Last Friday, February 24, Conaie met to analyze the national situation and define whether to call a new national strike. The possibility of this new call caused a number of reactions in certain sectors, both for and against. Among them a series of racist comments, since they disqualified others because of their ethnicity. Especially from the extreme right (this does not mean that there is no racism on the left).
It was very difficult for the right, at least in the Sierra, to compete with the popular electorate, especially the indigenous population, because of its own limitations. She was unable to develop a discourse that could be accepted, or conceptually challenged, in the face of the left, politics and many lower processes of ideological formation. Since the 2019 strike, racist comments have been escalating, in response to the actions of the indigenous movement. On the one hand, reasoned and argumentative criticisms and opinions that are presented against Conaie’s position must be distinguished, and on the other hand, those that seek to disqualify and characterize an entire population group based on ethnic prejudices. The dispute must be conducted on the feasibility of proposals, the truth of facts, arguments and their reasoning, on persuasiveness, and not on the diversity of alleged ethnic characteristics. On the other hand, the left and a certain academic community unquestioningly support every action and proposal of the indigenous movement, solely on the basis that they are “subaltern” groups. “Freedom”, said Hannah Arendt, occurs between equals, which meant the ability to speak, that is, the use of reason to convince another, who is recognized as having the same ability. This would be the area of politics.
In our society, we have yet to understand what it means to talk about equality, the rule of law and the rule of law…
Racism cancels this condition of equality, and thus closes the space of politics. The right in general, but especially the extreme right, by its inability to establish a dialogue with indigenous interlocutors inevitably pushes them into the only sector with which they sympathize and with which they managed to articulate actions, because again the right, to complain about the lack of political clarity of the indigenous movement. He also does not understand that growing ethnic tensions favor incendiary speeches like those of Iza, and it is he who does not know how to oppose these positions between the people and the nationality.
Acknowledging racism does not absolve violent actions during the mobilization of the indigenous movement. Ultimately, violence also invalidates political space. At the same time, it is interesting that the strike awakened the defense of the “territories of Quito”, where a certain right calls for self-defense, even with the use of weapons, blocking the way for demonstrations. I assume that the same right will apply to the defense of legally and constitutionally recognized autochthonous territory, as well as self-organization into armed defense bodies. The extremes end up looking equal.
In our society, we have yet to understand what it means to talk about equality, the rule of law and the rule of law, not to mention more complex concepts such as freedom and politics. (OR)
Source: Eluniverso
Mario Twitchell is an accomplished author and journalist, known for his insightful and thought-provoking writing on a wide range of topics including general and opinion. He currently works as a writer at 247 news agency, where he has established himself as a respected voice in the industry.
