Closure on Balaguer

[Chris]

Sweet Rick! I have some papers for you

Bilijou and others put forward passionate debate that this country and its people needed closure (or a recognition of things gone wrong/or some truth-telling), in terms of the past actions of Balaguer. This is against the backdrop of the current situation, which is that Balaguer is now almost being deified as a great leader of the past?

The discussion was how this closure could be created or obtained? It is clear that there are sharp divisions in amongst the population about this. Speaking to one person alone could solicit great praise, and in the same sentence, great fear of Balaguer. This to me, was the fascinating part of the discussion. The dicotomy - admiration on the one side, and fear and hatred on the other.

 

[Tordok]

Wow, I've missed quite a bit in just a couple of days away from the forum....so let me see if I can catch up a bit;

Chiri,
Nice job on your blog as always I truly enjoy your fine act -and rare ability- of balancing honesty with sensibility. An accomplished diplomat as far as I'm concerned.

Nals,
My opinion is largely unfavorable towards "el Dostol", but as I mentioned before, I do find that it could have been worse. I think others focus on the fact that it could've been better. I think we all agree that it should've been better.

Rick,
Even if you're a moderator, you are entitled to your views. Keep doing what you're doing. Viva the American Seibano!!!

Bilijou,
I -really- see your "menospreciar lo dominicano" point and I was indeed purposefully oversimplifying my response for economy of words reasons, not because I am myself menospreciando your output on this issue. So, I do understand your point and I prefer to leave it at that. BTW, I am Dominican, although most people, including myself do consider me to be an atypical one for reasons not worth getting into here. Suffice it to say that I have very valid claims to being Dominicano; and that your deracialization thesis is in many regards valid as well, just not appropriate for this forum as both Rick and Robert have pointed out. Rick's idea of your own blog makes sense to me.

regards to all,
-Tordok

 

[Rick Snyder]

Tordok I don't wish to to take it the wrong way but I sure have missed you.

Rick

 

[Tordok]

Tordok I don't wish to to take it the wrong way but I sure have missed you.

Rick

Thank you. I also miss having more time to engage in these kind of discussions. I'll try to stay tuned and participate more, when deemed appropriate.
bests,
- Tordok

 

[bilijou]

I see this thread burned itself out.

 

[Rick Snyder]

Is that a request for closure of the thread?

 

[bilijou]

Today is the 43rd aniversary of the coup that changed the course of our history.

SANTO DOMINGO.- El golpe de Estad al gobierno de Juan Bosch, el 25 de septiembre de 1963, cercen? uno de los per?odos democr?ticos m?s aut?nticos de la historia dominicana y desencaden? los acontecimientos m?s decisivos del pasado siglo.

El historiador Euclides Guti?rrez F?lix calific? de inigualable el gobierno de apenas siete meses, que con su programa pretend?a convertir al pa?s en uno de los m?s avanzados de Am?rica Latina, mientras que Tony Raful dijo que el golpe fue el acto sedicioso m?s denunciado por las fuerzas vivas de la naci?n. ?Desde entonces, hay una deuda social acumulada que mantiene en crisis la gobernabilidad?, apunt?.

Despu?s de 43 a?os, el pa?s sigue sin un plan nacional de realizaciones sociales y econ?micas, como lo concibi? el derrocado presidente Bosch, fundador de los dos partidos pol?ticos que en los tres ?ltimos per?odos han gobernado los destinos de la naci?n.

Sin mecanismos claros y eficientes para aplicar la Ley y la Justicia, sin instituciones fuertes que garanticen la verdadera gobernabilidad para todos y la corrupci?n en distintos niveles sociales y pol?ticos, la democracia dominicana mantiene un camino incierto, lleno de grandes lagunas y dificultades.

Son diversos los enfoques sobre los hechos que desencadenaron el golpe de 1963, pero la mayor?a est? de acuerdo en que desde entonces el pa?s ha vivido m?s de cuatro d?cadas de degradaci?n de los valores ?ticos y la institucionalidad democr?tica.

Con la interrupci?n de la administraci?n de Bosch, desapareci? la Constituci?n que la sosten?a, considerada la m?s avanzada en la historia dominicana. Bosch tom? importantes medidas econ?micas que permitieron pagar la deuda externa, sanear la econom?a e iniciar un importante programa de construcciones p?blicas.

Dos a?os despu?s, en abril de 1965, estall? un levantamiento armado, de civiles y militares, por el retorno de Bosch a la Presidencia. Pocos d?as despu?s, Estados Unidos ocup? militarmente la Rep?blica Dominicana y el conflicto se transform? en guerra patria.

Bosch fue el dominicano m?s influyente del ?ltimo medio siglo, no s?lo por sus destacad?simos aportes a la historia, la literatura y la sociolog?a del Caribe, sino los acontecimientos pol?ticos que provoc?, su decencia, su honestidad intelectual y su voluntad de renovaci?n. Acaso el legado m?s valioso que deja a los latinoamericanos que hoy siguen pensando en un mundo alternativo como necesario y posible.

(Source)

 

[bilijou]

It is sad that this thread has taken the way of a boardmember who self-admittedly aims for "inconsistency" for the sake of "neutrality" and "professionalism".

Many here are asking for the "two sides of the coin". If history is indeed intended to keep us from "stumbling over the same rocks", is the "two sides of the coin" the most effective way to do this? Is it the best way to learn a lesson?

I don't ask for us to ignore facts, but to EVALUATE them (plus vs. minuses). Can the number of trees saved by Balaguer's environmental policies be equated with the number of lives lost by his repression machine?

An overall evaluation has to be OBJECTIVE, and this is the format in which it is presented to Dominican kids in history books.

 

[Rick Snyder]

Bilijou as education or the lack thereof in this country is the one thing that consumes my interest more then anything else your statement, "and this is the format in which it is presented to Dominican kids in history books", needs further explanation.

Are you saying that Dominican history books that are used in the school system here give an objective view of history?

Just looking for clarification.

Rick

 

[Ogre of the Caribbean]

It is sad that this thread has taken the way of a boardmember who self-admittedly aims for "inconsistency" for the sake of "neutrality" and "professionalism".

Many here are asking for the "two sides of the coin". If history is indeed intended to keep us from "stumbling over the same rocks", is the "two sides of the coin" the most effective way to do this? Is it the best way to learn a lesson?

I don't ask for us to ignore facts, but to EVALUATE them (plus vs. minuses). Can the number of trees saved by Balaguer's environmental policies be equated with the number of lives lost by his repression machine?

An overall evaluation has to be OBJECTIVE, and this is the format in which it is presented to Dominican kids in history books.

I believe history has to be objective as well. What do you mean by EVALUATE history? That sounds like a group putting their own stamp on things. That does not sound objective.

The PRD murdered political opponents too, it was not entirely innocent. If the PRD had managed to win an election in the early 1970's, perhaps they would have moved to avenge the murders committed by Balaguer, we will never know for sure. I liked Juan Bosch. I did not support the coup that ousted him from power. But I do not believe that the organization around him was perfect.

History should be as dispassionate as humanly possible. I don't see that in some of the posts written on this board. Whether some members like it or not, Balaguer still has a lot of supporters in the DR. There opinions should be taken into consideration. Otherwise your heading for trouble.

 

[bilijou]

Bilijou as education or the lack thereof in this country is the one thing that consumes my interest more then anything else your statement, "and this is the format in which it is presented to Dominican kids in history books", needs further explanation.
Are you saying that Dominican history books that are used in the school system here give an objective view of history?

I?m going to emphasize over and over the purpose of history: a necessary sort of self-improvement guide for societies to keep from making the same mistakes, learning about themselves. Given that it is a guide, it has to be OBJECTIVE. This is what I meant by the ?format? of history, an objective guide. Dominican textbooks miss this point.

While there should only be ONE objective guide in our society, there are MANY interpretations out there. 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.

The different interpretations of history reflect the society?s or individual?s ideals. I will always argue that whichever point of view supports the coup OR ignores the fraud committed during elections (the essence of a Democratic system) by Balaguer CANNOT have Democracy or the welfare of the general population on the top of their list. Our guide should be towards Democracy and economic development, so any interpretation supporting Balaguer fails my criteria. Any interpretation that deviates from Democracy and Economic progress also strays away from the OBJECTIVE of history: keeping us from making the same mistakes.

This emphasis on the many ?sides of the coin? has been conscious. It was well planned. Trujillo (being of similar background) elevated Pedro Santana to almost Duarte?s level. Balaguer followed up by putting him up in El Panteon Nacional. The ?two sides of the coin?:
?Santana messed up, but he?s our hero against the Haitian?.
I can do it again: ?Trujillo messed up, but he got us out of debt from Lilis (obvious propaganda trying to disassociating Trujillo from other dictators) and gave the campesinos some orientation (vagrancy laws)?.
And again: ?Balaguer messed up, but we would?ve had as much deforestation as the Haitian and the communists would?ve taken over (every Latin American dictatorship around this time used this excuse to stay in power, that?s why all of them fell after the end of the Cold War).?

The message: It is OK to break the Constitution, as long as you follow up with something memorable and a bit of propaganda. A Clave Digital article called Balaguer?s legacy a ?model as to how to stay in power? for politicians today. These are the consequences of ?other side of the coin?. It is incompatible with the need for closure or the end to ?accumulated social debt?, as Raful called it and an impediment in our path to cultural unity.

 

[Rick Snyder]

Okay, I?m glad you cleared that up because from your post #108 you said;

?An overall evaluation has to be OBJECTIVE, and this is the format in which it is presented to Dominican kids in history books.?

Looking at that sentence I see you saying that objectiveness is the format which is being presented to Dominican children in history books.

I knew that from the way that I interpreted your sentence that it was a lie and I was looking for clarification from you to enable me to know that you too know that objectivity is not taught. Thank you.

Rick

Other than that everything you said is true and I'm not arguing with you.

 

[Ogre of the Caribbean]

billjou,

I would not want to learn history from a textbook written by your camp. You seem to be saying, as best I can figure, that you think that the only history that should be a in a textbook is the kind that passes your own personal "democracy test". I disagree. That sounds like the old school of Marxist interpretation of history.

What do you want the Dominican school books to say? Balaguer was pure evil? He was a dictator? Everyone who was involved in overthrowing Juan Bosch, including(if you believe some reports) the Dominican Catholic Church was wrong and should be condemned? That Juan Bosch was a saint? You talk a lot, but you don't really state exactly what you would put in the books. I am curious.

I have never read a Dominican school book. My Spanish isn't good enough to understand what is written in one. I have asked in the past if someone would post something about what is written in the books about Trujillo , but no one was willing to do that. What exactly is written about Balaguer in school books that you object to?

I think a book that offers "both sides of the coin" is extremely important when discussing Balaguer. Yes, he did a lot of bad things. But what if Cammano had won and Castro's supporters had taken over, then what? Would the DR have been a land free of political oppression? Many of the Dominicans I talk with tell me that they were afraid of a Communist take over. I don't think you can dismiss all of their fears. I know people like to dismiss the fear of Communism as an excuse for dictatorship, but it was a very real fear at the time.

I think school textbooks should not be one sided. I'm not saying that they should excuse political murders, not at all. I'm saying that you explain the overall situation, from more than one perspective.

 

[bilijou]

I believe history has to be objective as well. What do you mean by EVALUATE history? That sounds like a group putting their own stamp on things. That does not sound objective.

No stamps needed.
Every country determines what and how history is taught in their schools. They approve what textbooks, or interpretation, is going to be used. Every government puts their stamp on it; the question is what ideals are being pushed, if any.

*The PRD murdered political opponents too, it was not entirely innocent.
*If the PRD had managed to win an election in the early 1970's, perhaps they would have moved to avenge the murders committed by Balaguer, we will never know for sure.
*I liked Juan Bosch. I did not support the coup that ousted him from power. But I do not believe that the organization around him was perfect.

*I would like for you to compare numbers of people killed by Balaguer and the PRD. The main difference is that Bosch didn?t order any of the deaths, Balaguer did most of them. You can?t compare.

*If the PRD would?ve taken power, they should?ve locked Balaguer up like he did Salvador Jorge Blanco, for his corruption, political repression and reeleccionismo.

*His organization wasn?t perfect, that I agree with you. But I can assure you that it became even more imperfect when they saw that democracy was unattainable by being the ?nice guys?.

History should be as dispassionate as humanly possible. I don't see that in some of the posts written on this board. Whether some members like it or not, Balaguer still has a lot of supporters in the DR. There opinions should be taken into consideration. Otherwise your heading for trouble.

For me this is not history, it has to do with everything from sociological issues to economic growth to current political arena. That?s why I get passionate.

History should be dispassionately debated, and evaluated. Dominicans NEED to start sparking these discussions. As we reach a consensus (a sensible evaluation) on our past, we aim for unity.

What is your view of Balaguer?

 

[Ogre of the Caribbean]

My view of Balaguer?

I think Balaguer was many things. Brutal political operative. Effective enviromentalist. But was he pure evil? No. Balaguer was human being, like everyone else.

I disagree with your views on the PRD. Granted, the PRD killed far fewer than Balaguer, but perhaps that was more a question of their ability to reach out and kill people rather than a choice on their part. I really don't know what would have happened if the PRD came into power. I don't think anyone can really answer that.

The idea that the murders committed by the PRD were somehow justified because they were out of power or being oppressed doesn't cut any ice with me. Political murders are political murders. I don't think the "oppressed" should be given a pass on murder. Like I posted before, if the PRD were killing army torturers that would be one thing, but that was not always the case.

I think people should be allowed to read all the different views on Balaguer for themselves. Then they can decide. I don't want anyone filtering out information.

That would be like deleting the posts on DR1 simply because you do not share their point of view (or following the rules), not because they were being vulgar or using foul language.

I never settle for reading just one book on a topic. I always try to read several, hopefully ones that have different views on the subject.

 

[NALs]

No stamps needed.
Every country determines what and how history is taught in their schools. They approve what textbooks, or interpretation, is going to be used. Every government puts their stamp on it; the question is what ideals are being pushed, if any.

This is not true of all countries.

In the United States, what is taught in public schools is decided by each school district. So much for a national consensus on education, let alone history!

*I would like for you to compare numbers of people killed by Balaguer and the PRD. The main difference is that Bosch didn?t order any of the deaths, Balaguer did most of them. You can?t compare.

I am also a supporter of Bosch, however one does have to remind you that if it was not for the coup which removed Bosch from office, Haiti was about to see a pretty bloody Dominican invasion which would had been quite an order of death and conquering coming from Mr. Bosch.

Oh sure, he never got to fully ask the military to plunge into Haiti mostly due to the coup, but the army was lined up at the border simply waiting for Bosch to give the order to invade.

Of course, many scholars argue that Bosch never intended to invade Haiti, that he was bluffing. The truth of the matter is that we don't know because of a swift change of events that took place that successfully removed the one person who really knew what he wanted to do at that moment in time and that person was Juan Bosch himself.

*His organization wasn?t perfect, that I agree with you. But I can assure you that it became even more imperfect when they saw that democracy was unattainable by being the ?nice guys?.

In politics nothing is attainable by merely being the "nice guys".

This much more true in third world societies.

One must want the power and be willing to do absolutely anything to get the power and once the power has been attained, it shall not be shared and should be protected through any means possible.

That is the unwritten mantra followed by all third world politicians, particularly Latin American politicians.

Regarding democracy, it's hardly ever attainable by being the "nice guys". For this reason most democracies have been imposed by force on countries worldwide and has to be defended with blood and sword.

It's a messy ordeal, but it's necessary if democracy is to be attainable and durable in any society, more so in a developing society which has a clash between the traditional and the modern, the old and the new, the conservative and the more liberal aspects of nation building.

History should be dispassionately debated, and evaluated. Dominicans NEED to start sparking these discussions. As we reach a consensus (a sensible evaluation) on our past, we aim for unity.

Full unity will never exist as long as politics dictate the lives of the many.

And yet, politics is needed for the sake of the state. The state is needed for the sake of capitalism, and capitalism is needed for the sake of modernity.

In other words, the nation-state is the mechanism from which capitalism survives and is protected. It's a system based on social exclusion, privacy, and control of masses. This entire system is heavily influence by politics and not one of those aspects can be separated in the hopes of saving another aspect because they are all intertwined and interrelated. Take one away and the entire system collapses.

Given that reality, the belief that unity could ever be achieved in any subject while maintaining the current nation-state united as well and use the proceeds of the capitalist system being imposed upon such state for the benefit of the masses is as dissilusional as the notion that unperfect humans are capable of created a perfect utopia.

A consensus shall be reached, but only a balanced consensus. A consensus that is based on the truth of what really happened, not something that is describe via a particular political point of view or spectrum. It must be something neutral which describes what happens and what all the arguments are.

It should be a consensus that let's the public decided for themselves how they are going to judge history, but in order for this to happen history must be taught and debated in a balanced manner where no interest is taken upon one aspect of a coin that has two sides.

To do otherwise would be an attempt at re-writting history, unjustifiable in all cases.

-NALs

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.

I'll read what you have to say, but I will not debate it. That is not my duty, but rather it's something for the readers of DR1 to come to terms with. They are the one's who need to come their own conclusions and not necessarily the conclusion of someone else.

I do have to say, that what is occuring on this thread is how history should be taught. In this manner we get to see all the dimensions to the subject being discussed and we let the reader come to his/her own conclusions.

 

[NALs]

I think people should be allowed to read all the different views on Balaguer for themselves. Then they can decide. I don't want anyone filtering out information.

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.

Bilijou, one does need to put faith that the people, the masses, the majority are capable of deciding for themselves what they want to judge Balaguer or anyone for that matter!

Let them use their brains, let them think for themselves!

For that we need a balanced viewpoint that is not bent on a political agenda.

For that we need all viewpoints presented and having confidence that the masses are capable of coming to their own conclusions based on the balanced information they have received.

To think otherwise is to belittle the 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.

-NALs

 

[Rick Snyder]

History is a funny creature and is best told while it is fresh, from the different points of view that observed it in action in order to give a true and accurate recording. The magic words here are ?observed it? and because most history that is written was not observed by the writer leads to intentional, choreographed and premeditated distortion of history and is appalling. The American civil war is a prime example of how history gets distorted, or even worse, having real truth hidden and leads to the question as to what started the civil war. If you think it was started because of slavery then that only proves that you were taught by those that were not the true purveyors of history.

All this talk about the supposed history and what actually happened is all well and good but in the scheme of things it has no bearing on the situation as it pertains to the teachings here in the DR. Almost all of us that live here and some of you that live elsewhere are well aware of what is and isn?t taught in the school system here.

You can talk all you want about who was bad, who was good, who helped the DR and who hurt the DR but until you sit down and explain it to the Dominican children you are just spinning your wheels and serving no purpose other than using DR1 as your personal soapbox to preach your agenda.

If your agenda is to bring closure to something and you honestly feel that it would be a benefit to the Dominican populace then I would suggest that you make a concerted effort to explain how to go about doing this. You might get some support and help in reaching your agenda but more then likely you won?t.

I would also suggest that the next time you visit the DR that you bring some Spanish books with you that give an objective view of history and read to the Dominican people while you are here and leave the books when you leave. You might inspire enough interest for further reading. Then again maybe not. I would suggest that you try to plant that seed of knowledge in the hopes that it will blossom. It might blossom and then again it might not.

I?ve tried for three years to preach my agenda on this board and the majority of the time it has been met with ridicule or distain but at the same time I have been offered some good suggestions from some of the board members and I have instilled or am presently working on instilling those ideas. At times I have gone out to the children and taught my agenda in the hopes that it will help the children here in the DR.

When the children are young the results of your attempt to instill knowledge don?t show a dividend until later and the only thing you can do is wait and hope that your concern and efforts pay off in a more intelligent Dominican.

You can take what I?ve stated above or you can leave it as it doesn?t make any difference concerning this board. The thing to remember is that this board was established to help people who have questions relating to the DR. As you stand on that soapbox and preach and decide that you wish to debate rather then offer assistance be prepared for people to disagree with your ideas and the likelihood of changing the thinking of a board member is very unlikely.

As to deletion of a post on this board rest assured that a moderator will not delete because they disagree with your point of view. They will delete if you fail to follow the rules which are in fact a little more then ?because they were being vulgar or using foul language?.

Rick

Nal?s in your post #117 you used the words ?the people?, ?the masses?, ?the majority?, and ?them? a number of times. My question to you is if you were referring to the Dominican population or the people that are reading this board? Go back and read #117 again because I need to know if you were referring to the average Dominican that lives in this country when you made all those statements. This doesn?t require a long dissertation on your part for this simple question.

 

[NALs]

Nal?s in your post #117 you used the words ?the people?, ?the masses?, ?the majority?, and ?them? a number of times. My question to you is if you were referring to the Dominican population or the people that are reading this board? Go back and read #117 again because I need to know if you were referring to the average Dominican that lives in this country when you made all those statements. This doesn?t require a long dissertation on your part for this simple question.

I was referring to both, the DR1 reader and the Dominican population as well.

The reason for this is simple. DR1 is a source where DR1ers (members and lurkers) get to read, learn, express their ideas, and many more things all sorrounding a single central theme being the Dominican Republic.

Because this particular subject revolves around what the Dominican masses are being taught in school, my post pertains to them as much as it pertains to the audience who make this website what it is, a place to share many ideas.

When I said "the masses", "the people", "the majority", etc. it means both: the Dominican people and the DR1er reading this.

-NALs

 

[Rick Snyder]

Thank you Nal's