Resentment
is something very tight to our society over these years. The kind I'm bringing
it up is the immigrant kind. Those who left the country are in its majority
resentful on anything related somehow to the government and, based on what it's
missing in them, they do have point. We’re here because we lost something. I
just wonder if there might be a chance that some of such resentment may have
been taken from the media's deconstruction, and I wonder about it because it is
a bit hard for me to be convinced that a huge group of people can have the same
opinion over the same thing embracing the same feeling. I mean, a way for that,
it occurs to me, such a thing get to happen; is through indoctrination, but the
point is that most people feel it is spontaneous, and with that inside your
head, it is hard to break it down. Every argument that is swallowed entirely
leads to a conviction that takes you to a fanatic state. I was thinking about
those famous "two minutes of hate". I see this resentment of ours to a certain point, that way. I mean, media
brought these thesis to, let's say, justify, in a way, that what took the
country to the crisis, and what forced so many people to leave, might hold
several people accountable. Media needs to sell a narrative convincing enough
to their consumers, that they can understand it as a political problem, and,
very important, that it could have been
prevented by choosing different when it came to vote. Politicians need
believers and, a way to preserve them, is through blame. Whatever happened must
be someone’s fault. Social media brought up these theories then: one of those was,
that people then got tired of the political establishment before Chavez's era; and
therefore pushed for this change that ended up in a disaster, phrasing it in a way,
that those who once believed in the dictator, couldn't see what was coming with
such political turn. The other one was more like a segregate type. The other
one went on stating that ignorant people,
and by ignorant they meant the poor and the uneducated; and by
uneducated they mean those who did not go to college; blinded by their alleged resentment
(not the same resentment from the present days, and that is interesting too)
instead of keeping up with the political establishment, went and voted for Chávez. Both theories
shows a reality where regular people had some power, indeed, of setting the
path for the future of the country, and by choosing wrong (understanding wrong
as Chavez's movement) such a promising future allegedly heading with the former
political crew, lost its chance of achievement.
Many people
bought those theories at their own
convenience. Those who once
believed in Chávez support this argument in which they were promised something
it did not become true. It is more like they were scammed. If we think about
it, it is so interesting and intriguing realizing that there are in fact people
out there convinced that they could have done it otherwise but they were fooled
by the political power, or worse; by a politician. I suppose that those are the
same people who think that taking basic English classes will make recruiters
consider them for high position roles. Now the others are something else.
First, we can't know that for sure, but assuming they stand from a position of
truth, these ones have always claimed
they never voted for Chávez; and that they never believed in him, which is
something that, judging by how everything ended up, they were right from their
angle, so they have been taking pride
ever since to a point that they see themselves elevated, or distinguished, from
the ignorant kind (which means everyone else) and of course; those were mostly
who started leaving the country. That sort of dichotomy was well sold. Some
people feel regret from what I think it is an induced guilt, and some others
stick with their anger as pride.
As time went by those arguments became pretty
much the only logical explanation for understanding the disaster. The deconstruction was total. But what if we
take a few more glances, I mean. We can allow ourselves to wonder, for instance,
who paid for Chávez appearances on national TV? Who paid for all those trips to
Cuba? He started campaigning not so long after he was discharged from prison.
All the media who interviewed him when he was in jail, I mean. Do you guys
really think that voting had something to do with it? Do you think it ever
mattered whether you believed in him or not?
Chávez held meetings with almost every single important ruler of his
time: from Bill Clinton to Saddam Hussein. From the Queen of England to Fidel
Castro and so on. Was it there any important protest from the media, or those
who didn't believe in him then, when he reformed the constitution? Chávez arose
because Real Power wanted him there. Wherever such real power comes from, which
is not my intention to talk about. Power is power, Cercei would say. The thing
is that these arguments won't cover all the doubts but people agreed with them
only because of the social media rephrase, and while one group points out at
the other for their self glorification, the obvious consensus should be that
we're all to blame but not for any choosing, but for thinking that it has been
an actual cause of it. It seems only a minority is willing to accept it. In the
meantime, every new immigrant must adapt
his story to one of these thesis. Every immigrant who might have agreed with
any project of Chávez, regardless how quickly that person stopped it, or came around, must, either deny it like he
never did it, or carry with such a burden and acknowledge his regret. We are
going to hear a lot about it until the deconstruction turns these conceptions
into a new gate of perception. Just like they've been doing within the music
business.