A Latin American Spring?

Are we on the verge of a Latin American Spring? Eric Farnsworth, a writer for the Huffington Post, seems to think so in his March 21 article entitled "The Latin American Spring," (see http://tinyurl.com/7llnaae). The pope's visit to Mexico and Cuba this month highlights the globe's focus on the Western Hemisphere. This international spotlight may just be beneficial for everyone. In some ways, this is could be the beginning of an agenda between the US and Latin America that looks to the future, and it is also an opportunity for Latin American countries to show the effects of real leadership in the region. The Pope began his schlep on March 23. In just 3 short days, leaders from Mexico and Canada will converge in Washington for a meeting about trade. Then, Brazil's president will be officially welcomed at the White House, and shortly after, Obama will make his way to the Summit of the Americas in Cartagena, Colombia. Hilary will be stopping by Brazil for a bit, and then on May 8, leaders from all over the hemisphere will again converge in DC for the Conference on the Americas. To cap it all off, we will be seeing leaders from across the world meeting up in Mexico in June for the G20 meeting and in Brazil for the Rio+20 meeting. These next two months are looking pretty busy for Latin America! What does this all mean for the region? Well, with China moving in and taking advantage of markets and political stability in the region, the US seems to be losing its 'grip' on the hemisphere. The article takes a very pro-US stance, indicating that the US can succeed by shifting the lens through which we view Latin America, from development studies to a more modern international relations approach. The US needs to start working collaboratively with G20 members and Brazil and Mexico about global financing issues, reject protectionism and instead promote trade expansion by bringing other nations, like Costa Rica, Colombia, and Panama into the talks. Energy policy could also be a key strategy to promote relations. After all, Latin America isn't just gonna sit around waiting for the US; rather, the region is on the move, involving partners from Asia, Africa and Europe. While economic conditions may be on the rise, the article notes that "the principle threat to democracy" comes from nations who want to gain power by weakening democracies, the same ones who want to welcome Cuba back into hemispheric relations. But until Cuba gets its act together, it should remain an outlier. While some progress has been achieved in the realm of economics and politics, we would do well to remember that there is progress that has yet to be made.

It is clear that this article takes a very interesting point of view, that is, a very US-centric one. It goes to show you the importance of observing media with a critical eye, as this article demonstrates a point of view that seems to be contrary to what I think other Latin American nations would say. I mean come on, with phrasing like "the fight for open market democracy is never finished" and "Competition is good, but we (US) need to put ourselves in a position to succeed" sort of screams of US neo-imperialistic interests in Latin America. We've been the 'top-dog' for so long, that it seems that we can't handle anything (re: China, Taiwan, Iran, to name a few) that would jeopardize our interests (note, our as in US, we don't seem to care very much for Latin America's interests, other than that they should be aligned with ours), in the region. In my mind, protecting one's interests in a region that has a long past of US imperialistic-like dominance gets a little shady. I'm well aware of political and economic strategy, and I'm not advocating against it. Rather, I think we just need to be transparent about what it is we're doing. Why is it such a big deal if Latin America isn't waiting around for us? So what if China is moving in? Let's cut the crap and be serious about why the US is really concerned about this. Are we in it to promote democracy? Or are we refusing Cuba 'entry' into the hemisphere because we've had a long and nasty history with the country, and we don't want to be friends? And who's kind of democracy are we promoting? We're certainly not endorsing the democracies of Bolivia and Venezuela, yet like it or not Venezuela is a key player in the region. The article talks about the US strategically collaborating with leaders in Latin America, incorporating more countries in on trade agreements, but as a means to what end? I mean, the US has a rather long and nasty legacy in Latin America. It may be a stable region now, but we can hardly take credit for that after our history of financing bloody civil wars in the region. I realize that all this sounds pretty harsh; I assure you, the one thing graduate school will do to you is make you the biggest critic of everything.

I also really liked how the article highlights how many Americans aren't even aware of the new and shifting realities in Latin America. We may know about our awesome vacations in Cancun and Machu Picchu or the war on drugs, but are we aware that Brazil is the world's sixth largest economy (bigger than the UK) and that Mexico is number 14? How about the fact that Brazil and Venezuela are global energy superpowers? You know what I think? I think it's great that Latin America is branching out, seeking partners from across the world and looking inward in some instances (like the Alba partnership) to get things done for themselves. I don't think that collaboration with the US should be taken off the table; that's not only impossible, as we are literally connected, but also imprudent, considering the trade agreements that already exist. However, I think the the time has come for Latin America to show the world what it is made of. The article seems to indicate that the progress that still needs to be achieved is the 'situation' in Cuba. Rather, I think that if Latin American can get a hold of the drug violence and associated corruption that is gripping the region, we could see more definite and positive progress.

Teachers versus Technology in Peru

Education in Peru: A disappointing return from an investment in computing
Apr 7th 2012
http://www.economist.com/node/21552202

GIVING a child a computer does not seem to turn him or her into a future Bill Gates—indeed it does not accomplish anything in particular. That is the conclusion from Peru, site of the largest single programme involving One Laptop per Child, an American charity with backers from the computer industry and which is active in more than 30 developing countries around the world.

The April, Americas edition of the Economist reports that the Inter-American Development Bank has published a paper entitled Technology and Child Development: Evidence from the One Laptop per Child Program in which after an intensive 15-month, 319 rural school study, researchers have found no "empirical" evidence of the programs' success (Download full report here). The article explains that the researchers also found no correlation, or rise, in reading or math scores, improvement in homework, classroom attendance, nor did it find an increase in motivation, as was initially hypothesized. The article states that although Peru has "one of Latin America's worst education systems," an increase in the country's revenues from mining operations allowed for a $225m investment in 850,000 basic laptops. Yet, as touched on above, test scores and literacy rates remain low throughout the country. Of course, as you may or may not know, the model is supported through the One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) initiative, whose website illustrates:

Roughly 2 million children and teachers in Latin America are currently part of an OLPC project, with another 500,000 in Africa and the rest of the world. Our largest national partners include Uruguay (the first major country in the world to provide every elementary school child with a laptop), Peru (our largest deployment, involving over 8,300 schools), Argentina, Mexico, and Rwanda. Other significant projects have been started in Gaza, Afghanistan, Haiti, Ethiopia, and Mongolia. Every school represent a learning hub, a node in a globally shared resource for learning.

See video for more information:

Other sources, such as PC Mag cite a lack of internet connectivity as a central issue and links the results to a lack of "high quality, complementary" education. However, the Examiner says it best, I believe, with their title: Technology doesn't improve education, Teachers do. Also, see Mashable and ZD Net for further commentary and information.


Initially, I have to admit, I was surprised by the results of the study. I anticipated that the implementation of computer technology in Latin American classrooms would surely bring much-needed changes that would hopefully level the playing field for students who have not grown up with a "computer lab" or "computer class", as I myself did, and many students in the First World, or developed countries, had in their early primary years of study. Nonetheless, it makes perfect sense as to why this program is not succeeding at this point in Peru. It seems that you cannot restructure current education systems by simply dropping materials into the classroom. It appears to be a false expectation/misconception that was not clearly organized or addressed at the onset in order to "make a real difference." I put those words in quotation marks because of course, these differences are going to be interpreted differently across participating countries, cultures and people.


This blog entry is unique in that this is the first time Sigue is writing on Peru -- hopefully we can continue to examine this program and its progress in Peru. Certainly this is interconnectedness at its central core, however, a quick look at the people involved in the operation and development of OLPC initiative screams: where is the educational component and where are the education experts? Of course laptops are not a "magic cure-all", as one blogger laments. Shouldn't interconnectedness involve a greater listening process? I propose a more flexible model that takes into account already existing structures in order to build on already-exisitng education systems with the use of technology and not through it. Additionally, it is possible, gasp, that economic investments would be better off in other sectors rather than technology, such as continuing education/training for teachers.


On a personal note, I have taught in a Montessori school where I have had every tool at my disposal -- a dream classroom for some. However, as readers are aware, I currently work for the Barrio Planta Project (BPP), which does struggle in terms of materials and supplies. I must say that my current work has forced me to be more creative and dynamic in not only lesson planning and curriculum, but in the general way in which I teach and reach students. That, I believe, the core of quality education and while we would certainly welcome a computer lab, we know that strong, educated and motivated teachers make for strong, educated motivated students -- period. What are your thoughts?

Bridge Woes for Nicaragua

Ortega's Bridge Over Troubled Waters

By: Tim Rogers

Nicaragua Dispatch and Prensa Latina  

March 1, 2012

Citation: http://tinyurl.com/7afhqbkhttp://tinyurl.com/86e9qhz

President Daniel Ortega and Japanese Ambassador Jiro Shibasaki trekked to the Río San Juan Wednesday afternoon to lay the ceremonial cornerstone to the $30 million, Japanese-funded Santa Fé Bridge, which will cross the Nicaraguan river and connect to Costa Rica.

Article clipped, see link for details.

Did you know that 95% of road construction machinery in Nicaragua comes from Japan in the form of technical assistance? Apparently this relationship is not new; Japan has been funding road work projects in Nicaragua for the last twenty years. All this is coming to light with the recent cornerstone-laying of the Santa Fe Bridge, a Japanese funded venture, that will link Nicaragua to Costa Rica. The idea is that one completed in 2014, the bridge will allow for increased trade, tourism, and economic development between the two countries and that it will have wider implications for Central American cooperation. The Japanese ambassador said that the bridge will unite Nicaragua and Costa Rica, allowing for increased development. The ambassador also indicated Nicaragua's "priority" status for Japanese aid, and commented on Nicaragua's solidarity after the 2011 Japanese earthquake. The laying of the cornerstone was quite anti-climatic, and was accompanied by a bizarre speech from el Presidente Ortega. Ortega's speech, far from being prepared or lengthy, was mild prattle. Instead of mentioning the border conflict with Costa Rica, the Tico highway project across the river, the evils of capitalism, or his good buddy Tio Chavez, Ortega exchanged niceties with engineers. Then, in another bizarre turn of events, the event just fizzled out; he concluded abruptly, placing the first stop after bumbling over his words, and then it was over.

As you may have noticed, many of our posts indicate the presence of China and Iran in Latin America (see posts on Foxconn assembly-line, Taiwan student loans, and Iranian involvement in Latin America), and what this means in terms of globalization and development efforts in Latin America. Yet, these are not the only countries who appear to be investing in Latin America. Japan has long been a player in this mix, donating money to Nicaragua to deal with some must needed infrastructure maintenance. As other bloggers have asked before me, my first question is why? Why is Japan showering Nicaragua with $30 million dollars to fund a huge bridge, the biggest of its kind in the country, in Nicaragua. Is it because of the outpouring of solidarity that the Nicaraguan government showed to Japan after last year's devastating earthquake? I know that Japan is a very generous donor country in terms of foreign assistance. But still, I wonder about Japan's motivations for aid in Nicaragua.

I was also interested in how the article highlighted the issues that Ortega didn't speak about. In my mind, perhaps the most pressing were the issues that have to deal with Nicaragua's southern (and more well off neighbor), Costa Rica. From my own personal experiences in Costa Rica, I know that there are some rivalries between the two countries. Many Nicaraguans I met in Costa Rica encountered difficulties related to prejudices. I think it's interesting that Nicaragua and Japan both perceive this bridge as a way to unite these two countries in a very literal way. However, I think that without addressing other issues, like the border problem or the Nicaraguan environmental concerns with the Tico highway across the river in Costa Rica, this bridge may bring more harm than good. On the other hand though, perhaps the benefits of the bridge (increased trade, more jobs, potential increases in tourism) will actually help better relations between Nicaragua and Costa Rica. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see.

Finally, in light of my post on the drug war and its affect on education in El Salvador, I wonder what this bridge will mean in terms of the deadly business of the drug trade in Latin America. Will its construction allow for an even easier pathway for drugs to make their way from Costa Rica to Nicaragua and onwards to places like El Salvador and Mexico? It's definitely an interesting point to consider. After all, while Ortega has proclaimed that Nicaragua is winning the war against drugs (see: http://www.nicaraguadispatch.com/features/is-nicaragua-winning-the-war-on-drugs/3099), the country's drug seizures have decreased, according to a State Department report. So, my lingering question is, what will the effects of this bridge be? Will we see an increased ease of drug trafficking through Nicaragua? Will it benefit trade and relations between Costa and Nica?

Culture and Knowledge Transmission in Nicaragua

Reinforcing the transmission of Mayangna culture, knowledge and language

By Natural Sciences Sector

UNESCO Media Services

January 25, 2012

Citation:

http://tinyurl.com/7zdeqry

Like many other indigenous peoples, the Mayangna people of the BOSAWAS Biosphere Reserve, Nicaragua are concerned about the erosion of their culture, language and knowledge. Around the world, indigenous people are experiencing rapid social, cultural and environmental change. While this change may offer new opportunities, it may also put at risk their rich cultural heritage by disrupting the processes by which indigenous culture, language and knowledge are transmitted.

(Article Clipped, See Link for Full text)

Due to globalization, indigenous groups are frequently faced with changing social and cultural interactions that lead to new and exciting opportunities; however, globalization may threaten their indigenous cultural background. This UNESCO article deals with indigenous knowledge in Nicaragua from a biodiversity standpoint, since indigenous peoples play an integral role in maintaining environmental biodiversity and protecting the environment form exploitation. Therefore, it is essential to ensure that indigenous knowledge is preserved. The article indicates how the Mayangna indigenous group solicited support from UNESCO's LINKS program to aid them in preserving their local indigenous knowledge about biodiversity in today's globalized world. First, the Mayangna recorded knowledge on natural history, habitats, invasive species, their language, and legends into a book, which they hoped would be incorporated into the Mayangna educational system. In fact the Ministry of Education in Nicaragua recognizes the importance of adapting curriculum and education to local contexts, especially for indigenous children. Members of MINED are working in conjunction with Mayangna educators to adapt and develop curriculum materials, such as teachers guides and textbooks. After a pilot phase and final phase complete with monitoring and evaluation, this project proved successful and will attempt to integrate Mayangna knowledge and culture into the new national curriculum.

I thought that this article was interestingly juxtaposed against my post last week about the Mayans in Mexico and their need to modernize. Unlike the Mexican government, which just went in and built new homes in an attempt to allow the Mayans to live a more modernized life (typical), I found that I was very pleased by the actions of the Ministry of Education in Nicaragua in their treatment of the Mayangna indigenous group (despite the fact that I've never heard of the Mayangna people in all my time in Nicaragua...which is curious). What this article says to me is that perhaps globalization does not have to equate to the death of indigenous culture. Especially if we're talking about environmental conservation and preserving biodiversity, we need to think about ways to preserve this local indigenous knowledge. For so many centuries, indigenous tribes have been taking care of our planet and living in harmony with the environment. Because of this, as the article points out, indigenous communities house "80% of Earth's remaining healthy ecosystems." From an environmentally conscious standpoint then, it is imperative to consider local indigenous knowledge if people want to preserve what biodiversity we have left on the planet.

However, beyond being an article about indigenous people's importance in the realm of preserving biodiversity, I thought this article implicated the importance and possibility of integrating local knowledge into education at a national level, allowing for a dialogue between the traditional and the modern in Nicaragua. With UNESCO acting as an intermediary, the Mayangna logged all of their local knowledge and customs in their own language into a book, which needs to be incorporated into the Mayangna curriculum in order to ensure the transmission of Mayangna knowledge. However, more than that, the Ministry of Education in Nicaragua has actively been working alongside the Mayangna people through education in order to support their local knowledge and culture. While there are obviously many challenges ahead that both the Mayangna and MINED have to face in order to fully integrate Mayangna knowledge and language into the national curriculum, the fact that the Ministry does make indigenous knowledge a priority and engages in dialogue with indigenous peoples is an important first step. As someone studying development, I feel like all we talk about sometimes is how difficult it is to establish collaboration with the people in order to ensure equity in education and development, especially given the context of globalization. Really, a lot of the discussing I have as someone trying to navigate the world of development make me want to bash my head against a wall sometimes. Even my idealization of local knowledge construction has been dashed (after all, we have to ask the question of who exactly is constructing local knowledge?). Despite all this, in the context of educational development regarding indigenous people, I think that Nicaragua is on the right track.

UNIALBA Higher Education System: Socialism or Functionalism?

Logo ALBA: Argentina Indymedia

LATINAMERICA: Higher education integration for bloc

University World News

August 14, 2011

Citation: http://tinyurl.com/82w8knd

Member states of Latin America's left-leaning political bloc known as Alba are organising to create an integrated higher education system. The eight participating nations aim to pool resources with a view to strengthening their universities. But the initiative, which has a strong socialist and anti-US agenda, has come in for widespread criticism.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, or Alba - which includes among others the governments of Venezuela, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Bolivia and Cuba - was founded by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez in December 2004.

The alliance's higher education integration initiative was announced in Nicaragua in June and emphasises strengthening universities and sharing advances made with each of the member countries.

But while pooling resources in higher education is a positive step, according to Kevin Casas Zamora (pictured), a former Costa Rican vice-president and political analyst with the Brookings Institution, it is dangerous when linked to a political agenda.

Article clipped; see link above for full version

Members of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America, as known as ALBA, are proposing a collaborative higher education system. It is their hope that by pooling all of their resources together that these eight nations will be able to form a network of universities that will support the demand for more venues of higher education in their respective countries. However, this proposal has gained a significant amount of criticism because of the political agenda that is often associated with such projects accomplished through this alliance. In this case, how can education and free thought be fostered in an environment laden with stringent socialist and anti-U.S. ideologies. Not only does the underlying "education" seem to be problematic, but also the coordination of a cohesive curriculum and grading structure. While ministry officials from the two main countries, Cuba and Venezuela, assure that the a unified, integrated system is possible, critics remain skeptical of the accomplishment of such a large venture.

With this type of politically driven university system it is important to consider the role that education will play outside of the institution of learning. Now from a functionalist perspective one could see how this system would easily be able to satisfy the needs within both local and national contexts. However, the implications of this UNIALBA system could have more complex and global implications. It is hard to ignore that these ALBA nations would use this system to propagate the standard set of norms supported by a socialist society. This system has been presented by ALBA ministry officials as a way to not only open up more opportunities for their citizens to learn and grow, but also as a way to preserve what they believe to be their values and beliefs. Within UNIALBA, their way of life could be culturally and socially reproduced. (see

http://tinyurl.com/c87jnx5)

While this may be a very rational response preserve the common identity of these nations, their socialist and anti-U.S. views might support a narrow minded world view. Not only could this type of curriculum be designed to eliminate all opposing ideas, but it could also present a space to openly challenge relations with other non-socialist countries within and outside of Latin America. These are the types of questions that need to be raised in order to solicit the true nature of this education system. What consequences will this type of education system have on these Latin American citizens? Will their underlying political agenda pose a threat to other Latin American countries? One might even go further to see if the support for these ideologies on such an immense scale does pose a threat to U.S. national security?