Up to this point, I have attempted to trace the history of the struggle for self-determination in Puerto Rico. I have also stated and identified my hermeneutical principles in relation to the use of the Scriptures. In addition, I have tried to clarify the canonical status of Scripture in relation to Liberation Theology. Now I intend to state my case for the independence of Puerto Rico. The issue of the political status of Puerto Rico has to do with whether it should be a state, a commonwealth, or an independent and sovereign nation. The issue is not a new one. The quest for self-determination antedates the twentieth-century.
The political status of Puerto Rico could be determined in several ways. The people of Puerto Rico could be asked to state, as has been done already, their preference by way of a referendum. It is possible that the government of the U.S.A. may decide to annex Puerto Rico as a state or continue the present policy by virtue of which Puerto Rico would remain a colony of the U.S.A. The matter might also be settled by a decision of the people of Puerto Rico to rebel against the imperial rule of the U.S.A. by carrying out a war of national liberation. I do not intend to question the validity of any of these approaches. In addition, I do not intend to propose a policy that the people of Puerto Rico should be forced to accept. My own position on this issue is not based on possible outcomes or results for the prospective status. My position is based on the question, "What does justice require?" The issue of justice, in turn, is based on my understanding of the Scriptural witness as interpreted through Liberation Theology. This is not an attempt on my part, to use the Scriptures and Liberation Theology as a justification for promoting my own political convictions. The purpose here, is to disclose the fact that the message of Scripture, in and of itself, points to the issues of political and social justice, however one might define them. Liberation Theology will not be used as a substitute for the Gospel, but rather as a reinterpretation of the Gospel. The use of Scripture along with the above-stated and identified hermeneutical principles are necessary for a proper interpretation and application of the Scriptures to the issue raised in this book.
Since it is, in my humble opinion, incorrect to take isolated passages from the Scriptures as "prooftexts" in support of one's position on a given issue, I have deemed it proper to examine each quoted passage in the light of the book in which the passage appears. This approach enables one to make use of the Scriptures in a way that is consistent with a clearly defined set of hermeneutical principles. One might object to this scheme of biblical interpretation. I would respond that it is not the intention of this book to deal with the question as to what constitutes a proper hermeneutic. My purpose is to state a case for the independence of Puerto Rico within the framework of a given hermeneutic and understanding of Scripture and theology.
I would like to begin this argument for Puerto Rico's right to self-determination by making reference to the book of Genesis. It is the first book of the Bible, and from its content, it seems to be written from the standpoint of the exile of the Hebrew people from Egypt. According to Myer Pearlman, the book was written to show the people of Israel that the God of Palestine was a universal God. He says, "The Israelites, to whom the message of the book was first addressed, would learn that the God of Palestine was also the God of all lands, and that the God of one nation--Israel--was also the God of all nations. Since He was the God and Creator of all the earth, He must ultimately become the Redeemer of all the earth. The book describes how redemption became necessary because humanity had sinned and fallen into darkness; and how God prepared to choose one nation to take the light of divine truth to the other nations (Myer Pearlman, Through the Bible: Book by Book. Springfield: Gospel Publishing House, 1935, p. 3)."
According to this interpretation of the thrust of the message in the book of Genesis, the God of the Hebrew people was as concerned for their well-being as He was for the well-being of the other nations of the earth.
The writer of Genesis informs us that at the beginning God gave the human race mastery of the earth and its resources (Genesis 1: 28-30). The author also states that along with dominion, the human race was given the mandate to "be fruitful and multiply (Ibid.)." There is no recording of any specific commandment as to how the people were to combine the dominion of the earth and its resources with the increase in the population. But if we accept Pearlman's interpretation of the purpose of the writing of the book of Genesis, one can then, conclude that the Creator did not intend for some to hoard the land and and its resources, while leaving others destitute of the basic means of survival. If we apply this scheme of interpretation to the book of Genesis, then we can say that what was intended was an equitable distribution of the land in proportion to the population. On a national scale, this would mean that the Creator intended for there to be some type of society (socialist?) where the goods of the land would be distributed and shared on a basis of equality. When we take the international orientation of the book of Genesis, we can safely conclude that the Creator intended to have each nation be a self-governing entity without having to be the possession of other nations.
The author of Genesis also records the story of the Tower of Babel. According to the story, it was the intention of the people who were constructing the tower to be centralized in one location instead of being scattered throughout the earth (Genesis 11: 1-9). We are told that the Creator interrupted their plans by confusing their languages and causing them to do the very same thing which they were trying to avoid doing.
There are two possible ways to interpret the results of the Creator's intervention in this activity. We can say that the Creator intervened in their plans as a punishment or as a curse for an act of rebellion against God (Meredith Kline, "Genesis," The New Bible Commentary, ed. Donald Guthries. Grand Rapids: Erdmans Publishing Company,1970. pp. 91-92)." This interpretation lays emphasis on the fact that the builders were out to "make a name for themselves (Genesis 11:4)." Those who subscribe to this interpretation would conclude that God was punishing the builders for an act of arrogance and defiance against Him. The other interpretation would be that God was intervening in this project in order to carry out His purpose that they should be scattered throughout the earth (Pearlman, p. 12). The emphasis of this interpretation is that God did not intend for the human race to be centralized in one location of the earth, but rather to be dispersed in such a way that the earth and its resources would be made available to all its inhabitants. The writer of Deuteronomy seems to support this latter interpretation (Deuteronomy 32: 8).
I believe that both of these interpretations are valid. By this, I mean that I do not believe that one necessarily has to cancel out or eliminate the other. In other words, as I understand it, God's purpose for intervening was two-fold. If we accept the second interpretation along with the first, then we can say that God intended for the human race to occupy the different countries of the earth. The acceptance of that interpretation can lead us to conclude that God intended for each national group to have the right to be self-governing.
I now refer the reader to the book of Exodus. Since the theme of liberation runs through the book, I believe that it is only proper that this book be utilized as part of the argument for the liberation of Puerto Rico. According to Hywel Jones, the central theme of the book is God's deliverance of the Hebrew slaves. Jones states the following in an article in the New Bible Commentary: " The title given to the book by the Greek version, embodies its central and inescapable theme, that of God's deliverance of slaves in bondage that they might become a people for His own possession, service and glory (Hywel R. Jones, "Exodus." The New Bible Commentary, ed. Donald Guthrie. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1970, p. 115)."
The author of Exodus records the story of God's call to Moses to liberate his people from slavery in Egypt (Exodus 3: 1-12). Because of their numerical growth, the Egyptians were fearful of the Hebrews, and as a result, made them slaves and subjected them to hard labor (Ibid., 1:1-14). God then called Moses to prepare himself to initiate the process by which the Hebrews would be liberated from this situation and enabled to enter a land in which they would be the sole owners of the resources. They would no longer have to be subject to the domination of a foreign power.
Is there any relation between the liberation of the Hebrews from Egypt and the liberation of Puerto Rico? I can best answer that question by referring to the purpose behind God's liberation of the Hebrew people. The purpose was to fulfill the promise which God had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to form a people that would be related to God through a covenant (Ibid, 6: 1-8). The promises that had been made were to give Abraham and his offspring the land of Canaan, and through them to bless the nations of the earth (Genesis 12: 1-3). As we can see, these promises were universal in scope. While the promises are related to the development of a particular nation, it is clearly stated that the blessings promised to this particular nation were to made available to the other nations of the world. On that basis, we can conclude that the liberation of the Hebrew people can be a model for the liberation of any nation that is in the same condition of slavery that the Hebrews were in. In other words, it is proper to deduce from the story of the liberation of the Hebrews, that a nation which is dominated by another nation has the right to seek its own emancipation. Since Puerto Rico is politically and economically controlled by the U.S.A., the people of Puerto Rico have the right to search for their emancipation from the political and economic slavery to which they have been subjected by the U.S.A.
It is necessary to point out that there are some differences between the situation faced by the Hebrews on the one hand, and the situation faced by the people of Puerto Rico on the other. Unlike the Hebrews, the people of Puerto Rico do not have slavemasters watching over them with whips in their hands. They are not subject to the same conditions of extreme hard labor that the Hebrews were subjected to. In addition, the people of Puerto Rico live fairly well. By this, I mean that they do not lack in an absolute way, the basic means of survival. Those who are unable to make complete provision for their families by means of employment, can participate in the food stamps program ( National Division Board of Global Ministries, United Methodist Church. Puerto Rico's Search for Self-Determination. Philadelphia: 1979, p. 8). Moreover, the people of Puerto Rico have a relative degree of political autonomy within the colonial framework. In spite of these differences, however, there are some similarities between the situation of the Hebrews and the situation of Puerto Rico. The Hebrews did not have control over their own national destiny. This was especially true because they were not even free to be a nation. While the people of Puerto Rico do enjoy a relative degree of autonomy, they are still under the political control of the U.S.A.
There is another area in which there is a similarity the Hebrew's experience of slavery, and the Puerto Ricans experience of being a colonized people. That similarity is in the area of economics. The labor of the Hebrew slaves benefited the Egyptian economy (Exodus 1: 1-14). The prime beneficiaries of the labor of the Puerto Rican people are the American corporations. At the time of this writing in 1982, eighty per cent of the Puerto Rican economy was controlled by the American multi-national corporations. Twenty-four American-owned chain stores were responsible for all sales. In addition, foreign capital, mostly from the U.S.A, was controlling eighty-one percent of the manufacture, one hundred percent of the air travel, over fifty percent of the insurance companies, and over sixty percent of the financial corporations. Ninety-percent of the industrial products for exportation are generated by foreign industries, which means, for the most part, that the profits do not enter the Puerto Rican economy (Ester and Mortimer Arias, The Cry of My People. New York: Frienship Press, 1980, p. 51). In the same way that the Hebrews were used for the economic interests of the Egyptians, the people of Puerto Rico and their land are being used for the economic interests of the U.S.A. In a very real sense, the people of Puerto Rico are slaves of the U.S.A. empire.
For the Puerto Rican masses, industrialization has simply been a disaster. The monopolization of the economy has been accompanied and facilitated by the use of capital-intensive technology. The greater amount of capital has increased output and productivity, but it has also contributed to Puerto Rico's severe unemployment problem. Capital is more technology-directed than labor-directed, because of the increase of profits that can be brought about. From 1962 to 1967, for firms organized under Operation Bootstrap, the average number of workers per factory declined from eighty to fifty-five. In San Juan, the area of greatest employment, firms organized under this program have been able to provide only one job for every thirty-nine inhabitants. The entire petrochemical industry, one of the areas of heaviest investment by U.S.A. capital, has only been able to create seven thousand and seven hundred new jobs. The petrochemical and petroleum industries, in fact, have provided only eight percent of the jobs that they promised at the beginning of their investment (James Dietz, ed., Puerto Rico: Class Struggle and National Liberation. Riverside: Latin American Perspectives, 1976, p. 10).
Unemployment has been, and continues to be, a severe problem. Officially, the unemployment rate is now around twenty-one percent (in a country where eleven to twelve percent is considered normal), but the actual rate may be closer to forty percent or more. It is the large number of unemployed people which helps to keep wages in Puerto Rico relatively low. Many Puerto Ricans cannot even be considered part of the reserve of unemployed since they are permanently unemployed. They are among those who cannot find a productive place in society (Dietz, p. 10).
All the facts that have been cited serve to indicate and reflect the negative impact that the colonial impact has had on the people of Puerto Rico. Undoubtedly, the economic difficulties of Puerto Rico stem from the colonial occupation of the island by the U.S.A. As the facts indicate, the occupation of Puerto Rico by the U.S.A. is not intended to benefit the people of Puerto Rico. The interests and well-being of the Puerto Rican people are obviously of minor concern to the U.S.A. Therefore, it is both just and reasonable to conclude that the people of Puerto Rico have the right to initiate a process that will lead to their emancipation from the yoke of U.S.A. economic and political imperialism. They should seek to "be brought out of the heavy work of Egypt (U.S.A. domination), and be liberated from its bondage, and be redeemed with an outstretched arm, and with great judgments (Exodus 6:6)."
The prophet Amos made announcements of judgment against those who exploited the poor and the oppressed (Amos 8:4-14). Amos was living in a time when social injustice was prevalent in the society of Israel in his time. He denounced the people for violating the covenant which they had with the Creator. Among other things, they were failing to do justice to those who were at a disadvantage. The widows were not being cared for, the orphans were neglected, and the workers were being robbed of their just wages. From this segment of Scriptures, one can conclude that the God who was concerned with the plight of socially handicapped in the society of Israel, is the same God that is concerned with the plight of exploited social groups and nations in our time. The message of Amos has relevance for the people of Puerto Rico: God is on the side of those who are seeking to liberate Puerto Rico, and God is against those who are seeking to maintain Puerto Rico in a condition of subjugation. Those who attempt to obstruct God's liberation of Puerto Rico are to be denounced and warned that their insistence on maintaining the domination of the Puerto Rican people will result in divine judgment against them.
In the time of Jesus, there was a religious group who exploited the weak in the name of religion. It was the Pharisees who in the Jewish society of Jesus' day used religion as a means to achieve their ends. The writers of the Synoptic Gospel accounts make it clear that Jesus did not agree with the Pharisees on many theological issues. The Pharisees made use of their religious traditions in order to take advantage of those who were socially and economically handicapped. Notable among them were the widows. Jesus spoke harshly against them for their treatment of the widows (Matthew 23: 1-36). Any use of religion for personal gain or profit was severely condemned by Jesus. In the first chapter of this dissertation, I pointed out that the people of Puerto Rico have also experienced exploitation in the name of religion. Religion, as I demonstrated, has served to justify the existing colonial situation. The words of Jesus against the Pharisees should indicate that God is not in agreement with the present political situation in Puerto Rico. especially since religion has been used to legitimize the present arrangement. It is clear that the establishment and maintenance of an oppressed colony in the name of religion is against the divine will. The words of Jesus indicate that He believed that religion should be used as instrument of liberation for humanity, and not one of subjugation as the Pharisees were using it.
In the Gospel according to Luke, there is a story of a man who had an encounter with Jesus (Luke 19: 1-10). According to the story, he was a very rich man. His conversation with Jesus implies that he had acquired his riches unjustly. He was willing to restore anything which he may have received by fraud. In this story, there is a relation between faith and justice. The man's faith was demonstrated in his willingness to reverse any injustice which he may have committed. From his example, way may conclude that the religious institution (the Church) demonstrates its faith by its willingness to participate in the struggle to reverse or eliminate a social injustice. The illegal and immoral occupation of Puerto Rico is clearly an injustice. It is a perfect example of a situation that calls for the involvement of the community of believers as a means of bringing about social change. This is especially true when we consider that at certain points in history, the religious institution has been an instrument of exploitation and oppression. Since that has been the case in the history of Puerto Rico, the story of the rich man should inspire the Church to show its faith by immersing itself in the struggle for the self-determination of the people of Puerto Rico.
To state that the Church is called to be involved in the movement to eradicate social injustice, is to assume certain things about the nature of the Church and its role in the world. I believe that it is proper to to see the connection between the Church and the struggle for the independence of Puerto Rico. The concept of the Church is rooted in the Old Testament notion of "the people of God (Exodus 6: 6-7)." The notion is that of a people that have been chosen from among the nations of the earth to enter into a relationship with God. That relationship with God is not based on the decision of the people to establish that relationship, but rather on the initiative of God who chooses them to be God's people, and establishes the norms that govern that relationship. There is no indication that this relationship is intended to be an end in itself. The purpose of this relationship is to provide opportunity for the people of the world to be the beneficiaries of God's redemption of the world.
The Church is distinguished from the world by its faith. It is that faith which sets the Church apart as a people of the covenant. In the New Testament, the faith of the Church is expressed as a confession of belief in Jesus the Christ as the Son of the living God (Matthew 16: 13-20). That confession of faith distinguishes the Christian community from those that do not choose or profess to be Christian. The Church is an assembly of people that through their confession of faith in Jesus the Christ have become the people of God in the world.
As stated previously, the relationship between God and the people of God is not intended to be an end in itself. That relationship with God is the foundation for the role of the Church in the world. That role is defined in the New Testament as "going out into all the world and proclaiming the good news (Mark 16:14-18)." The good news is that reign of God is now a reality in human history (Matthew 3: 1-12). From the life and ministry of Jesus, we can learn that the Church's role is not merely fulfilled through verbal proclamation. The role is also carried out by acts of love and charity. He healed the sick and brokenhearted (Matthew 4: 23-25). He showed concern for the poor and oppressed. He established ties of solidarity with those who were seeking to promote social justice (Matthew 5: 1-10). In fact, Jesus said that the reign of God belongs to those who do everything possible to promote social justice (Ibid). From the life of Jesus we can see that the role of the people of God is carried out by the participation of the people in the struggle for the promotion for social justice.
A biblical understanding of the nature and role of the Church should naturally lead one to conclude that the Church should be involved in those movements which seek to carry out social justice. As pointed out before, the occupation of Puerto Rico by the U.S.A. is an example of injustice. The land and the resources that should be used for the well-being of its inhabitants is now being used for the profit of an external power. There is no justice in the present situation. It would not be wrong for us to conclude that the Christian Church should be doing whatever is in its power to eliminate this unjust situation. If the Church is to be faithful to the task to which it has been called, then it should be able to see that among other things, God is calling it to be involved in the movement for the independence of Puerto Rico. To do otherwise would be to side with the oppressor. To do that would be to contradict what the Church is supposed to stand for and represent in the world. The Church is called to take a position that supports the struggle of the people of Puerto Rico to control their own national destiny. In this way, the Church can truly be "the people of God" in the world.
Latin American Liberation Theology provides us with a framework within which a valid argument for the independence of Puerto Rico can be stated. Since Puerto Rico is linguistically, culturally, and religiously part of Latin America, it is only proper that a theological argument for the self-determination of the Puerto Rican people should be based on the theology which has been developed in Latin America in recent years and decades. To speak of Latin America is to speak of Puerto Rico for the reasons which I have indicated. Latin America is in the southern realm of the Western world. It shares the Western Hemisphere with the U.S.A., Canada, and the scattered remnants of European colonial power (Hubert Herring, History of Latin America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1968, p. 3).
As I indicated earlier, I am not using Liberation Theology as a mere "prooftext" for my political convictions. There is a definite parallel between the struggle for political independence of Puerto Rico and the biblical message of liberation. I had noted that the liberation of the Hebrews was intended to be a model for the liberation of all oppressed and enslaved peoples.
One clear idea in Liberation Theology expressed by Gustavo Gutierrez is, "Liberation expresses the aspiration of oppressed peoples and social classes, emphasizing the conflictual aspect of the economic, social, and political process which puts them at odds with wealthy nations and oppressive classes (Gustavo Gutierrez, A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1973, p. 36)."
Gutierrez adds, "At a deeper level, liberation can be applied to an understanding of history. Humanity is seen as assuming conscious responsibility for its own identity. This understanding provides a dynamic context and broadens the horizons of the desired social changes. In this perspective, the unfolding of all of humanity's dimensions is demanded. It is a demand for a person who makes herself/himself throughout her/his life and throughout history. The gradual conquest of true freedom leads to the creation of a new person and a qualitatively different society. This vision provides, therefore, a better understanding of what in fact is at stake in our times (Gutierrez, p. 37)."
According to Gutierrez, "The concept of 'liberation' allows for an approach leading to the biblical sources which inspire the presence and action of humanity in history. In the Bible, Christ is presented as the one who brings us liberation. Christ the Savior liberates humanity from sin, which is the ultimate root of all disruption of friendship and of all injustice and oppression. Christ makes humanity truly free, that is to say, He enables humanity to live in communion with Him. This communion with Christ is the basis for all human brotherhood/sisterhood (Gutierrez, p. 38)."
This definition of "liberation" indicates that Liberation Theology attempts to speak to a situation where nations and groups dominated by oppressive forces seek to free themselves from that situation. As indicated, Liberation Theology seeks to apply the study of the person and work of Christ to the concrete historical reality in which Latin America exists at the present time. Liberation Theology is the manifestation of a quest for a direct link between the Word of God as witnessed to in Scripture, and the existential reality of Latin America. Liberation Theology speaks of a God who is concerned about the condition of dominated and oppressed people. In the thinking of Liberation theologians, God is not only concerned with the condition of oppressed people, but has also in the person of Jesus the Christ has initiated a process whereby they will be liberated from that oppression.
A better understanding of the concept of "liberation" can be provided by examining the concept of "development." While development and liberation may be complementary in the thinking of some, in Latin American Liberation Theology, they are contradictory ideas. By this I mean that "development" as normally defined and carried out, is precisely the reason why there is a theology of "liberation." Gutierrez says that, "Development is normally synonymous with economic growth (Gutierrez, p. 24)." This means that nations that are seeking self-sufficiency, will attain it by means of 'development,' such as the introduction of modern techniques of industry and technology that are used by the more 'developed' countries. But Liberation theologians point out that the concept of 'development' in practice is not beneficial to Latin America. In fact, they believe that 'development' is detrimental to Latin America. Gutierrez adds, " The poor countries are becoming ever more aware that their underdevelopment is only the by-product of the development of other countries because of the kind of relationship which exists between the rich and poor countries." He also adds that the poor countries are realizing their own development will come about only with a struggle to break the domination of the rich countries (Gutierrez, p. 26).
As I indicated in the first chapter, the impact of industrialization as a means of economic development on Puerto Rico has been a rather negative one. The economic policies that govern the relationship between the U.S.A. and Puerto Rico have not been designed to serve or promote the well-being of the people of Puerto Rico. But even more important than that, is that the occupation of Puerto Rico is illegal. When the U.S.A. took possession of Puerto Rico in 1898, the people of Puerto Rico were not consulted as to what they believed the political future of Puerto Rico should be. In other words, the U.S.A took possession of Puerto Rico without the consent of the Puerto Rican people. Puerto Rico, then, is a dominated country which needs to be liberated from the domination of a foreign country and from the economic policies of 'development' which enable the the foreign country (U.S.A.) to tighten its control of the island. Since that is the case, an argument for both political and economic control of Puerto Rico by the people of Puerto Rico can be made within the framework of Latin American Liberation Theology. Liberation Theology calls for a Puerto Rico that would be governed by its owned people, and not by the people of a foreign country. In addition, the economic development of Puerto Rico should not be based on the dependency which Puerto Rico presently has on the economic structure of the U.S.A. The people of Puerto Rico should be the ones to establish the economic system which they believe would best be suited for the well-being of the people of the island.
The case for the independence of Puerto Rico within the framework of Liberation Theology can be further developed by the political dimension of faith. While there may be times when the Liberation theologians fail to be specific in terms of prescribing a specific program for the liberation of Latin America, this does not mean that they are abstract or that they use codes in order to avoid danger. In fact, there are times when the content of their thinking is rather subversive in nature. Their theology not only calls present structures in Latin America into question, but also demands an alteration in the present arrangement. While the language of Liberation theologians may, at times, be encased in the academic language of traditional Western theology, it does not require a great amount of skill to detect that they are speaking to the "principalities and powers" in Latin America.
Hugo Assmann says that in the Third World, the struggle for liberation has now gone beyond the ideals of the revolutionary situations of France in 1789 and Russia in 1917. In addition, he notes that in circumstances of a victorious technology in the service of domination on a world scale, the Third World revolution is anti-imperialistic (and on a national scale, anti-oligarchic ) and anti-technocratic. He says that it embraces the struggle for a universal share of goods sufficient to ensure the human dignity and the struggle for free decision-making at all social levels. "This," says Assmann, "gives a new dimension to the primacy of politics; in Latin America, this is most evident in the resistance to development (Hugo Assmann, Practical Theology of Liberation. London: Search Press, 1975, p. 34)." Other features of this urgent era of the new primacy of politics as an area of concern for Christians stem fro the circumstances directly affecting Latin America: the vulnerability of its exclusive social systems, with the need for self-preservation; the still relatively primitive organization of society; the chance for dissenting authorities to point out contradictions which the system cannot resolve, and a host of similar factors (Assmann, p. 34)."
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment