Blogs

I will discuss a particular topic that stood out to me from this section of history and the corresponding primary documents. Both President Fujimori and Chairman Gonzalo alluded to the need "for revolutionary violence", the need to completely remove the status quo and establish a new system. Gonzalo, drawing on Mao's ideals, states that "Revolutionary violence is what allows us to resolve fundamental contradictions by means of an army, through people’s war". Fujimori used a more political approach, by dissolving the (at the time current) Congress and Constitution, and establishing new ones, with force.
I feel like both of them, although different in many ways, shared this notion of an extremely radical change. Thinking back throughout history, I get the sense that when a prominent leader of any kind (president, monarch, chairman and so on) believes in and even acts on such notions, the outcome is likely to be too extreme. Guzmán's ruthless actions of bombings and assassinations were indeed catastrophic and cruel. Fujimori, as a response, made huge changes in the government itsel, but with extreme actions that also included crimes against humanity. In the 9.3 document, he almost seems upset and angry at how the nation sees his government. The major change in the government that he created seemed, to me, as though he snapped all of a sudden, like someone who has become so frustrated with the work at hand, that they just start all over. It was a very calculated snap. The death of the eight journalists was the line. However, both parties were capable and willing to carry out the heinous acts of terror and injustice of that war.

read full post >>

I will discuss a particular topic that stood out to me from this section of history and the corresponding primary documents. Both President Fujimori and Chairman Gonzalo alluded to the need "for revolutionary violence", the need to completely remove th... read full post >>

The period of Peruvian history remarked upon in this weeks readings is one which marks Peruvian politics to this day. Alberto Fujimori in Document 9.3 addresses the Peruvian people and gives them his rationalization for essentially creating an autocratic state. The language he uses in this address is very calculate and careful. He appeals to the anger and resentment that the Peruvian people hold towards a seemingly corrupt and useless government. He claims that this is the only way to create for Peru a truly democratic and fair society. He claims that to rebuild the country he must first tear down the old institutions and people who man them. Fujimori states that this is necessary and above all it is done to create a better Peru. I find the parallels between Fujimori's speech and that of Gonzalo to be quite interesting. On the surface they appear quite different, Fujimori speaks of building a truly democratic nation, Gonzalo of the necessity of violence and bloodshed. However both are justifying their actions. Both claim that their actions though regrettable are solely the end result of the actions of others. They both claim to be reacting to some force that was enacted by someone or something else. Both appeal to the people, to the general populace of the country. Fujimori's speech seems much more rational and "acceptable" compared to that of Gonzalo, which is filled with communist based rhetoric and justifications for bloodshed and violence. However I will repeat both claim to be solely reactionary.
          One aspect which Dawson fails to touch on is another violent group within Peru during this same period. That of the MRTA or Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru. This was a militant socialist group which in 1996 took hostage members of the Japanese Embassy hostage at the ambassadorial residence. The result of the hostage crisis at the time led to Fujimori being acclaimed and widely supported, later events caused somewhat of a change in perception. The MRTA was not a large nor caused as many deaths as Sendero Luminoso. However I bring them up because of the impact this attack has had on in particular architecture in Lima. The residence now has been turned into a fortress. Large solid steel tube fencing and guard posts with buildings set back from the street. Many embassies and diplomatic residences in Lima are built quite durably now (including Canada's) Many were quite fortress like before but after became more so. Terrorism and government violence led to many buildings and homes to be somewhat fortified. Fujimori was convicted in 2007 and 2009 of various crimes committed during his presidency. However even then a large part of the Peruvian populace supported him. The reason Fujimori returned to south america at all was to make another bid for power in Peru. Maybe he would of succeeded. In the last presidential elections his daughter Keiko Fujimori gained 23% of the popular vote, second only to the Ollanta Humala at 31%. In the runoff she lost to Ollanta 51-48. These numbers show the sheer amount of support that the Fujimori name has still retained in Peru. Especially among the more rural and provincial population.

       Alberto Fujimori did however lead the regime that captured General Gonzalo (head of SL) and in large ended this era of terrorism and strife in Peru. The means he used were however quite autocratic and authoritarian, He in essence shut down the democratic processes of the nation and authorized government hit squads and military forces who the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found came only second to Sendero Luminoso in cause of death to many. (and not by a great margin). So my question to you today is "do the ends justify the means?" Alberto Fujimori seemed to bring about the end of an era of strife in Peru, but by very ambiguous means. read full post >>

I really like this chapter’s selection of documents as they capture important aspects of the Peruvian dirty war, which is an exemplar of the phenomena throughout Latin American of the time. The first document is ironic to me in that the author had the very problem he saw in the country. He was well aware of the barrier […] read full post >>

The period of Peruvian history remarked upon in this weeks readings is one which marks Peruvian politics to this day. Alberto Fujimori in Document 9.3 addresses the Peruvian people and gives them his rationalization for essentially creating an autocratic state. The language he uses in this address is very calculate and careful. He appeals to the anger and resentment that the Peruvian people hold towards a seemingly corrupt and useless government. He claims that this is the only way to create for Peru a truly democratic and fair society. He claims that to rebuild the country he must first tear down the old institutions and people who man them. Fujimori states that this is necessary and above all it is done to create a better Peru. I find the parallels between Fujimori's speech and that of Gonzalo to be quite interesting. On the surface they appear quite different, Fujimori speaks of building a truly democratic nation, Gonzalo of the necessity of violence and bloodshed. However both are justifying their actions. Both claim that their actions though regrettable are solely the end result of the actions of others. They both claim to be reacting to some force that was enacted by someone or something else. Both appeal to the people, to the general populace of the country. Fujimori's speech seems much more rational and "acceptable" compared to that of Gonzalo, which is filled with communist based rhetoric and justifications for bloodshed and violence. However I will repeat both claim to be solely reactionary.
          One aspect which Dawson fails to touch on is another violent group within Peru during this same period. That of the MRTA or Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru. This was a militant socialist group which in 1996 took hostage members of the Japanese Embassy hostage at the ambassadorial residence. The result of the hostage crisis at the time led to Fujimori being acclaimed and widely supported, later events caused somewhat of a change in perception. The MRTA was not a large nor caused as many deaths as Sendero Luminoso. However I bring them up because of the impact this attack has had on in particular architecture in Lima. The residence now has been turned into a fortress. Large solid steel tube fencing and guard posts with buildings set back from the street. Many embassies and diplomatic residences in Lima are built quite durably now (including Canada's) Many were quite fortress like before but after became more so. Terrorism and government violence led to many buildings and homes to be somewhat fortified. Fujimori was convicted in 2007 and 2009 of various crimes committed during his presidency. However even then a large part of the Peruvian populace supported him. The reason Fujimori returned to south america at all was to make another bid for power in Peru. Maybe he would of succeeded. In the last presidential elections his daughter Keiko Fujimori gained 23% of the popular vote, second only to the Ollanta Humala at 31%. In the runoff she lost to Ollanta 51-48. These numbers show the sheer amount of support that the Fujimori name has still retained in Peru. Especially among the more rural and provincial population.

       Alberto Fujimori did however lead the regime that captured General Gonzalo (head of SL) and in large ended this era of terrorism and strife in Peru. The means he used were however quite autocratic and authoritarian, He in essence shut down the democratic processes of the nation and authorized government hit squads and military forces who the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found came only second to Sendero Luminoso in cause of death to many. (and not by a great margin). So my question to you today is "do the ends justify the means?" Alberto Fujimori seemed to bring about the end of an era of strife in Peru, but by very ambiguous means. read full post >>

The period of Peruvian history remarked upon in this weeks readings is one which marks Peruvian politics to this day. Alberto Fujimori in Document 9.3 addresses the Peruvian people and gives them his rationalization for essentially creating an autocratic state. The language he uses in this address is very calculate and careful. He appeals to the anger and resentment that the Peruvian people hold towards a seemingly corrupt and useless government. He claims that this is the only way to create for Peru a truly democratic and fair society. He claims that to rebuild the country he must first tear down the old institutions and people who man them. Fujimori states that this is necessary and above all it is done to create a better Peru. I find the parallels between Fujimori's speech and that of Gonzalo to be quite interesting. On the surface they appear quite different, Fujimori speaks of building a truly democratic nation, Gonzalo of the necessity of violence and bloodshed. However both are justifying their actions. Both claim that their actions though regrettable are solely the end result of the actions of others. They both claim to be reacting to some force that was enacted by someone or something else. Both appeal to the people, to the general populace of the country. Fujimori's speech seems much more rational and "acceptable" compared to that of Gonzalo, which is filled with communist based rhetoric and justifications for bloodshed and violence. However I will repeat both claim to be solely reactionary.
          One aspect which Dawson fails to touch on is another violent group within Peru during this same period. That of the MRTA or Movimiento Revolucionario Túpac Amaru. This was a militant socialist group which in 1996 took hostage members of the Japanese Embassy hostage at the ambassadorial residence. The result of the hostage crisis at the time led to Fujimori being acclaimed and widely supported, later events caused somewhat of a change in perception. The MRTA was not a large nor caused as many deaths as Sendero Luminoso. However I bring them up because of the impact this attack has had on in particular architecture in Lima. The residence now has been turned into a fortress. Large solid steel tube fencing and guard posts with buildings set back from the street. Many embassies and diplomatic residences in Lima are built quite durably now (including Canada's) Many were quite fortress like before but after became more so. Terrorism and government violence led to many buildings and homes to be somewhat fortified. Fujimori was convicted in 2007 and 2009 of various crimes committed during his presidency. However even then a large part of the Peruvian populace supported him. The reason Fujimori returned to south america at all was to make another bid for power in Peru. Maybe he would of succeeded. In the last presidential elections his daughter Keiko Fujimori gained 23% of the popular vote, second only to the Ollanta Humala at 31%. In the runoff she lost to Ollanta 51-48. These numbers show the sheer amount of support that the Fujimori name has still retained in Peru. Especially among the more rural and provincial population.

       Alberto Fujimori did however lead the regime that captured General Gonzalo (head of SL) and in large ended this era of terrorism and strife in Peru. The means he used were however quite autocratic and authoritarian, He in essence shut down the democratic processes of the nation and authorized government hit squads and military forces who the Truth and Reconciliation Commission found came only second to Sendero Luminoso in cause of death to many. (and not by a great margin). So my question to you today is "do the ends justify the means?" Alberto Fujimori seemed to bring about the end of an era of strife in Peru, but by very ambiguous means. read full post >>

I really like this chapter’s selection of documents as they capture important aspects of the Peruvian dirty war, which is an exemplar of the phenomena throughout Latin American of the time. The first document is ironic to me in that the author had the very problem he saw in the country. He was well aware of the barrier […] read full post >>

Chapter 9 The Terror discusses the horrific events and ideologies that braced Latin America for various years. The corruption that dominated this region ran ramped through the government and political systems for decades. Revolts were often provoked as a definite way to endure a change in society. Major conflicts in Latin America often resolved around […] read full post >>

Chapter 9 The Terror discusses the horrific events and ideologies that braced Latin America for various years. The corruption that dominated this region ran ramped through the government and political systems for decades. Revolts were often provoked as a definite way to endure a change in society. Major conflicts in Latin America often resolved around […] read full post >>

Document 9.1 was taken from the New York Times magazine, and focuses on the investigation on the event in the Southern Peruvian Highlands in which eight journalists were murdered. The people who killed the journalists, the Iquichanos, were accustomed to the amount of violence that was seen in the photos that were found, "That violence is the atmosphere they live in from the time they are born until the time they die" (page 304) While this obviously does not make what they did okay, it makes it more understandable. As evident form the photographs, words were exchanged between an attacker and a victim, and even though the victim was not armed, he was still killed. As the text said, this was due to the fact that they believed the journalists were enemies. The main reason for the attack is unclear, as it was suggested that the reason for the murders was the carrying of the communist flag, but there is actually no photographic proof of this actually happening. It is clearly stated that it was not the peasants who killed the eight men, it is the higher class citizens who were born in cities, who have so much support from peasants. Document 9.2 is an interview President Gonzalo where his idea  of violence is discussed. He appears to have no negative feelings towards violence, and believes it is necessary for things to run smoothly. "The need for revolutionary violence is a universal law with no exception" (page 306) and he also talks about how the two aspects of war are construction and destruction, and destruction must occur for construction to happen. Document 9.3  is the declaration of Fujimori. This begins with the opportunities that the democratic government offered, but they are being held back by other government branches. The goal is to move forward, towards "national reconstruction". This text is different from the previous two because it is much more focused on the people, and aware that they are the ones who make up the nation. read full post >>