Spending
over a decade of my life playing the fabled game of chess, I have learned tactics
and strategies that are meant to deceive and manipulate my opponent. As I have
grown to understand the games concept, I can understand and even appreciate why
writers of history use chess to metaphorically symbolize what happens on sixty-four
black and white squares with what transpires in military battles.
In Chapter 9, Reaction, of the book "Born in Blood
and Fire: A Concise History of Latin America”, John Chasteen eloquently details
how Latin American countries could act as pawns in the grand match between The
United States and The USSR while simultaneously playing several games within
their borders. In a manner of speaking and at the risk of sounding cliché, it is
chess-ception.
With the United States spurring the
idea of anticommunism (through C.I.A funding and mafia like approach) in
Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Chile, military forces of the Latin American
countries took control of the government and unsettled the foundations of order.
It was unfortunate because “U.S. policy called for democracy but helped trigger
dictatorship” (p. 289). Much like in chess where you can move a pawn into a
dangerous situation with minimal repercussions, Latin American forces were manipulated
into battling the revolutionaries. While
they thought being “freedom fighters” was in their best interest, it was the
U.S. that benefited the most. (1) Fighting in the name of nationalism greatly forwarded
the process of militarization. The armed forces controlled the populous and the
United States controlled the armed forces.
Along with the external influences acting upon
Latin America, there were internal struggles for power. The fight for Nicaragua
between the Sandinista National Liberation Front and Somoza family paralleled the
two players in chess. In chess white is considered to have the advantage
because they get to move first. However, as is common as when a chess player
reacts too overconfident from advantage, the dictator Anastasio Somoza pushed
too far and lost out to a surge of unification after the assassination of
Joaqin Chamorro. While Somoza fled and escaped punishment, he ended up in check
mate at the hands of Argentine guerrillas. What is truly astounding is that to
the people of Nicaragua, this was a personal battle not easily overcome, yet the
fight was only petty squabbling in the eyes of the U.S. where, from Ronald
Reagan’s perspective, “Nicaragua was just another square on the cold war
chessboard” (p. 307).
My favorite part about playing
chess is the ability to underestimate the opponent. After countless sacrifices and
complex traps, it only takes one wrong move to be expelled from the board for good.
Che Guevara played chess and, I imagine, understood this principle all too
well. After being shut out of Cuba for high stakes economic policies and highly
revolutionary ideals, Che had no moves left. He had to tip his king. (2) As with
any risky strategy, there comes a price. While comparing chess to real life can
help us better understand why we do what we do in times of chaos, it also gives
a fundamental philosophical outlook on life. With all the higher class individuals
seemingly in control of the lower classes and the constant wars and struggle
for power, it’s soothing to remember an old adage: After the game, the king and
the pawn go in the same box.
No comments:
Post a Comment