In the mind of Liberation theologians, politics are not thought of as something that is added to the normal content of faith, but rather the very act of faith in a particular context (Assmann, p. 34). This means that Liberation theologians believe that faith is manifested through activity in the political arena. Assmann says, "It is ambigous to speak of the political consequences of faith since this gives a false impression that it is possible to live a life of faith in isolation from daily life (Assmann, p. 34)." Faith, they say, is no more or less than humanity's activity which is basically political in nature (Assmann, p. 35). Humanity's quest for the basic meaning of historical existence moves us to go so deep into our human "why" that we come up against the mystery of God working in history, but never outside it (Assmann, p. 35).
Assmann's view of the political dimension of faith indicates that the faith of the Christian community is to be demonstrated through the participation of the Church in political activities or movements that seek to enhance the dignity of human life. It is clear that in the thinking of Liberation theologians, that faith is expressed through resistance to "development" as a means of creating a society in which the people of Latin America can find their livelihood. From this view, we can again conclude that the Christian community is called to to be immersed in the movement for the independence of Puerto Rico.
Since the faith is the faith of the Church, and not merely the faith of individual Christians, then it is not difficult to imagine that the Church will express and demonstrate its faith by involving itself in those activities that are designed to enable the people of Puerto Rico to determine their own political future. Furthermore, we find again that the Church will express its political activity by refusing to accept the "developmentalist" approach to the creation of a new Puerto Rican society. If the Church is to be specific in terms of how its faith is to be manifested in the world, then the present situation in Puerto Rico is one which presents a unique challenge to the Church. Since the situation is one of oppression and domination, then it is also one which call for the Church to demonstrate its belief in the liberating work of the Christ by promoting by whatever means are at its disposal, the independence of Puerto Rico. In essence, since the faith of the Church is political in nature, it is inevitable that the Church will not merely make verbal denouncements against the present situation in Puerto Rico, but will also make use of its strength and energy to alter the situation and produce a more just Puerto Rican society.
There is another aspect of the "political dimension of faith" in Liberation Theology. It is the notion of a "historical project." The notion of this historical project is essential to an understanding of any action that might be taken by those who will be responsible for initiating the process of liberation in Latin America. A close study of Liberation Theology will reveal that, in spite of the varied forms of expression that we find in Liberation Theology, most Liberation theologians conceive of this project as "a socialist project of liberation (Jose Miguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975, p. 30)." Some of the basic elements of this project are the following:
1. The project rejects developmentalist attempts to solve the Latin American problems within the international capitalist system, dependent on the relations to the Northern countries; instead it envisages a breaking away from the domination of the empires, though not necessarily in isolation from them.
2. It is convinced that such elimination of dependence is impossible without a parallel revolution in the social structure of Latin American societies, through which the oligarchic elites which cooperate with foreign interests are displaced from power; this is only possible through a mobilization of the people. There are differences here as to the relative weight of the industrial proletariat, the role of the military, and of the revolutionary elite.
3. Given the well-experienced reaction of foreign and local interests to such a program, the need for nationalization, etc., it is clear that a strong centralized state is a necessary step in the process. This does not mean a naive attitude concerning the dangers of such a step.
4. It is not enough to bring about change in the economic structures of society: They must be accompanied, supported, and carried out by the awakening of a sense of participation in the population, whereby they become true protagonists of their own history.
5. Given the fact that a transfer of power is necessary, which implies a clear consciousness of the objectives involved, a sense of urgency and concentration, a serious and prolonged struggle, the political dimension becomes primary and determinant; other important aspects (technical, cultural, social, economic) become subordinate, not in the sense of neglect, but in that of relationship to the political; hence we speak of a primacy of the political in the present Latin American struggle (Bonino, p. 40).
This "historical project of liberation" indicates that there are several things which must take place if Puerto Rico is to become truly free and sovereign. While the project is concentrated on the economic aspect of dependence, political action is obviously required. It would be necessary for the people of Puerto Rico to be able to effect a transfer of political power from those external forces to the ones who have every right to exercise that power, i.e. the people of Puerto Rico themselves. What this would mean is that the people of Puerto Rico would have to resort to some course of action that would result in their being the sole managers of Puerto Rican political life. In order for this to happen, the severing of political ties with the U.S.A.would have to be carried out. Since it is unlikely that the government of the U.S.A.will voluntarily grant the people of Puerto Rico the right to be self-governing, then it is necessary for the people to resort to other means in order to secure this right. One alternative would be for the people of Puerto Rico to resort to war as a means to obtain their independence. Great and many risks are involved in this option, especially when we consider among other things, the lack of highly developed and sophisticated military weapons that they would need in order to wage a successful war against the U.S.A. Another alternative would be for the people of Puerto Rico to exert pressure on those countries which are members of the United Nations to take a strong stand against the continued occupation of Puerto Rico. Naturally, this pressure would have to come from those political parties and movements who favor independence, since the present party in power represents the interests of the government of the U.S.A.
This socialist project of liberation that Liberation theologians conceive of as the instrument or means through which Latin America will effect the break in the relations of dependency and domination reflects two things in particular. The first thing is that they believe that Christian theology should be reformulated so as to speak on behalf of dominated and oppressed groups in the world. It is their contention that traditional theology reflects the interests of the minority ruling classes in Latin American society as well as the interests of those countries (the U.S.A. in particular) that are holding holding Latin America in political and economic subjugation. It is their conviction that theology should reflect the interests and aspirations of those social groups and nations are dominated. The second thing is that Liberation theologians believe that theology should provide the groundwork or the basis on which action should be taken to alter the present arrangement in Latin America. In other words, Liberation Theology is not limited to denouncing the present arrangement, but also calls for change which can be brought about by the actions of committed Christians.
This "socialist project of liberation" has two implications for the independence of Puerto Rico. I have already alluded to the first, i.e. that Liberation Theology calls for political action on the part of the people of Puerto Rico to begin to take action that will result in a transfer of power. In other words, they are called to become the protagonists of their own destiny and history. The second implication is that in addition to the transfer of political power, the people of Puerto Rico are called to design an economic system which will benefit the people of Puerto Rico as a whole, and not merely an elite within Puerto Rican society. While Liberation theologians do not propose any specific model of socialism, it will be obvious to anyone who is familiar with Liberation Theology, that these theologians do not believe that the present structure of North American capitalism is beneficial for the people of Latin America. To be more specific, Liberation theologians consider capitalism an enslaving economic system from the people of Latin America need to be liberated in order to experience authentic freedom. What this implies is that true independence will come to Puerto Rico after it has severed the ties of the political relationship with the U.S.A., and when some form of socialism is introduced as the economic system in the society of Puerto Rico.
There is a certain concept which is used frequently in Liberation Theology. It is the notion of "oppression." This notion is central in the thinking of every Liberation theologian. This is indicated by the fact that their theology is called "theology of liberation." The mere fact that the term "liberation" is used, indicates that there is something to be liberated from. The thing that requires liberation is what Liberation theologians call "a situation of oppression." Hugo Assmann says that the starting point for theological reflection is "our objective situation as oppressed and dependent peoples, which is forcing itself more and more strongly on the consciousness of broad sections of Christian society in Latin America (Assmann, p. 40)." The word "oppression" is normally used by Liberation theologians to refer to the state of economic and political dependency in Latin America presently exists. In other words, it has to do with the relationship between the economic and political structures of Latin America, and the economic and political structures of those countries on which Latin America's survival depends. A close study of any literature on Latin America will reveal that the country which is most responsible for the existence and perpetuation of those structures which the Latin American people, especially Liberation theologians, consider unjust and oppressive, is the U.S.A. This does not mean that there are not other countries involved in or responsible for the present situation of domination in Latin America. What this does mean is that the U.S.A has the primary responsibility, since their economic policies have been the most influential in that region. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that the U.S.A has the highest standard of living in the Western hemisphere, and also to its being the most powerful country in the world.
Is it fair to say that the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed? If the word "oppression" is associated with denying people democratic rights such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press, then the people of Puerto Rico are not oppressed. They enjoy these basic rights. If by "oppression" one means being destitute of food, clothing, and shelter, then the people of Puerto Rico are not oppressed. They do have, however inadequately, these basic means of survival. But if the word "oppression" is used to refer to a state of domination and dependency, then the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed. At the present time, Puerto Rico is a colony of the U.S.A. It is politically and economically controlled by the government of the U.S.A. Because of that, it is fair to say that the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed. They do not enjoy the right to have control of the land in which they live.
Why must the notion of "oppression" be associated with the situation in Puerto Rico? My answer to that is that the occupation of Puerto Rico has had a negative impact on the Puerto Rican people. Compulsory U.S.A citizenship for Puerto Rico was debated as early as 1900. By 1905, a time of progress for American economics, Theodore Roosevelt proposed the adoption of legislation which would explicitly confer U.S.A. citizenship on all the people in Puerto Rico. In the discussion of the Olmstead Bill in 1910, the possibility of imposing citizenship was again raised, and in 1912, this discussion was resumed in the United States Senate. On March 12, 1914, the House of Delegates, at that time, the only body elected by the Puerto Rican peoples, sent a memorandum to the President and Congress of the U.S.A. rejecting the imposition of U.S.A. citizenship. Nevertheless, the U.S.A government passed the Jones Act in 1917 by which the people of Puerto Rico became U.S.A. citizens. This act removed the last obstacle to U.S.A. economic penetration. At that time, sixty percent of the Puerto Rican people did not understand what was happening because they were illiterate. The incapacity and vacillation of the petty bourgeiose and the traditional parties were responsible for the imposition of U.S.A. citizenship, which included the obligation to serve in the U.S.A. armed forces. Themselves bereft of an ideology, those groups had no moral banner to raise that could have aroused the masses to militant rejection (Francesco Cordasco and Eugene Bucchioni, The Puerto Rican Experience. Totowa: Littlefield, Adams, and Co., 1973, p. 188)
In the first chapter, I alluded to the negative impact that industrialization has had on Puerto Rico. Operation Bootstrap bore the kind of name that encourages Americans to believe unquestioningly in the their country's selfless generosity to other peoples. In truth, the new program was an example of imperialism, guaranteeing tax-free investment to U.S.A firms developing the island as a market for their goods. While it fed the U.S.A.'s sense of self-righteousness and brought profits to U.S.A. investors, Operation Bootstrap left untouched the poverty of the majority of Puerto Rico's 2.5 million inhabitants. In fact, by limiting the development of the island's economy and forcing continual dependence on the U.S.A., Operation Bootstrap deepened the cycle of poverty in Puerto Rico (Cordasco and Bucchioni, p. 116).
The human cost of dependency upon outside sources of capital and control over economic production can be measured in more tragic terms. In the village of Barceloneta, on the Northeast coast, for example, pharmaceutical firms from North America began to build their plants in 1967 and 1968 and bring to the area, new physical problems. In the five years following, the rate of deaths from asthma doubled, from six to twelve thousand. Evidence has been gathered documenting the cause and effect relationship between air emission from the factories and the high incidence of respiratory problems, as well as a high index of congenital deformities and mental retardation. At the time of this writing, fifteen percent of the first grade children were mentally retarded, and infant mortality was three times higher than in Puerto Rico as a whole (National Division Board, United Methodist Church, p. 15).
Economic dependency in the private sector of Puerto Rico is only exceeded by the Commonwealth's addiction to federally financed programs. Since 1970, pro-Commonwealth and pro-statehood administrations in Puerto Rico have sought to ease financial pressure by turning to federal aid programs. The imposition of U.S.A. citizenship upon the Puerto Rican people led to the insistence that Puerto Ricans be given treatment equal to that of the citizens of the mainland. Successive Commonwealth governments have managed to increase federal outlays to Puerto Rico from seven hundred sixty-seven million in 1970 to three billion dollars in 1976. The extension of these federal programs have turned Puerto Rico into a veritable welfare state. The extension of the food stamp program to Puerto Rico in 1974 cost the United States Treasury six hundred million dollars a year by 1976. More than two-thirds of Puerto Rico's people are presently eligible to participate in this program (National Division Board, p. 17).
The strategic importance of Puerto Rico to U.S.A. military planning for the Caribbean and Latin America cannot be underestimated. Following the American invasion in 1898, Puerto Rico became the key outpost in the Caribbean for monitoring naval activities in the Atlantic. Today, U.S.A. military operations in Puerto Rico are essential to the command of logistical and communication purposes for the armed forces in the South Atlantic, an area which extends from the tip of South Africa to South America. Puerto Rico is then the military base for supporting military intervention strategies of the U. S.A. in Latin America (National Division Board, p. 17).
Vieques and Culebra, two small islands off the coast of Puerto Rico, had been used for many years as bombing ranges for naval maneuvers and training since World War II. In the late years of the Vietnam wars, protestors successfully closed Culebra to military activity through non-violent demonstrations. Part of the agreement was that military use of Vieques would not be increased as a result of the closing. This agreement was violated, and there was, until very recent years, a strong non-violent citizens action against U.S.A. naval activities on the beaches of Vieques. These activities disrupted severely disrupted civilian life and the fishing economy. The confrontation over Vieques is symbolic of U.S,A, attitudes towards Puerto Rico in general. The military had caused destruction of reefs, the pollution of waters, and the denial of local fishermen of free access to the best fishing grounds. The rights of protesting fishermen and villagers was ignored. Their lives were placed in jeopardy as they sought to carry on daily activity in the face of escalating use of the island for bombing practice. The residents received the support of government officials in San Juan, whose influence was seemingly powerless in changing United States Government Department of Defense policies. Such arrogance and and defiance of local interests increased the sense of powerlessness of the islanders, and heightened the dissatisfaction of citizens within the state of U.S.A.-Puerto Rico relationships. (National Division Board, p. 18).
The dominant presence of the U.S.A economically, politically, and militarily has had a profound impact on all aspects of Puerto Rican society. The structures of U.S.A.control in these areas set the limits by which Puerto Rican society functions. In some instances, the presence of U.S.A. influence is subtle, and in other, it is outrightly bold and abrasive. For example, the educational system in Puerto Rico has been dominated by U.S.A. cultural attitudes. The government of the U.S.A. decreed at one time that all instruction should be in English. Today classes are taught in Spanish, but English remains a requirement for better jobs. Entrance exams to professional schools are usually given in English. Until recently, the courts carried on most proceedings in English. American curricular patterns have been the model for Puerto Rican elementary and secondary schools. Courses in U.S.A. history reflect a patriotic bias for American supremacy, diminishing the self-esteem of young Puerto Ricans (National Division Board, p. 18).
Another manifestation of the oppression created by the U.S.A.-Puerto Rico relationships, has been the government policy of birth control via sterilization. More than thirty-five percent of Puerto Rican women of child bearing age have been sterilized--the highest rate of female sterilization in the world. Proponents of family planning who claim that population control is essential for Puerto Rico's continued economic and social development have hailed the island's record rate of sterilization as being necessary. Pro-independence groups and many Third World countries label the program a conscious effort at eliminating the Puerto Rican population. The sterilization is carried out by public health clinics which are funded by Department of Health and Welfare appropiations. The department makes bonus funds available to the Commonwealth based on previous years of performance, and in the island economy, which is so dependent on federal financing to stave off insolvency, this source of income is economically attractive. The guidelines require voluntary and informed consent, but the high incidence of surgical procedures following child birth rates raises legitimate questions as to whether the decision for this irreversible form of birth control is made without coercion and free of emotional manipulation. While the program has contributed to the reduction in fertility rates, the risks of complications and death have not been seriously dealt with. This is another indicator of the devaluing of human life under an economic and political system of oppression (National Division Board, p. 19).
As the facts indicate, the people of Puerto Rico are oppressed. The political, social, and economic impact of the occupation of Puerto Rico by the U.S,A upon the people of Puerto Rico has been negative. These facts also indicate that the colonization of Puerto Rico by the U.S.A. has placed the people of Puerto Rico in a psychological state of dependency, creating in them the internalization of feelings of subserviency.
In an article entitled "Christ's Liberation via Oppression," Leonardo Boff says that people in Latin America live in a more or less pervasive form of captivity on the outskirts of the great decision-making centers of the world, where cultural, economic, political, and religious questions are decided. People are led to feel that they are marginal, concrete human beings who suffer from frustrated hopes. They seek a structural change in their way of life and their relationship with worldly goods and other human beings. In addition, Boff says that they must bear the full weight of the fact that their generation will not live to see the appearance of a more just and fraternal world, and that they will have to put up with a global system that generates rich and poor, periphery and center, violence and oppression (Rosino Gibellini, ed. Frontiers of Theology in Latin America. Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1979, p. 100).
To be continued.
No comments:
Post a Comment