You are in > Opinions
Opinions
Chavez's language
And yet, major news services don’t want to use it or print it. And world leaders are not expected to throw it around in their political discourses. But Hugo Chávez, the president of Venezuela, did use the word in that context on September 11. To make matters worse, he used it in reference to some people in the United States.
In Spanish, the most common word for shit is “mierda.” The word is often used as an expletive, but I thought I was using it correctly many years ago when I told a neighborhood youth in the barrio where I was living that I had stepped on some “mierda” the day before when I was walking down a street in Caracas.
He told me that as a priest I probably should use another word and suggested “fecal material,” “excrement,” or “poop” as alternatives. I took his suggestion and reformulated my sentence, saying that the day before I was walking down a street in Caracas when I stepped on some fecal material or excrement or poop. But then I added, “but it smelled just like shit.”
The incident was one of many that got me thinking about why some words are acceptable and others not, although they might refer to the same thing. And who gets to decide what is ok to say and what is not.
Mentally I went to work on a list of words that to me seem to be obscene and yet political leaders and others can use them without cringing. The list included words such as “war,” and “collateral damage.” I thought of the unimaginable terror that has been inflicted upon people throughout the world by people who call others “terrorists.” These words for me are much worse than “shit,” which is simply an important part of human existence and well-being. But, for some reason, these are acceptable in political circles.
Nevertheless, should Chávez have spoken of some “yanquis de mierda” (shitty Yankees)? I don’t know. If he would have spoken in English, he could have said something about some “crappy Yankees.” That might have been acceptable. If he could have used the words “excrement” or “fecal material,” or “poop,” in his sentence, the international press still might have translated the words as “shit” but diplomats could have excused the matter.
Coupled with this, as an act of solidarity with President Evo Morales of Bolivia, who recently ousted the US ambassador to Bolivia, Chávez also asked the U.S. ambassador in Venezuela to leave. What is happening in Bolivia is intolerable. It is a clear situation of racism. It is an attempt by a wealthy and powerful minority to continue its centuries-long domination. There has never been a president in Bolivia who has been elected with the percentage that Evo Morales received. For the other nations of Latin America to stand by and do nothing as a minority tries to thwart all of Morales’s actions would be simply unforgiveable—far worse than using the word “mierda.” Chávez’s response should be seen in that context.
Regarding US involvement, the Center for Economic and Policy Research has pointed out that millions of dollars have flowed into Bolivia and other Latin American countries from the USA. Agencies such as USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy have been involved but won’t reveal where the money has gone. The US would never tolerate such actions if other countries were to do the same in the United States.
Something else that I think is important in understanding Chávez’s feelings yesterday--that possibly gave rise to his words and actions and something that should not be overlooked--was the date: September 11. In the US and throughout much of the world, thoughts immediately turn to New York, the Twin Towers and 2001, when September 11 is mentioned. But on the Venezuelan state television station much more importance was given to September 11, 1973, when the US government played a protagonistic role in overthrowing the government of Salvador Allende in Chile. Thousands died, were tortured, imprisoned or fled the country as a result.
Eleazar Díaz Rangel, editor of the Caracas daily Ultimas Noticias, after listing all that the US had to do with this, ended a long editorial with the question: “If the government of the United States did all this to oust Allende, why wouldn’t they try to do the same in Venezuela or Bolivia?”
That’s a good question, and provides a background for why on September 11, 2008, thirty five years after the installation of the dictator Augusto Pinochet in Chile, Chávez spoke of some crappy Yankees. OK, shitty Yankees, if you want the down-to-earth translation of what he said.
I love my native country and its people, but I cringe when I think about the suffering some of our political leaders have inflicted on other countries throughout the world.
Maybe shitty Yankees wasn’t the right way to describe them. However, I am happy that I didn’t have to make the speech Chávez did yesterday on September 11. I would not have spoken of shitty Yankees. But frankly, I don’t know what words I would have used instead.
by Charles Hardy ©
Charles Hardy will be speaking in London on Tuesday September 30th at the Bolivar Hall, and on the following days at the Universities of Bradford, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester and East Anglia.
Charles Hardy is author of Cowboy in Caracas: A North American’s Memoir of Venezuela’s Democratic Revolution, published by Curbstone Press. Other essays by Hardy can be found on his personal blog Cowboyincaracas.com. You may write him at cowboyincaracas@yahoo.com.