World Affairs, environment, development


Gisele Bundchen in the America Express (RED) campaign to help eliminate aids in Africa. Photo courtesy of http://www.joinred.com/Learn/Partners/AmericanExpress.aspx

Gisele Bundchen in the America Express (RED) campaign to help eliminate aids in Africa. Photo courtesy of http://www.joinred.com/Learn/Partners/AmericanExpress.aspx

In an increasingly globalised and interconnected world, the partnership between humanitarian agencies, like Red Cross and Save the Children, and the media is of paramount importance. These NGOs use communication strategies and marketing to raise awareness of their cause and ultimately to raise funds. Cottle and Nolan (2007) argue that this has resulted in many NGO’s seeking to ‘brand’ themselves and use celebrities and personalised media packages to gain media attention and further their cause. Their article titled ‘Global Humanitarianism and the Changing Aid-Media Field’ looks at the pros and cons of this new strand and strategy of global aid media. They conclude that these developments (branding and increased reliance on global media) are threatening the ethics of global humanitarianism.

It is now worth analysing this ethical argument and posing the question: are aid organisations now ‘selling’ suffering to satisfy the news agenda of the media at the expense of the respect and dignity of the affected people? Is this a typical example of the ends justify the means or just ‘the pornography of suffering?

Many NGOs are now spending huge proportions of their budgets on expensive media campaigns and courting celebrities instead of focusing on the real causes and effects of poverty. The media has a ridiculous penchant for the ‘celeb’ and aid agencies are playing up to this:

‘Until you’ve got a celebrity or a photo worthy person up there to sell it…then its going to be a steep hill.’ (Public affairs officer, Save the Children 2007).

The work of Brazilian supermodel Gisele Bundchen – the so called lady of charity – is a perfect example of this new media logic at work. Her image has been used to lend support to a number of humanitarian causes. In a campaign for HIV/AID’s sufferers in Africa, her face appeared on American Express Red card, an initiative by U2 front man Bon and Bobby Shriver, in which some percentage of money earned from the credit card’s transaction went to support African’s victims of HIV/AIDS. She has also appeared naked in a recent ad campaign for a Brazilian eco-charity. She is well known for her support of charities that protect the Amazon rainforest , such as Nascentes do Brasil, ISA, Y Ikatu Xingu, and De Olho nos Mananciais. She posed clad only in leaves on the cover of US magazine American Photo to promote her Forests of the Future project for the reforestation of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. The initiative, which was set up with SOS Mata Atlantica in 2004, has planted over 1 million new trees in Bundchen’s name to start reforestation of the Brazilian rainforests. Bundchen has also donated $150,000 to Brazil’s Zero Hunger program.

The Red Cross in Latin America has also recently joined up with Sony Erikkson to promote their cause and aid communication. Their moto is now ‘when there is a human need to communicate Erikkson is here.’

Of course I am not criticising the charitable work done by these celebrities and companies and I just highlighting the often hidden problems or by-products that they create. Aid organisations do need the media promote their cause but in my opinion this obsession with the celebrity is taking too many resources away from actually physically helping people, distorting the goals of many agencies and leading to an over-reliance on media practices. A quick analysis of the new rhetoric emphasises the shifting agendas in aid media. The word ‘brand’ highlights the increased use of corporate promotion and marketing principles and the integration of NGOs into the corporate world. Jobs Selasie, head of charity African Aid Action has gone as far as saying that campaigns led by Bono and Bob Geldof have actually made problems worse in Africa by increasing corruption and dependency.

Beck (2005) argues that humanitarian agencies are actually playing a leading role in defining a new global social landscape. They are the leading players in connecting the poorest people in the third world with those in the developed world. How is this done? Through sophisticated television campaigns and the dissemination of images and ideals through new media. In this way the media act as a bridge between the first world and the third world. Cottle and Nolan contend that a new ‘media logic’ has emerged with inherent contradictions within it; NGOs need the media to bring public attention and support to global humanitarian issues but in order to attract this support they use communication strategies which detract from their original purpose. Funding is being focused in the wrong places.

In my opinion this new media logic is counter-productive. Media organisations seek to provide video images of the latest unfolding humanitarian disaster and deliver it to the global media to satisfy their appetite. ‘Everyone was dying for footage’ – those were the mis-chosen words of a communications manager of an aid agency referring to the media’s clamourings for footage and not the vitcims of the last humnaitarian disasters. This powerful highlights the now distorted focus of these agencies.

Images are becoming more sensational and more graphic. They flood our television screens. We’re constantly being told by Bono or Gisele Bunchen or some diamond earring wearing footballer, that we can end this suffering with just two pounds a month. This commercialisation of suffering has in some ways had an ironic side effect; many people simply change the channel. They’ve seen it all before and have become de-sensitised to death and suffering Branding has depoliticised development.

President Chavez presenting 'Alo Presidente'. His programmes are notorious for spoteneity and longevity - He once talked for more than eight hours non-stop. Photo courtesy of - http://www.alopresidente.gob.ve/

President Chavez presenting 'Alo Presidente'. His programmes are notorious for spoteneity and longevity - He once talked for more than eight hours non-stop. Photo courtesy of - http://www.alopresidente.gob.ve/

Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez has been celebrating this week as his television and radio program ‘Alo Presidente’ marked its 10th anniversary. The program, which goes out live every Sunday, is watched by both supporters and opponents of the Chavez regime. The show involves the unveiling of new policies, retorts to criticisms, lambasting foreign and opposition leaders, live phone-ins from a carefully selected audience and even celebrity guests. These guests have been as diverse as Diego Maradona and Danny Glover to a live phone call to best chum Fidel Castro. It has become an arena for Chavez to strengthen his loyal support base and further manipulate the power of the media for his own gain. He has truly developed the Chavez ‘brand’. The BBC’s Will Grant sums up the programme aptly:

 “Whether Venezuelans dismiss Alo Presidente as a crude propaganda tool or consider it the best thing on television, the programme looks set to remain on air for as long as Mr Chavez remains in office.”

Others have not been so diplomatic and reiterate the idea that television can be a top down and elitist medium used by dictators:

‘Chávez will go down in history as one of the major operators of a media outlet invented for dictators, that is, television. The stages in the short and violent life of the media are becoming distinct. And after the era of the press and the movies, beginning with the 1940’s, the era of radio and TV started for 55 years. Perfect tools to prevent the message from returning and allow the transmitter to speak to the entire world with no answer: Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin.’ (Antonio Pasquali, communication theorist – see here for the link)

This all comes after fresh concerns from United Nations (UN) and Organisation of American States (OAS) officials that Chavez’s government is threatening free speech and intimidating the media. It’s all part of a long running battle between Chavez and the private media whom he seeks to control. The government is currently ‘investigating’ a leading anti-government television station; Globovision TV network is being accused of “media terrorism” by the government who claim that they incited panic and anxiety in its coverage of a minor earthquake on May 4th. It would seem that the station did what a credible media establishment should do – tell the facts and give a balanced account of the event. By openly criticizing the government for its slow response to the quake they’ve now been branded as ‘media terrorists’. Globovision is now the only anti-Chavez channel left on air as the rest have been intimidated into submission by arrests, revoking of licenses and raiding the homes of television executives.

Chavez has now imposed sanctions against the network. Frank La Rue of the United Nations, who monitors freedom of speech warned that these kind of actions “generate an atmosphere of intimidation in which the right to freedom of expression is seriously limited.”  Chavez’s retort was somewhat predictable. He accused the UN of having a media imperialist agenda and imposing the will of the West on Venezuela.

Chavez came to power in 1999 and his regime has been met by both adulation and loathing at home and abroad. Venezuelans remain split on their president: some say he speaks for the poor and is a man of the people whilst others fear he is becoming increasingly autocratic. A referendum in February 2009 saw the people vote for a change in the constitution allowing Chavez to run for office an unlimited number of times. It would seem ‘Alo Presidente’ might be around for another decade. This latest erosion of civil liberties and crack down on the opposition highlights the power that Chavez exerts over the media in Venezuela. He crushes any stations that criticize him and uses his own dedicated and thoroughly self indulgent Television programme as a blatant propaganda exercise.

Torres Del Paine, Chile, 2007

 

Purchasing your own ecosystem seems to be the latest trend to hit South America. From Chilean billionaires to Goldman Sachs…it would seem big businesses and entrepreneurs want a slice of South America’s environmental heritage. It’s all in the name of conservation (so they say).Millions of hectares worldwide are being bought by business leaders and placed in private charities, conservation trusts or handed over to governments as a bid to conserve and protect fragile environments. Has the corporate world suddenly woken up to the tired rhetoric of social and environmental responsibility? Or is this just another PR stunt to soothe their battered reputations during a worsening global financial crisis?

 

So here are some of the facts…

Sebastian Pinera is one of the richest men in Chile and is more attuned to managing real estate and aviation companies that the environment. Pinera bought Parque Tantauco on Chiloe Island, near Patagonia two years ago. He’s the proud owner of 120,000 hectares of inland virgin forests and a delicate ecosystem which supports offshore blue whales. He says his sole aim is to protect the area. Whilst Goldman Sachs acquired 270,000 hectares of alpine forest in Southern Chile and Argentina back in 2003. Laurence Linden, the then bank director, said: “Goldman Sachs is an investment bank, so we know what to do with shopping malls and apartment complexes. But an ecosystem down in Tierra del Fuego? We had to get out an atlas.” But even they recognized the environmental value of this land. The land is one of the last remaining pieces of a fragile alpine and coastal beech in South America and home to the guanaco, a llama-like animal and native lenga tree which takes 200 years to grow just 20 metres. Industrial forestry projects, overgrazing, oil spills and over-fishing have already taken their toll on this fragile eco-system. The bank have also vowed to protect the fragile eco-system.

First let me set the scene. Patagonia, is a region straddling Southern Chile and Argentina, and the most southern tip of the world before you hit Antartica. It has an abundance of rare flora and fauna, a population of endemic species from Magellenic Penguins to the elusive orca, and is framed by ‘crystal green lakes, volcanoes, untamed mountain ranges and magnificent glaciers that follow the Andes coastline’. Despite this obvious environmental value, only 5% of the area is protected as a national park and environmental threats are rising with increasing numbers of tourists and mineral miners flocking to the region. So basically it’s all about stewardship – should we (I) really be so cynical about who is in control of preserving this landscape? Surely the most important thing is that the West (American big business) is interested in conserving it and who really cares what their real motives might be.

 

The Moreno Glacier, Patagonia, Argentina - The world's last advancing glacier

The Moreno Glacier, Patagonia, Argentina - The world's last advancing glacier

Pinera, now an eco baron and a billionaire businessmen, has apparently been won over by the deep ecology movement. A philosophy that calls for a radical re-evaluation of man’s relationship with the planet. This theory stipulates that ‘we cannot go on with industrialism’s “business as usual.” Without changes in basic values and practices, we will destroy the diversity and beauty of the world, and its ability to support diverse human cultures. This radical environmental movement advocates redesigning our whole way of life to focus on values and methods that preserve the ecological and cultural diversity of natural systems. Basically putting nature first. The movement has focused much of its work in Patagonia, picking it out as an area at risk from the monoculture of the industrial and modernist development model. I find it ironic and a little bit ridiculous that this billionaire has treated himself to an ecosystem in the name of deep ecology. Has he actually read any of their literature? When he eventually gets round to it…he might finally realise that his whole ‘corporate’ way of life conflicts with the basic environmentalist discourse that emerged after the publication of Rachel Carson’s highly influential book Silent Spring.

I am not saying that it is a bad thing that the corporate world and America’s business men are taking an interest in environmentalism. It should be celebrated that these kind of issues are being put on the international agenda. What I am saying is that it should be for the right reasons. My worry is that some may be buying land to improve their public image and as a kind of status symbol, whilst others may have considerably darker motives. Patagonia is resource rich as highlighted by recent mineral mining ventures and proposed hydro-electric dams. Chile and Argentina are newly emerging economies on the global stage. The West want their slice of all these things, not just a pretty little ecosystem.

One last fact…

Prices are soaring in Patagonia. When American conservationists bought 70,000 hectares several years ago, they paid about $10 million. Today 9000 hectares will set you back $12 million.

 Is this all about making money and exerting control?

Media ethics in the third world - a tough balancing act? Photo courtesy of: http://www.pjreview.info/issues/11_02_05.html
Media ethics in the third world – a tough balancing act? Photo courtesy of: http://www.pjreview.info/issues/11_02_05.html

The journalists’ role in developing countries is complex and contradictory. There is a set of universal principles of journalism which include freedom of expression, objectivity, truth and social responsibility. There is controversial debate surrounding the question as to whether these principles, code of ethics and professional ideology inherent in western journalism actually translate into practice for the development journalist in the third world, where conditions are very different. According to Musa and Dumatob (2007) in post colonial societies there are tensions between social responsibility and journalistic principles and the practicalities of implementing these principles. For them development journalism is distinct from other forms of journalism; professional values of development journalism do not align with the western model.

What is a development journalist? A simple question but extremely hard to answer. Are they truth tellers? Civic advocates? Liberators? Watchdogs? Government propagandists? The truth is they still aren’t sure themselves:

“Development journalism eschews a dogmatic adversarial posture toward government…it doesn’t require journalists to become lapdogs” Musa and Domatob (2007).

They argue that a balance needs to be found between these two extremes. Sooner or later development journalists need to decide what role they want to play and stick to it. Is there a need for a re-examination of media practices for the third world?

The media as a lapdog?

As Latin American countries gained independence their leaders saw the media as an institution that could and would play a salient role in fulfilling development goals and national building (Schramm 1964).  Media is still seen as an instrument of modernisation imposed by the west as development journalists are expected to partner with the government in a drive to improve socio-economic conditions for the people. Conversely in developed countries the media emerged as part of the economic structure of these countries.

The media as the peoples’ advocate?

To return briefly to the argument of Musa and Domatob, they stipulate that development journalists can take on the role of ‘peoples advocate’ – giving a ‘voice to the voiceless’. Latin America boasts a plethora of examples of the ways in which development journalists have empowered the marginalised and raised indigenous issues onto the governmental agenda. “The People’s Radio” of Vila Nossa Senhora in Brazil powerfully illustrates Musa and Domatobs’ argument.

Vila Nossa Senhora Aparecida today - photo by Vitor Rodrigo Dias courtesy of http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.panoramio.com/photos/original/7173268.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7173268&usg=__D9VJTPrbs_g3-LNQq4wnw3YQx8A=&h=1536&w=2048&sz=795&hl=en&start=2&tbnid=11NDGQqrifwWDM:&tbnh=113&tbnw=150&prev=/images%3Fq%3DVila%2BNossa%2BSenhora%2BAparecida%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG

Vila Nossa Senhora Aparecida today - photo by Vitor Rodrigo Dias courtesy of http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?

This community radio project was established on outskirts of Sao Paolo in the 1980s by migrant workers to provide them with the means of receiving information about government events; radio was also used as a medium through which they could voice their concerns and initiate debate. TV programmes were westernised in outlook and portrayed industrial southern Brazil and its relatively affluent lifestyle as the true urban Brazil. This image attracted rural populations in their droves and ultimately led to problems with integration and identity for these once subsistence farmers. The radio project was inspired by the use of loudspeakers as popular radios in Villa El Salvador on the outskirts of Lima, Peru. The station was set up using a basic tape recorder, amplifier, microphone and loudspeaker wired to the church tower and transmission was over an area of 3 km. The broad aims of the station were to use the oral medium as a vehicle for mobilisation and empowerment.

‘In Shanty towns nobody knows how to read…people have an aversion to paper’ (Sao Paolo News 1986).

Radio reiterated the importance of the oral culture for rural migrants and overcame the hurdle of illiteracy. After the success of this project 19 sister stations sprang up across the region under the umbrella of the ‘Project for Non Written Communication of the Eastern Zone’. The group developed communication and technical skills at a grassroots level, ideas were exchanged between communities and locally produced programmes and audio visual materials were made. A news group was created to read daily papers and journals as well as providing a critical commentary on them. Schelling (1999) describes this as the development of a ‘new communicational order’ where communication is participatory, two way and dialogic. The poor were not seen merely as receivers of information but producers of it.

The results of this communication network are far reaching. Firstly radio played an educative role by raising awareness of social and political issues and providing basic information to help the community. It also created a sense of community and celebrated the values of rural culture for these migrants.

Secondly it created a culture of resistance by giving these migrants the power to resist marginalisation and push for development from below. This is an example of how the ‘radio’ can be a double edged sword for the development journalist. Empowering the masses also politicises them and can ultimately lead to rebellion. This brings me back to my first point that the development journalist is stuck in the middle of the government and the people unsure of who he/she is serving. On one hand the development journalist is partnering with the government to disseminate its literature and publicise its events. On the other by educating workers about their rights and providing them with civic media tools they are breeding discontent and workers begin to demand justice and equality. This inevitably means that authoritarian governments will limit work like this as it threatens their own power systems.

Projects such as the ‘Peoples’ Radio’ have developed from the belief that Latin America needed to follow an alternative route of development that reflected its historical, social and economic identity. Today most Latin America post-colonial societies are experiencing waves of democratisation with communication at the centre. Globalisation is constantly changing and re-defining the roles and impacts of development journalists. The question is how will they adapt to these changing landscapes and best serve both the government and the people?

Can they find the balance between working with these new governments to aide development and becoming their lapdogs and propaganda tools?

 With so many competing interests, contradictory principles and unforeseen effects of reporting it’s proving a challenge.

In his article headed ‘Chavez taking Venezuela out of poverty into the space age’, May 4th, Juan Pedro Zapato wrote that Venezuela is at ‘the forefront of cutting-edge technology and advancement.’  He predicts that under Hugo Chavez, Venezuela is becoming ‘one of the super powers in technology in the western hemisphere.’

He has the facts to back this up too.  In January, Venezuela sent its first satellite into space. In a few weeks Venezuela will be selling its first cellular phone, the Vergatario, and producing up to a million phones a year. And who could forget Chavez’s present giving and hand shaking with President Obama last month marking in his words a ‘move forward in having better relations with the new government in the United States’.

So it would seem that Chavez is using the media and new technology to propel his country to the forefront of development in Latin America. Chavez’s form of socialism marks a general shift in the Latin America continent towards the left. However Chavez is a hugely polemic figure…an icon and liberator to some and a dictator and tyrant to others. For many, articles like this are just another part of the Chavez propaganda machine.

The state propaganda machine...Chavez Memorabillia including Chavez as Superman T-shirts and Dolls. Photo courtesy of http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/blog.aspx?id=506

The state propaganda machine...Chavez Memorabillia including Chavez as Superman T-shirts and Dolls. Photo courtesy of http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/blog/blog.aspx?id=506

Venezuelan Cartoonist Roberto Weil uses his cartoons as a social commentary for the events unfolding in his country. He’s equally as sceptical about this unlikely new global friendship…See here for latest cartoon.

Cartoon by Roberto Weil - Obama, Chavez and Facebook. This mocks the unrealistic warming of relations between Venezuala and US over night. Photo courtesy of http://devilsexcrement.com/

Cartoon by Roberto Weil - Obama, Chavez and Facebook. This mocks the unrealistic warming of relations between Venezuala and US over night. Photo courtesy of http://devilsexcrement.com/

Some interesting blogs about the Chavez effect and Venuezuala more generally…

http://devilsexcrement.com/

http://liberal-venezolano.net/blog/en/

As well as great human suffering in Potosi, and Bolivia as a whole, the environment has paid a heavy price for centuries of mining. Potosi is now one of the most polluted places on earth! The water, the air, the landscape…things that we in the West take for granted as a fundamental human right…are toxic here.

The water is choked with lead, cadmium and arsenic that have leaked out of the mines. Running water is tinted grey. The pollutants have inevitably entered the watershed causing health problems for the wider community and the presence of heavy metals in crops downstream. This resulted in considerable damage to the region’s agriculture. This is because there is no effective mine-drainage treatment system and environmental-law enforcement has been cavalierly disregarded for decades. All eyes are on the profits.

Silica dust in the air causes blackened lungs and silicosis. Few miners live longer than 20 years after starting work in the mountain. Health care, just like environmental law, is nonexistent here.

The mountain looks devastated like its people. The surrounding landscape is still dominated by the imposing shape of Cerro Rico as well as a strange yellow and orange tint. That is the colour of toxicity. There are heaps of slag and shavings dumped all over the hillsides have created toxic mounds of contaminants hundreds of feet high. The holes of dozens of air shafts and the entrances to the mines pockmark the mountain face whilst the scars of deforestation and the resulting landslides are everywhere.

Money and economics are the only things that seem to matter here.

Until investment is put into the local community and the environment both will inevitably deteriorate further. The government has vowed to implement remedial action to combat these  problems. These are empty promises. Nations throughout Latin America have been left with ravaged landscapes, polluted crops and extensive health problems because of a long history of irresponsible mining practices.

This brings me back to our basic rights as human beings. Surely clean water and clean air for these impoverished miners is the least we can do? Basic rights not commodities!

Following on from my last post it is worth examining what mining conditions are like in Potosi today, the environmental consequences and what role tourism plays in the future of this area. And…what on earth was I doing  down an asbestos filled mine in Bolivia?

My whole experience of Potosi is somewhat spine chilling when I look back. I actually feel guilty that I partook in this ‘tourist’ excursion to Cerro Rico. Was I conned into thinking that I was actually helping these miners by giving them some extra bolivianos to top up their measly wage? It was described as an experience of a lifetime. We were further lured in by the promise of being apply to buy dynamite, as if it was a toy, and set off  explosions on the hillside. In reality I was a naïve backpacker giving my money to western based tour companies for the pleasure of crawling on my hands and knees in the pitch dark for three hours.

Me with my dynamite stick bought from a miner. Shortly after this picture was taken we set off a series of explosion on the hillside - al part of the 'tourist experience'. Potosi is the only place in the world where you can buy dynamite over the counter.(Potosi, Bolivia 2007)

The dynamite stick I bought from a miner. Shortly after this picture was taken we set off a series of explosion on the hillside - all part of the 'tourist experience'. Potosi is the only place in the world where you can buy dynamite over the counter. (Potosi, Bolivia 2007)

First we were given a history lesson by our tour guides…Cerro Rico silver paved Potosi’s streets, fuelled the European Renaissance and helped fund the Spanish Armada that sailed against England in the sixteenth century. It is hard to believe this was once the richest city in the world. As the tour went on we all seemed to develop a conscience. To me this is a powerful example of dark tourism like a tour around a necropolis, or the Cambodian Killing Fields or Auschwitz. Tourists seem to be driven by some kind of sinister voyeurism or a taste for the macabre. I began to question what I was actually doing.  The line was being crossed between what was acceptable tourism and what was not. Is this actually cashing in on tragedy? Is death being commodified? (Well that’s another posting all together!)

Today Potosi is dying a slow death. Although this is the largest silver mine in the world, deposits are running out and the city’s 12,000 people have few other forms of income. The impact of this brutal mine on the local people is visible everywhere. Children as young ten work in the mine with a life expectancy of just 29. Adult miners work 10 hours days fuelled only by their bags of coca leaves. Two-thirds of the population have respiratory ailments. The infant mortality rate is 135 per 1,000 and more than 30% of the population are illiterate. Women and children beg daily on the streets. This is the lasting legacy of the Spanish colonisers who stole this city’s wealth and left it to die.

Miners shovel buckets of rock for upto 10 hours a day. Photo taken during my tour of the mine.

Miners shovel buckets of rock for upto 10 hours a day. Photo taken during my tour of the mine.

So is tourism actually a life line to this city? An alternative source of revenue? A source of hope?

Unesco is backing restoration projects for the city’s colonial buildings and is monitoring the conservation of the Cerro Rico as it is now a World Heritage siteI’m unconvinced.  Firstly because of the way that this form of tourism is operated. Miners are portrayed by tourist literature and western marketers as a primitive other and a throw back from a bygone era that can now be commodified. The story of human tragedy is being manipulated for profit. Secondly because Potosi is one of the most polluted places on the planet and the health ramifications are shocking.

It is worth examining the way that the media and tour providers portray miners in their literature. It soon becomes clear that imperialism is very much still alive here.  Descriptions of a ‘labyrinth of tunnels’ and ‘primitive tools’ and the opportunity to ‘step back hundreds of years’ dominate the tourist brochures. The promise of dynamite as well as ‘unforgettable memories of Potosi’s fortune and tragedy’ make the experience sound like it’s some kind of Hollywood blockbuster. 

 Lets not forget, El Tio, a kind of devilish goblin who lives underground and supposedly watches over the fate of the miners. Well he’s not been particularly vigilant with millions of miners dying over the centuries. Again this plays on the idea of primitive practices, superstitions and ‘mysterious’ folklore which legitimated imperialist ideology for centuries. There have been various films and documentaries made about the plight of these people. The Devil’s Miner  and Grito de piedra  are particularly chilling.

In my opinion the world acknowledges the past and present brutalities of this mine but nothing is done to put a stop to it. Eduardo Galeano’s (1973) ‘The Open Veins of Latin America‘ is a must read and powerfully sums up the wider debate about the imperialist legacy and the ongoing exploitation. It is an example of a very short list of investigative journalism to come out of Latin America. John Pilger’s (2006) ‘Tell me no lies’ places Galeano’s book in the wider theoretical context.

I regret paying my 210 bolivianos to go down the mine and see teenagers with blackened faces and mouths full of coca leaves struggling with their pick axes and shovels. My money went straight into the pockets of the tour operators who are owned by fat cats in the western world; the money is subsequently re-invested in advertising these kind of socially irresponsible tours which attract naïve backpackers like myself. The cycle keeps going round.  Romanticised images of the life of a miner, emotive descriptions of tragedy and courage and a play on the splendour and opulence of a bygone era – are all manufactured to bring in the tourists. Little if any of the money generated goes to help these miners. One last rant…the Lonely Planet is just as bad for recommending these tours and sending more hapless backpacker’s down the mines. 

So is tourism Potosi’s lifeline? I think not. It’s just imperialism and exploitation by the global north in a different guise. My next blog in this collection of posts focusing on Bolivia examines the environmental implications of Cerro Rico…

Next Page »