"Banana republics"

18 posts / 0 new

Thu, 2009-07-02 10:07

"Banana republics"

Drift from the Honduras thread...

It seems to me that when we call small Latin American countries "banana republics" and "shitholes" we're feeding into a colonialist discourse with a long history - a discourse that cheapens and devalues other countries by assuming that (1) they are not real countries, but inventions of US agriculture multi-nationals without agency of their own, and (2) they are terrible places to live, which we should approach with a condescension that is either imperialist or else in the case of leftists framed as 'compassion'.

Now, I'm conscious that the leaders of these countries are often illegitimate and representatives only of the dominant elites who manage to get themselves elected through deceit and money politics at best, coercion and terror at worst. Yet it seems to me that projecting that image of banana republics/shitholes on the entire country is to demean the people of the country as a whole.

My reaction comes from knowing a small amount about the history of these terms. If a country like (say) Nicaragua is only a "banana republic," then there's no good reason the US should not send in troops to "restore order" or "ciivilize" or "liberate" the people. "Banana republics" are lesser, and the language helps create the impression that they matter less. Iran is a real country and its people deserve our solidarity. Honduras is just a banana republic undergoing one of its "typical power struggles". As Bill Clinton said, wrongly and dismissively, about the Balkans: "those people have been fighting each other for thousands of years." We're into hierarchy of nations stuff, always with the USA (or in our case, Canada maybe) on the top. "Lesser" countries get defined by their materials they produce, and then dismissed.

Or take "shithole." Now, there is a lot of poverty in Honduras, as in most of Latin America. Military dictators and plutocrats have fostered that. But is Honduras any more of a "shithole" than Ontario, which has its own poverty? if you measure by GDP, maybe, but if you measure by sustainable well-being and other indices not approved by the World Bank, Honduras is no worse than the USA. And that's on average, not even including the lives of (racialized, gendered) underclasses in the USA, in "shitholes" like Los Angeles and Washington DC.

The implication of the "shithole" discourse, it seems to me, is that these countries are characterized by uniform, grinding, misery. That is present, yes, and maybe in larger numbers than in wealthy-on-average North America. But the language, I think, devalues others by reading them as a single miserable mass, denying individual experiences and judging others by the values of the over-developed North, which manufactures and exports a lot of the poverty.

Possibly I'm over-reacting to the language, but language matters I think. Anyways, I think it's worth talking about. So, a new thread rather than me trying to derail the Honduras coup discussion.

Thu, 2009-07-02 12:08

Maysie

Thanks for starting this thread, Ze.

I agree with your opening premise, as such terms are only used by outsiders, specifically Westerners/Northerners.

Needless to say, I've never heard anyone who immigrated from various Central American countries describe their former homes in those ways. I would challenge anyone that if you're using language that you would not use if an ex pat was present, why are you using such language at all?

Abhorrent internal political processes, national policies to kiss US butt, and the human costs of the failing global capitalist system can be described in ways that don't impugn entire countries.

Thu, 2009-07-02 12:40

Fidel

[url=http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman%20/WashFascismIntro_Herman.html... Washington Connection
and Third World Fascism[/url] Chomsky & Herman

Quote:
Freedom, Aggression and Human Rights

The common view that internal freedom makes for humane and moral international behavior is supported neither by historical evidence nor by reason. The United States itself has a long history of imposing oppressive and terrorist regimes in regions of the world within the reach of its power, such as the Caribbean and Central American sugar and banana republics (Trujillo in the Dominican Republic and the Somozas in Nicaragua were long-lived progeny of U.S. intervention and selection). Since World War II. with the great extension of U.S. power, it has borne a heavy responsibility for the spread of a plague of neofascism, state terrorism, torture and repression throughout large parts of the underdeveloped world. The United States has globalized the "banana republic." This has occurred despite some modest ideological strain because these developments serve the needs of powerful and dominant interests, state and private, within the United States itself. . .

[url=http://www.mayaparadise.com/ufc1e.htm]A brief history of United Fruit Company in Guatemala[/url]

Thu, 2009-07-02 15:39

genstrike

If I remember correctly (and there is a good chance I don't), the term "banana republic" was originally used in reference to the Guatemalan government after the overthrow of Arbenz, so perhaps it was originally meant as a shot against right-wing military dictators supported by the US.

That said, I completely agree with Ze. It seems to me that the term "banana republic" has become part of colonialist discourse of some supposed superiority of the US and Canada over the rest of the Americas - I remember once talking to someone about Nicaragua and he described it as a "banana republic" while defending the actions of the US - ironic considering the original usage. And "shithole" is a little messed up to begin with.

And I find it ironic that the worst offender in all of this on babble is someone who has chosen the name of a Cuban revolutionary as his nom du guerre. Although he has also told me to leave the country and move down to Central America before... bizarre

Thu, 2009-07-02 16:47

Michelle

All right, genstrike and Fidel, let's not personalize this. I think this is a good discussion to have - why don't we have it without singling each other out and being accusatory. It's possible to disagree with each other and challenge each other without turning it into a fight, right?

Thu, 2009-07-02 16:48

Fidel

Maybe all the fake lefties around here should write Noam Chomsky and Edward S Herman and tell them what's up with these long-time banana republics in Central America.

genstrike wrote:
And I find it ironic that the worst offender in all of this on babble is someone who has chosen the name of a Cuban revolutionary as his nom du guerre. Although he has also told me to leave the country and move down to Central America before... bizarre

I'm going to start flagging all your petty little personal attacks against me. And I see you still havent given up your provincial health card and moved to a banana republic off Uncle Sam's back doorstep and in need of big talking fake lefties like yourself.

Thu, 2009-07-02 16:53

Fidel

Quote:
[url=http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/afburns/afrotrop/Honduras.htm]The quintessential " banana republic" Honduras[/url] became a foreign enclave as a result of Anglo-American control over it's railroads, mining industry and banana production in the 1800's. U.S. banana companies were to dominate the country for many years. After the turn of the century, The United Fruit Company and the Standard Fruit and Steamship Company expanded their control over the rich alluvial plains of Honduras' Atlantic coast. By 1929, the United Fruit Company owned or controlled 650,000 acres of the best arable land, along with railroads and ports. The banana operations were run like private cheifdoms, in which the companies kept order and crushed labor organizing with their own security forces or by calling in U.S. troops. . .

Since that time, the Atlantic coast of honduras has become the scene of an immense U.S. military buildup. Formerly backward, forgotten Honduras has moved into the center-stage as the primary U.S. counterinsurgency base. The economic enclave established by the mining and banana companies at the turn of the century has been transformed into a U.S. military enclave.

Thu, 2009-07-02 19:11

That appears to be a link from some professor in Florida. But it hardly matters. I'm not convinced that "Chomsky and Herman said it" does much to purify the term. I mean, Chomsky is great, sure, but he's not infallible. If Chomsky said my ass was green, it wouldn't make it true.

I may be wrong on this, but I'm also not sure that saying "banana republic" over and over again is all that constructive a method of discussion.

To me, the way "banana republic" is used today, is part of a right-wing and ehtnocentric discourse that looks down on the global South as less than "us."

There are numerous examples. I hesitate to link because I'm not looking to get into a link war, but I've seen plenty of right-wing referencs to "the banana republic of Venezuela," to Chavez "going bananas" in support of his "banana republic tyranny," to "Obama's banana republic" from conservative bloggers (they like this term a lot about Obama, I wonder why?), to expressions calling Cuba a "banana republic dictatorship" .. well, I could go on, but it seems pretty clear to me the term is intended pejoratively.

As for "shithole," likening other countries to holes in the ground that are defecated upon? That's just weird, as well as being demeaning.

Thu, 2009-07-02 20:34

Fidel

Ze wrote:
I may be wrong on this, but I'm also not sure that saying "banana republic" over and over again is all that constructive a method of discussion.

I've posted several news articles on Honduras as well as that country's recent history as a repressive human rights hellhole for discussion here on babble. I am certainly not the one who coined the term 'banana republic' And as you can see, there are well established lefties still using the term to describe those human rights hellholes just a few day's drive from crazy loco George Bush's Texas.

Thu, 2009-07-02 21:00

#10

Point taken. Several leftists do indeed use a term that, to my mind, is pejorative.

Thu, 2009-07-02 21:11

#11

Fidel

Ze wrote:

Point taken. Several leftists do indeed use a term that, to my mind, is pejorative.

Just imagine how Americans might have felt about it when Fidel Castro said G. Dubya Bush was running the US economy like a banana republic.

Thu, 2009-07-02 21:16

#12

Frmrsldr

Canada is sometimes referred to as a "banana republic". The expression can be used to refer to a colonial attitude the U.S. has toward its Western hemisphere neighbors and their (sometimes) subservient attitude toward the U.S.

Thu, 2009-07-02 21:30

#13

Fidel

And there are many deluded Canadians who still believe that CUSFTA and NAFTA trade deals will transform Canada into some kind of prosperous 51st US state. And all we have to do is observe the banana republics and Puerto Rico as we sell our sovereign souls down the Mississippi on that gamble.

Thu, 2009-07-02 22:59

#14

remind

When I hear the words "banana republic" I automatically think of the oppressed peoples in said country being at the mercy of implanted and murderous leaders, funded and ordered about by the USA. I have never taken it as a disparaging remark against the people's of those countries, who are under the tyrany of the USA, and the socio-pathic "elite" of the world and have no choices to speak of, other than being murdered if they dare challenge the hegemony.

Having said that, I believe it can be an over used descriptor, and stay away from using it myself, as well as skipping over posts that use it.

Wed, 2009-07-15 12:45

#15

cjjdnc

I think you're absolutely right that "banana republic" is a term that degrades/cheapens. Maybe it wasn't intended to do so, but that's the connotation that's been produced -- at least in my perspective.

I also think you're right to fit it into the colonialist tradition. If we think governments are "banana republics," we'll be less outraged when there's massive interference by the colonial power. For instance, it hardly bothers anyone (in a serious, actionable way) to learn that the U.S. spends millions on destabilization efforts in places like Venezuela, Bolivia and so on. I suspect there are some assumptions about government not being as serious down there, so who cares what we do?

Wed, 2009-07-15 17:47

#16

al-Qa'bong

"Banana republic" refers to the US-backed dictatorships in Central America set up to further the profits of outfits such as the United Fruit Company. Think about that whenever you have a yummy Chiquita banana.

Fri, 2009-07-17 01:35

#17

Focusfilms

When I here the word "banana Republic " I think of the store in the eaton centre owned by the GAP inc that sells over priced boring plain clothes that have not fashion style.

Sat, 2010-03-27 17:26

#18

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18356]U.S. Plunges Central America Back To Era Of Coups And Death Squads[/url] Still refusing to trust Latin Americans with democracy