Date: Sun, 1 Jan 95 16:53:29 CST From: "jim blair" To: alt-politics-economics@cs.utexas.edu Cc: BCc: Subject: Re: Mexico: Meaning of the Peso Crisis Re: Mexico: Meaning of the Peso Crisis I think this post as well as the press has misunderstood the problem in Mexico. It is portrayed as "the poor peasants rebelling against the rich". Class struggle. Anti-NAFTA. Injustice. While there is some element of truth in all of these explanations, the main basis of the Chiapas rebellion (which is the cause of the peso crisis) is ethnic. Mexico is suffering from the same problem (to a lesser extent thus far) as Yugoslavia, Russia, and Rwanda. The Mayan Indians in southern Mexico have never integrated into Mexican society; most speak Mayan not Spanish. They see themselves oppressed by the Spanish speaking Mexicans that occupy their land. There will soon surface a movement to revive the ancient Mayan Empire. What is the difference between an ethnic conflict and a drive for economic justice (as this is being presented)? If economic depravation is the cause, then more money or more economic opportunity is the answer. But if it is an ethnic conflict (as I claim), then more money for the Mayans will make the conflict WORSE! They will be in a stronger position to push for a separate nation. Does anyone think that the civil war in Bosnia can be solved by giving money to the Serbs? PS: Early in the "peso crisis" a long article in USA TODAY featured about 10 "experts" who offered various opinions about the problem. The word Mayan never appeared. But this fall (1995) there did appear a discussion of Mexico's problems which (finally) decided that ethnic conflict between Spanish and Mayan speakers was at the core of the problem. So remember, YOU READ IT HERE FIRST!! ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth. Subject:NAFTA: Waco-style massacre in Chiapas 12/22 Date: 29 Dec 1997 08:30:14 GMT From: Steve Hancock Newsgroups: alt.current-events.clinton.whitewater, sci.econ, alt.politics.economics, alt.activism, alt.government.abuse http://www.ezln.org/news/masacre-eng.html Last Updated: 28 December 1997 Click HERE for additional news summaries in English MASSACRE IN CHENALHO EZLN COMMUNIQUE IN RESPONSE TO THE MASSACRE (23/dic/1997) Shortly before noon on Monday, December 22, a group of 60-70 members of a PRI-backed paramilitary group descended upon the Tzotzil village of Acteal, in the highland Chiapas municipality of Chenalhó, where hundreds of displaced Zapatista supporters and members of the peaceful civilian organization known as "Las Abejas" had taken refuge. The attackers were armed with AK-47 rifles and expanding hollow-tip bullets-- weapons which they could only have obtained from military or police sources. They opened fire on the village as many of its inhabitants where attending church services and praying for peace and reconciliation in the municipality. The slaughter continued as hundreds of people ran toward a nearby river in a vain effort to escape. 45 people were gunned down during the massacre (21 women, 14 children, one infant, and 9 men), and at least 25 others were wounded. The bloodbath lasted five hours, during which time the Public Security police stood by--some no more than 200 meters away--and refused to intervene. ........ Steve Hancock wrote:. > > Comments: news@ezln.org >Meanwhile, several thousand indigenous civilians in Chenalhó have fled to >the rebel community of Polhó in the past few days, out of growing fear >that the violence will only get worse. Hi, Explain the term "indigenous civilians". Are they somehow better than the other kind of civilians? (what ever the other kind is). But I think your description of the event helps prove the validity of my analysis of the situation in Mexico, first posted on the internet soon after the start of the Zapatista rebellion. And even though they chose the start of NAFTA to time the opening of the current rebellion, this really has nothing to do with NAFTA or US trade. My analysis is on my web page as "The Peso Crisis" in the economics section. >Please bear in mind that I am not the original author. However, >if I were, I'd first refer you to definition a(1) in Webster's >Third New International. In the current context it translates roughly >to the descendants of the pre-Columbian inhabitants of the region. : But I think your description of the event helps prove the validity of : my analysis of the situation in Mexico, first posted on the internet : soon after the start of the Zapatista rebellion. And even though they : chose the start of NAFTA to time the opening of the current rebellion, : this really has nothing to do with NAFTA or US trade. >This is your assertion and you have the right to make such assertions >regardless of their veracity. However, you are not taking action, >the Zapatistas are. And the Zapatistas say, when they take their action, >that their action is primarily due to NAFTA. That makes it pretty clear >it is at least something to do with NAFTA on its face, regardless of >pontifications to the contrary from ivory towers x000 miles away. >For the record, I assert that your assertion is less about anthropology >than about politics, snobbery, and egregious junk science. : My analysis is on my web page as "The Peso Crisis" in the economics : section. >Yeah. Your analysis fails since you claim the Zapatista movement >is ethnically based and reports from the region (see the links) state that >the people at both ends of the guns were indigenous. >In any case the Zapatistas are comprised of both indigenous folks >and ethnically distinct political exiles from the urban uprisings >of the late '60s(*). --> Try again, sport? (Hint: NAFTA, and the >simultaneous repeal by our friend Salinas of Article 22 of >the Mexican Constitution to phase out ejidos in favor of transnational >land tract ownership. Mexicans aren't all stupid, you know.) Hi, The fact that it was (in this incident), Mayans who were killing other Mayans does not change my analysis that the conflict is primarily ethnic. And that the Zapatista movement chose the official start of NAFTA to make their move primarily to cover the true nature of the conflict, and to tie into the publicity of the NAFTA debate, and also to draw support from the anti-NAFTA movement. (And to not alienate the Spanish speaking population) The conflict was at first "poor farmers" vs "rich landowners", but more recently has become "indigenous people" vs PRI. (where "indigenous people" is code for Mayan, and PRI is code for Spanish/White/colonial.) Even in an ethnic conflict there is hatred for "our kind" who side with "them". And I had to read quite a way into the accounts to discover that the killers were also Mayan. I mean nowhere did I read the equally accurate headline "Innocent Civilians Killed by Indigenous Gunmen". I think there is some "spin" here, and that the killers will stop being "indigenous people" and become "tools of the PRI". One reason for my analysis is that it is easier to generate ethnic or religious hatred than class hatred. The poor want less to kill the rich, or to eliminate wealth, than to BECOME rich. And if the system permits the more ambitious of the poor to get rich, class war just can't keep going. Consider all the yippies in the 1960's who became yuppies. And don't I remember Commander Marcos rejecting the idea that the Zapatista movement was connected to the Marxist rebellion centered in the cities and north of Mexico? Here I use Mayan in a broad sense to mean all the Indian groups and tribes in southern Mexico and most of central America. They sometimes use other names, but stem from the ancient Mayan Empire. And speak Mayan or variations of it. -- ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) For a good time call http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834