Closure on Balaguer

[Rick Snyder]

Bilijou said;

?Dominican textbooks miss this point? (concerning objectivity in learning and teaching)

?In most countries (especially first world) Historians, Intellectuals and other members of the academia reach a consensus, an evaluation of the past to serve us for the future (that?s what they?re there for). This doesn?t happen in DR. The trajectory of the intellectual class is a sad case in DR, from Duarte to the exodus of intellectuals during Trujillo to the kids in the UASD in the 70?s. The absence of a consensus (and a depoliticized intellectual class altogether) is reflected in how the history textbooks are anything but objective. You should read some of them.?

These were made in post #111 and are very true to the situation as it stands in the DR in the schools prior to the university level. I have no experience in the university level of the schools here but using the schools below that level as a guide post would almost assure me that the teaching technique doesn?t change.

Nal?s you failed to comment on that post by Bilijou and then you come out with your post #117 with some off the wall statements about the disposition of the Dominican people. It becomes very apparent to me that he knows more about what is and isn?t taught in the school system here in the DR then what you do.

Rick

 

[bilijou]

BTW, I will NOT debate my viewpoint. It's simply one more viewpoint that everyone is entitle to read and agree with what they agree and disagree with what they disagree. But, I will NOT debate my viewpoint.

As usual, everything you say lacks substance. If you?re only here to criticize?
I?ll let others be the judge.

In other words, Joel Pacheco (and to a certain extent me too) wishes to apply the basic concept of DEMOCRACY to the judgement of a political figure who was and continues to be many things to many people.
?mental capability of the masses and is to use the perceived elitist notion that the masses are incapable of thinking for themselves (and thus ruling themselves) in order to manipulate their thoughts to acheive an objective that will benefit the few. In this case, it would benefit bilijou's intentions, whatever they may be.

Democracy! Bilijou is against democracy!
How easy does my insecure little friend cry out for Democracy!

He asks us to apply the BASIC CONCEPT of Democracy.

Democracy: government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.​

The cornerstone of Democracy isn?t Free speech; free speech is enforced for free elections (fair representation is the basic concept Democracy). OBVIOUSLY, everybody should be allowed to read whichever book they please (who says otherwise?). Unfortunately, not only most kids in school, but most Dominicans aren?t interested in reading 300 versions of the same event as we are. As much as we hate it, this is the reality and as a result, ONE version/interpretation of history is presented to Dominicans in textbooks.

We have agreed that the Dominican problem is cultural. I can assure you, there is not one country in the World which hasn?t addressed culture, whether through textbooks or state sponsored television movie. DR is no exception. Culture keeps the machine running smoothly, whether the machine is Democracy or Dictatorship. If most of you here are so knowledgable about Dominican History, there shouldn?t be any doubt that Trujillo and Balaguer tampered with history books to manipulate culture to their convenience. For those living in the US, you would notice that the culture is well attuned to Democracy. In DR, we see 8/10 people asking for, not Democracy, but a iron-fist. Some outright say they want the return of Trujillo.
There is obviously a cultural impediment to the road to Democracy (in my opinion we aren?t even in the right road).

It has to do with values. How a society prioritizes certain ideals over others.
In my past posts I was asking for Dominican history to be more OBJECTIVE. If History is truly to serve as a guide for societies, then in what direction should the guide take us?
In other words, what ideals should we prioritize?
I say, DEMOCRACY and ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

The question is simple: Should Democracy be taught at an early age or should we ?let people decide??
Or shall I ask, is Democracy naturally occurring in societies or should it be pushed?

People here are crying out that prioritizing Democracy would be undemocratic because it?s pushing only one point of view. I say, there are already other ideals being pushed over Democracy.

Balaguer was probably elected once out his many, many years in power. His elections were anything but fair. He failed at NALs' Democracy. Alright, he?s not ?pure evil? but the many planned assassinations he committed keeps me from saying he is a good man (I don't see how he can be compared to the PRD in anyway). How can we go on the path towards Democracy, when this man is considered a MODEL for all Dominicans?

What does this the need for an ironfist tells me about Dominicans? That till this day, we still prioritize something else OVER Democracy. The same thing Balaguer pushed down our throat to explain the "curve". The cornerstone of the Trujillo regime: ORDER, ORDER, ORDER.

 

[A.Hidalgo]

ORDER,ORDER,ORDER and the trains run on time.

Bilijou talks about assasinations and that leads me to bring up the name of Narciso Gonzalez. I'm not going into a lot details about him. Suffice is to say that he was a critic of the government of Balaguer and was taken by the security forces in May 26, 1994 and "disappearded". His case was taken up by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and that case is ongoing. That case has been on the docket for over 8 years and who knows what the ultimate report will be.

Dominican democracy was truncated since the coup against Bosch and in the subsequent administrations of Balaguer. Fraud was his ace and reliable friend. To build a fair and just democracy in the DR the country must question itself about its past. If a democracy compromises its ideals it is bound for endemic corruption.

Appeal for action - DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Dr Narciso Gonz?lez - Amnesty International

Dominican Republic 11.324

 

[NALs]

Democracy! Bilijou is against democracy!
How easy does my insecure little friend cry out for Democracy!

Never did I say you were against democracy.

However, I did said that your.. in fact, I'll quote my own post:

In other words, Joel Pacheco (and to a certain extent me too) wishes to apply the basic concept of DEMOCRACY to the judgement of a political figure who was and continues to be many things to many people.

Interesting how bilijou's suggestion seems so undemocratic in nature.

Now, what does all of that means? The following:

1. One of the most basic concepts of Democracy is the perception of FREEDOM, whether it's in the electoral process or in expressing ideas. The FREEDOM to show both sides of the story and come to the realization that both sides are accepted by different members of a society.

2. Can you please quote where I said bilijou was against democracy? At the very most, I mentioned "seems so undemocratic in nature". I did not said bilijou IS undemocratic nor did I said bilijou WISHES to be undemocratic.

All I said was that it seems undemocratic.

Now think about this for a moment, if it seemed undemocratic to me then it's obvious that there are other people to whom your statements may seem undemocratic. It does not mean they are democratic, but appear to be that way.

Your role was to explain whether or not your statement were truly undemocratic in nature rather than going on a rampage of discussing how democracy should be implemented or the lack of such.

Don't make things harder than they ought to be.

Unfortunately, not only most kids in school, but most Dominicans aren?t interested in reading 300 versions of the same event as we are. As much as we hate it, this is the reality and as a result, ONE version/interpretation of history is presented to Dominicans in textbooks.

300 versions is something few people will be inclined to read. However, two generalized versions that clearly depict the complete opposite aspects of seeing the same incident is feasible.

This need not take two separate textbooks based on two contraditory agendas, but rather one explaning both sides of the coins in a manner that neither of the two are given priority over the other.

We have agreed that the Dominican problem is cultural. ...For those living in the US, you would notice that the culture is well attuned to Democracy. In DR, we see 8/10 people asking for, not Democracy, but a iron-fist. Some outright say they want the return of Trujillo.
There is obviously a cultural impediment to the road to Democracy (in my opinion we aren?t even in the right road).

I have not agreed that the problem in the DR is cultural. I believe culture is a PART of the problem, but there is more to this than meets the eye.

You are comparing the United States with the DR, apples to oranges if you ask me.

US: Very strong state with near complete control over it's population, has complete authority and such authority is adhered by all members of the population, and is a nation that is almost completely modern and fully acceptance of modernity is widespread.

DR: Very weak state with control over some of it's population and territory, has authority that is challenged by certain members of society, and is a nation that simultaneously accepts and rejects variuos aspects of modernity and traditional and at times attempts to blend the two while hoping that the result will be similar to that of fully modern states such as the U.S.

Why would the US culture be more attuned to democracy vs. DR's towards iron hand?

It's all about order (as you said), nothing more nothing less. The process towards modernity is a messy ordeal which leads towards displacement of various members of society, marginalization, the erosion of traditional beliefs and ideas. All of these processes which are part of modernizing causes developing states such as the DR to yearn for iron fist rule which ensures order, civility, and a sense of direction instead of what they perceive lack of control, direction, and norms that they feel democracy throws at them.

People like stability, any instability is rejected and people want such instability to be eliminated as quickly as possible which ever means would deliver such desire.

All third world states have gone through moments of military rule and many through dictatorial rule. During those times there was a serious degradation of freedoms, but that was in conjunction with order, stability, and predictability. People knew what they could and could not do, how to do what, when to do what, etc.

In a democracy system, the entire society seems chaotic and undiscipline. People feel the politicians are all weak unable to cope with the problems facing society, they see no direction, no set rules, no control, no stability. It's a system where anyone does what they want and the weak are left to fend for themselves. It's seen as a system of anarchy, confusion, instability.

That is the difference between a first world state vs a third world state.

A first world state has full control and authority over its people and territory and is strong at the same time. A third world state is weak, fails to have full control and authority over its people and territory and when a system that is more attune to an advanced society is imposed on a backward society, the instant unfamiliarity and instability and chaos and lack of direction leads many to prefer the older iron fist rule which at the very least guaranteed them a sense of direction and stability and order that democracy in the third world often fails to deliver. At the very least, that is the perception.

The question is simple: Should Democracy be taught at an early age or should we ?let people decide??
Or shall I ask, is Democracy naturally occurring in societies or should it be pushed?

Democracy naturally occurs in societies that have iron fist regimes which are oriented towards development and progress. As a society becomes richer, such society becomes more democratic as time passes, mostly by the will of the growing middle class.

HOWEVER, most democracies in the Third World were imposed from the outside, from the top down. Most "democracies" were imposed by western backed elites who (because they failed to bargain with their subjected population over such transition) they were the only one's with knowledge of how the system works and were able to exploit the system for their own benefit and to the detriment of the masses who were never taken into consideration while such "democracy" was being imposed by force!

The best democracies are those that started from the bottom up, however the DR and most third world democracies were imposed from the top down and surprise surprise, the top benefits greatly to the detriment of those below.

At its most basic principle, we should let people simply decide what they want. Afterall, they are the one's who will reap either the consequences of a system imposed onto them. Let them choose what they want and then, deliver!

-NALs

 

[Rick Snyder]

Very good, I?m beginning to see a little light at the end of the tunnel now. It was so difficult grouping around there in the dark.

I presume that we are of a consensus that democracy is the direction that we all desire the DR to continue to take on its path through history. Maybe a little iron fistedness from time to time but democratic none the less. Of course the statement --?they were the only one's with knowledge of how the system works and were able to exploit the system for their own benefit and to the detriment of the masses who were never taken into consideration while such "democracy" was being imposed by force!? ? that Nal?s made makes me wonder to a certain extent as to how he truly feels about democracy. I take exception to the supposed innuendo that the US forced democracy on anyone. I won?t get into a debate concerning this subject but wanted my opinion on this matter to be on record. I also wish to state to Nal?s that in my opinion any discussion concerning democracy you are just a bystander looking in.

Democracy is a funny animal and to a lot of you it is just a word for a type of government and a lot of those that grew up in said government have a tendency to take the things that it represents for granted and there is nothing wrong with that. In the same token if a dictatorship is all you know then I can understand your tendency to take that for granted and reluctance to change to something different. The unknown can be such a scary thing at times.

I personally like a democracy over some of the other types of governments that I have witnessed. Unlike a lot of you I have had first hand experience with some other forms of government in my life. This isn?t a case of bragging it?s just a fact of serving 22 years in the military from 1968 to 1990 and the places that my government sent me in that time frame. I like a lot of you have studied a lot of world history but the fortunate or unfortunate experience of living it is a much better teacher. I use my past experiences in my determination that democracy is the way to go and is the better form of government.

The main thing I like about democracy is the freedoms that go along with it. For me that is the driving factor for having said government. It is due to those instilled freedoms that allow people from a democracy to organize and give them the availability to change their lot in life. The availability of us to talk amongst ourselves in person or on the net about how much of an idiot so-and-so is or was is something we take for granted. If you talk to those Dominicans that were born before 1950 and ask them how often they sat down and talked with their acquaintances about their leaders when they were young then you begin to get the idea as to how things were and the constant fear that a lot of people lived under. Because you didn?t live it you will never fully understand the significance of that era even though you think you understand.

The US with their beginning as a republic and forming a democracy has had many years of experience with its government and through those years a lot of blood has been shed in order to keep that democracy alive. It is through that blood letting that has allowed the US to take pride in itself and has given us a number of national heroes and our flag to rally behind and has helped us to become the strength that we are.

The DR is new to the democracy game and as such they have no idea as to what to do with it. The DR is afforded all the freedoms that I as an American enjoy in my US. The problem lies in the fact that the Dominicans have lived so long under the likes of their former leaders that there is still an amount of fear out there. They aren?t taught organized pacific demonstrations can bring about positive results. They aren?t taught that organized political rallies can bring positive change in the political system. They aren?t taught that with what little money they have they can control their local economy. They aren?t taught that they in fact bring change about by getting involved. They have lived so long under a fatalistic viewpoint that they know nothing else and honestly believe that nothing they do will change the way things are and always have been.

Because of the past history of the DR and the fact that democracy is so new it is possible that if there were an erosion of these new found freedoms that are presently in place that some Dominicans might rebel against those that wish to take those freedoms away and some blood might be shed in the name of democracy. I would hope that they never have to go that route but it might be inevitable.

Which brings us to the question as to how the DR as a whole can prosper in a democratic state without having to go through periods of bloodletting? The answer is through education of its people. The problem with that is that the Dominicans think that only the elite Dominicans have the control over education and are therefore the only ones that can change the system.

There is that perpetual circle again, education or lack thereof and the fatalistic viewpoint. Which gives credence to the statement by Nal?s where he said, ?At its most basic principle, we should let people simply decide what they want." Of course I think a little education would go a long way in helping them reach that decision.

Rick

 

[bilijou]

?Democracy before Order? or ?Order before Democracy?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

[A.Hidalgo]

?Democracy before Order? or ?Order before Democracy?

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

Unfortunately Dominicans will go for the second choice.

 

[A.Hidalgo]

Sorry for double post.

No problem, that's why I'm here.

THE MODERATOR ,,,,,,,,Hehehehe

 

[y0maris]

page 7

Wow, so i know this quite old, and I'm going off of the dialogue on page 7, but my inquirement is towards DR1.com being all about censorship? Race can't be discussed on this messageboard? Are my people that much in denial in that they refuse to let others speak out about what's already apparent within the ignorant, screwed up mindset of our people? RACE is and has always been an issue between Dominicans. You can BLAME that on the brainwashings of Balaguer y Trujillo. Some people can't help but follow that repugnantly ignorant frame of mind that's been passed down from their abuelos and greats. And then you have censorship on sites like this one of pawns sadly attempting to sweep the secret back under the rug when the secret has already been let out ALREADY. Face the truth and get with it. Enough already, the ignorance has got me tired.

 

[NALs]

Wow, so i know this quite old, and I'm going off of the dialogue on page 7, but my inquirement is towards DR1.com being all about censorship? Race can't be discussed on this messageboard? Are my people that much in denial in that they refuse to let others speak out about what's already apparent within the ignorant, screwed up mindset of our people? RACE is and has always been an issue between Dominicans. You can BLAME that on the brainwashings of Balaguer y Trujillo. Some people can't help but follow that repugnantly ignorant frame of mind that's been passed down from their abuelos and greats. And then you have censorship on sites like this one of pawns sadly attempting to sweep the secret back under the rug when the secret has already been let out ALREADY. Face the truth and get with it. Enough already, the ignorance has got me tired.

1. This is a board mostly controlled by foreigners and geared towards foreigners, so the decision to not allow race discussions have more to do with the degenerate nature of those discussion which almost always end in personal attacks. Go ahead and make a search, there are plenty of threads that covers the race issue in the archives.

2. You are simply wrong. First of all, the vast majority of Dominicans are not even race-conscious. The concept of race doesn't exist in the DR. Dominicans are very color conscious, but race simply doesn't exist. In fact, in countries where the concept of race doesn't exist (think the DR, Brazil, Cuba, etc); those countries tend to be more color conscious. In such societies, being white, black, or mixed is not often based on race - because it doesn't exist in such societies - but on color and physical appearance. That is why its perfectly fine in such societies for one person to refer to himself as white, while his brother may refer himself as black or moreno, his mother may be trigue?a, and his father may be a jabao.

In societies where race is real (like the U.S.) and the demarcation of who is what is based on a single drop of blood, where the race that is perceived to be inferior gains all mixed blood individuals; such concept of having blacks, whites, and whatever in the same family is incomprehensible. In such societies, a drop of African blood makes a person black regardless how light and/or "white" they may look.

That is the most important difference between the way Americans view race and color and the way Dominicans, Brazilians, Cubans, South Africans, Arabs, Colombians, Venezuelans, Namibians, Botswanan, Zambian, etc. view color and simultaneously being oblivious to the concept of race.

If you understands this, then you will realize that race has never been an issue in the DR. Color, to an extent, race absolutely not!

In the U.S., race, color, and nationality are three different things; in the DR your nationality is your race, you color is simply your appearance and in the DR what counts is appearance more than nationality, after all, race in the North American way simply doesn't exist in Dominican society or even biologically as Scientist have proven with the new DNA findings.

Let's end this race tangent here. If you want to know more, make a search using the search function at the top of this website. You will simply be beating a dead horse and get this thread closed.

-NALs

 

[bilijou]

Wow, so i know this quite old, and I'm going off of the dialogue on page 7, but my inquirement is towards DR1.com being all about censorship? Race can't be discussed on this messageboard? Are my people that much in denial in that they refuse to let others speak out about what's already apparent within the ignorant, screwed up mindset of our people? RACE is and has always been an issue between Dominicans. You can BLAME that on the brainwashings of Balaguer y Trujillo. Some people can't help but follow that repugnantly ignorant frame of mind that's been passed down from their abuelos and greats. And then you have censorship on sites like this one of pawns sadly attempting to sweep the secret back under the rug when the secret has already been let out ALREADY. Face the truth and get with it. Enough already, the ignorance has got me tired.

It's almost sickening, huh?

 

[Exxtol]

In such societies, being white, black, or mixed is not often based on race - because it doesn't exist in such societies - but on color and physical appearance.
NALs

In the end what's the difference if we're simply replacing one "ism" for another? The above inference is interchangeable.

Let's end this race tangent here. You will simply be beating a dead horse and get this thread closed.

- NALs

You spent several paragraphs enumerating your stance on "race" or err color in the DR, ableit on a completely unrelated thread topic, so you're right--case closed. :cheeky:

--Exxtol

 

[Exxtol]

Ps: Sorry for the spelling mistake.

 

[NALs]

In the end what's the difference if we're simply replacing one "ism" for another? The above inference is interchangeable.

--Exxtol

The difference is that it explains why people with a particular appearance in one country are placed in a particular category while in another they are in a totally different category. Hence, their "race" or ethnicity changes by simply crossing borders.

Those changes are not merely cosmetic, but they imply differences in privileges and levels of acceptance of such person in one country vs. the same person in another country.

So yes, its replacing one "ism" for another, but there is a difference when it comes to privileges and levels of acceptance. After its all set and done, the purpose for categorizing people into ethnic/racial groups is to control the distribution of resources in a given society and that is why categorizations are always hierarchical.

For people whose appearance will always put them, traditionally at least, at the most disadvantaged position in society; well then such differences in "isms" may be irrelevant. The same holds true for people who will fall on the most advantageous position. But, for people who rise or fall in the hierarchy based on the interpretation or lack of interpretation of differences in one society vs. another; well these differences in "isms" begin to take some type of importance.

-NALs