Peace or Justice?
This week in Colombia, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), became an official political party. It is the latest implementation of a peace accord that was signed into law last year. The Colombian government along with the leaders of FARC and the wider international community (U.N) have worked together to end decades of the bloody civil war. Yet many Colombians are still critical of the peace deal. To understand why some would be opposed to the “peace,” we need to look at the history of the FARC.
Colombia until last year had been engaged in a civil conflict with the FARC ever since 1964. Originally FARC was formed to protest an unjust government that favored the rich and urban areas over the poor and rural areas of the country. Unfortunately, over time they grew to be an armed criminal organization.
Ingrid Betancourt was one of the thousands of people that were kidnapped. She was kidnapped in 2002 while campaigning for the Presidency. I happened to be in Colombia in 2008 when she was successfully rescued by Colombian security forces. It was July 2nd 2008 when I was in a cab with my mother and the news played over the radio. I remember it being a day of celebration and relief. Then eighteen days later on what was Colombian Independence Day, the people took to the streets. They marched not to celebrate the anniversary of Independence from Spain but to march for the liberation of those still being held by the FARC.
(Medellin 2008)
“FARC NO MORE KIDNAPPINGS!”
Fast-forward almost a decade later, they, as of this week, hold seats in congress. It is understandably a jarring sight for many Colombians. The road to this development started last year with peace negotiations between the FARC and the federal government. The terms of the deal were that the FARC would give up their arms and territories in exchange for amnesty of their crimes, along with the early release of FARC members from prison, and representation in congress.
The Colombian people were offered a referendum last year on whether or not to accept those terms of reconciliation between the FARC and the government. They voted to reject the terms of peace (50.2%) to (49.8%) with less than 40% of the country voting in the referendum. It is worth noting that the majority of voters who voted in favor of the peace accord were located in the rural areas of the country where the majority of those who suffered under the FARC live. It is safe to assume that they viewed the referendum as a way to finally end the violence and occupation.
Despite the No vote, President Juan Santos has decided to continue to implement the peace accord. Congress approved a reviewed version and signed it into law without putting it to a public vote. I believe this is largely due to pressure from the international community to secure a peaceful resolution. The U.N has played an important part in overseeing the peace talks and putting pressure on both sides to agree and fulfill the terms of peace. Last year Santos was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts in the peace negotiations.
This week was a victory for the FARC and for supporters of the President. However this is not the end. The next step will be the 2018 elections where this issue will continue to be debated. If peace is realized then Colombia has the potential to emerge as the most stable nation in the South American region. Yet it won’t be easy to achieve because the critics have not gone away despite being ignored last year. They still want justice for the thousands of lives that are missing. The Colombian people will have to decide if they can forgive the FARC or seek to condemn them.
-Brayan
Harmful (and Medically Unnecessary) Surgery on Intersex Children
Last semester, I wrote my senior thesis on the topic of cross-dressing in early modern plays. In writing the thesis, I was surprised by the number of instances of cross-dressing in plays and on the streets in the early modern period. In any case, early modern women (and men) repeatedly cross-dressed on the street and in plays for various reasons – the freedom of mobility, to enter courts (which was largely a male domain in the early modern period), to experience erotic freedom, or to create one’s independence. In cross-dressing, these early modern men and women often put themselves in a position of having both male and female characteristics, indirectly bringing out the concept of intersexuality – and this concept fascinates me. This summer, I thought it was such a great timing that the college had finally decided to put up equal gender signs on all the school’s bathrooms. And I thought the law that legalized same-sex marriages that was passed in 2015 would solve most of the legal problems for sexual minorities. However, one particular group was often overlooked in the whole equation.
The article (see the link below) highlights the harmful effects of medical surgeries that attempt to surgically modify infants with intersex condition. To give a basic definition, the term intersex, broadly speaking, refers to individuals with a congenital condition whose chromosomal composition (either XX or XY), gonadal tissue (responsible for reproductive glands), or internal and external anatomy do not fit into the traditional, binary male/female norms. Some intersex people, for instance, may have a female appearing external genitalia, yet lack internal female organs; others may be born with genitalia that appear neither male nor female. Some medical practitioners, according to the article, believe that surgically altering children with intersex condition (before they can even talk) would be a “good” option and would allow these children to grow up “normal,” so that they can blend into a medically created definition of “normal” genitalia – I find their definition of “normal,” however, a bit troubling and in some cases, backward. If anything, to me, this type of medical practice seems to do the opposite. These genital surgeries on intersex children, as pointed out in the article, carry the risk of assigning these children the wrong sex. The article actually does a good job of listing the major negative consequences as a result of these harmful medical surgeries:
“Surgery to remove gonads can amount to sterilization without the patient’s consent, and then require lifelong hormone replacement therapy. Operations to alter the size or appearance of children’s genitals risk incontinence, scarring, lack of sensation, and psychological trauma. The procedures are irreversible, nerves that are severed cannot regrow, and scar tissue can limit options for future surgery.” (emphasis mine)
Irreversibility, trauma, and replacement therapy – you get the picture, although it is not a pretty one. Oh, infection is a big one too. While there are some medical surgeries that are completely necessary on intersex children, many researchers have cited that most intersex conditions are not disabling, pose no physical risks, and require no medical intervention. And because of these types of medical interventions, intersex infants are often subjected to these highly invasive medical surgeries, as most of them take place before the infant can even talk. Moreover, these medically unnecessary surgeries interfere with one’s right to autonomy and bodily integrity. So far, only the Constitutional Court of Colombia has placed severe restrictions on parents’ ability to consent to these genital surgeries because of the concerns of the inherent discriminatory aspects in these surgeries and of the concerns that parents may be discriminating against their own children. And in a way, by forcing these intersex children into cultural heteronormative situations, this type of medical practice is itself discriminatory, because: 1) it carries underlying stereotyped gender assumptions; 2) it is based on heteronormativity; 3) it shames these intersex children and the existence of intersexuality – all while failing to take into account the direct effects these genital modification surgeries have on members of the intersex community. In other words, the U.S. and other countries should not only put an end to these unnecessary surgical procedures that seek to modify the genitals of children with intersex condition but should also adopt a similar approach in placing restrictions on parents’ ability to consent to these types of surgeries on infants to ensure that the child’s constitutional rights are adequately protected. Anyway, these are just some of my thoughts – and if you are interested in this article and would like to read more, click here.
– Jason
A Storm Scarier Than Harvey: Gentrification
One of the many perks of living two blocks from campus is being able to roll out of bed thirty minutes before class starts and still get there five minutes early. Another perk is living in one of the few remaining neighborhoods relatively untouched by gentrification.
Since the 1980s, experts and organizations have tried to develop warning systems for gentrification, without much success. Usually, the most noticeable sign is an increase in housing prices; and nowadays, with websites like Zillow and Trulia, anyone can access years of housing information. The current gentrification warning systems use a data science technique called machine learning to predict what a house will be worth in a year. However, while computers can predict trajectories based on past data, they can’t predict human behavior… or could they?
Now, with the rise of big data, it could be possible for scientists to track different kinds of information that would point to the next neighborhood destined to be hit by gentrification. Big data is shorthand for the large amounts of data that we produce in our digital world. Everything from cellphones to social media to credit cards creates a trail of our daily activity.
A study from 2015 used Twitter to track how residents of certain neighborhoods moved around Louisville, KY. They found that the neighborhoods West of Ninth Street were considered the poorer, African-American neighborhoods and the neighborhoods to the East to be the wealthier, white neighborhoods. However, they also found that residents of the Western regions were found in all different parts of the city, while residents of the Eastern regions tended to stay in the East, meaning that the traditional boundaries of the neighborhood could be redrawn based on how people actually behaved rather than from “common wisdom.”
Studies like this highlight research that studies “human mobility,” which can help scientists understand how neighborhoods function for the people who use them. Perhaps knowing the patterns of where people live, work, and spend their free time, can help us better identify gentrifying neighborhoods.
Another indicator of impending gentrification is evictions of both people and businesses. Two summers ago, there was a coffee shop called Jahbrew on Flatbush Ave and E 29th. It opened in the beginning of summer and had a tough time gaining popularity, especially since it was competing with a Dunkin’ Donuts, a Starbucks, and a Café Bene, all within two blocks. While most people associate coffee shops with hipsters and gentrification, this place, if anything, was trying to slow the process. The owner was a Jamaican man named Kevin who was raised in Flatbush and was even a student at Brooklyn College. He ran the place with a few of his nieces and nephews and arguably made the best espresso in Brooklyn. And then one day, just three months later at the end of the summer, it closed. I eventually ran into Kevin one day on the subway and he told me that his rent was raised and he just wasn’t selling enough coffee.
This really bothered me. I’ve seen lines out the door at the Starbucks and Dunkin’ Donuts, but Kevin couldn’t even break even. So how do we stop this from happening? How do we save the next Jahbew? Unfortunately, no one knows for sure, but we are closer than ever before to a system that prevents this in the future. But until then…
-Marie Pruitt
The Junction Journal 