On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 09:52, raghu <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Sean Andrews <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think it has something to do with imperialism and propaganda, but I forget. >> >> s > > > That's too facile. How do you explain, for instance, that Chevez is > called a dictator while Evo Morales is merely called a demagogue or a > populist? > > Maybe it has something to do with Chavez's assertiveness and combative > demeanor that make it easier for a label of "dictator" to stick? > -raghu. >
I didn't say that imperialism and propaganda weren't finely nuanced tools of hegemonic domination. I just said that this falls into their column. It isn't me who's being facile by putting them there; it is the US media that is facile in that it so eagerly eats from that trough. Even somewhat ideologically independent programs such as the Daily Show call him a dictator. If all of them can so easily overlook the textbook definition of the term dictator (i.e. he's been elected, so...) simply because he has some bluster then there is obviously something else going on. Occum's Razor says the easiest answer is often the right one: in this case, it fits pretty well. But I again defer to Jim since he has a longer explanation. The only thing I'd add is that Chavez has been on the radar longer, and is pitching himself as the leader of the anti-imperial movement in Latin America: Morales (and Correa) then come off as operating under the umbrella Chavez had already pitched. But give it some time: eventually they'll all be "dictators" if they stick around long enough. s _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
