaysian Parliament voted unanimously to expel Singapore from the federation. On August 9th, 1965, Singapore, became an independent nation.
moil and ars 2007-2008, ent negotiated vangirai.
South Africa - End of Apartheid (1994) On April 27th, 1994, South Africa held its first election with a universal adult suffrage, ending the Apartheid. Today, the date is celebrated as Freedom Day.
Burma - 8888 Uprising (1988) Occurring on the eight day of the eighth month of 1988, a series of important uprisings in which Aung San Suu Kyi emerged as a national icon threatened to topple the ruling military junta of Burma. The military took control in September and violently broke up protests.
Indonesia - Fall of Suharto (1998) Following the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997, cracks began to appear in Suharto’s 30 year rule of Indonesia. A student march that took place on May 12th became violent as four students were killed by uniformed men. The protests spread and riots became deadly, leading the resignation of General Suharto.
End of White Australia (1973) In 1973, the Australian government amended various laws that pertained to the racial aspects of immigration law. Two years later, the Racial Discrimination Act barred racial discrimination for any official purpose.
Extravaganza|2011― 9
Colored in My Brother’s Blood Multilingualism in the Age of Globalization
BY SHOAIB ALAM (CMC ‘12)
International Mother Language Day is a reminder of the contribution of language to human identity and a celebration the ethnolinguistic rights of all people. The date, February 21st, represents the Language Movement of 1952 in Pakistan where the government had designated one language, Urdu, as the national language. Had Urdu become the lingua franca, every literate Bengali in East Pakistan would have technically become illiterate. Bengalis watched helplessly as their mother tongue was exiled from their schools and their children were forced to speak a foreign language. They watched as Bengali disappeared from the currency they used to buy food and the stamps they used to send letters. In a final insult, they listened in disgust as they were ordered to adopt the Arabic alphabet as the script for their language. Given that there were more native speakers of Bengali in Pakistan at the time than any other language, this drive was instantly recognized for its true self: an orchestrated effort to change the identity of the Bengali people. On the morning of 21 February the student body of Dhaka University defied a ban on protests and approached the Legislative Assembly to ensure their voices for ethnic equality would be heard. After tear gas failed to deter the protesters, the police opened fire on the crowd killing several students on the spot. What began as a march by students turned into a national protest for the recognition of Bengali. At the university, students worked through the night to build the Shaheed Minar, a memorial on the spot where the roads had been “colored in their brothers’ blood.” This first makeshift memorial would be demolished by the police, only to be rebuilt permanently later as a symbol of their sacrifice. February 21st ignited Bengali nationalism, culminating in the recognition of Bengali as a state language alongside Urdu. It also contributed to the Bangladesh Liberation War that birthed a new nation the Bengali people call home. Today Bengali is the fifth most spoken language in the world—a reality that would not have been possible without the courage of young people. Unfortunately, as the world integrates in a new age of globalization, many unique languages are on the brink of extinction. According to UNESCO, fifty perfect of the world’s languages will die out in a matter of several generations. The Bengali Language Movement exemplifies a people’s fear of losing their identity, their history, and their way of life to forces beyond their control. It reminds us why it is important to strive to save the languages of the world so that people continue to speak the language they love and preserve their heritages that enrich our world. A commitment to the promotion of multilingualism and linguistic diversity through the preservation of endangered languages is essential to the continuation of human identity, even in the twenty first century.
সংগ্রাম
Extravaganza|2011 ― 10
আমার ভাইয়ের রক্তে রাঙ্গানো একুশে ফেব্রুয়ারীঃ ভাষার প্রাধান্ন প্রতি বছর ২১ ফেব্রুয়ারী আমাদের মনে করিয়ে দেয় মানুষের জীবনে ভাষার মূল্য। ১৯৫২ সালে পাকিস্তান সরকার উর্দু ভাষাকে জাতীয় ভাষা হিসেবে বেছে নায়ার চেষ্টা করে। যদি উর্দু পাকিস্তানের জাতীয় ভাষা হিসেবে স্বীকৃতি পেয়ে জেত তবে পূর্ব পাকিস্তানের বাঙ্গালিরা সবাই নিরক্ষর হয়ে পরত। সে সময় বাংলা ভাষাকে টাকা, স্ট্যাম্প ইত্তাদি থেকে উঠিয়ে দেওয়া হয়। নিজ অক্ষরে না লিখে আরবিতে লিখতে বলা হয় বাংলা ভাষা। ২১শে ফেব্রুয়ারীর সকালে ঢাকা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয় ছাত্ররা আইন ভঙ্গ করে বাংলার জন্য তাদের দাবি প্রকাশ করতে মিছিল করে। এক সময় পুলিশ তাদের থামাতে না পেরে তাদের উপর বন্দুক চালায়। মিছিলে অংশগ্রহণকারী বেশ কয়েকজন ছাত্র সে দিন মারা যায়। সে রাতেই বিশ্ববিদ্যালইয়ের ছাত্ররা শহীদ মিনার তইরি করে। ভাষা সৈনিকদের সৃতির সম্বরনে তয়রি এই শহীদ মিনার পুলিশ ভেঙ্গে দেয়। তবে ভাষা শইনিকদের সাহস মুছে দিতে পারেনি বাঙ্গালির মন থেকে। একুশের জন্যই বাঙালির একতা নতুন প্রান পায়। কিছু বছর পর, ১৯৭১ সালে বাঙালিরা নিজেদের দেশ স্বাধীন করতে সফল হয়। কম্পিউটারএর এই নতুন যুগে পৃথিবীতে অনেক কিছুই বদলে জাচ্ছে। মানুষের আদানপ্রদানের নতুন মাধ্যম তইরি হচ্ছে। এর মধ্যে মানুষ অনেক কিছু হারিয়েও ফেলছে।উনেস্ক অনিসারে পৃথিবীর ৫০ শতাংশ ভাষা আগামি কয়েক বছরের মধ্যেই চিরকালের জন্য শেষ হয়ে যাবে। একুশ থেকে আমরা শিক্তে পারি এক্তি জাতির কাছে ভাশার গুরুত্ব। মাতৃভাষার সাথে জরিয়ে থাকে মানুশের পরিচয় ও ইতিহাস। তাই পৃথিবীর সকল ভাষাকে রক্ষা করার দাইত্ত আমাদের সকলেরই।
Revolution from the Top in Thailand? BY VANESSA LEE
การปฏิวัติในประเทศไทยต้องมาจากเบื้องบน
Unlike in Great Britain, where gossip about the British monarchs is a regular feature of everyday life, Thailand is conspicuously devoid of any open discussion about its royal family. The lack of dialogue and unwillingness for reform by the monarchical and aristocratic class that backs the royal family has been criticized as negative to the country’s ongoing struggle to define itself as an open and democratic society. The present king of Thailand, His Majesty the King Bhumibol Adulyadej, is the world’s longest reigning monarch and the world’s longest serving head of state, having been on the throne for over 60 years. Widely revered and respected by the Thai people for his actions fighting poverty and scientific research, Thais affectionately call him “Father.” As wild capitalism, materialism and modernity have eroded aspects of Thai culture over the years, he remains the nostalgic embodiment of the country’s traditionally peaceful Buddhist society. The history of Thailand has been largely told through the lens of the Thai monarchy. The glorified deeds of kings and queens of Siam, such as repelling colonialism and unifying the country, are faithfully chronicled in Thai history textbooks with little mention of other actors such as civil society, students, farmers and laborers. But almost overnight in a bloodless coup d’etat in 1932, the political system of Thailand changed from an absolute monarchy to a parliamentary constitution when a group of Western educated military officers demanded King Prajadhipok, the current king’s relative, to abdicate his throne and reduce his function to a purely symbolic head of state. And yet today, King Bhumibol remains at the center of political struggles in Thailand. Although the constitution states otherwise, he wields great power with the rule of royal assent and royal pardon. He commands enormous moral authority to reprimand renegade Thai leaders of the country’s democratic experiments. In 1992, the king chastised an army chief officer and an opposition protest leader after a publicly condemned massacre of pro-democracy activists, ending the conflict and prompting reconciliation between the two camps. Since then, however, he has preferred to remain above civilian politics. While the king himself is well loved, his cohort of powerful interests backing his throne, including business tycoons and the Thai upper class, are reviled by the majority of the rural poor in Thailand for excluding them from social mobility in modern Thai society. The king has attempted to start a public discussion on his role as monarchy in 2005, but he and the royal family members continue to be protected by lèse-majesté laws which are among the strictest in the world. It prohibits criticism of the monarchy and any violation is severely punished by up to 15 years in jail. Today, foreign and Thai journalists alike opt to avoid writing any discontent related to the royal families. Recently, the King’s name has been invoked in the recent red shirt and yellow shirt political groups rivalry since 2006. The royalist military generals overthrew Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra in 2006 for corruption, tax evasion, populist policies which champion the poor as well as blasphemy against the king. Thaksin’s rising popularity and his growing web of cronyism was seen as a rival to the monarch’s and aristocrats interests. Although Thaksin supporters- the United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship or “red shirts”—proceeded to win subsequent elections, the People’s Alliance for Democracy (PAD) “yellow shirts” supporters have continually toppled elected red shirt leaders from power. The present ruling Democrat Party of Mr. Abhisit Vejajiva was widely backed by the military and yellow shirts. To show their solidarity with beloved monarch, the PAD purposely wear yellow attires at their mass rallies as yellow is the royal family’s official color. There is a general malaise across the country as King Bhumibol’s health has deteriorated in recent years. Without King Bhumibol’s moral authority and unifying force, an explosion of political violence could further plunge the country into a series of bloody power struggles between rival factions as the red shirts, who claim to represent the poor and disenfranchised, battle against the yellow shirts who claim to represent the aristocracy and middle class. Other countries have overcome dictatorial regimes and grown into thriving democracies through a parliamentary system. On the other hand, should Thailand solve political conflict by demonstration on the streets, it would be hard to achieve peaceful solution demanded by the poor. It is about time that Thailand’s monarchical and aristocratic class initiate a meaningful public dialogue about the reforms the country needs to become a more egalitarian society.
ในสหราชอาณาจักรการซุบซิบนินทาราชวงศ์เป็นเรื่องธรรมดาในชีวิตประจำ�วัน แต่ใน ประเทศไทยมีช่องว่างขนาดมหึมาที่คนไทยไม่สามารถพูดจาอย่างเปิดเผยเกี่ยวกับพระมหา กษัตริย์ การห้ามเสวนาหรือเปิดกว้างทางสังคมถูกมองในเชิงลบแก่ภาพลักษณ์ ของประเทศไทย ที่พยายามบอกแก่ชาวโลกว่าเป็นประเทศเสรีประชาธิปไตย พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวภูมิพลอดุลยเดช คือพระมหากษัตริย์ของไทยในปัจจุบันซึ่ง ครองราชย์ยาวนานที่สุดในโลกกว่า 60 ปี ทรงดำ�รงตำ�แหน่งประมุขแห่งรัฐ เป็นที่เคารพรักของ ปวงชนชาวไทยโดยชาวไทยมักจะเรียกพระองค์ว่า พ่อ ในขณะที่ลัทธิทุนนิยม วัตถุนิยม และ ความทันสมัยต่างๆ กำ�ลังทำ�ลายวัฒนธรรมไทยในหลายด้าน พระองค์กลับเป็นสัญลักษณ์ของ ประเพณีโบราณและศาสนาพุทธ ประวัติศาสตร์ของไทยถูกถ่ายทอดผ่านการปลูกฝังผ่านสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์มาโดย ตลอด ผลงานในประวัคิศาสตร์เช่นการนำ�ประเทศให้รอดพ้นการเป็นอาณานิคมในยุคล่า อาณานิคมและการสร้างประเทศให้เป็นปึกแผ่นถูกบันทึกโดยตำ�ราประวัติศาสตร์ว่าเป็นเพราะ พระปรีชาสามารถของพระองค์โดยมิได้คำ�นึงถึงปัจจัยอื่นๆ แต่ในปีพ.ศ. 2475 เกิดการปฏิวัติโดย กลุ่มผู้นำ�ทหารที่ได้รับการศึกษาจากประเทศตะวันตก ทำ�ให้ระบอบการปกครองของไทยเปลี่ยน จากระบอบสมบูรณาญาสิทธิราชมาเป็นระบอบรัฐสภาตั้งแต่นั้น ถึงแม้ว่ากษัตริย์ไทยจะอยู่ภายใต้รัฐธรรมนูญ พระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวยังเป็น ศูนย์กลางการแย่งชิงอำ�นาจทางการเมืองจากหลายฝ่าย พระองค์เป็นผู้นำ�กองทัพสูงสุดโดย ตำ�แหน่ง ทรงมีพระราชอำ�นาจให้ความเห็นชอบในการแต่งตั้งคณะรัฐมนตรีและการพระราชทาน อภัยโทษ พระราโชวาทที่ทรงตำ�หนิติเตียนผู้นำ�ทางการเมืองในช่วงแรกของระบอบประชาธิปไทย แบบไทยได้รับการนำ�ไปปฏิบัติอย่างไม่มีข้อโต้แย้งใดๆ ในปีพ.ศ. 2535 พระองค์สามารถไกล่ เกลี่ยให้หัวหน้ารัฐบาลและฝ่ายต่อต้านเพื่อยุติความรุนแรงได้ในพริบตา นอกจากนั้น เมื่อเกิด ความขัดแย้งระหว่าง กลุ่มเสื้อเหลืองกับกลุ่มเสื้อแดง พระองค์ถูกนำ�มาเกี่ยวข้องในความขัดแย้ง ครั้งนี้ด้วย นายกรัฐมนตรี ทักษิณ ชินวัตร ถูกรัฐประหารโดยผู้บัญชาการกองทัพบก โดยอ้างว่า รัฐบาลคอรัปชั่น หลบเลี่ยงภาษี ใช้นโยบายประชานิยม และหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพ แต่พรรค ไทยรักไทยซึ่งเป็นพรรคการเมืองที่สนับสนุนทักษิณกลับได้รับชัยชนะในการเลือกตั้งทั่วไปหลัง จากนั้น แต่ต่อมาถูกกลุ่มพันธมิตรเพื่อประชาธิปไทยหรือกลุ่มเสื้อเหลืองล้มรัฐบาลและจัดตั้ง รัฐบาลผสมโดยพรรคประชาธิปัตย์จนถึงปัจจุบัน กลุ่มเสื้อเหลืองซึ่งเทิดทูนสถาบันใช้สีเหลืองซึ่ง เป็นสีสถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ กษัตริย์ไทยมีกลุ่มผลประโยชน์ต่างๆ สนับสนุนอยู่เบื้องหลัง รวมถึงนักธุรกิจและชนชั้น สูงของไทย แต่ชาวชนบทส่วนใหญ่กลับไม่ได้รับการเหลียวแลให้มีความเท่าเทียมกันในสังคม อย่างไรก็ตาม สถาบันพระมหากษัตริย์ไทยมีกฎหมายป้องกันการหมิ่นพระบรมเดชานุภาพซึ่ง บังคับใช้อย่างเข้มงวดประเทศหนึ่งในโลก โดยกฎหมายนี้ ห้ามมิให้วิพากษ์วิจารณ์ราชวงศ์ในทาง ร้ายในทุกกรณี ผู้ใดฝ่าฝืนจะถูกลงโทษจำ�คุก 15 ปี ปัจจุบันสื่อมวลชนไทยและต่างประเทศจะงด การเสนอข่าวที่พาดพิงสถาบันเบื้องสูง ปัจจุบันมีสัญญานที่ไม่ดีนักเนื่องจากพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวทรงพระประชวรและ ต้องเสด็จฯไปประทับ ณ โรงพยาบาล ดังนั้น หากปราศจากพระบาทสมเด็จพระเจ้าอยู่หัวซึ่ง เป็นศูนย์รวมจิตใจและความสามัคคีของคนไทยแล้ว ความวุ่นวายทางการเมืองอาจระเบิดขึ้น ได้ทุกเวลา ดังจะเห็นได้จากความขัดแย้งระหว่างกลุ่มเสื้อแดง ซึ่งอ้างว่าเป็นตัวแทนคนยากจน และด้อยสิทธิ กับกลุ่มคนเสื้อเหลืองซึ่งอ้างว่าเป็นตัวแทนฝ่ายอำ�มาตย์หรือชนชั้นสูง ที่เกิดขึ้นใน ปัจจุบัน ประเทศอื่นเปลี่ยนแปลงระบอบการปกครองจากระบบเผด็จการไปสู่ระบอบประชาธิปไตย โดนผ่านระบบรัฐสภาเป็นส่วนใหญ่ แต่หากประเทศไทยยังใช้การเดินขบวนตามถนน การ เปลี่ยนแปลงต่างๆอย่างสันติคงไม่เกิดขึ้น ส่วนหนึ่งของปัญหาน่าจะเนื่องมาจากสังคมที่ยังมี ชนชั้น มีความไม่เท่าเทียมและการเลือกปฏิบัติอย่างกว้างขวาง และชนชั้นปกครองพยายาม ปิดปากชนชั้นรากหญ้าไม่ให้เรียกร้องการเปลี่ยนแปลงใดๆ ถึงเวลาแล้วที่สถาบันกษัตริย์และ ชนชั้นสูงของไทยต้องจริงใจยอมให้เกิดการเจรจาของทุกฝ่ายในการปฏิรูปเพื่อนำ�ไปสู่ระบอบ ประชาธิปไตยอย่างแท้จริง
การปฏิวัติ
Extravaganza|2011 ― 11
A Personal Story of the “Revolution” in China: The Detained Secretary Zhang BY WENDY QIAN (CMC ’13) China’s notorious internet surveillance and censorship exists primarily to thwart political dissidence among netizens. The government’s “management” measures have become harsher since the recent Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference and National People’s Congress needed a “clean discourse environment.” Another more important incident contributed to the tightened internet censorship. The nationwide pro-democracy “Jasmine Revolution” protest movement that happened on February 11th not only caused stricter “web management,” but also increased China’s security measures in urban areas. Even though most people present at designated protest sites consisted of curious onlookers rather than angry protesters, the government still heightened control online and off-the-net. Police and national security personnel preemptively arrested activists who had any tangential connection with the protest. According to the Chinese Human Rights Defenders’ report, the government detained 26 individuals, caused the disappearance of more than 30, and put more than 200 under soft detention. Among these detainees include people who I personally knew during my time in China. During 2009, I made some friends through a Chinese forum called “1984bbs.” Most of us had liberal inclinations and opposed the authoritarian regime. The forum limited access to users with invitation codes, a mechanism that kept the user numbers down to an unthreatening number. National security police thus granted more freedom for 1984bbs’ sensitive content than other Chinese forums. For a period of time, netizens in mainland China could access the forum without using proxy software to counter the “Great Fire Wall.” We savored our limited freedom to share dissident remarks, chatted about sociopolitical events, and read banned history books. The founder of the forum had a tongue-in-cheek username—Secretary Zhang. He worked as a white collar in the informational technology field. Although he and I did not frequently chat online, I admired his courage, perseverance and principles. Secretary Zhang’s internet persona is very excitable. He lambasted the government with the crudest language on Twitter and disagreed openly with other moderate reformists. Still, he never used his administrative power to silence any oppositional voice at the forum. Secretary Zhang firmly believed in democratic principles, such as the ones he posted on the forum’s heading: “According to the Civic Forum of Prague’s conversation rules, this website promotes conversation that seeks the truth, not conflict…; the debater should provide relevant evidence, distinguish between a conversation and a sermon, and try to understand each other’s points.” I met him twice over lunch and beer at 1984bbs’ offline Beijing get-togethers and he regarded me as an active student with great potential. Since people at these gatherings remained wary of government spies within forum users, we referred to each other by our usernames. Other precautionary methods included sharing event photos only within the group of people who attended. Looking back, these precautionary measures have proven necessary for netizens’ personal safety. The government has been arresting people based on “evidence” found on the internet, such as posting satirical comments on a Chinese Twitter (Weibo). Secretary Zhang, however, did not use these tactics since they would not have protected him. By registering and providing this sensitive forum, Secretary Zhang already gave the national security guards enough reasons to extract detailed information from official and nonofficial resources. As the government tightened internet control and 1984bbs increased its influence in June 2010, national security guards “invited” Secretary Zhang over for “tea,” a euphemism for improvised interrogation sessions. He did not give in to their request to delete anything they deemed “sensitive.” He lost his white collar job in August 2010 and was under house arrest in October. Secretary Zhang said that he did not mind facing national security guards alone, but they began to affect his family as well. He thus closed the forum out of state pressure in October. March 2011, both Secretary Zhang and another web manager of 1984bbs have been detained out of the preemptive national security concerns to contain the “Jasmine Revolution.” A month later, Secretary Zhang—whose real name is Jiannan Zhang—still has not been formally indicted. His wife “NBHH” (twitter.com/NBHH) worried over his situation and did not even know Zhang’s title of crime for a month. Only recently did she learn that the government detained Zhang for “assembling illegally.” Was he detained for assembling people to meet for “Jasmine Revolution,” or for assembling netizens to meet for lunch and beer? Both could be possible under the authoritarian government. I cannot speak for his opinions on the “Jasmine Revolution,” but I am certain that he envisions changes towards a freer society. Secretary Zhang wrote on the website after shutting it down: “The memories will be saved here. Remember the forum years from now as a place that gave you the courage to express your true thoughts, and find confidants you could not have found in your real life……The spring of freedom will come. Let us salute George Orwell’s timeless masterpiece 1984!” I pray for his as well as other activists’ personal safety from the other side of the Pacific Ocean. April 2011.
12 ― Extravaganza|2011
为了防止网民传播敏感的政治言论、信息，中国政府的网络监管与审查非常严格。近期，政府的管理措施越来越 严格，一方面是因为近期召开的“两会”，需要例行“净化舆论环境”；另一方面，二月有部分网民煽动了全国 各大城市的线下抗议活动“茉莉花革命”，也是造成当局审查更加严厉的另一重要原因。 尽管抗议时的在场人员大部分都是看热闹的旁观者，政府当局仍然非常紧张，线上线下两头抓。国家安保人员与 警察预防性地逮捕了许多敏感人物。根据维权组织维权网的报告，现在至少有18名中国政治活动家因为涉嫌组 织“茉莉花革命” 抗议活动被刑拘。政府同时也预防性地拘留了一些没有直接参与组织抗议活动的敏感人物， 其中包括我认识的两个人——“张书记”与“库存袈裟”。 2009年，我在1984bbs论坛上认识了一些志同道合的朋友。我们反对现存的极权专制，同时也希望有朝一日能看 到政府实现自由民主化。论坛的内容不对公众开放，用户以相互邀请形式加入注册，论坛管理员得以有效控制访 问量。在中国国家安保部门的默许下，我们在这个论坛里分享、讨论相当敏感的历史与政治话题，同时论坛也没 有被封禁。 论坛的开创者叫“张书记”，是一个IT从业者。尽管我和他在网上不常聊天，我仍非常佩服他的勇气、坚持与原 则意识。“张书记”在网上好辩而激进，常常破口大骂当前执政者，且不认同温和改革派对时政的看法。他常常 与不相识的网友辩论、争吵。尽管“张书记”的观点强硬，他坚持自己所信奉的民主原则，很少因为意识形态不 同之类的政治原因而对他的论敌删帖。他也是在履行自己为论坛制定的议事规则：“根据布拉格公民论坛《对 话守则》，本 网站主张对话 的目的是寻求 真理，不是为 了斗争；不做 人身攻击；保 持主题；辩论 时要用证据； 要分清对话与 只准自己讲话 的区别；尽量 理解对方。” 即便有时会 有“高级五 毛”潜入论坛 搅混水，或是 有闹事者故意 挑起网络口水 大战，他对他 们行使版主权 力、删除不当 言论或进行处 罚时也非常慎 重。 1984bbs以前 会。我有幸得 在北京有两 中我年龄最 因此对我印象 我积极好学。 很警惕潜伏的 警察，所以我 呼彼此，聚会 只限小范围流 上微乎其微的 能成为当局抓 ，也说明当 段的必要性。 当时并没有像 讳；因为他注 一个敏感的论 保有足够的理 侦查张书记的
会举行线下聚 以与“书记” 面之缘。聚会 小，“书记” 比较深，觉得 聚会中大家都 网民中的便衣 们都用网名称 中的照片也都 传。现在，网 言论与记录都 人的“证据” 时这种保护手 可是，张书记 其他人那样忌 册1984bbs这样 坛，已经让国 由与底气肆意 信息。
随着1984bbs影 响越来越大， 从2010年6月3 日开始，国保 三番两次请张 书记“喝茶” 。起初，书记没有答应他们删除论坛中“敏感内容”的要求。然而，张书记8月“被”失职，10月起被软禁家 中。“张书记”并不在乎国保骚扰他自己，但作为一个有家庭的人，他不想因此给家人带来麻烦。10月中旬，“ 张书记”不得不关闭1984bbs。 今年3月，政府国保部门为预防 “茉莉花革命”持续扩散，刑拘了张书记与另一位1984bbs前网管“库存袈裟” 。一个月后，“张书记”没有正式被逮捕。他的妻子“NBHH”(http://www.twitter.com/NBHH)在Twitter上担忧 了一个多月都不晓得他被刑拘的理由。最近她才得知，政府是以“非法集会”的罪名逮捕的张书记；是针对他召 集人们参加“茉莉花革命”，还是翻旧账翻到了当年召集网民参加的1984bbs饭局？二者皆有可能。 我不知道“张书记”和“库存袈裟”对“茉莉花革命”的具体态度与观点，但我确信他们希望看到一个更自由的 社会。张书记曾在论坛关闭后的页面上，写下过这样一段话： “在一起的好时光会留在记忆里，若干年后你还能想起，曾有这样一个地方让你既有勇气表达自己的真实所想， 又能找到现实生活中无法找到的思想知己。自由的春天会来的。最后向乔治•奥威尔的传世名作《一九八四》致 敬！” 我在太平洋彼岸为“书记”、“袈裟”以及其他政治活动家的人身安全祈福。 2011年4月
革命
Extravaganza|2011 ― 13
Extreme Violence in Cinema: Salò or the 120 Days of Sodom BY RODRIGO RANERO (PO ‘14)
Today’s society is constantly exposed to representations of violence in cinema that seek to entertain through images that have become more and more explicit, yet it is strange to find a truly interesting proposal that inspires the viewer to reflect on the nature of this violence and the reach of human depravity. Nevertheless, there are some directors who have sought to ask these complicated questions through their work. One Italian, who changed the rules on what is permitted to show on the cinema screen, stands out among them: Pier Paolo Pasolini. This versatile poet and director from Bologna surprised the entire world in 1976 with his controversial masterpiece, whose force to scandalize remains intact: Salò or the 120 Days of Sodom. This legendary film draws the vilest of criticisms and the most enthusiastic of praises. The plot of the film is truly disquieting, based on the novel of the Marquis de Sade: during the fascist reign of the 1940s in Italy, four powerful men kidnap nine teenage boys and nine girls, in order to take them to a villa where they will enjoy most nefarious pleasures known to man. The sirs are accompanied by four old prostitutes: three of them spend the time telling morbid stories of the perversions of their clients, with the purpose of arousing the hosts and their victims—a fourth one enlivens the stories by playing the piano. The film is divided according to a structure which evokes Dante’s Inferno and starts with a segment called the “Antinferno,” where the icy selection process of the youths is seen, followed by three “Circles” in the mansion: “The Circle of Manias,” “The Circle of Feces,” and “The Circle of Blood.” Each of these episodes is characterized by scene after scene of perverse abuses that depict the dark vision of Pasolini on the malevolence of absolute power and on the deterioration of the human condition under the fascist regime. It is difficult to explain the multitude of feelings that the viewer experiences while watching all these unforgettable and shocking sequences: How does one explain the nuptial banquet scene, where the main course is composed of feces? (It is interesting to note that Pasolini explained later that he wished this scene to be a metaphor of the expansion of fast food chains worldwide.) Or how to describe each of the eloquently told depravities of the whores dressed in classy outfits? And the macabre contest to choose the most perfect derriere among the youngsters? How to justify the final sequence, where one observes successive killings and tortures through a window, while two guards calmly dance to a piece of music? There are so many similar scenes in the film, that the opinion of many that consider the movie “simple filth” whose only objective remains to provoke repulsion without true reason seems justifiable. Salò is not infrequently called the most disgusting film in history without reason. But I do not agree with this point of view. Without doubt, Salò is a hard film to watch and it is debatable whether it offers any entertainment at all. In fact, I would not recommend the movie to anyone who hadn’t seen similar material already. But the film inspires much reflection due to its extreme violence—this is why I consider it a revolutionary work of art in cinema’s history. It is impossible not to wonder about evil after experiencing Salò. For example, it seems fascinating to realize that a scene reminds one vividly of the Abu Ghraib prison pictures of 2004. Don’t acts like these and all the accounts of torture and repression under bloody regimes confirm that Pasolini’s vision, although extreme, might also be fundamentally based in reality? That is why Pasolini’s preoccupations should be analyzed profoundly if one seeks to understand the root and the continuity of evil. It is truly fortunate to be able to observe the work of artists brave enough to present an opinion without any sort of censorship. Unfortunately, Pasolini asks a lot and offers few answers, and we will never know his arguments completely. He was murdered under still mysterious circumstances few months after the premiere of Salò. Nevertheless, the artistic merit of the film remains a topic worthy of debate, since its relevance seems to increase, not fade away, with the passing of time.
La società di oggi è esposta costantemente a delle representazioni di violenza nel cinema que che tentano di far divertire mediante immagini ogni volta più esplicite, ma è arduo trovare una propostache sia veramente interessante e che allo stesso tempo porti lo spettatore a riflettere sulla natura di questa violenza e sulla portata della depravazione umana. Ciò nonostante, ci sono alcuni registi che hanno cercato di affrontare queste tematiche complicate attraverso il loro lavoro. Tra questi risalta un italiano che cambiò le norme di ciò che e’ consentito esibire sullo schermo: Pier Paolo Pasolini. Questo versatile poeta e regista di Bologna, nel 1976 sorprese tutto il mondo con il suo polemico capolavoro intitolato: “Salò o le 120 Giornate di Sodoma”. La sua grande forza di scandalizzarerimane tuttora intatta. Tanto che questo leggendario film, insieme a gli elogi più entusiastici, ancora risveglia le critiche più vili ed aspre. La trama del film è veramente inquietante, basata sul romanzo del Marchese di Sade: durante il regno fascista degli anni quaranta in Italia, quattro uomini potenti sequestrano nove ragazzi e nove ragazze, allo scopo di portarli in una villa dove si diletteranno con i piaceri più nefandi mai conosciuti dall’uomo. I signori sono accompagnati da quattro vecchie prostitute: tre di queste trascorrono il tempo raccontando le storie morbose delle perversioni dei loro clienti, con il proposito di eccitare gli ospiti e le loro vittime, mentre la quarta donna ravviva e tenta di estetizzare i racconti suonando il pianoforte. Il film è diviso in quattro parti secondo una struttura che evoca quella dell’inferno di Dante e che comincia con un segmento chiamato “L’Antinferno”, durante il quale si osserva il processo gelido di selezione dei ragazzi, seguito poi dai tre “Gironi” all’interno palazzo: “Il Girone delle Manie”, “Il Girone della Merda” e infine “Il Girone del Sangue”. Ognuno di questi episodi è caratterizzato, da un susseguirsi, scena dopo scena di abusi perversi (tanto eterossesuali quanto omosessuali) che dipingono la visione oscura di Pasolini sulla malevolenza del potere assoluto e sul deterioramento della condizione umana sotto il regime fascista. È molto difficile cercare di descrivere la folla di sentimenti che sperimenta lo spetattore quando viene esposto a tutte queste sequenze indimenticabili e scioccanti. Come spiegare la scena del banchetto nuziale, dove il piatto principale è composto da feci? (È interessante notare quanto Pasolini spiegò più tardi ossia che voleva che questa scena fosse una metafora per rappresentare l’ espansione del fast food nel mondo). O ancora come descrivere ognuna delle depravazioni eloquentemente raccontate dalle puttane vestite con eleganti abiti? E il macabro concorso per scegliere il deretano più bello’ tra i ragazzi? Come giustificare la sequenza finale, dove due guardie ballano tranquillamente su un pezzo di musica mentre contemporaneamente, attraverso una finestra si assiste ad una tremenda sequenza di uccisioni e torture? Esistono tante scene simili nel film, tanto che pare giustificabile la opinione di molti i quali considerano il film ‘una semplice porcheria’, il cui obiettivo rimane soltanto quello di suscitare repulsione senza vera ragione. Non per niente “Salò” è stato spesso definito il film più disgustoso nella storia del cinema. Tuttavia io non sono d’accordo con questo punto di vista. Senza dubio, “Salò” è un film difficile ed è discutibile il fatto che questa pellicola fornisce sia veramente di intrattenimento. Per questa ragione, non raccomanderei il film a nessuno che non avesse visto prima altri film simili. Per quanto controversa, la visione di questo lavoro Pasoliniano provoca un’intensa riflessione e perciò lo lo ritengo un’opera d’arte rivoluzionaria nella storia del cinema. E’ impossibile non interrogarsi sul male dopo aver sperimentato la violenza di “Salò”. Sembra affascinante per esempio, che una scena ricordi vividamente le fotorafie degli abusi nel carcere di Abu Ghraib nel 2004. Non confermano atti come questo che la visione di Pasolini, anche se un po’ estrema, potrebbe essere estremamente realista? E tutti i racconti di tortura e repressione sotto regimi sanguinari in tutto il mondo? Perciò, le preoccupazioni di Pasolini devono essere analizzate profondamente se si cerca di capire l’origine e la perpetuità del male. È veramente una grande fortuna potere osservare il lavoro di artisti che hanno il coraggio di presentare una propria opinione senza alcuna censura. Sfortunatamente, Pasolini molto pone molte domande, ma non offre tutte le risposte, e mai potremo sapere la completezza dei suoi argomenti. Egli fu ucciso in circonstanze ancora misteriose pochi mesi dopo avere presentato “Salò”. Tuttavia, il merito artistico del film rimane un tema degno di dibattito ancora oggi, perche la sua rilevanza sembra crescere, anziché diminuire, durante il corso del tempo.
RIVOLUZIONE 14 ― Extravaganza|2011
Extravaganza is a multilingual magazine dedicated to recognizing the diverse community within the Claremont Colleges. There are more than 70 foreign countries represented in our small community, many with distinct customs, languages, and traditions. Let us immerse YOU into the vast and various cultures that the Claremont Colleges have to offer! Here’s a taste of Claremont’s diversity....
Letter From the President
EDITORIAL BOARD
We at the Extravaganza attempt to immerse you in culture and through this edition we bring you a theme that resonates with the spirit of our times. This brainchild of our newest Editor-in-Chief, Alan Hu, evoked great enthusiasm from our Language Editors and we hope their thoughts transmitted the same to you. We included two new languages, Bengali and Thai, this semester in our endeavor to open new windows to the world.
PRESIDENT Rachit Khaitan (CMC ’13)
My gratitude goes out to all the Language Editors for their invaluable contribution, our Design Editor, Iris Jong, who diligently compiled the layout with an eye-catching design sitting across the world, and finally our Editor-in-Chief who patiently and meticulously orchestrated the coming together of the Spring Edition.
LANGUAGE EDITORS
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Alan Hu (CMC ’13) DESIGN EDITOR Iris Jong (PO ’12)
CHINESE Wendy Qian (CMC ’13)
We hope you continue to patronize the Extravaganza as we continue to bring the world to your doorstep.
BENGALI Shoaib Alam (CMC ‘12)
Rachit Khaitan
ITALIAN Rodrigo Ranero (PO ’14)
If you’re familiar with a foreign language and enjoy writing, why not be a writer for Extravaganza? Don’t worry if you’re not completely fluent--our goal is to get people to enjoy writing in different languages outside of the classroom and share their talent with the community of the Claremont Colleges! Are you a fluent in a language other than English? Be a language editor for Extravaganza! Email extravaganza.5c@gmail.com for more information.
RUSSIAN Igor Tischenko (CMC ’13) SPANISH Courtney Miller (PO ‘12) THAI Vanessa Lee
Read Extravaganza online in color! Visit http://iplace.claremont.edu/main/news.php Extravaganza|2011 ― 15
Extravaganza