Translated from Spanish by Alan Bailey. Edited by Shelby Stillwell. Watching America, (Estados Unidos).
Hillary Clinton is now seeing the fruits of her decision to not get divorced when her husband committed the vile act that the press and the patriarchy have called a “fling.” The same press and patriarchy that stoned and victimized the young woman involved when it was he, he who had a family and promised fidelity, that failed. “He is the president of the United States, he has permission,” and with that they washed their hands.
Hillary Clinton, by choosing to observe the double standard and submit in vain to the patriarchy, sent the wrong message to young women, all while being a public figure and claiming to be feminist. Feminist or not, no woman that respects herself would tolerate a lack of respect and humiliation of such magnitude. The personal is political. I am not commenting as a judge, because people’s private lives do not concern me; it is not my desire to judge, but freedom of speech is respected and if someone argues that she is a feminist it must be demonstrated with facts.
Clinton is depicted in social networks as wife, mother, and grandmother, in that order, demonstrating her alliance to the patriarchy. What kind of feminist is Clinton? What type of feminist can give her vote for a woman that lacks respect for so many women before her that gave their life in defense of women’s rights? But of course, there exists a form of white feminism that defends the rights only of white Caucasian women and remains silent when a woman of another ethnicity suffers the oppression of patriarchy, chauvinism and misogyny. An obvious example: the abuse that the African American, Latin American and Islamic communities suffer in the United States.
What that in mind, the type of feminism that Clinton operates under is bourgeois, anyway you look at it. Bourgeois and aligned with the patriarchy. I’m not feminist, but I also do not accept impudence, much less when it is to oppress other women. The interventionist role that Clinton plays in Latin America (and in the world) is not that of a feminist that respects human rights. No resolute feminist would approve wars, interventions and invasions upon other peoples. No feminist would label the girls, adolescents and women raped by military invaders as “collateral damage.” No feminist would tolerate torture centers like Guantanamo. Hillary Clinton defends them.
Playing the role of an acquiescent wife that pardons the infidelities of her husband has permitted her to be where she is, and will increase her power when she is named the first woman president of the United States in a few months. Of course, this is following the norm established over thousands of years: first it had to be a black man, an ally of capitalism ashamed of his ethnicity, and second, a Caucasian white woman, an ally of capitalism ashamed of her gender. Both inhuman, interventionist and pawns of business capitalism.
What conscious and honorable person of integrity conducts interventions in other countries and permits oppression in her own? Why has she not stood up against the coup of Dilma in Brazil as well as denounce the “dictatorship” of Maduro in Venezuela? I mean, since she is feminist.
No, she is not a woman because she was born with a vagina and uterus. The woman is a construction and you don’t have to read volumes of books to understand it; it’s common sense, and instinct. Hillary Clinton is therefore a model of U.S. capitalism that uses her gender for her personal convenience and puts it at the disposal of the global business sector and interventionist elite. And what is worse, she manipulates the minds of women that, desiring equality, think that she represents feminism.
Hillary Clinton speaks of Cuba and will not authorize the end of the embargo, just like she speaks of Venezuela and fans the flames of a military invasion, how she supports (and as president will authorize) the massive deportations of undocumented Latin American immigrants. Just like what she had to do with the coup of Zelaya in Honduras. During her mandate, Honduras could be the base country where any manipulation and interventionist attack in the continent could be performed. That is how it is shaping up and we can see it clearly.
Zelaya’s removal was not just because of the internal oligarchy. Programa Frontera Sur and Maya-Chortí* were not simply because of the desire to assault and assassinate migrants in transit; the principal objective was to militarize countries from Mexico to Honduras. The Alliance For Prosperity Plan is not an American humanitarian donation to the Northern Triangle of Central America. The established neoliberalism in the region leads to the advance of American intervention on another level. Peru under Keiko Fujimori was option B for a base country, but at least there Clinton does not have a table set as she imagined; the results of the elections are a respite, not a very long one, but a respite at last.
Wall Street has achieved what it proposed to do at the start of the presidential race: motivate the masses for Hillary Clinton. To do that, they created a model opponent that would awaken the racial hatred that has always existed in the country, that would spew forth as much as possible against ethnicities, continents and countries. The media coverage highlighted every performance and every speech, planned in advance so that Trump would be the hated antagonist. Sanders, who represented a 180 degree shift for the country, was left in the shadows, with neither a microphone or platform. Whether we like it or not, this upside-down world is not moved by the masses, it is moved by the media and the power of the elite and their money.
With this mass media interference, they have already started to exuberantly celebrate the inevitable presidency of Hillary Clinton. Magazine covers celebrate her, idolize her and position her as a political demigoddess in this country with colossal amnesia, xenophobia and racial hatred. Documentaries are released, and essays, anthologies and photos are published that tell her life story.
Indeed, Hillary Clinton will be the first woman president of the United States, which does not guarantee a change in domestic human rights policy, nor work rights for women with no regard to ethnicity or migratory status. It guarantees absolutely nothing, while intensifying all established oppression. But not just that, she will also be the first white Caucasian woman that, from the antithesis of feminism, marks a new era in American interventionism, not just in Latin America, but in the entire world.
So it seems that the principal objective of Hillary Clinton is to overshadow the ill-fated mark that Margaret Thatcher left on the world.
Editor’s note: Programa Frontera Sur is Mexico’s southern border defense strategy that was announced in July of 2014 and resulted in increased deportations from the country. Maya-Chorti is a task force in Guatemala and Honduras with the purpose of restricting cross-border crime and migration. Both programs have militarized international borders in an attempt to slow the northward flow of immigrants toward the United States.
If you share this text in another website and/or social media, please cite the original source and URL: https://cronicasdeunainquilina.wordpress.com/2016/06/21/hillary-clinton-latin-american-interventionist/
Ilka Oliva Corado. @ilkaolivacorado email@example.com