Che, PRI, the
Drug Cartels and a North American Union...
Rockport History Book Club at Rockport
Public Library
Wednesday, April 24, 2013 7 p.m.
Our History Book Club met April 24th
to discuss modern Mexico and
Central America . As you will see, if you read our reviews of
4+ books, we looked at the life of Che Guevara, modern Mexico and the idea of a stronger North American
Union .
If you’re in the Cape
Ann area, we invite you to join us for our next meeting, Wednesday,
May 29th. Read a book about
Modern Africa —from 1900 to 2013. It can be whatever
you want to read of the history of this tremendously varied continent. Read about Idi Amin of Uganda, or Anwar Sadat
of Egypt, or about Sudan, or Timbuctu, Tanzania, Apartheid in South Africa, Libya,
Tunisia, Algeria and the French, or Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Angola, Botswana,
Civil War in Rwanda—your choice.
We invite you to prepare a review of
your book, but this is not school. If
you’d rather come and simply brief us on the high points without the detailed
reviews you see here, that’s fine! And
if you’d like to just sit in and share in the discussion, you are most welcome.
We meet the last Wednesday of each
month. Contact me if you’d like more
information.
Sam Coulbourn 978-546-7138
scoulbourn1@verizon.net
Caistor, Nick, Che Guevara: A Life ,
Interlink Press, 2010.
Beverly Verrengia
writes: I have read several
references to the impact Che Guavara had in a variety of milieus: pop art,
movies, teen age rebellion, revolutions
in third World countries, and, of course,
his friendship with Fidel Castro during the Cuban revolution, but I
never followed up on the details of his influence . Thus my choice of this book. As I learned a great deal about his actions
and his oft-stated beliefs, I wondered what caused a young man who grew up in
an upper middle class family in South America ’s
most advanced country to become such a fanatic.
And more than that, was he really totally motivated by his ideology or
was he meeting other needs as well? The
book I chose emphasized Che’s rigid definition of socialism and gave only hints
that there might have been other pressures driving him.
Nick Caistor
is a translator, journalist and author of non-fiction books, and is a Fellow at
East Anglia University , UK
Ernesto
Guevara had developed severe asthma in early childhood, but as debilitating as
that can be, he soon revealed a life-long stubbornness that pushed him to play
rugby in his youth and later to survive months of rigorous living conditions
during guerilla training. In an effort
to control his health, his mother home-schooled him for several years. His mother came from a wealthy, aristocratic
family. The one-to-one tutoring must have been a positive
experience as many biographies emphasize that his mother was the only female
for whom Che demonstrated constant and deep affection. The influence was less obvious from his father, a
non-achiever from a family that had been extremely wealthy in previous
generations … and a man who supported leftist causes and emphasized the fighting spirit of his Irish
roots.
Che’s
asthma-related experience with doctors
and hospitals may have inspired him, but
the author quotes him as saying he chose that field as an avenue to personal
triumph. But it was his travels that led him to
the path where he eventually triumphed.
He saw poverty, exploitation, and desolation in many countries unlike
anything he had ever seen in his native Argentina . He visited hospitals for lepers, talked to
indigenous Indians, and went into several mines and agricultural areas (all
owned by foreigners) to view the horrible working conditions. As always he recorded the events and thoughts
of each day in his diary. By the time he was 25, he had published a book based
on his observations, vowed he would improve the lives of the down-trodden he
had met, and decided that the United States was to blame for all the misery he
had seen.
After the
failure in Guatemala , Che
and his fellow rebels fled to Mexico
where they joined a community of dissidents from neighboring countries. He found work as an allergy doctor and at the
same time as a photographer. As was the
case everywhere he went (and despite his reputation as a loner), he connected
with people who shared his socialist sympathies. Before long he met and impressed Raul Castro,
who then introduced him to Fidel. The
Cuban rebels had retreated to Mexico after their defeat in an ill-advised raid on
Batista’s fort in Santiago ,
later referred to as the 26th of July Movement. It was the opportunity the Argentinean had
long been preparing for. Fidel and Che
were a perfect match, and after months of rigorous training made history
together as they toppled Batista’s government.
Although Che first signed on as
the doctor for the rebels, he thoroughly impressed Castro and his followers as
a role model of the ideal guerilla.
Despite suffering from recurring bouts of asthma and then malaria, he
forced himself to keep up with the troops and performed all his duties
effectively, always subordinating his
role as a doctor to that of a fighter.
Soon he was put in charge of recruitment and training. He had no tolerance for those who deviated
from his ideal… to the extent of shooting men who deserted or turned
informer. Convinced that reliable
guerillas had to be totally committed to the socialist ideology, not just an
opportunity to grab power, he initiated several means of indoctrinating his
men: workshops, a school, a news letter
and a radio station. And while busy with
all that, he still made a daily entry in his diary.
During the
revolution’s two years of sporadic attacks, Che played a pivotal role. In leading many successful raids, he proved
himself an inspiring leader and a good tactician. After Batista was ousted, he applied those
skills plus his impressive intelligence and passion for creating a new society
to help Castro form a new government. First he served as chairman of the
National Bank and the next year as manager of a new industrialization program
when all businesses were nationalized.
He also started a news agency to counter the views of global agencies
like Reuters, and he frequently traveled abroad on diplomatic missions and in
search of new markets and investors.
Everywhere he went he was treated like a superstar.
By 1964 he began pulling away from
Castro whom he felt was compromising the Guavara vision of socialism in an
effort to stimulate a falling economy.
He objected to Castro’s pragmatic alliance with Russia , ignoring the critical need for financial
support from the communist bloc after the United States put an embargo on
sugar imports. Obviously his deep-rooted
hostility to the potential pressure from foreign countries was more important
to him than keeping the country’s economy afloat … and the for ensuring that there was food for the people for whom he had fought. Instead he turned his attention from making Cuba work to
finding another venue where he could create his version of socialism.
With
Castro’s blessing, he made two attempts to spread revolution. In April of 1964 he took a small group of
Cuban guerillas to the Congo
with the intent of joining the existing political opposition and enlisting
local peasants to violently overthrow the government and establish the “perfect
society.” Within six months he had
failed miserably. Back in Cuba (
having taken tine off to write another book ), he again conferred with Castro,
who advised him to made Bolivia
his next target. This time it took
eleven months, but the road to disaster was paved with the same mistakes. Che had a romantic vision of the world he wanted to create for the
common man. He set his sights on
countries after making superficial contacts with local dissidents -- assuming that on his arrival he would take
charge and they would follow … or be dispensed with (one way or the
other). He assumed the peasants were
just waiting for an inspiring leader who would give them several months of
intense training and then lead them into a battle where they would be willing
to die for their cause. He
assumed that his recruits (imbued with his own unyielding zeal) would fight
harder than the government forces. His
most disastrous assumption was believing
that he could succeed without the steadying hand of Fidel, to say
nothing of the depth of preparation and practical wisdom that Castro brought to
the two year fight in Cuba .
Che was
captured and killed in April of 1967.
Many books have been written about him, mostly using as source material
his diaries, speeches and letters, along with quotes from those who fought with
him. Enrique Krauze’s chapter in Redeemers:
ideas and Power in Latin America covers the same history and
explanation of Che’s vision of an ideal society…. and then adds a new twist: Che’s driving force and that of the thousands of young people who adore him
is a reflection of the role Catholicism plays in South America. Che was convinced that he was the chosen redeemer, a savior who would change the world or become
a martyr in the attempt. Krause
ends by deploring the way this interpretation has inspired many rebels to seek
social change via Che’s route: victory or
death.
Julia Preston and
Samuel Dillon, Opening Mexico
2004
Richard Varrengia
writes: Most of the material for the
book, Opening Mexico, was drawn from interviews with 92 people; almost
all of them Mexicans. These sometimes
secret dialogues were carried out between July 2000 and December 2002. The married authors, Julia Preston and Sam
Dillion, were Mexican Bureau correspondents for the New York Times from 1995 until 2000. They were part of a Times international reporting team that
was awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 1998, for a series that exposed the drug
trafficking in Mexico . A substantial financial award from the
MacArthur Foundation enabled them to undertake intensive research and travel in
the year following the remarkable presidential election of Mexico ’s
Vincente Fox against all odds. The interviews surprisingly
revealed that even non-supporters of Fox
admitted that they either secretly voted for him or if they did not, they felt liberated by the defeat of the
notorious and corrupt “Partido Revolucionario Institucional" or the PRI, who had been power for 70 years.
Opening
Mexico reveals how a political ground swell of unorganized citizen
movements ended seven decades of brutal and corrupt one party rule under the
PRI. Although Mexico shared
the language and the colonial past with most of Latin
America , this nation of now 130 million is mostly disconnected
from the rest of the region. Even in its
horrific revolutionary upheavals in the early two decades of the 20th
Century, Mexico had never
been tempted to adopt the Communist movement, or socialist structure that Fidel
brought to Cuba .
Nor did it succumb to Fascist cloning of military dictators such as some
neighboring southern hemisphere nations.
Ever inward looking for private corrupt gains, the PRI was adamant in
warding off Washington’s polarizing Cold War policies with much better success
that most Latin countries.
The authors
detail the struggle of a lengthy, mostly peaceful quasi democratic revolution
in the years following the 1968 Olympics.
Mexicans had to restructure their entire social institutions with
extraordinary reforms to push the PRI machine aside. Control of the election
machinery was paramount to the winning of the 2000 Presidency. Well aware of the countless frauds
perpetuated at the polling places by the PRI, an independent agency was devised
to design one of the most modern balloting systems in the world. An array of
new political parties was then allowed to challenge and defeat many of the
PRI’s candidates, including its new selection for president, Cardenas, selected
to run against Fox in 2000.
The
reformers had worked to create a legislature with real clout. The national
congress had been dominated by the PRI who rubber stamped any of the
Presidents’ proposed bills. The Mexican
president under the PRI was a throwback “Caudillo” with six years of power
which was absolute and unrestrained by either the legislature or judiciary.
They were selected to run only once by secret PRI meetings.
For many
decades no single leader stepped forward to personify and guide the struggle
towards new democracy. The transitional voting of 2000 elected Vicente Fox of
the National Action party. It
was the cleanest and most open vote in Mexican history. The PRI regime toppled after 70 years,
accepted defeat and stepped aside. Many
of their new leaders were aware that they were dragging the country to ruin.
The military agreed. This was truly Mexico
As in the
aftermath of 1910’s revolt, the economic system was spared. All industrial
workers, rural farming people, and even the maligned native Indians experienced
the lessening of the grasp of the federal and state government overseers. But
the secret of the success of Vincente Fox’s reform party was in the mostly
clandestine support of the financial community and industrialists.
In the
years leading up to the approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement, he
PRI had been internally wracked with the reluctance of the “dinosaur” leaders
to embrace the fantastic benefits of the treaty. When they resisted the appropriation of
government seed money to grasp the global trade opportunity, the wealthy
capitalist realized that Mexico
was being run by selfish, grasping thieves whose time had come to be removed
from power. Business leaders needed the
denied reforms to compete internationally.
The NAFTA
opened up vast new markets with money raised by selling off government owned
enterprises. I988 the PRI choose a new
president. A master of political
showmanship, new President Salinas saw the benefits of global participation and
he suffered the enmity of the old guard; though he left office a very wealthy
ex-officio.
When the
writers were working to determine how and when the political changes became
evident, they uncovered the rumors of political mayhem during the 1960’s.
No one has ever come forward to deny the
a terrible night of the killing of unknown numbers of young students ,
peacefully protesting educational cut backs in a Mexico City Plaza.
The despotic rulers of the PRI, led by the then President
Gustavo Diaz, who could not tolerate
disorder, ordered an overwhelming armed
force to the Mexican Polytechnic
Institute across town. Now every college
and high school took to the streets. Police were beating almost every citizen
they encountered.
The 1968 Olympic Games were to be held in Mexico City in a few
weeks and work was almost at a standstill. The world was watching. Mexico was the
first developing country to be chosen to host the games. Diaz was frantic.
The federal
security bosses determined that to stop the street violence they had to attack
the “head of the snake”: UNAM “National Autonomous University of Mexico, the
largest in Latin America- over 100,000
students. Dias called out his “Olympia Battalion of secret police, garbed with
only a single one white glove for identity. The students, about 20,000 marched
to the Tlatelolco plaza. The army surrounded them, the Olympic Brigade charged
them. Secretly from roof tops the security police had placed over a hundred
snipers. Over 300 students were gunned
down from above. Thousands injured. The
dead were carried away, most to disappear.
With government controlling all the media, there was never any mention
of deaths. Student leaders were jailed
for years. Some never released. This student massacre revealed the repressive
core of the system. Even the present Mexican government has never released
details of the attack, but the visual protests ended.
In the
first half of the 1980’s, the authoritarian system seemed to be recovering from
1968. It was jarred again by two events, one financial and one geological. The
nationalized oil cartel, New Pemex
oil finds led to a huge spending splurge
by the government. International oil
prices tanked, inflation and national bankruptcy followed. President Portilo refused to cut spending and
nationalized the banks. The country ground to a halt. Millions fled the PRI, no longer loyal party
members.
In 1985,
when Mexico
seemed to gain its footing, the floor moved again. This time it was an 8.1 scale earthquake in
the center of Mexico City .
An almost as severe quake followed a couple of days later. The response of the government was pathetic
and thousands died; many could have been saved .The stories of army troops
looting were rampant. Response was
non-existent.
Finally
during the 2000 campaign, candidate Fox had promised to end increasing
polarization between rich and poor. He outlined plans to find ways for poor
folks to get government secured loans for homes and small businesses. Social
Security and public health were on his wish lists. He attached big business depleting natural
resources He was aware of the rampant civil servants corrupt practices. He pledged to make public workers
accountable.
Like
President Obama he ran into legislature gridlock. He backed down without a
murmur. In a couple of years with a few
setbacks, he allowed that the old ways were not so bad. His extravagant tastes became a national
disgrace and his approval rating plummeted.
Mexicans wanted honesty and
democracy, but little changed even with a new party and a new president.
Robert A. Pastor, The North American Idea: A Vision for a
Continental Future Publisher:
Oxford University
Rick Heuser writes:
In politics, economics, and international affairs there are headlines and then
there are the realities behind those headlines. Often, there are
huge gaps between headlines and realities. Big differences that count in
important ways. Robert Pastor in his trenchant analysis for The North
American Idea: A Vision for a Continental Future offers the following
reflection on the United States '
relations with Mexico and Canada :
"The conventional wisdom in
the United States is that Mexico and Canada Iraq and Afghanistan were the most important countries to
U.S. national security, China was its dominant trading partner, and Saudi Arabia
His
answer would surely surprise many Americans, maybe even some in the White House
and Congress and the headlines-obsessed Washington media. He writes: "U.S.
national security depends more on cooperative neighbors and secure borders than
it did on defeating militias in Basra or Taliban
in Kandahar Canada and Mexico have been the first and second largest
markets for U.S. United States
Of course
those neighbors would be Mexico
and Canada , forgotten and
ignored by Washington, Pastor reminds us, except when Congress wants to spend
billions of dollars on border security to keep people without proper
documentation from crossing into the United States to work for the
lowest wages possible.
Starting
with these realities, Pastor proceeds to develop a strong thesis for a more
comprehensive set of agreements between the United
States , Mexico ,
and Canada
that would increase prosperity and security for all three nations. "The next stage of North America 's development is to forge a community of
three sovereign states," he argues persuasively. In his view
NAFTA has had limited success. His vision is expansive and surely
long-term.
"North America is still a new idea," Pastor
writes. "Few people have thought much about it, and some are
frightened that it might diminish their own nation. The opposite is more
likely. If the three countries can view themselves as part of a region in
which each has a challenge that requires cooperation to succeed, then North America becomes larger than the sum of its
parts."
Robert
Pastor has long been an advocate of closer, more productive political and
economic arrangements with United
States ' neighbors, both to the north and the
south. Currently, he is Professor of International Relations and Founder
and Director of the Center for North American Studies at American
University in Washington DC US
national security advisor on Latin America and the Caribbean
during the administration of President Jimmy Carter. Later, he was a
Senior Fellow at the Carter Center in Atlanta
where he established programs on Latin America while teaching at Emory University
Most
significantly, in 2005 he was heavily involved in writing a report published by
the Council on Foreign Relations entitled "Building a North American
Community" that followed the formation of the Security and Prosperity
Partnership by the leaders of the United States , Mexico , and Canada at
a summit in Texas .
Almost immediately, the report was severely criticized by
conservatives claiming United States sovereignty was being
threatened.
There
is a baffling back-story to this report Pastor tells us about that is
indicative of the intense opposition to any kind of formal community with Mexico and Canada . In The Late
Great USA: The Coming Merger with Mexico and Canada, Jerome Corsi,
previously the author of the devastating swiftboat attack on Secretary of State
John Kerry when he was running for president, claimed that President
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, the Council on Foreign Relations, and others,
including Pastor, were secretly conspiring to create a European like union in
North America. Even noted Harvard scholar Samuel Huntington was drawn
into the political crossfire with his belief that Mexican immigrants threatened
Anglo-Protestant culture in the United
States .
Once
the controversy died down, little has been said or done about a more formal
North American community as advocated by Pastor. Strong opposition by
labor unions in the United States
who rightfully or wrongfully see American manufacturing jobs disappearing
to Mexico keeps
the administration of President Barack Obama from further
action. Conversely, Robert Pastor argues that border security and
immigration policy would be greatly enhanced by greater cooperation between the
United States , Mexico , and Canada .
Instead,
America proceeds on its own,
fortifying its southern border with Mexico
and increasing the complications of travel and trade with Canada while
Congress continues to dither on immigration policy. Pastor wrote The
North American Idea to keep the vision of a thriving North American
community alive for the future. He argues persuasively for its
advantages, for what it would accomplish. But the opposition is
widespread and influential.
"The vision of a North
American community," Pastor writes, "begins with three sets of
principles -- interdependence not dependence, reciprocity not unilateralism,
and a negotiating style based on a community of interests not a quid pro
quo."
He
advocates a continental framework designed to bolster neighborly connections to
compete more effectively in the world and to serve as a model for other
regional groups. With his thorough understanding of the intricacies of
policy making, he outlines five primary tasks that would strengthen and
energize the North American economy in its global competition with Asia
and Europe .
First
and foremost, Pastor calls for closing the development gap separating Mexico from the two more advanced economies,
which would mean policies designed to raise economic standards in Mexico .
The second task is to negotiate and implement a North American plan for
transportation and infrastructure to provide a platform for a modern,
continental-wide economy. Third, he says, the three governments need to
create a consultative web to coordinate economic policies. The fourth
task is to negotiate a customs union to stimulate deeper economic integration.
The fifth and final task is for the three governments to commit to new methods
to address the most difficult part of integration: regulatory convergence.
It is
an ambitious agenda, to say the least. But with the current state of
affairs in United States
relations with Canada and Mexico , it
would seem to be an impossible vision for the White House and Congress to even
begin to work on. Still, The North American Idea received
glowing reviews upon publication two years ago.
A
reviewer for Foreign Affairs, the prestigious journal of
the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote the following:
"Pastor's book constitutes a brave master plan, a bright vision to
challenge and enlighten future generations.........He presses his case with intelligence
and good humor, marshaling data to demonstrate that all three nations would be
better off adopting cooperative solutions to common problems."
Echoing
this praise was former Secretary of State James A Baker III: "Pastor
has done a superb job of bringing to the forefront and raising insightful
questions about how far the United States ,
Canada , and Mexico should
integrate themselves. How these questions are answered will help
determine the competitiveness of all three countries in the global
economy."
Pastor
may have support for his vision of a North American community from foreign
affairs elites at organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations.
But in these times of backing away from global organizations and international
treaties, the author's North American idea is no longer a compelling pubic
policy objective. A recent article entitled "Mexico Makes
It" in the March/April edition of Foreign Affairs by Shannon
O'Neil, a senior fellow at the Council, suggests a much less ambitious agenda
for the United States '
relationship with Mexico .
On the
one hand she is upbeat about Mexico 's
social and economic transformation in recent years, reporting that Mexico has
shaken off an inward-looking, oil-dominated past to become one of the most open
and globalized economies in the world, despite the continued violence of the
drug trade. Her recommendation to the Obama White House is to
work with the new administration of Pena Nieto to strengthen economic
relationships, border security, and law enforcement between the two
countries. But there is no mention of forming a North American
community. Increased ties with Canada are not included in her
policy prescriptions. Shannon O'Neil calls for forming a partnership on
important issues with Mexico ,
nothing more.
This is not
an age for big comprehensive international agreements. The stresses and
strains of global institutions are seen everywhere. The United Nations is
constantly under attack in the United
States for usurping American
sovereignty. Little has been accomplished for years by the World Trade Organization.
Robert Pastor's advocacy for a North American community may offer many
advantages and opportunities for the United States , but
it seems dated to a different time and place in history.
At one point in his enthusiasm
for a North American community, Robert Pastor called for supplementing national
pride with a new feeling of North American-ness. There has never been in United States
Sam Coulbourn writes:
Jo Tucker arrived in Mexico
in 2000 as Vicente Fox Quesada took over the presidency. Fox, of the National Action Party (PAN), was
the beginning of a new era for Mexico ,
because his term marked the end of solid political hegemony by the
Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) since 1929.
It is now
2013, and after two terms by two different PAN presidents, whose rule differed
sharply, PRI is back in power, with President Enrique Peña Nieto.
President
Fox was a hearty, cheerful extrovert—a former Coca-Cola advertising
executive. He is generally adjudged to
have done little in his six years in office.
After Fox
came Felipe Calderón Hinojosa, and he did a lot. He declared war on the drug cartels, and his
term was disastrous in the numbers of people, innocent and implicated in the
criminal drug cartels—some 50,000 in all—killed.
Tucker’s
book ends just as the 2012 election is approaching, and her story covers those
12 years, but does not give the reader a warm feeling of understanding much of
what went on before.
What we see
is a country ruled, whether by PRI, or PAN, by men who fit comfortably into a
small club of wealthy cronies. When PRI
was in charge, most state governments were run by PRI governors, and the
federal government was run by PRI operatives. When PAN won the national
election, many state governments remained under PRI leadership.
Mexican
government runs on a steady lubricant of corruption. In recent years, the drug cartels have gained
more and more primacy and in some northern states, they call most of the shots. The multi-billion dollar industry of
providing drugs to satisfy the appetite of
North American drug-users, as well as those in other parts of the world,
takes the lion’s share of some levels of Mexican society, particularly in the
northern states. In order to avoid getting
killed, most law enforcement officers go with the flow.
It is not a
happy or encouraging picture.
Tucker
names President Felipe Calderón, who came into office in 2006, as the man who
changed everything, with his military-led offensive against the country’s drug
cartels. In his six-year term in office,
the all-out war on cartels sucked many, many innocent victims into the
vortex. Most would agree that this approach
was a failure.
Tucker
notes that cartel power began to grow as Vicente Fox entered office in 2000,
and she observes that he was never really interested in the drug trafficking
issue, beyond securing U.S.
praise for the occasional high-profile arrest.
Perhaps now
that PRI candidate Peña Nieto is now in office, he can achieve some reduction
in the violence of the cartels.
Tucker’s
account of the rule of Elba Esther Gordillo Morales, known as La Maestra, head
of the National Union of Teachers (SNTE) (1.4 million members) is particularly
colorful, and to me says a lot about the way things are done in Mexico . She took over in 1989, after the previous
leader was arrested, and held that post until she was arrested in February of
this year. Tucker’s account ends in
2012, but she paints the picture of one more politician, out to scoop up as
much personal wealth as she can.
Notes from
other sources on Gordillo:
Gordillo was arrested by the Mexican authorities on
26 February 2013 after her private jet in which she had traveled from California landed at the Toluca
The national
public schools had been a system dominated by Gordillo's union in which
teaching positions could be sold or inherited.
Personal life
Elba Esther Gordillo is notorious for wearing luxury brands
such as Hermès and Chanel. She has allegedly spent US$2,100,000 at a Neiman
Marcus department store in San Diego between March 2009 and January 2012. Gordillo allegedly used the money on properties, including in the US, a private
jet, art work and plastic surgeries. She has allegedly amassed some 10
properties, including a US$1.7 million home in San Diego and a US$4 million
water-front house in Coronado, California. In 2008, she
bought 59 new Hummer vehicles to give her aides, only to raffle them off when
the media brought the purchase to light.
The outlook for Mexico Mexico
-end-
COMMENT ON TUCKMAN'S BOOK BY LYNN DEWEESE-PARKINSON, Keeper of an International Email Network of Book Dealers, who sells mostly Bullfighting books in Tia Juana, Baja California: The author arrived in Mexico the same year the PAN won its first
election.
Her view is very much colored by her timing. To think that democracy in Mexico has as little history as she seems to believe is to have an even more truncated view of history than most U.S. reporters.
The struggle for democracy in Mexico out-dates the arrival of Cortez in my opinion. It certainly is a longer struggle than the struggle of the anti-democratic parties (PRI, PAN, PRD) for power. One small historical error among many: she states that the Zapatista movement is "the biggest
group of rebel fighters since the revolution." Either she has never heard of the Cristero revolt in the 1920s, much larger than the Zapatistas, or she does not count right wing counter-revolutionaries as "rebel fighters".
But my main objection to the book is that I am of the firm view than all histories of Mexico must start from the realization that Mexican history is a very long continuum, that the European genocide was not the success that it was in the north.
The best review I have found was in the Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/29/mexico-democracy-interrupted-jo-tuckman-review
but I think he is a bit too kind. Then again I am seldom impressed by reporters posing as historians. In my own opinion democracy was interrupted in Mexico with the assassinations of Zapata, Villa, Flores Magon, and a host of other Mexican democratic revolutionaries up to and including the killings of protestors this last week, (WRITTEN 03-26-13) though perhaps not so much interrupted as aborted.
Perhaps it is because I have nothing to do with the drug trade, but the violence I see here is primarily that of the governments of Mexico and the USA against democratic, primarily indigenous forces.
Lynn
Her view is very much colored by her timing. To think that democracy in Mexico has as little history as she seems to believe is to have an even more truncated view of history than most U.S. reporters.
The struggle for democracy in Mexico out-dates the arrival of Cortez in my opinion. It certainly is a longer struggle than the struggle of the anti-democratic parties (PRI, PAN, PRD) for power. One small historical error among many: she states that the Zapatista movement is "the biggest
group of rebel fighters since the revolution." Either she has never heard of the Cristero revolt in the 1920s, much larger than the Zapatistas, or she does not count right wing counter-revolutionaries as "rebel fighters".
But my main objection to the book is that I am of the firm view than all histories of Mexico must start from the realization that Mexican history is a very long continuum, that the European genocide was not the success that it was in the north.
The best review I have found was in the Guardian,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/jun/29/mexico-democracy-interrupted-jo-tuckman-review
but I think he is a bit too kind. Then again I am seldom impressed by reporters posing as historians. In my own opinion democracy was interrupted in Mexico with the assassinations of Zapata, Villa, Flores Magon, and a host of other Mexican democratic revolutionaries up to and including the killings of protestors this last week, (WRITTEN 03-26-13) though perhaps not so much interrupted as aborted.
Perhaps it is because I have nothing to do with the drug trade, but the violence I see here is primarily that of the governments of Mexico and the USA against democratic, primarily indigenous forces.
Lynn
Wednesday, May 29th. Read a book about Modern Africa —from
1900 to 2013. It can be whatever you
want to read of the history of this tremendously varied continent. Read about Idi Amin of Uganda, or Anwar Sadat
of Egypt, or about Sudan, or Timbuctu, Tanzania, Apartheid in South Africa,
Libya, Tunisia, Algeria and the French, or Somalia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Angola,
Botswana, Civil War in Rwanda—your choice.
In June
(Wed., June 26) We'll read about Women's Movements, Women's Suffrage in the
20th and 21st centuries, Rise of Feminism, NOW, your choice.
In July
(Wed. July 31st) we’re
looking at BRIC: Brazil , Russia , India and China
