Blogs > Cliopatria > The triumph of Hugo and the Politics of Color

Aug 17, 2004

The triumph of Hugo and the Politics of Color




It now seems clear that Hugo Chavez has, by a substantial and legitimated margin, defeated the referendum that sought to remove him from his post as president of Venezuala. Former President and Nobel Laureate Jimmy Carter is quoted as saying that

his team of observers had concluded there was a" clear difference in favour" of Mr Chavez.

When I was in Colombia last week, the press there was gripped by the Chavez referendum. Colombia and Venezuela have had frayed relations in recent years. The popular current Colombian president, Alvaro Uribe, is the most pro-U.S. head of state in South America. Alone among South American nations, Colombia has expressed unreserved support for America's"war on terror." (The Colombians surely know more about living with terrorism than the citizens of any other country in the Western Hemisphere).

On more than one occasion, the Uribe government has accused the neighboring Chavez regime of giving aid and comfort to the revolutionary guerrilla groups that seek to establish a Marxist state in Colombia. Judging on what I read in the Colombian press (my fiancee helped translate some stuff, but my comprehension of written Spanish is getting better and better), most Colombians do worry about the possibility of potential armed conflict with Venezuala if Chavez remains in power. (To have the most pro-American and most anti-American states in South America sharing a long border is worrisome to some.) Some on the Colombian left have said that they fear that Uribe may be urged by his American allies (Colombia receives more in military aid from Washington than all the other Latin countries put together) to invade Venezuala at the Bush Administration's behest. An English-language article that expresses that same concern can be found here.

I have to say, I liked Chavez from the start because of his splendid first name. I also liked him for another reason: he's black. Light-skinned, yes, but still negro by the standards of his region. As many folks know, South America is a continent dominated by light-skinned political elites. South America is also a continent with huge numbers of descendants of African slaves, particularly in northern countries like Brazil, Venezuala, and Colombia. If you look at pictures of the presidents of countries like Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Paraguay, and even Brazil, you see very European-looking fellows indeed. Most look as if they have nary a drop of non-European blood in their veins. Chavez, on the other hand, is darker with what to a Colombian or Venezualan eye are clear African origins. In South America, that is immensely meaningful.

In the Colombian north, where my fiancee's family lives, a very high percentage of the poor have at least some African origins (my fiancee's family very much included). To an untrained Yankee eye, many Colombians in what is called the costeno region appear more"black" than"Hispanic". On the other hand, the wealthy in cities like Bogota have very European faces, some with skin and eyes and hair as light as my own. The racism in Colombia is blatant and ominipresent. When I first met my fiancee's aunt, she asked plaintively"Is he (meaning me) upset that we're so black?" (I obviously did everything I could to assure her that skin color was not an issue for me). But a question like that one can only be asked in a deeply bigoted society where those with dark skin have been marginalized, abused, and mistreated for generations. The idea that Colombia could be led by a negro is unthinkable. But next-door Venezuala now is.

I am convinced that at least some of the antipathy directed towards Chavez by the elites in his own country and elsewhere in Latin America is based on his appearance. (Here's a Common Dreams article that touches on that). My fellow Hugo may be bombastic; he may have an unpleasantly authoritarian streak, but he has done more for the mostly dark, mostly poor masses of Venezuala than any other leader in that country's history. Latin America has never had a more successful"dark" leader; even Castro himself is quite"white" by the standards of mixed-race Cuba! Thus today I rejoice in Chavez's clear and convincing referendum victory; I celebrate both for the obvious political reasons, but also for the less-obvious cultural reasons revolving around color and class.



comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:


Oscar Chamberlain - 8/23/2004

If the evidence shows that there is fraud, then so be it. However, I would like to know a lot more about those exit polls before I would jump to conclusions. Exit polling has gotten fouled up here in the States before. There would even be more potential for that in a country like Venezuala, where the cultural gap between the minority middle class and the rest of the country seems pretty big.


Richard Henry Morgan - 8/19/2004

Interesting article in the IHT. Hard to imagine that an ex-putchist would stoop to election fraud, though.

http://www.iht.com/articles/534518.html


Richard Henry Morgan - 8/18/2004

There is indeed a race and class dimension to the Chavez case. I say, rather, that even though the black is obvious in Chavez, the Indian is at least as obvious -- and that has been equally unrepresented in power. He might turn out to be a godsend to Venezuela. The fact that he is an ex-putchist does not inspire the greatest of confidence in many. Nor is his mobilizing of civilian militias outside the constitutional structure. Time will tell.


Hugo Schwyzer - 8/17/2004

Oscar, that's an excellent point and an aspect of the coverage I hadn't considered. Thanks.


Oscar Chamberlain - 8/17/2004

I can't speak to the role of race in Chavez's support and opposition, though what you describe is plausible. However, it is clear that he reached out successfully to a majority that has felt ignored.

With rare exception, the coverage of Chavez's supporters has been dysmal in the States. One thing that contributes to the poor coverage is that Chavez's opponents are a lot more likely to speak good English. You can soundbite them quickly. (If soundbite can be a verb, what can soundbit mean?)

If a reporter interviews Chavez supporters. he or she is probably gonig to need to have the comments trnanslzated for the audience. On radio and TV that means taking the time to at least indicate that translation is going on. If the reporter finds a Chavez supporter who does speak English, it is likely to be broked and, therefore, sound less educated, less intelligent to an American ear.

Perhaps for this reason, even many NPR stories sound like they have been done by a freelancing Nightly Business News reporter. The international perspective on Chavez's economic actions are done well.

The perspective of the Venezuelen majority?

Maybe that's what soundbit means.