Opinion – Latinoamérica21: Cynicism, sexism and racism in speeches about Francia Márquez

With the triumph of Colombia’s first left-wing government, cynical attitudes joined racism, classicism, sexism, and other forms of intolerant discourse in the country. While distrust and cynicism would be expected to be exacerbated in sectors of the right, such cooperation between cynical and discriminatory discourse is a new and alarming phenomenon.

And this alliance is observed with special emphasis in the responses of journalists, public figures and ordinary citizens to the speeches and actions of Vice President Francia Márquez (Afro-Colombian woman, social leader, environmental activist, feminist and human rights defender) in the media. mass media and social media.

Contemporary cynicism is undoubtedly a multifaceted and difficult phenomenon to understand. In the 1980s, the term began to be used, above all in the USA, to designate a kind of endemic pessimism based on the disappointing realization by citizens that the political debate and state institutions had become the scene of disputes between personal interests or of economic groups to the benefit of the urban rich and to the detriment of the poor.

At the time, this cynical attitude was regarded as one of intelligence, healthy distrust, and sophisticated coolness; a sign that one cannot simply be deceived. During the 1990s, cynicism spread to all areas of social life and became the widespread conviction (perhaps because of capitalist logic) that the only sources of human motivation are economic interests. Thus, the sophisticated realism of some people, the healthy disappointment that gave way to a critical view of political activity, was transformed into an attitude of total distrust in people’s intentions.

Since the beginning of the 21st century, this new cynicism has begun to proclaim itself as a kind of “political realism”, that is, as a clear vision of the world as it is. But harmless as this self-definition may seem, cynicism is the best breeding ground for political extremism on both the right and left. And this is evident in the Colombian public sphere through support for attitudes of social intolerance, such as classicism, racism, sexism and xenophobia against the Colombian Vice President, Francia Márquez.

This alliance between cynics and supremacist, racist and sexist factions in the country is very visible in several comments of this nature about the president, which are expressed without the slightest shame on social networks and mass media, such as Semana magazine. One citizen, for example, wrote on Twitter: “The show has started. Now it will be ‘being rich is bad’ (for others, not for them)”, “My color has been oppressed”, “We must help the poorest “, “Equality for all”, “Free health for all” (for them, private clinics), “Free education” (for them, private universities)”.

In this tweet, social class prejudices are expressed through the slogan of cynical distrust. The social demands of the left, such as “equality for all”, “free healthcare for all”, etc., are placed in quotation marks to indicate that Márquez falsely supports them and that what interests him is to obtain the privileges that the elites have enjoyed in order to your social class.

Thus, anti-democratic and intolerant feelings are hidden under the cloak of “intelligent and sophisticated” cynical distrust, of “political realism” that considers the ideals of social justice as false slogans of social sectors that, in reality, have no right to any claim.

There are also ways in which cynicism allows the expression of racism and sexism, and through a conciliatory tone, diverts public attention from the direct offenses that Márquez suffered for being black and a woman. For example, Semana magazine dedicates more than one article to a citizen’s comment about Márquez during a protest march against the government: “And that simian, for having cast a million votes, considers himself the brave one of the march? Poor simian, the apes ruling (…) It’s an ape… What education can a black have? Blacks steal, steal, rob and kill, what education can a black have?”.

The magazine in question, instead of criticizing this woman’s intolerant speech, reported with indignation Márquez’s public response to the offense after he stated that he would not tolerate racism and, as a result, would denounce the woman in court. The media’s response was the publication of testimonies by politicians who were critical of Márquez’s decision. Among them, the former secretary of government of Bogotá, Luis Ernesto Gómez, who said: “The racism of the Uribista lady perfectly describes the popular saying: ‘ignorance is daring’. Dear Francia Márquez, reconsider your decision not to conciliate. give a lesson to Mrs. Luz Fabiola and to a whole country that wants reconciliation (…)”.

Gómez’s comment downplays the intolerance of expressions of racism against the country’s vice president and explains them as mere “ignorance”: a lesser evil, it seems, and one that we must tolerate. Due to its cynical sophistication and condescension, it asks the victim to come to terms with the perpetrator, that is, that by their own will, and by virtue of a greater collective purpose (national reconciliation), they do not use the channels of the State to denounce her and allow offensive and openly racist treatment.

It seems that the privileged white man, starting from his cynical recognition that selfish interests are what prevail, asks the representative to avoid conflict and allow the continuation of a racist status quo, because, in reality, the offense of which he was a victim it’s not important. We are faced with a cynic who justifies racism and sexism through speeches that appear to be “well-intentioned”, but which, in the end, do not propagate true national reconciliation.

In conclusion, this new cynicism that combines with intolerance to feed political extremism must be denounced. Our acquiescence to the cynic’s cold distrust has allowed cynicism to hide and perpetuate the oppression of marginalized groups, thereby diverting attention from what is really important. This, through the slogan that, in a society where only personal economic interests prevail, social demands are unnecessary and those who express them are dishonest.