A recent article in the New York Times headlined Brazil’s delay in mega-event preparations by nothing that “slum-dwellers” were “defying Brazil’s grand design for the Olympics.” Granted, the article featured supporting commentary by famed critics of Rio’s insidious preparations for its 2014 and 2016 mega-events, but slum-dwellers? Perhaps what the Times meant to say was “human residents who have lived and work in their communities for decades and are a touch upset over their pending evictions?” (That title surely wouldn’t pack as much punch, though.)
view of Rocinha from the street
The article went on to mention that “some of the strengths that have enabled Brazil’s democratic rise as a regional power — the vigorous expansion of its middle class, the independence of its news media and the growing expectations of its populace — are bedeviling the preparations for both [mega] events.” A curious notion indeed, to remark upon Brazil having strength in its expanding middle class even as slum-dwellers lament the loss of their homes to weeks-long sporting events. Is this to imply that these slum-dwellers comprise the middle class, or that a separate middle class is somewhere else, protesting the evictions of their lower class countrymen? (That was a real question, actually. If someone out there has input, do share.)
TheImpatientObserver 