San Juan Province, Argentina: Humor as a minefield
Action
Recently, our friend David invited us on an activist’s holiday to the province of San Juan in Western Argentina, near the border with Chile. David, a Californian living in Rosario, has been organizing against open pit mining in Argentina. Open pit mining basically involves blowing up a mountain, and then passing all the debris through pools of mercury and cyanide-laced water to filter out the valuable metals (gold, silver, etc.). Afterwards, the mountains are gone (along with the glaciers and riverheads that create drinking and agricultural water) and the chemicals flow into the remaining water system. Open-pit mining is now illegal in much of North America, so the mining companies are coming down here, where it's still legal and they don't have to pay taxes or fees for the necessary infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, etc.) thanks to corrupt governments. In this case, Barrick Gold is planning to blow up over 10 mountains in the middle of the Andes and walk away with over $4 billion in profit.
Hoping to persuade Argentines to avoid making the same mistakes the US has, we went to San Juan. We wanted to play with the idea of three North Americans telling locals what to do, so taking a cue from Billionaires for Bush, we formed “North Americans for Environmental Destruction” (for added rhetorical flourish, the acronym in Spanish spelled out the Spanish word for “nothing”). In three towns in the province, we distributed fake money, while shouting out “Bribes! Pay-offs from North Americans!”
David created bills with a doctored image of the US dollar on one-side and information on the other side. The information contrasted Barrick’s expected $4.6 billion in profits with the tax breaks it was receiving, the $8 million/year that was promised to Argentina, and the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to clean up the pollution.
People were a bit confused as we handed them the fake money. We opted not to stay 100% in character, but sometimes explained our purpose as we handed out the bills: We were handing out money because that’s what the North American mining company is doing, when they offer money for local development programs. The money they are offering, however, is a pittance compared to the profits that they will make and the negative economic impacts of the pollution.
After receiving a “dollar,” one student came back and asked for more to show her friends. A grocery store owner took a stack to distribute to customers. Another woman, however, accused us of making fun of them. I tried to explain that that wasn’t our intention and that rather we were making fun of ourselves as North Americans. Hugo, a local activist who was hosting us, steered me away, saying dismissively that she was pro-mining.
Reflection
The purpose of our action was to get people to think critically about the mining in the region and question the motives of the mining corporations. By being silly, we hoped to appear less threatening and also catch people off guard.
Several times, people took us at face value and told us that they supported the mining company as well. We usually replied to them by thanking them for supporting our (North Americans’) attempts to profit off them and leave them with pollution. This is similar to the technique that Socrates uses in Plato’s dialogs and that most law professors in the US use as well. That is, they rephrase the argument of their interlocutor and carry the interlocutor’s logic out to its extreme end, to make the interlocutor confront the flaws in her logic. Plato was ultimately executed and many law school professors are reviled.
Why did we think we’d be any different? Because we were being silly.We were hoping that our outrageousness would break people’s thought patterns and give them an opportunity to approach a controversial subject with a fresh mind. David referred to this process as creating a rupture.
Unfortunately, humor is often in the eyes of the beholder. Though we knew our intent was to mock ourselves and engage in a dialog with the people of San Juan, that wasn’t always clear to the people we were engaging with.
Question
When does humor create a rupture and when does it mock? Have you ever changed your mind about something thanks to the use of humor?
Recently, our friend David invited us on an activist’s holiday to the province of San Juan in Western Argentina, near the border with Chile. David, a Californian living in Rosario, has been organizing against open pit mining in Argentina. Open pit mining basically involves blowing up a mountain, and then passing all the debris through pools of mercury and cyanide-laced water to filter out the valuable metals (gold, silver, etc.). Afterwards, the mountains are gone (along with the glaciers and riverheads that create drinking and agricultural water) and the chemicals flow into the remaining water system. Open-pit mining is now illegal in much of North America, so the mining companies are coming down here, where it's still legal and they don't have to pay taxes or fees for the necessary infrastructure (roads, electricity, water, etc.) thanks to corrupt governments. In this case, Barrick Gold is planning to blow up over 10 mountains in the middle of the Andes and walk away with over $4 billion in profit.
Hoping to persuade Argentines to avoid making the same mistakes the US has, we went to San Juan. We wanted to play with the idea of three North Americans telling locals what to do, so taking a cue from Billionaires for Bush, we formed “North Americans for Environmental Destruction” (for added rhetorical flourish, the acronym in Spanish spelled out the Spanish word for “nothing”). In three towns in the province, we distributed fake money, while shouting out “Bribes! Pay-offs from North Americans!”
 |  |
David created bills with a doctored image of the US dollar on one-side and information on the other side. The information contrasted Barrick’s expected $4.6 billion in profits with the tax breaks it was receiving, the $8 million/year that was promised to Argentina, and the hundreds of millions of dollars it would cost to clean up the pollution.
People were a bit confused as we handed them the fake money. We opted not to stay 100% in character, but sometimes explained our purpose as we handed out the bills: We were handing out money because that’s what the North American mining company is doing, when they offer money for local development programs. The money they are offering, however, is a pittance compared to the profits that they will make and the negative economic impacts of the pollution.
After receiving a “dollar,” one student came back and asked for more to show her friends. A grocery store owner took a stack to distribute to customers. Another woman, however, accused us of making fun of them. I tried to explain that that wasn’t our intention and that rather we were making fun of ourselves as North Americans. Hugo, a local activist who was hosting us, steered me away, saying dismissively that she was pro-mining.
Reflection
The purpose of our action was to get people to think critically about the mining in the region and question the motives of the mining corporations. By being silly, we hoped to appear less threatening and also catch people off guard.
Several times, people took us at face value and told us that they supported the mining company as well. We usually replied to them by thanking them for supporting our (North Americans’) attempts to profit off them and leave them with pollution. This is similar to the technique that Socrates uses in Plato’s dialogs and that most law professors in the US use as well. That is, they rephrase the argument of their interlocutor and carry the interlocutor’s logic out to its extreme end, to make the interlocutor confront the flaws in her logic. Plato was ultimately executed and many law school professors are reviled.
Why did we think we’d be any different? Because we were being silly.We were hoping that our outrageousness would break people’s thought patterns and give them an opportunity to approach a controversial subject with a fresh mind. David referred to this process as creating a rupture.
Unfortunately, humor is often in the eyes of the beholder. Though we knew our intent was to mock ourselves and engage in a dialog with the people of San Juan, that wasn’t always clear to the people we were engaging with.
Question
When does humor create a rupture and when does it mock? Have you ever changed your mind about something thanks to the use of humor?
3 Comments:
At 12:12 PM, Anonymous said…
Humor is a difficult thing in a foreign language. Humor is more than just the words. Being able to joke in a second language is very difficult and to do it effectively, you really have to understand the culture. I think that it shows a level of fluency if you can.
I'm not sure I would have tried to do something like this. I think that it was good that you didn't stay 100% in character, so you could explain for the people who were confused. I mean, sometimes people around me don't get sarcasm or subtle humor, and that's without the cultural divide.
I was just thinking of shows like the Simpsons or the Daily Show, or Family Guy. Those shows are clearly mocking different groups of people sometimes - a variety of people, by the way - it's great when that group will watch it, think it's funny, and not see that they were just being ridiculed. Now that's funny :)
Jen
At 2:44 PM, Anonymous said…
God I loved billionairs for bush.
I think the fact that you are north amaericans makes it even funnier, after all, I suspect that not all the billionairs for bush are in fact billionairs (or any of them).
Great trip, great blog, keep up the great work.
John (Hirsch)
ps
On your comments form it allows me to chose an identity, I will choose "anonymous" b/c ironman-guy and post-punk-anti-athoritarian-socialist aren't opitions :)
At 9:22 AM, Anonymous said…
wow, cool approach, nice idea - well at least speaking from a north american perspective. yah humour, and styles of activisim can definitely be context sensitive.
brooke
Post a Comment
<< Home