Did you know a massacre took place there on October 9?
Here’s the lowdown on what it’s all about, courtesy Angry White Kid:The struggle in Morelos echoes exactly what is going on in Oaxaca, where a teachers’ strike turned into a full-fledged rebellion against a bad local governor in 2006 and the resistance is still going strong–and also, largely unreported by mainstream media. But what’s really taboo here, in terms of mainstream reporting, is exactly what both these rebellions–which are not isolated events–really mean. The fact that the last Mexican federal election was blatantly stolen from the progressive Andres Manuel López Obrador (or AMLO, for short) has never been forgotten, and never been forgiven, either. George Dubya Bush’s handpicked candidate “won”–with a little help from his gringo friends. Greg Palast has evidence that the fraud wasn’t even subtle. And that fraud is what’s really being protested here; the privatization of education is part of Felipe Calderon’s neoliberal/neo-con agenda. An agenda that was imposed very much against the will of a majority of Mexicans from all states, not only Oaxaca and Morelos (which is, incidentally, the birthplace of the great revolutionary, Emiliano Zapata.)Gee, I can’t imagine why the lamestream media want to hush all this rebellion up and fixate on the phony drug war instead, can you?For almost two months, the teachers union in the Mexican state of Morelos rose up against the “Alliance for Quality Education”, a neo-liberal plan akin to “No Child Left Behind” that would pave the way to the privatization of education, among other things.They were supported by the people of Morelos in their marches, encampments in public plazas, and blockades of interstate highways. On Oct. 7, 8, and 9, the army and state and federal paramilitary police were sent in to brutally smash the movement. This model is a mirror of the crackdown that occurred in Oaxaca in 2006 and has enraged teachers and the public across Mexico.
Did you know ther was a movie made about this state in the 50’s starring Anthony Quinn and MArlon Brando. Viva Zapata is what is was called. The army didn’t like the people of Morelos waaaay back then either.
I knew there was a Brando movie about Zapata, but I haven’t seen it. I guess I should.
I’m not surprised the army was against the people back then, either. Plus ça change…
Sabrina,
Can you imagine what the media response would have been if this kind of repression had happened in Venezuela, Cuba, or Bolivia?
The international media would have focused on this for weeks!!! But when it happens in Mexico no one even notices. Its like it never happened.
Tosh, this stuff doesn’t happen in Venezuela, Cuba or Bolivia–but that doesn’t stop the media from making it up as they go along, and it definitely doesn’t keep the sheeple from swallowing all the Kool-Aid. On the other hand, since Felipe Calderon is buddy-buddy with Bushie, he can do no wrong–even when, as in Morelos, he’s covered with the stench of bloody corpses!
I wouldn’t bother with the Hollywood Zapata movie. Despite a script by John Steinbeck, and good actors (Marlon Brando, Anthony Quinn), its’ laughably bad to anyone with even a modicum of Mexican history.
BTW, the Army is a people’s army (national service is mandatory), so to say it’s “not on the side of the people” is simplistic thinking at its worst.
But thanks for bringing up the Morelos attacks, which have been under-reported in this country.
Compulsory service does not necessarily a people’s army make; my grandfather was drafted by Hitler’s SS (and the other one, while hospitalized, was offered a choice between driving a horse-drawn supply wagon for the Kriegsmarine and going to the Russian front. Guess which he picked.) While a lot of propaganda was made about the German “folk” and all, it was not what I would call a people’s army. The modern German army still has obligatory service, too, though now there’s also a civilian service corps that conscientious objectors or those not fit for army service can choose. I wouldn’t call it a people’s army, either. It lacks something, somehow–a certain spirit. Perhaps that’s due to its obligatory nature; all able-bodied men between 18 and 21 are eligible for call-up. In any event, no one in my family talks about a proud military tradition or a people’s army, because none of us are under any illusion that Germany has one. (They are called the Bundeswehr, not the Volkswehr–the Federal Defence, not the People’s.)
On the other hand, Venezuela has a pretty good basis for a real people’s army. It’s not using the draft anymore, if I understand correctly. Except for a few in the upper ranks who trained at the SOA, they’re actually serving the people under the direction of the president and parliament (think Plan Bolívar). In any event, the army is not being turned against the Venezuelan people by their own government. Not even when there are riots in the streets. That’s a big point of pride for them. They know that their job is to defend Venezuela, not attack it from within. And so does the president, who was a soldier himself and undoubtedly saw anti-Venezuelan abuses at first hand.
I fail to see how a real people’s army, based in compulsory service or not, can answer to the government only, and not the people who presumably (in Mexico, that presumption is doubtful) elected the government. I also have trouble seeing how they can fire on those same people, who are comparatively defenceless. Are the people of Morelos not Mexicans too? Or am I missing some subtlety here? I do know that Mexico’s current state of “democracy” is very…um…ODD. Which could account for a great deal of the contradiction I’m seeing.