Movie Review: They Killed Sister Dorothy

Taking Lyrad's suggestion, I sat down and watched They Killed Sister Dorothy last night. The documentary traces the murder of American nun Dorothy Stang in the Brazilian Amazon, and is subtly divided into three parts: the first deals with her efforts to create a new type of sustainable land-holding for the poor in the Amazon in the face of local opposition, culminating in her murder; the second part focuses on the trial of the poor gunmen accused in the murder; and the third (and longest) part focuses on the trial of a ranch-owner accused of hiring the gunmen to kill Stang. However, the documentary is far from blocky; the directors and editors do a spectacular job threading the three stories together so that it flows seamlessly, even while the three acts play out.

The background is fairly straightforward: Stang had begun mission work in Brazil in the 1960s, and had developed a plan of sustainable development in which the landless were given land to own. They could farm and clear 20% of this land as they deemed appropriate, but the other 80% (composed of rainforest) was to remain untouched. The program, or "PDS" (Sustainable Development Plan) would thus simultaneously allow landless to gain access to their own plots and prevent the destruction of the Amazonian rainforest. Stang's program received nominal support from the federal government, but also met with widespread opposition in the state of Para, as both ranchers and poor farmers were openly antagonistic to Stang and to her plan, ultimately leading to her murder.

The two gunmen involved in the murder are quickly arrested, as is a middle-man who allegedly set up the murder, and they are quickly found guilty. This is unsurprising, as anybody who studies any part of Brazil knows that the legal system is really two systems in one; a legal system for the poor, who are unable to afford wealthy lawyers, lack political connections, and are quickly condemned; and the wealthy, who are often connected to political elites (especially in states like Para), can afford elite lawyers, and who usually walk. What is curious in the Stang case is that the lawyers for Vitalmiro Bastos Moura ("Bita"), the ranch owner accused of contracting the murder, also offered his services to the poor gunmen who could not begin to pay for his services. Both gunmen refuse the lawyer's services in the 11th hour, though, suspecting they're being set up as fall guys by the lawyer so that Bita can walk free. Both gunmen admit to the killing and are sentenced, but not before implicating Bita in the murder of Stang.

This situation sets up the last half of the documentary, which focuses on Bita's trial. After admitting in their own trials that Bita had contracted the gunmen, they then say in Bita's trial that he never contracted them, and that they had acted on their own, thereby contradicting their own admissions in the earlier trial (apparently, perjury charges either do not exist in Brazil's legal system, or operate differently, I'm not sure). As the trial proceeds, Bita's conviction looks increasingly unlikely, as his lawyers raise numerous issues, including allegations (which seem patently absurd by this point in the narrative) that Dorothy had contracted murders of people in the region herself, the arrival of the FBI in questioning the gunmen, and perhaps most importantly, the defense lawyer appealing to Brazilian nationalism by portraying Stang as part of an American imperialist project that wanted to colonize its own state in the Amazon and deny Brazilians the right to their own land and to use it as they want. This aspect of the argument was particularly brilliant (if offensive), because it very well could have worked; Brazilians of all political stripes are extremely suspicious of foreign groups trying to save the Amazon, be they NGOs, government organizations, or individuals. Even the most politically astute and aware will often fly into blind suspicions and accuse NGOs of just working for the government so that the "First World" can further exploit Brazil. These arguments sometimes are nearly sensible ("why does the rest of the world get to tell us how to use our land when we can't tell the United States, or Russia, or China, how to use theirs?"), but they are often illogical or inconsistent. Nonetheless, it is one of the ways in which national identity affects Brazilians throughout the political spectrum, and by appealing to that nationalism and suspicion of the U.S., the defense lawyers were making a very astute move. I don't want to give too much away, but I'll say this: as the trial continues, I couldn't help but be wrapped up by the suspense the film-makers create, actually feeling my blood rush a bit faster as it reached the climax, even though I knew the outcome. To me, that speaks of the highest ability to weave a story and get viewers invested, and in that regard, the film was a magnificent success.

One of the more interesting aspects to me was seeing just how Brazil's criminal legal system functions in trials. I had my own extensive experience with the Brazilian legal system, but it was much different than the one the movie documents. It was noticably different, ranging from the ways in which witnesses were addressed to the set-up of the court itself (the charged sits isolated in the middle of the floor in front of the tribunal, separated from his defense, though apparently they can still consult him during the trial). It offered a fascinating insight into how different legal systems function, raising as many questions in my mind about how the U.S. system functions as how Brazil's does.

I had a hard time finding any flaws with the film. Certainly, as a specialist (of the dictatorship, no less), I was very curious about what Para was like in the 1960s, and how the military dictatorship might have responded to Stang's (or others like her) arrival (if they were even aware of it). I also would have liked more individual interviews with the poor in the area, both in favor of and against Stang, to get a more diverse understanding of why they viewed her the way they did, but admittedly, that's not the film's focus, and we do get a decent sampling of those voices in the first part of the film; I was just interested in getting to even more of those voices (though perhaps it will just have to wait for my own or somebody else's research).

But these are hardly serious "complaints" that undermine the quality of the film. It speaks highly of the depth and lucidity of the documentary that there are many aspects of the film I haven't even begun to go into: the legal roadblocks that Stang's friends and family encounter in their search for justice; the living conditions, hopes, and fears of those poor families who are a part of the PDS; the sheer sliminess of Bita's lawyers, who clearly overwhelm the poorly-paid prosecutors as representative of how the wealthy benefit in Brazil's justice system; and many other aspects. The movie manages to cram a lot of detail and information into the narrative while never overloading the senses or overwhelming the viewer with information, making it an excellent documentary for specialists on Brazil even while being completely accessible to everyday viewers. I cannot recommend this film strongly enough, whether you're interested in the environment, social justice, Latin America, legal suspense (the story outdoes anything most authors of crime/legal suspense novels could ever offer, even when you know the outcome), or just the documentary format.

Carnaval in Brazil 2010 (II) - Racism and Class Warfare, in Rio and Beyond

So, Caranaval in Brazil has begun, even while Rio endures one of its most brutal heat-waves in decades (though Rio's most famous parades, which serve as the images and symbols of Carnaval worldwide, will not begin until tomorrow night, carrying on Monday night). It should be interesting to watch both during and after, for many reasons (including the fact that a judge this week OK'd 7-year-old Julia Lira serving as Rainha for the Viradouro samba school).

Of course, some are trying to denude Carnaval of some of the popular forms of expression and fun. Last year, I mentioned how Eduardo Paes was effectively launching class warfare in his efforts to limit beer sales during Carnaval (as part of his broader effort to strip Rio of much of its informal sector and street-life). Well, Rio Mayor Eduardo Paes is at it again this year. While I have absolutely no problem in prohibiting people from pissing in the gutter or seeing the transformation of a brothel into a museum, I still believe the absolutist effort to clamp down on items like sales of snacks on the beach and prohibiting playing soccer before 5PM is not only ridiculous; it strips Rio not just of some of its vivacity, but also is directly trying to clamp down on popular forms of culture, expression, and leisure. The snacks and the soccer on the beach hurt absolutely nobody; they're simply ways for people to enjoy themselves in what is a public space. Paes's efforts to limit those legitimate and harmless forms of popular expression (which I dealt with in greater detail here) are appalling and ridiculous at all times of the year, but especially at Carnaval.

Nor is Paes alone this year on trying to counter cultural forms of expression. A mayor of a town in Minas Gerais has banned Brazilian funk and hip-hop from being played during Carnaval. Of course, this measure is offensively authoritarian - it's not just that you can't listen to it in public places, but that people caught listening to it anywhere "during the Carnival period would have to turn it off or face arrest and up to six months in prison." However, I know that some in Brazil, especially from the upper- and middle-classes, probably support this measure, as they believe it to be "noise" and "crass." Certainly, the lyrics are often offensive, but funk and hip-hop both come from the favelas of Rio and Sao Paulo, and are closely associated with the culture, social life, and struggles of the poor in Brazil (not coincidentally, they are also seen as music that reflects the "darker brown" segment of society). So any ban on these types of music is not only classist in trying to impose more-elite forms of popular culture on the ceremonies; it is also racist. And blaming the music for "inciting violence," rather than blaming more deep-seated problems like racism and the enormous gap between rich and poor in Brazil, only further reifies the mayor's authoritarianism, ignorance, classism, and racism.

Man Who Contracted Dorothy Stang's Murder Back in Jail

This is excellent news:

A landowner accused of ordering the murder of American nun Dorothy Stang in the Amazon in 2005 is reported to be back in jail after turning himself in.

Vitalmiro Bastos Moura was originally convicted for the killing in 2007. The verdict was overturned a year later but he is now due to face a retrial.

The Brazilian report says he turned himself in after Brazil's Supreme Court refused Moura's request for habeas corpus, upholding the Para state court's ruling. Of course, the fact that Moura will get a new trial isn't fully encouraging - he's wealthy enough that he may be able to avoid a second conviction; the first conviction simply never should have been overturned in the first place. Still, this isn't completely hopeless; Moura was wealthy in the first trial, and was still found guilty; perhaps the outcome will be the same in the second. If nothing else, at least right now, the Supreme Court's ruling sends the message that wealthy landowners who hire poorer people to kill those trying to protect indigenous lands and the environment in the Amazonian basin will not remain immune from their murderous actions, and that alone is an important message to send. Hopefully, Moura will (once again) feel the full force of that message.

Reports on Police Violence and Prison Conditions in Brazil

In yet even more cheerful news from Brazil, Human Rights Watch once again put Brazil on its list for police violence.

According to NGO Human Rights Watch, an alarming number of police killings have gone unpunished in Brazil. Police officers from the states of Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo have killed more than 11,000 people since 2003.

Most of these killings are claimed to have been “resistance” killings — those that occur when police officers return fire in self-defense. Police officials say these killings are in resistance to gangs linked to drug trafficking.

However, Human Rights Watch says otherwise. The group led a two-year investigation, called Lethal Force, that focused on 51 such killings and found evidence that police officers often took steps to cover up the true nature of the deaths.

This should come as no surprise to people familiar with Brazil or regular readers here. The solution, according to HRW, is to appoint independent investigators and prosecutors to focus on the extrajudicial killings. That would be nice, and there have been some forays into prosecutorial action and even some newer tactics within police forces, but with the broader lack of concern about the fate of the poor in Brazil and the deep-seated impunity most police have enjoyed, nothing short of a massive and complete overhaul of the police system, structure, and workforce forced upon Rio from the federal government will accomplish an eradication of this, and that simply isn't happening for obvious logistical reasons.

Nor is that the only problem facing Brazil, in terms of policing and human rights. A British journalist had the chance to see some of the prison conditions in Brazil, and he learned firsthand that they were nothing short of appalling. In addition to the horrible crowding and understaffing, there are broader fundamental problems:

Many of the people being held have only been charged with extremely minor offences – such as shoplifting – but administrative inefficiencies in the conduct of trials means that it is not uncommon for them to spend longer on remand than their final sentence. Many should not even be there at all. The Brazilian judiciary have recently reopened the files in a number of states and found that around 20% of the people currently in prison should be released and a further 30% moved to lower security.

Locking up petty thieves with hardened killers also provides the gangs with a steady stream of new recruits. Their leaders are responsible for the day to day administration of many prisons, controlling the distribution of food, medicine, and hygiene kits and enforcing whatever internal discipline exists. Two and half years ago the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), São Paulo's most powerful crime gang, launched a series of co-ordinated attacks against police officers and prison staff in a protest over prison conditions, which resulted in around 450 killings. The PCC was initially formed by a group of prisoners to "avenge the death of 111 prisoners" who were killed during the suppression of a prison protest in 1992.

As Foley points out, this also needs major reforming, which is easy to say and hard to do. I think prison reform in Brazil has a better chance to be accomplished fairly quickly in comparison to police reform. Either way, though, in spite of Brazil's recent growth, expansion, and success in the international arena, it is still very difficult to be either poor or a criminal in Brazil, and there is little hope that the basic structural situation facing those groups is going to improve anytime soon.

Eduardo Paes Determined to Destroy Rio de Janeiro through Useless Policies and Class Warfare

This past February, Rio de Janeiro's mayor, Eduardo Paes, launched the first step in his efforts to "clean up" Rio by banning beer vendors on the streets during Carnaval, a drastic and useless move that I hoped would be temporary. When I went to Brazil in June, I had a chance to see just how ugly and damaging Paes's clean-up efforts had become, undoing much of the harmless and enjoyable street life in Rio. Apparently, it has officially become Paes's goal to strip Rio of all of the harmless activities that one finds in public spaces, as he now has launched his assault on the most sacred sites in Rio: the beaches.

Under rules aimed at bringing order to Rio's famous beaches, ball games are among the undesirable activities being curtailed or banned as the city that will host a World Cup and Olympics within seven years seeks to clean up its act. [...]

The beach is just the latest target of a city-wide campaign to bring order to Rio, where traffic and other rules are often seen as optional. Though in place for nearly a year, the effort gained urgency with Rio's selection as 2016 Olympic host.

Rio state this month hired former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who takes credit for cleaning up the Big Apple, to help advise it on the Brazilian city's crime problems. Rio Mayor Eduardo Paes recently told Cariocas, as Rio residents are known, to stop being such "pigs," referring to their habit of leaving piles of garbage on the beach.

The man in charge of carrying out the new policy, public order secretary Rodrigo Bethlam, said the beach's central place in Rio life made the battle for order there crucial.

"The beach is an emblematic place. If we can succeed in organizing the beach, it means we can organize the city," he told Reuters

This is just ridiculous in so many ways (and keep in mind - we're talking about soccer in Brazil - this isn't just some passing hobby among a handful). Firstly, the beaches are in fact public spaces, meaning they are for use by the public. The notion that playing soccer on the beach (in areas that are informally designated as athletic areas) is somehow "disorderly" and cutting into the power of the state is absurd. Secondly, the idea that if you can organize the beach, you "can organize the city" is stupid beyond description. The beach is in no way representative of all of the non-beach aspects of the city - it is a place of leisure for most, and business for an handful. It is not the financial district. It is not the favelas. True, you do get to see the wide income gap play out on the beach, but solving the "problem" of people playing soccer or volleyball on the beach does nothing to address that income gap, nor to address the issues of murderous police, the drug trade, the enormous gap in wealth, or the troublesome and often disgusting racism and classism of Rio's elites and middle class. Cleaning up the pollution on the beaches is a great idea, but again, has nothing to do with pick-up games of soccer. And it's not like there's an absence of space - while the beaches do get crowded on hot weekends, Copacabana and Ipanema alone are 9 km (about 6 miles) long, and Rio has over 50 miles of beaches.

In other words, this is yet another effort on Paes' part to A) "clean up" the city through absolutely useless gestures that accomplish no real good and detract much from the quotidian in Rio, and B) are specifically targeted towards the middle- and upper-class cariocas who lament how the beaches have become so "dirty" in the last decade or so, as the poor from the northern zone had increasing access to the richer southern neighborhoods in Copacabana and Ipanema. It's the worst kind of "high-modernism" one can find - the state's efforts to control everything end up stripping daily life of all of its harmless joys, all so the state can impose its presence in an obvious way that does nothing to deal with the actual substantial economic, social, and political problems facing a city (or country). Paes could use his office to try to improve the social conditions in the favelas and build up a beneficial state structure; instead, he makes sales of beer on the streets illegal at Carnaval. He could try to end the impunity police face as they enter favelas and kill indiscriminately; instead, he wages a war on beach-front soccer. The uselessness and stupidity of this is just mind-boggling.

And the useless enforcement goes beyond just soccer, touching everything that makes beach life enjoyable in Rio:

Among other cherished beach freedoms being withdrawn are sales of food on skewers such as shrimp and cheese that are hawked by entrepreneurs plying the sands. No longer will beach-goers, known here as "banhistas," be able to bring coolers for drinks or play music on stereos.

The main targets of the new policy are the hundreds of "barracas," or huts, that dot Rio's beaches, renting out deck chairs and selling everything from beer to barbecued meat.

Often emblazoned with their owner's name, they are colorful, if chaotic, fixtures of beach life that laugh in the face of sanitation rules but have their own loyal following.

Under the new rules, names or advertisements are out and they must accept being outfitted with all-white tents and equipment that, while smart-looking, are somewhat bland.

You want to eat on the beach? Sorry - that's no longer an option. You'll have to go to one of the high-end restaurants on the beach-front (restaurants that, not coincidentally, the poorer segments of Rio's population who come from the northern part of the city cannot afford). You want to rent a chair to sit on? Sorry - the guy who has a little tent and rents them out isn't allowed to do that anymore. Bring your own (which won't fit on the buses, again meaning that if you're not from that neighborhood, you're out of luck). Are you gay, and do you want to join other gay individuals in their own section of the beach? Sorry - the tents and flags that the gay community set up so others know where to find them aren't allowed, either. In short, Paes, in his increasingly ego-maniacal effort to control Rio, has launched blatant open class and cultural warfare, all in an effort to strip Rio of its vibrancy in the name of "order."

Fortunately, the people have begun overrule Paes on this one.

They are putting in place their own law, but it's wrong," said Marcel Damasceno de Matos, a 39-year-old who said he has worked his patch of Ipanema beach for 10 years.

"I have customers from the United States and other countries who come back year after year and look for my name. Now there's going to be a lot of confusion."

Still, in a country with no shortage of laws but a glaring lack of enforcement, not everyone on the beach is convinced that the shock of order will end up being so shocking.

"The law exists, but you're in Brazil," said Bernardo Braga, a 26-year-old model and student who was playing "keep up" on the Ipanema seafront.

"You just have to walk along here to see all the rules being ignored."

I already hope cariocas elect him out of office at the end of his term (which, unfortunately, is not for another 3 years). He has made it clear that important changes in the social and economic landscape meant to actually better the lives and existence of cariocas is not on his agenda. Instead, he is intent on imposing the state on the most mundane and harmless aspects of life, driving many out of their livelihoods, while issues like police violence, the drug trade, and disparities in wealth continue to plague Rio.

The Depressing Effects of Eduardo Paes's Efforts to "Clean Up" Rio de Janeiro

I alluded yesterday to the visible changes Rio's mayor, Eduardo Paes (of the centrist Partido Movimento Democratico Brasileiro, PMDB) has effected in the first 6 months of his administration, and overall, they are extremely depressing. Back in February, I wrote about Paes cracking down on the informal economy in Rio, going after not just guys who sell cans of beer on the streets during Carnival, but people who sell corn, books, sunglasses, whatever. The article at the time made clear that this crackdown was not just some rhetorical move (though it was that, too), but was actually being implemented.

I had actually forgotten mostly about this since February, but the moment I hit the streets in Botafogo (in the southern part of Rio, where I was staying), it was immediately clear how strong Paes had cracked down. Many of the vendors I was accustomed to seeing in their usual spots just weren't there anymore. Sure, I hadn't been around in 15 months, and it's possible (and probable) that a vendor or two would move on or die or have some other reason to not be there, but this wasn't a case of one or two vendors gone - nearly everybody who sold anything on the streets was gone. Sure, near Guanabara Bay, the guys who sold pirated DVDs, video games, and computer software were gone - that crackdown on piracy had begun before I left Rio and before Paes was elected. But others were totally absent, too - a guy who sold hot dogs in the evenings a block away from my old apartment; the guy who sold books near a collection of restaurants; the woman who sold candy from a small cart; the guy who sold corn near the beach front. Not one of them was in their old haunts at any time of the day. And even those who had persisted had to be super-careful. In front of the building where I was staying on this trip, there was always a guy selling sunglasses and small housewares and a woman who sold home-made goods. One day, upon returning to the apartment, they (and a few other vendors) were suddenly running towards me. I was initially confused, until I realized (as they were looking back over their shoulders) that the police must be coming to crack down, and they were off to hide.

There is so much wrong with this policy, and this last anecdote points to one of the biggest problems - people adapt to laws. In this case, I actually admire the intelligence in these remaining vendors picking their spots to sell: the building they were stationed in front was on a major one-way street that could only be accessed by coming up this (multi-mile) street through traffic, or turning onto it from another (heavily-congested) one-way street. That may not make much sense, but what that position did was give these people a perfect location to set up shop and have plenty of time for a warning from a lookout if the police were coming. And that was exactly what had happened - the lookout, stationed on the intersecting one-way street, saw the cops coming and gave the signal, and the vendors bolted. By the time the police car had navigated traffic and gotten a green light to come around to the place where the vendors had been, they were out of sight.

To be clear, while I'm strongly against this crackdown in general, there is room for maneuvering here. While I think copyright laws really need to be overhauled, the Brazilian government writ large has been making some efforts to crack down on software and film piracy (while also insisting that companies like Microsoft need to make products more affordable in countries with lower incomes), so if Paes is involved in that, fine. I have a harder time cracking down on guys who sell sunglasses or fake rolexes, but not for legal reasons - I figure if they want to sell it, and people are willing to run the risk to buy it, then fine. It's not like citizens are compelled to only purchase from these vendors. The crackdown really gets indefensible on people whose income in no way is infringing upon the formal market, though - somebody making some delicious deserts to sell on the street for a low price? An old guy who has a bunch of old books to sell setting up his wares on a (very broad) sidewalk? There is no threat there at all, and cracking down on these people is only depriving them of a source of income, one that is even more needed as Brazil officially enters into the global recession.

And it's not like Paes is genuinely concerned about the actual economic effects of these vendors. He made it clear in his campaign, and in his rhetoric since, that this isn't about boosting the formal economy or even cracking down on contraband. It's about "cleaning up" the city, and, as I wrote back in February, that means only one thing:

[B]y appealing to the "Marvelous City" he never had, Paes is also appealing to the worst kind of elitism and repression of Rio's poor. Implying that the "Marvelous City" ("Cidade Maravilhosa," Rio's nickname) can only exist when street vendors are removed from the scene is patently, vulgarly, and quite frankly, unrealistically expecting to just wipe the face of poverty from the city of Rio. In effect, it's saying, "The city can only be beautiful when we keep the favelados and the poor in their own neighborhoods" where, let's not forget, they can easily find themselves victims of police occupations and violence.

Rio's facing a lot of problems, and certainly, some of the more major problems (like police corruption and the violence in the favelas) are, as the article points out, not within Paes's jurisdiction. However, concentrating his emphasis on street vendors and others who are involved in the informal economy not out of any huge entrepreneurship or search for the thrill of illegal activities, but for the simple reason that they are trying to make ends meet, is not only revolting, it's unrealistic. These efforts reveal Paes to be one of the most blatant elitists willing to wage obvious class war on his own city that I've ever seen any politician anywhere pull (as well as the micromanager's micromanager). The fact that he has no social program responses to offer alternatives to street vendors beyond "fines and/or jail" just makes it that much worse.

Rio specifically, and many of Brazil's urban centers more generally, has a rich history of launching "cleanup" campaigns that have only further marginalized the poor (and often racially "darker"), from the 1890s after emancipation and the end of the empire, to the 1920s, when the poor were kicked out of the center of the city in anticipation of the Belgian royal family's visit to Rio in 1922 (the first European royalty to set foot in Brazil since the Portuguese Crown arrived in 1808 when it fled the Napoleonic invasion), to the 1960s and the governorship of Carlos Lacerda. By taking this stance on the informal economy, Paes is only adding his own name to this infamous list of injustices.

And I wish it stopped there, but it doesn't. Paes, in his effort to "clean up" the city, is also cracking down on the little bars that dot the landscape, where you could sit down at a nice plastic table on the sidewalk in the evening and have a nice cold beer (in Rio, quality is determined more by coldness than by taste, a flawed system but one that has its logic based on the heat). It was a wonderful way to spend a night chilling out, and it wasn't like these little bars were occupying the sidewalks out of maliciousness - oftentimes, the "bar" itself was no more than 10 feet deep and 5 feet wide, meaning that they had to expand their business onto the sidewalk if they were to actually have any clients, and they only put tables on the sidewalk once neighboring businesses had closed for the day.

However, Paes has declared that these activities also must go as they are an eyesore on the landscape. Now, I actually lived above no fewer than four of these places, and while it got noisy, it was never so terrible that you couldn't sleep - certainly, the crowds below talking were less noisy than the idiots driving by honking their horns, or the delivery trucks that arrived at the grocery store across the street at 4 in the morning. Yes, the sidewalks would get crowded, and I understand why that would bother some, but it was never like you absolutely could not walk on the sidewalks when these places set up shop. In short, it was nowhere near a major inconvenience, and it afforded not only a great way for inexpensive leisure, but gave Rio a particular vibrance.

That vibrance does not fit within Paes's elitist vision, though, and he has cracked down. Upon walking through my old neighborhood, no fewer than 3 old bars had been closed, unable to remain open in the face of a policy that prejudiced the owners' livelihood over the principle of "aesthetics." The obvious conclusion is that this policy has shut down small businesses (which were a part of the formal sector, not random street vendors), leading to more people jobless and having to find work in an economy that isn't the most favorable right now. But that's not the end of the consequences, either. Many of these little bars provided people who weren't necessarily of means (which is a majority of Brazil) to be able to get together with friends over some inexpensive beers and have a good time. In Rio go to a "bar" like those we have in the U.S., you would end up paying double to triple the price of a bottle of beer that you paid on the street - the "bar scene" in Rio is very much a middle-class/hipster (yes, they have them everywhere) thing to do, and most Brazilians are not middle-class (nor hipsters). Thus, Paes's policies haven't just prejudiced the poor and small business owners in their means of earning income; they've also directly attacked their means of leisure.

As should be clear by this point, I'm fairly biased, but I'm still comfortable in saying that Rio was a much more depressing place upon my visit this time. Much of what had given it its cultural flair - cheap books and good food on the street, hanging out with friends and total strangers on the street and having a cold beer - is gone. This isn't to say, "oh, poor Rio - it's culture is now dead and stagnant," for that's far from the case, and no place has its culture bound up only on things like the informal economy. Nonetheless, a not-insignificant part of the city that I knew is gone (and I didn't even make it into the downtown area, where the informal economy was much stronger). Even walking along the beaches and through other neighborhoods, the streets had a ghostly, more subdued quality about them. Sure, the ocean was still beautiful to look at, as were the mountains. While there, I couldn't help but feeling outrage, frustration, and anger that such an elitist vision of Rio had been so (though not totally) successfully implemented. But mostly, I felt sadness: having seen the effects of Paes's policies in only 6 months, I left Rio feeling that the city hadn't become "marvelous;" rather, it had been stripped of part of what had made it so "marvelous" in the first place.

Rio's New Mayor Launches Blatant Class Warfare

The AP ran a disturbing story (courtesy the LA Times, though I originally read the article on my Wii news channel, which will probably merit a blog post of its own in the near future) about the new tactics and policies of Rio's new mayor, Eduardo Paes.

Eduardo Paes, the fresh-faced 39-year-old mayor who took office on Jan. 1, is energetically trying to reverse Rio's reputation as an anything-goes city where savvy citizens learn early that some laws exist only on paper and can be safely ignored.
But the mayor isn't giving up his campaign, even as more than 700,000 visitors crowd the streets. "We have to give a shock of urban order to the city, an organized posture, to recover authority and better conserve public spaces," he explained during the mayoral race.

"A shock of urban order" sounds rather extreme and authoritarian, perhaps, but let's see what his plans are. Who is Paes going to go after first?

His first targets have been the countless providers of what many citizens consider to be useful — if illegal — services in Rio's informal economy.

From men who sell boiled corn in the streets, to boys who demand coins to safeguard cars from thieves, to women hawking ice-cold beer from small coolers on Copacabana beach, hundreds of these workers have felt the pinch.

"I've been selling books here for 40 years," said Rubem da Consigao, 71, a wisp of a man whose small folding table held 100 used volumes in the posh Ipanema neighborhood. "Then last week, the police came, said I didn't have a vendor's license, took my books and said they would burn them. This country is full of thieves — if they take the bread from my hand, there is going to be one more."

Many such workers say they have been hassled by police. Almost all say they have little choice but to keep working illegally. [...]

Ah - going after people who harmlessly sell books, beer, or corn on the street! How brave! It's genius! Everybody knows - all of Rio's problems come from its informal economy!!! And who could argue with Paes's logic?

"Paes has said that Rio lost its luster long ago by allowing little crimes to tarnish its reputation: "I've never lived in the Marvelous City," he has said, invoking one of Rio's old nicknames."

Sarcasm aside, it should go without saying, but by appealing to the "Marvelous City" he never had, Paes is also appealing to the worst kind of elitism and repression of Rio's poor. Implying that the "Marvelous City" ("Cidade Maravilhosa," Rio's nickname) can only exist when street vendors are removed from the scene is patently, vulgarly, and quite frankly, unrealistically expecting to just wipe the face of poverty from the city of Rio. In effect, it's saying, "The city can only be beautiful when we keep the favelados and the poor in their own neighborhoods" where, let's not forget, they can easily find themselves victims of police occupations and violence.

Rio's facing a lot of problems, and certainly, some of the more major problems (like police corruption and the violence in the favelas) are, as the article points out, not within Paes's jurisdiction. However, concentrating his emphasis on street vendors and others who are involved in the informal economy not out of any huge entrepreneurship or search for the thrill of illegal activities, but for the simple reason that they are trying to make ends meet, is not only revolting, it's unrealistic. These efforts reveal Paes to be one of the most blatant elitists willing to wage obvious class war on his own city that I've ever seen any politician anywhere pull (as well as the micromanager's micromanager). The fact that he has no social program responses to offer alternatives to street vendors beyond "fines and/or jail" just makes it that much worse.

It should also go without saying that basing your "cleanup" program on Rudy Giulani's campaigns of the 1990s is a terrible idea - Giuliani oversaw, among other things, impunity in escalating police violence and an extreme widening of the income gap in a city that now has 1.5 million of its 8 million residents (that's 18.75%) living below the poverty line, due in no small part because of the Giuliani/Bloomberg policies of the last 16 years.

But hey - at least Paes isn't hiding his true colors.