Week of 4/8: Issues with U.S. Foreign Policy

Talking this week about the human rights abuses in El Salvador was obviously a disturbing topic, but it was also, in a strange way, fascinating. I did not know much about U.S. foreign policy in the 1970s and 1980s, but our discussions opened my eyes to the number of unnecessary conflicts the U.S. involves itself in. Undoubtedly, the U.S. government, in most of these situations, did not foresee the harm that its presence was to cause - rather, its intention was to help. Therefore, it is not to be criticized as if it was intentionally murdering innocent civilians. On the other hand, though, while it was not the cause of civilian deaths, the government is still fully responsible for those deaths. As we all can agree, the way the government deflected that responsibility and never apologized to the families involved is appalling. This shows that the government needs to be held accountable to its citizens for its actions, and it needs to thoroughly count the cost before involving itself in needless foreign conflicts.

Comments

  1. Linnea FrantzApril 8, 2022 at 6:18 PM

    Hey there Seth! I totally agree with you that learning about the human rights abuses in El Salvador was both horrifying yet interesting. I also agree that the government needs to be held accountable. I think it would be beneficial to the families affected by this tragedy if they received a public apology. However, I think the most important thing is for this instance to become more public knowledge so that we are able to learn from this and avoid repeating instances such as this in the future.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Médar SerrataApril 17, 2022 at 2:28 PM

    Thank you for your post, Seth. I agree with your statement that “undoubtedly, the U.S. government, in most of these situations, did not foresee the harm that its presence was to cause - rather, its intention was to help.” The problem is that in any civil conflict there are, by definition, at least two sides. To help one side is, inescapably, to hurt another. During the 70s and 80s, the U.S. chose to help anyone who portrayed themselves as enemies of communism. These included ruthless Latin American dictators such as Augusto Pinochet (Chile), Hugo Banzer (Bolivia), Alfredo Stroessner (Paraguay), and the military junta led by General Jorge Rafael Videla (Argentina), among others. With the help of the CIA, these men were responsible for the death of at least 60,000 people, the "disappearance" of an additional 30,000 and the imprisonment and torture of 400,000. This is just in the Southern Cone. The numbers are much higher if we consider the victims of the repression in Central America and the Caribbean.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week of 4/21: Helping Others in Need

This week, we discussed the film Even the Rain. One thing that stood out to me from the film was how obsessed the Americans were with making money from their own documentary - so much that they completely ignored the fact that the Bolivians were dying for lack of water. The filmmakers did not care if people died of thirst, so long as their film was produced. At first, I did not make a connection to our society today, but as I thought more, I realized how many people in our communities do not have enough to live on, while we are content to live our lives and make money while ignoring the poverty around us. We (myself included) often do a poor job of helping the underprivileged in society. But if we do not take action, we are no better than the American filmmakers in Even the Rain . We all should actively look for ways to help those in need, whether that is supporting a local mission, fighting for legislation that will help address poverty issues, or contributing in some other way. As th...
Read more

Week of 3/31: Double Meanings in Poetry

This week, we dove deep into poetry and tried to analyze the intent and the message of different poems. As the discussion progressed, we were able to come up with several plausible explanations as to what each of the poems meant (thanks to Lillie). This struck me as interesting, because when the poem was written, its author probably had only one meaning in mind. We could be interpreting the poem in a way that the poet him/herself never even thought of. It is extremely interesting to me that we can look at a poem and simply create our own story around the way we interpret it, and then connect our narrative to history and argue why our interpretation of the poem "works". Ultimately, this is the beauty of poetry, and of creative writing in general - it can take on many different perspectives based on the "lens" through which it is interpreted.
Read more