Runaways and refugees

My use of "run away" in my recent post was to distinguish those who were here during "those times" vs. those that were not. I know we will disagree on much of the cause/effect of the 1980s here (you will claim Marxism, I will claim US embargo) but that was not the point.

In this recent post the distinction is that those who stayed (whether they felt they could effect political change internally, they liked the direction the government was moving or they just didn't have the money to opt for an alternative) were victims of what I will again call the 1980s. My wife's family is a good example of the "didn't have the money" group, for example.

From that, the rest of my recent blog entry then talks about these two groups of people--those that were here and those that were not. The differences in opportunity (that mostly means being able to make a lot of money by Nicaraguan standards--the same advantage that the average Gringo sees) has the potential of presenting a new economic problem for those who stayed.

As for the generic case, there are so many cases where, if you have the option to leave, you will pick it. I am sure that millions of people in Viet Nam would have rather left than been subjected to first the French-imposed war and than the US-imposed war there. In the middle east, we can probably find a group that has been persecured by just about every country outside the immediate area.

On the US end of the Viet Nam "conflict" we see lots of people that decided to flee to Canada rather than be subjected to military service. And we see that those "more well off" at that time (I will include Bill Clinton, George Bush and myself in that list) managed to do the right things so that they could avoid military service in Viet Nam.

There is, of course, a difference between those that avoided US military service and those that avoided Nicaraguan military service. There was no war in the US.

While your list above offers good semi-recent oppression examples, we only need to go back to the mid-20th century in the US to see that the US "democracy" hasn't been perfect for everyone. The treatment of some American citizens during WWII is a perfect example.

My US history teacher was born in the US in about 1940. Tazuko Takasago. Her parents were born in Japan but, as I understand, were US citizens. She and her parents spent WWII in a concentration camp in the midwest rather than in their home in California. Apparently this was because the US government was afraid that a fisherman, a housewife and a 2 year old girl where a threat to national security.

Anyway, the whole issue (and I don't mean just Nicaragua) needs a lot more history to properly analyze. If you look at my choice of words (run away) I think they fit in the context they were used. In other contexts I might have chosen "abandoned" meaning that they decided not to participate in the political process after 50+ years of dictatorship.

Now, that is not to say there was not repression. But, there was repression pre-1979 as well. The same goes for Cuba under Batista vs. Castro. Populist movements happen for a reason. The US in 1776 is another example. Generally "the new government" will not have experience governing. And their definition of freedom will not likely be respresentative of all. (Again, this was certainly true of the US in 1776 as well.)

Any new government will have to evolve. We will never know how the FSLN would have evolved here had then not been pushed into a corner with an embargo and then a way. My personal feeling is that these efforts forced unification behind Ortega rather than letting the FSLN naturally evolve into a much more democratic party. But, again, we just won't know.

If we look at Cuba we could probably draw similar conclusions. That is, anti-US actions generally came as a response to anti-Castro US actions. An embargo forced the government to take unpopular measures to cope with lost income. On the other hand, positive things have come out of the Cuban government--for example, the best health care system in the region.

For those who remember the Ronald Reagan approach to Nicaraguan relations, he made such important statements as the Sandinista Communists have tanks and could be in Texas in three days. Yeah, right. So, what if all the BS was put aside and the 1980s in Nicaragua could have just "happened" with no policy changes by other governments. I expect less Nicaraguans would have left, a moderate government would have evolved relatively quickly and those that left would have returned long ago.

John,

I inadvertently exposed you to a feeling that is prevalent down here which you, in your US location, may not be aware of. It's much like the Cuban community in Miami which tends to control any and all "image" of the island. A one sided viewpoint to say the least.

I used the phrase "run away" earlier because here, among Nicaraguans, there is a line drawn between those who stayed and those who did not. That line is becoming more defined as a few of the Nicas who moved to the US during those difficult years, now choose to "move home" but find their idea of what is here has little connect with reality. That not only includes physical changes, but political and social views.

Many of the Nicas who are moving back have little or no knowledge of how things work here. Many of them have now spent more time in the US than they did in Nicaragua. Many of them have been thoroughly "gringoized" in the way they dress, drive a car, interact with others and even look at their own self identity.

One of the strange results has been a growing number of young people who were raised in the states and don't speak Spanish or English well. One friend of mine comes here and because he's been in Miami so long, his Spanish is very "Cuban". No one believes he is a Nica and several times, which we both smile about, he's had to show his passport proving he was born in Siuna and that he really is a Nica.

Many of these people are lost when it comes to running a business here. Much different than in the US. They also have a shorter fuse when it comes to patience and dealing with people.

My point here is there is a noticeable, cultural difference because of all the time they spent away from here.

Others did not leave...for their own reasons. As an American, I admit I have my own prejudice towards people who choose to leave their countries during times of strife and danger. My own included. You either stay and fight for the change you think is right or you leave and...give up something. Part of that something is respect and influence from those who stayed.

I'm reaching here a bit but it's like how I view many of the Iraqi people living in the states. Most had to have money to even get to the US. They chose to leave a bad situation. Much like many Nicas...who also had money. Instead of staying to do what was right for their country, which might have meant dying to protect what they believe in, they left.

Like many "refugees" they then turn their status to political purposes. Trying to sell others that their view is the "right" view of the country even though they have no idea what's really going on at the decision making levels of government.

Then, sitting safely in the US, they paint a self image of themselves which is less than honest. As some kind of patriots forced out of their lands. As poor people...which many of them are not when you see the truly poor here. They did not show courage to support their country when it counted.

As an American, that is hard for me to stomach...and puts me in an unusual position since I too do not live in my home country. How do I justify what my country does here and elsewhere in the world? I'm not a basher of the US. I'm a proud American but I'm also honest...and I still vote. In the US, not here in Nicaragua.

Iraqi, Nica or Cuban, among others, it's the same. They didn't feel strongly enough to take care of their own. They used their money to "run away". Call it whatever you like...that's what happened. They would never have left if life had not become difficult. Life did become difficult and they chose what some here feel was the easy road out. Going to a first world country with more opportunity and better living conditions. The only reason they did that though is because they had the money to do so.

Some with money to leave, did not. They stayed and did what they could to make this country better. That applies to anyone and not a single political party or family name. A majority of Nicaraguans could not leave. They had courage forced upon them.

I'm probably opening myself up to some legit criticism...but since you wrote the post, I thought I'd explain myself. As well as letting you know my earlier intention was not to insult you or your wife's family.

There are good reasons to leave a country when violence happens and your family is threatened. But the fact is, doing so, means those who leave are giving up something. Not a passport or some legal standing, but respect from others who did not or could not "leave". Those who left, would like everyone in their homeland to consider them to be just like them...but they aren't in so many ways. And there is a general resentment coming from the Nicas who stayed towards those who didn't. It can be overcome...but it's not automatic and takes even longer when those doing the "coming home" are unaware of how they are viewed by those who never left in the first place.

I hope this helps you understand my views without being mean.