Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Stone's 'Border' Shows Fall of South America's Berlin Wall
On April 13, 2002, an event occurred in Venezuela which was as world-historical for South America as the fall of the Berlin Wall was for Eastern Europe: a U.S.-backed coup against the democratically-elected government of Venezuela collapsed. The Bush Administration's efforts to promote the coup failed, in the face of popular resistance in Venezuela, and diplomatic resistance in the region.
The failure of the Bush Administration's effort to overthrow President Chavez was world-historical for South America because it sent a powerful new signal about the limits of the ability of the United States to thwart popular democracy in the region. In the years prior to the reversal of the U.S.-backed coup, popular movements in South America had suffered from a widespread "Allende syndrome": a key legacy of the U.S.-orchestrated overthrow of democracy in Chile in 1973 was the widespread belief that there was a sharp limit to the popular economic reforms that could be achieved through the ballot box, because the United States simply wouldn't allow formal democracy in the region to respond to the economic needs of the majority.
Following the reversal of the U.S.-backed coup, a succession of Presidents were elected across South America promising to reverse the disastrous economic policies promoted by Washington in the region through the International Monetary Fund for the previous twenty years and to promote instead the economic interests of the majority: Brazil elected Lula in 2002, Argentina elected Nestor Kirchner in 2003, Bolivia elected Evo Morales in 2005, Ecuador elected Rafael Correa in 2006, and Paraguay elected Fernando Lugo in 2008.
The story of this dramatic transformation has been largely untold in the United States. Our major corporate media are largely uninterested in the freedom narrative of South America, because it's significantly a narrative of freedom from control by U.S. institutions, and because the battle is ongoing, as shown recently by Washington's fury at Brazil for working against a U.S. push for new sanctions against Iran, and by Ecuador's decision to recall its ambassador after Israel's attack on the Gaza Freedom Flotilla.
But on Friday, Oliver Stone's new documentary South of the Border opens in New York (currently scheduled screenings nationwide are here). In this movie, Stone tells the story that the U.S. media has missed. Because it's an Oliver Stone movie, and because it's being commercially distributed, there's a strong possibility that many Americans who are not connected to the alternative press could have the opportunity to see and hear this story for the first time.
Stone introduces us to leaders that most people in the United States have never had the opportunity to see speaking for themselves.
Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez explains the Bush Administration's effort to overthrow him:
Ecuador's President Rafael Correa, who got his PhD in Economics from the University of Illinois, explains why he followed through on his campaign promise to get rid of the U.S. military base at Manta:
And Brazil's President Lula da Silva -- recently vilified in the U.S. media for his efforts to mediate a deal between the U.S. and Iran on Iran's nuclear program, with pundits demanding that Brazil "get back in its lane" -- explains that he has no interest in fighting with the U.S., but only wants to be treated as equals:
If many Americans get to see it, this could be Oliver Stone's most important movie in terms of its social impact, because it's forward-looking: it's a about a conflict that's going on right now and will continue in the future, pitting a South America that both wants to govern itself in the interests of the majority and speak its voice without fear in world affairs against the latter-day devotees of the Monroe Doctrine who want to keep the region subservient to the interests of U.S. elites.
One would have hoped that Americans who saw Stone's Vietnam movies -- Platoon and Born on the Fourth of July -- would be much more likely to oppose the imperial quagmire in Afghanistan. But with so much of the media under corporate control, we need popular documentaries that speak directly to the issues of the day. South of the Border speaks directly to the relationship between the U.S. and South America. If many Americans see it, it could help bring about a fundamental transformation in U.S. policy towards all of Latin America. Maybe, "sooner rather than later," as President Allende once said, we'll be able to look back at last year's U.S.-supported coup in Honduras and say with confidence that it was the last.
- Posted in




40 Comments so far
Show AllThree cheers for Oliver Stone, progressive America's greatest cinematic asset, our Sergei Eisenstein and Costa-Gavras.
Tony Vodvarka
Did you mean look back and say "The election of the murderer Santos in Colombia was the last?" People seem to forget our founding fathers were the"insurgents" of their day, opposed colonialism, and supported self determination and a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The Founders were also incipient and closet imperialists, as William Appleman Williams showed in Empire As A Way of Life.
The U.S.: 234 years old; with more than 245 foreign military interventions.
THAT is the UNTOLD story AMONG americans.
i carefully and intentionally choose AMONG rather than "told TO" americans.
300 hundred years of a culture that is supposedly an advancement in "knowledge" and information - including its many GREAT examples of free press - should have LONG ago made americans decisively aware of what the complete and true nature of their own history is.
the first "fathers" were themselves, indeed, incipient Imperialists. even their very words and letters to each other revealed that without apology.
Jefferson used - towards the "fate of the natives" - the word we TODAY - after the Holocaust in WW2 and many other humanity crimes - as the utmost definition of crimes against humanity:
"EXTERMINATION" .
Washington actually refered to the USA as "our INFANT EMPIRE".
their "war of independence" was meant to make themselves "free" from interference by their former colonial masters of the King of England - to become "FREE" to BE THEIR OWN , even BIGGER and even more ruthless Empire.
starting with the extermination of the Native Indians, the enslavement of colored people to build their power and wealth and institutions ( most stunningly demonstrated in the building of the "CAPITOL" as the symbol of america's great power as "land of liberty and justice" - BY SLAVES)
and their theft of land from mexicans. and so it went from THERE.
on to south america -- Monroe Doctrine's :"south america is our backyard"..and even a scuttled original plan to actually invade stopped only by the impracticality of it at THAT time...
and TODAY -- on to afghanistan, pakistan, iran, iraq. etc. ec. etc.
Sounds like a great movie. I'll be sure to watch for it on DVD.
Columbia, Peru and Chili are the only right leaning countries remaining in South America. Columbia is the surrogate of the US in South America. Columbia is the second largest recipient of US military aid in the world. Only Turkey gets more US military aid. Obama just opened seven US military bases in Colombia. Chavez called this a step toward war.
It seems just a matter of time before war breaks out in SA between Venezuela and the US surrogate Columbia. US advisers then troops then a surge then "but we can't just walk away" - you know the same old song and dance. We will be on the wrong side of history again if we the people allow this to happen.
Columbia is a narco state. Just like Mexico, the ruling elite own the drug trade. Poor peasants take their coca crops to town and sell them to the local military commanders. According to the UN: Peru Coca Crop Up 4th Straight Year. Poppy cultivation in Afghanistan doubled between 2002 and 2003 to a level 36 times higher than in the last year of rule by the Taliban - it's much higher today.
Our "Politburo" does not let Americans know what is being done around the world in our name. Soon that will not matter. The times they are a changing. Chavez represent all his people. The people of the world are waking up to the impotence of the west. Nationalization and default occurs with no consequence. Bush/Cheney did not enforce the Monroe Doctrine. They were too busy stealing oil in Iraq. Now it's to late. China and Russia have interests in SA. Chavez opened the Bank of the South and SA no longer needs the IMF. Yes, the times they are a changing.
What's an angry aging super power to do? Will we the people send our sons and daughters off to SA to defend an empire that we have long had no stake in? Or, will we the people say hell no we won't go? Remember when Germans said better red than dead. Thomas Jefferson said that when the gap between the rich and the poor becomes too great you no longer have democracy. After democracy comes totalitarianism, fascism, police state, etc....
Here is where we come back to the impotence of empire. Capital spread all over the world is indefensible. We just sent a surge of troops into Afghanistan, at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, to kill 980 Al-Qaeda. Do the math! This formula is not sustainable in so many ways. Our national credit card is tapped out, there is nothing left to squeeze out of the "little people" and the wealthy refuse to pay any tax at all.
Thanks for the spelling lessons. English is not necessarily the first language of all those on the internet. Communicating ideas and the presentation of original thought and insight is more important than spelling, grammar, punctuation, etc.. Thank you for pointing out my spelling errors. Do you have anything to add to the topic of conversation?
"20 years living and traching and writing here."
What's traching?
Hey readbetweenthe_lines:
Since your so apparently well traveled and smart do you mind telling us all just where the word "gringo" originated or came from??/No googling and cheating now, right off the top there rbtl's..
Do you referrence all white North Americans as Irish?
Two possibilities on "gringo". Uno, an archaic spanish verb, gringar (griegar?), meaning to speak unintelligibly. Segundo, English troops invading Argentina early in the ninteenth century sang their regimental song, GREEN GROWS the grass at home. I go for the first one. Tony Vodvarka
This is what my college Spanish teacher told me the word "gringo" came from..The song was originally of Scottish origin but sang by the many Irish "settlers" or "Invaders" as the Mexicans may have thought of them...The Red, White and Blue may be particularly annoying to many, but I don't believe they had our flag in mind.....You seem to know much about the linguistics and I thank you for the lesson..Just curious, thats all..
Green grow the lilacs, all sparkling with dew
I'm lonely, my darling, since parting with you;
But by our next meeting I'll hope to prove true
And change the green lilacs to the Red, White and Blue.
Green grow the lilacs reminding me of
The ones that I brought you with all of my love,
The gates of my country will open for you
And change the green lilacs to the Red, White and Blue.
Green grow the lilacs, Your favorite flow'r,
So sweetly perfuming - a sad parting hour.
Oh send me a message - That you love me too,
Let's change the green lilacs to the Red, White and Blue
My Spanish teacher was NOT A Gringo and you are an arrogant and assuming fool for saying so. You are also A rascist hate monger for saying: "Gringos always think they are right--"no matter who silly" their contentions and theories".
"No matter "who" silly..If you are going to stay in this country you should learn proper English...
Your answers were well stated but left room for what I had been told, and I find your remark childishly insulting...
You have only convinced me of your insecurities and blind hatred for people you don't know...
Well, us gringos do get a little touchy. But I'm with both uf yous guys.
SJRyan and Stub are wasting their time in thinking these two will enter into a converstion of any merit. It's so typical of them to first correct your spelling then add a few personal attacks. It usually ends with the old race card tactic used by those unwilling to make arguments on the merits. The destruction of the United States is their only objective and they support any agenda to that end. Period. I must say however, my spelling has improved from these 'spelling lessons' but I don't see any marked reduction of bitterness and anger from the teachers.
Sounds like you were on the recieving end of that 'get a job' comment at some elderly peace rally, ouch. The thing that I must respond to seriously is this idea that you think I'm on the right side of every issue. My friends and associates would find your statement to be humorous. They understand that I have been on the left of most issues. Voted for Obama, hated Bush/Cheney, voted for McGovern back in the seventies, protested the war in Viet Nam in the sixties, I think every citizen deserves affordable health care, I think big Ag and big Pharma are criminals, etc.
I have this one position on one subject that differs from yours. It is my position on illegal immigration. I support Arizona and any other state that wants to enforce the governments current immigration laws. That's it, period. It's easy to place labels on people, it's also lazy. Stop badgering people whose position differs from yours, you might find we have more in common than not.
Atta girl, right on cue and so pavlovian.
badger:
I see what you'r saying badger...I wonder if this guy has the cajones to talk this way to A mans face... I doubt it...The net they use to vent their frustrations for being lesser men...
Aside from this B.S., George McGovern was the last truly Great man this country had for A Presidential candidate. I hated what Humphrey, Nixon and Kissinger did to screw him over...He was the best...
I can hardly wait to see this movie.
If the politicians in the USA were more like Hugo Chavez, we'd have peace on earth. The only politicians who'll survive in the future will be those who truly want to serve the people, rather than help the rich get richer while screwing the people.
http://southoftheborderdoc.com/
“I swear by the God of my parents, I swear by my nation, I swear by my honor that I will not allow my soul to rest, nor my arm to relax until I have broken the chains that oppress my people through the will of the powerful. Free elections, free land and free men, horror to the oligarchy.”
Oath used by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez(when he was 28) and some of his revolutionary friends.
-copied from Page 80, !HUGO! by Bart Jones
The real authoratatve documentary film on the coup was made by an Irish film crew who actually was in the Miraflores Palace when the coupe ensued. It is called "The Revolution Will not be Televised"
It can be viewed or downloaded from many sites (do a search) and a DVD copy of the film might still be avaialble here:
http://www.venezuelasolidarity.org.uk/vic/
re: the Revolution Will Not Be Televised - yes, that is a great movie which everyone should see.
Note, though, that the first part of "South of the Border" covers much of the same ground - in fact, those who have seen RWNBT will recognize some of the footage, taken by permission from the earlier film, as you'll notice in the credits.
Gee Ollie! Do you think they might like us better if we just went away?
- Stan Laurel
Glad to see Oliver Stone back on track .. he lost a lot of my respect with that horrendous movie "W", not to mention "World Trade Center", both of which struck me as neocon propaganda. I'm happy to be a fan again.
Viva Hugo Chavez!
will stone or michael moore ever make a movie about the zionist repression of the palestinians? or would such an undertaking be giving material aid to the enemy? what would hollywood do if such a movie wee made?
why not a movie about the life of count folke bernadotte?
The only problem with such a movie/documentary is that Oliver Stone and/or Michael Moore would have to film from the Israeli side of the Apartheid Wall. History tells us that anyone who ventures to the other side with a camera does not make it back alive. And, of course, it ain't exactly at the hands of Hamas, Hamas, Hamas.
"Stone introduces us to leaders that most people in the United States have never had the opportunity to see speaking for themselves."
The fact that USans need a celebrity to breach the propaganda barrier into their brains should throw red flags all over the place.
The Barnays psych-ops squads have conditioned generations of USans to value celebrity, not humanity.
Gaining information through the commerce channel isn't good enough. The people need to seek out the information not for its entertainment value but to take back control of their society and their lives.
Let Follywood crumble all over the floor and rebuild itself to accommodate the new reality.
So Stone finally found a U S distributer for this film... Great. I'm looking forward. surprisingly, to seeing it. Surprised, because Stone's previous film along these lines, "Commadante," (2003) which shows Castro without the right wing corporate filter, has been effectively banned in the U S since being made. I hope this one makes it to DVD, since I can't really afford to travel to the other side of our "Berlin Wall" to watch movies.