Naruto Doujin English Blog

'Neither independence nor revolution'

In a country where politics seems to caricature, the real political cartoons can be high


Recognition
Ideally, examinations are made public while the worthy, is still with us and active. That's why they appear on this year's centennial book Eduardo del Río, Rius, 2010, no independence and revolution (Planeta, 2010), opens the opportunity to approach this author not only to examine their ideas about the independence and the revolution but his efforts to save, via caricature and critical humor, which is essential in Mexico. Honor and Humor



is said that in 1525, and after its defeat in Pavia at the hands of Emperor Charles V, Francis I, King of France, wounded and taken prisoner, he wrote to his mother: "Everything is lost except honor." In fact, King wrote something a little longer, but eventually went down in history is cited. Well, in Mexico, the heirs of other defeated at the same time, and also subjects of Charles V, we can paraphrase the unfortunate monarch Gaul, and assert, much has been lost, minus the humor. That is, at least, what emerges from all the work of Rius, where irony is going to realize what was lost.

The warm reception that 56 years have had the cartoons, comic books and stories told by Rius using their "monkeys"-these are works that cross borders, as at least a dozen have been translated into English, has helped to maintain self-esteem of Mexicans who identify with them. With the vision, themes and characters Rius, and the other cartoonists who have gone through the same path, the dignity of citizens may be wounded but not destroyed.

quality political humor is usually one of the acids that corrode and destroy that part of the discourse of power that elites seek to hide abuses and pass on the high politics that is not nothing but demagoguery irresponsibility and arrogance combined with , arbitrariness and corruption. The cartoon-style Rius reaffirm the truth behind this challenge to Miguel de Unamuno launched the power of Franco, "will overcome but not be convinced."

the policy instrument used by Rius has strong historical roots. Cartoons against the powerful were already used in imperial Rome. The Mexican stock from which the distinguished "cartoonist" Zamora made his own living space in the press of the opinion of the early nineteenth century. That time was a bad time for Mexico but, therefore, a great moment for the cartoon of opposition. Later, and during periods of authoritarian stability, the Porfiriato and post-revolution, there was a systematic effort from the government and in relation to the press and its cartoonists for censorship and repression combined with a good dose of co-optation, to the point that the latter was already the dominant element in the PRI regime. As a result, a proliferation of examples of cartoonists willing to legitimize the power and thus help dilute the public sense of grievance. However, history has come to be generous and fair with those who risked siding with the offended and took the consequences. Rius

has always been in the ranks of the latter, suffice it to recall here two episodes: the caricature his 1964 that was presented as Policy magazine cover and was prophetic: Gustavo Diaz Ordaz unmistakable (GDO) dressed in his cassock and stole taking two swastikas, however, the cost of that gesture was gone high-Politics-but the definition of the nature of GDO was tragically successful and that is remembered. Immediately after the authoritarian coup, Rius reappeared and was overcome with this great cartoon were "The Supermachos" a microcosm of small town that served to highlight the characteristics and consequences of daily exercise of power in Mexico the PRI classic. "The Supermachos" were successful because their circulation was as high as hundreds of thousands, but decided to castrate those unforgettable characters -Calzonzin, Don Perpetual del Rosal, etc.-through the purchase, not the author-that was impossible, but the editorial, which Rius forced to abandon his creatures and they, as pure form without content, eventually into insignificance and oblivion. Our "cartoonist" returned to the charge and gave life to "The Crouching" (1968-1981). Both stories are now a prime source for anyone who wants to know or investigate the nature of life and civic culture of Mexico in the classical stage PRI authoritarianism.

The cartoonist and historian

Rius has over half a century, reflecting, via their "monkeys", a part of the Mexican reality affected by the misuse of power, but well, spreading their ideas around a broad spectrum of topics, the catalog of more than one hundred books ranging from Cuba (the first) to Christ, Marx, through philosophy and power. There are an encyclopedic Rius feverish that, perhaps because it self, has the ability to reach as wide an audience is amazed and envious of the specialists "serious."

2010, neither independence nor revolution is not the first work that addresses issues Rius Mexican political history, but this is already a summary of his interpretation of our past, one that seeks to raise awareness and explain the nature of contemporary problems via their origins.

In the 192 pages of the work discussed here deals with the Mexican past from its prehistoric origins to the present, but with emphasis on two theses own centenary this year: the nature of the processes that led both independence and the revolution, which finally led processes or effective independence or truly revolutionary change. Consequently, there is nothing to celebrate. Independence



To Rius, independence did not meet what should be its central goal, as Morelos: transforming the social structure of the colony. Seen from below, from the perspective of the Indians and part of the mestizos, the transformation of New Spain in a sovereign state means nothing to change to no change, because that was the intention of Iturbide and the Creoles who supported him. Under these conditions, a sense of fatherland simply could not develop in most Mexican formally.


The 1910 Revolution Rius
Here again hold a similar view to above, which coincides with that of American scholar Ramon Eduardo Ruiz (The Great Rebellion: Mexico 1905-1924 [Norton, 1980]): The Mexican Revolution did not was really a revolution but a rebellion - "revolucioncita", called in his book 1978 - because structures and institutions of the country did not experience major changes. From this perspective, who could have carried out a revolution, as Zapata and Villa, died in the attempt, and finally rose to power ever attempted a revolution, so "what revolution celebrated?". Of course, finishing the fight there was not effective suffrage or a significant change in ownership structures, but rather a change of characters in front of the power structures but they change their orientation, at least not before the arrival the presidency of General Lazaro Cardenas. In this view, Cardenas and Cardenas are unexpected, the notable exception that proves that what happened after 1910 was not a revolution. Conclusion



Rius's proposal is severe: in 2010 we should not celebrate independence or a so-called revolution which finally solved but only postponed the problems and contradictions that were incubated from the colonial era. Rius Not being a historian or a professional investigator, and risking page to page to make broad generalizations with little nuances, have certain information and statements which may be questioned. However, the possible exercise of critical critique makes no sense, since the objective of Rius not really make history in the sense strict and punctual of the word but, among many jokes and very earnestly, to question the very meaning of the official celebration of the centennial by a radical interpretation of our political process from the perspective of historical grievances, of which have formed the large base of the social pyramid each day.

What To Write In Card Cancer

Exactly what are we to conclude? Mexico and its war

A reflection on the mistakes and successes that occurred in the processes of independence and revolution would be the most useful way to commemorate 1810 and 1910

The heart of the problem

Two centuries since the beginning of the struggle for independence A century and the beginning of the struggle to destroy an oligarchic dictatorship, is Clearly, both events did not bear fruit as expected, failed to steer Mexico on the path of a solid material and social development and fair. Celebration



According to his definition, holding means, among other things, to abandon the routine to honor, pay tribute or exalt people or special events by solemn ceremonies that seek to create public awareness about outstanding achievements. Clear that the term also supports the non solemn occasion for the general content.

Last week, the government of Felipe Calderón announced that he intends to carry out a celebration throughout the year to commemorate the Grito de Dolores 1810 and the call of Francisco I. Madero the general uprising on 20 November 1910. The contents of the official celebration will be, basically, 2 000 300 actions and events across the country. One such event will focus on a single day, will involve the massive participation of thousands of actors in the style of the inauguration of the Olympic Games and will cost $ 60 million (Proceso, 14 February). Looking

these official plans arises alternative approach: rather than celebrate the bicentenary dramatically and the centenary of the start of two dramatic and fierce popular events of default, the times should lead to festivities austere on one side and the other to a great reflection, this is where you should do the big thing-about the causes that finally led to the great collective energy unleashed by the events in 1810 and 1910 has not met expectations of those who initiated or with long-term promises of those who allegedly built a new order than destroyed. Celebrants



Although the current government is a right and, by definition, without sympathy for movements that seek to destroy the regime by force were established as 1810 and 1910, already set in motion the machinery celebration. However, it is unclear what the bulk Mexicans would like to hold, if they're in the mood to celebrate, and how they wanted to. According to a survey, 45.2 percent of the public was willing to recall two events alike, but a 40.5 percent showed a preference for independence and only 11 percent for the Revolution (Consulta Mitofsky, November 15, 2009) .

However, in relation to what Mexicans think about how and at what cost should be celebrated, no data. However, the nature of the times, poverty, unemployment, insecurity, political polarization, growing inequality, we may assume that it would be appropriate sober ceremonies and use of historical reflection to peer into the future. One hypothesis



The rebellion against English rule over Mexico resulted in an internal conflict of unprecedented scale, for three centuries the king's authority had been challenged on the scale and the strength that it was in 1810. Physical destruction and damage to the institutional structure were substantive. However, the union of convenience in 1821 of the forces in conflict to declare independence from Spain was that for a moment the mood that dominated the public sphere outside of optimism spilled over: free from bondage to Spain, the heterogeneous assumed leadership group that had just opened a bright future for the rich and new Mexican nation (Javier Ocampo, Las ideas a day, El Colegio de Mexico, 1969).

pointed optimism was short and soon the country, not consolidated as a nation, fell into internal conflict, was attacked on the outside and it was impossible to have a minimum of political stability that would allow a normal life. Donald Stevens systematized the indicators of such instability between 1825 and the beginning of the War of Reform in 1857 (Origins of Instability in Early Republican Mexico, Duke University Press, 1991). In 33 years there were 41 peasant rebellions, Tabasco had 50 governors, the Ministry of Finance cambió de manos 87 veces y 49 la jefatura del Poder Ejecutivo; en promedio, el ocupante del cargo apenas si duró 12.8 meses. La conclusión es inescapable: la independencia hizo que México pasara de ser una colonia exitosa -la más importante del imperio español en América- a ser un Estado fallido.

Falla de origen

Una explicación del gran fracaso del México independiente para constituirse en un Estado viable se tiene en la naturaleza del viejo orden. Un análisis comparado de las características de la colonización española y británica en América arroja mucha luz sobre ese problema. De acuerdo con el impresionante estudio de J. H. Elliot (Empires of the Atlantic World, Yale University Press, 2006), the original idea of \u200b\u200bthe British colonial enterprise in what is now the United States was simply reproduce what Spain had done before in Mexico: creating a colony of exploitation based on a precious metal mining and indigenous labor . However, the British never discovered deposits like those in Mexico and were never able to subdue the native population as the English and the Aztecs had to settle for shaping colonies of settlement based on the work of Europeans. This inability of English to become "conquerors" were forced to simply be "planters" (settlers). However, the original frustration became in a very positive thing when the 13 British colonies became the United States, since this type of colonization was found to be adequate preparation for shaping a successful state.

An article in the American Journal of Sociology (V. 111, No. 5, March 2006), Matthew Lange, James Mahoney and Matthias vom Hau developed a comparison between English and British colonialism and came to this conclusion: the differences in economic models implemented by the two cities are a fundamental factor to explain the fate of the colonies to become independent states. The English tended to impose a commercial business model in areas before colonization were already densely populated and with a significant development. In contrast, when the British colonized, too extensively, it was in areas with low population density of original and relatively simple development, but they implemented a liberal economic system. After independence the result of that difference was the reversal of the original features as mercantilist catchment areas with large native population and entered a stage of underdevelopment, while those headed liberal influence the development, to the point that one of them, the United States, it was a power at the end of the nineteenth century. Of course the difference in models economic and their respective sets of political, legal and cultural does not explain all the success or failure of the entire national stage, but a substantial part of that result. The lesson



From the standpoint of historical process, so this bicentennial of the beginning of the struggle for independence should lead us to understand is, among other things, that any change of regime, including that attempted just 10 , is an extraordinarily complicated undertaking because the legacy left by the old order may be a factor to aid or defeat the project for the future. Hence the enormous responsibility of the heads of the new.

In 1821 the best minds in the country that was born to unmask the magnitude of the challenge, because while the Americans had to consolidate what was done in the former New Spain had to be modified and substantially. The enormity of the problem exceeded the estimates and the imagination of those leading the new state and will soon be imposed group selfishness. In 2000 it was assumed that the "insurgents" had an "intellectual capacity installed" more than there was two centuries ago, but it was not and again run the risk of defeat the purpose of change. A great deal of comparing what happened from 1810 to current times would be a useful way to commemorate our origin as a modern nation. However, this reflection does not come from the official sector, should be carried outside. Three

Sticky Clear Discharge 9 Dpo

antagonistic confrontations live in the country against narco state, left to right and the Church against the secular


Definition
The classic definition of war involves armed hostility between two or more political units that, generally, are states, however, the concept can also be extended and applied to a situation of hostility, conflict, opposition or antagonism between physical strength, mental or social. Well, to our misfortune both meanings are counterparts in Mexico.

According to the official terminology, the government of Mexico is now at war against drug cartels, and so it is at the forefront of this effort is not only the police-at least not for now but also the military. This war "hot", over 17 thousand 500 people in three years, was developed alongside two others which, without being armed type, also have very negative implications. The latter remains at the purely political - Cold War - but both, in their origins, were also real wars. A place in the confrontation between the left and right and the other is one that could well be described as "neocristera" and a battle between opponents and supporters of the secular state. These "cold war" overlap but are distinct.

armed War

For some time, but particularly since Felipe Calderon took over the executive branch, the struggle between drug trafficking organizations and the Mexican government assumed characteristics, as time passes, the more they meet the definition Classic war. And is that if you look well what is happening in Sinaloa, Michoacan, Chihuahua and other states, is that cartels like the Sinaloa, Gulf, Juarez, Los Zetas, La Familia, or Company already shown ability and willingness to challenge the state in vital areas.

cartels are not only armed groups of criminals, but forces disputed the state's monopoly of force, control over important parts of the territory and the loyalty of his servants, including police officers but also prosecutors, judges, mayors or governors. These groups and collect taxes ("protection") use notary to property acquired by the good or bad, are involved in electoral processes and also in some cases, the company will offer protection against other rival organizations, the Family says act against the Zetas in the name of society and against this form of crime that actually interferes with daily life of ordinary citizens: the assault, robbery, kidnapping. To some extent the "protection" is true, as evidenced by the appearance in a square in Zamora, Michoacán, of alleged common criminals with physical signs of punishment and forced to carry placards specified the cause for which they had been punished Family . Thus, what once was a fight against drug trafficking today becomes more and more, the characteristics of a war that also involved again and paramilitary forces, as is the municipality of Garza Garcia, Nuevo Leon, where have the authority says and a group of "tough" to deal with crime on their own terms (Diego Enrique Osorno, Leopard, December 2009-January 2010). The new war

Cristero

With the restoration of the Republic in 1867 marked the triumph of the secular state was a settled matter, but the Liberal Congress of 1901 was convened by Camilo Arriaga just to regain ground lost to secularism in the Porfiriato. The defeat of the dictatorship in 1914 Huerta Carranza led to disband its ally, the National Catholic Party. That, plus the enactment of the Constitution of 1917, meant that, again, the secular state had triumphed. However, the Cristero War (1926-1929) showed that there was still provision and strength to challenge for a secular arms of the Mexican political structure. Cristiada finished second in 1930, reached a modus vivendi which, again, was confused with the final victory of secularism.

neocristera The current offensive against the secular state actors involved as always but with a different alignment. Today, the PAN government now openly took the side of the church (or churches) and even has the support not very enthusiastic, but I support the end of the PRI opportunistic, which is always the majority in that game. This group is trying to move back to a part of Mexican society, which is generally conservative, to launch what would be his "final offensive", or so it appears, among other things, documents like the one just published a "Guadalupe Mexican Movement", entitled "Declaration of War" and seeks to end a "social breakdown" which allows "That is murdering the unborn. That will take their children to take the opportunity to Father and Mother ... That ... That corrupting Business unions overlap harmful ... that confuse liberty with license ... May we continue to populism and double standards, etc. (Reform, 26 January).

The current phase of the offensive against the secular state churches began when the government of Carlos Salinas, in need of support after his dubious election victory, decided in 1992, amend articles 27 and 130 of the constitution as the PAN and the Catholic Church demand. The result was recognized legal status of churches and established diplomatic relations with the Vatican.

the fight continued in the field of abortion. In August 2008 the Supreme Court's affirmed the constitutionality of the decriminalization of abortion in the Federal District, as it is accepted that within the first 12 weeks of gestation, the fetus does not have any human characteristic. However, in the last two years, at the instigation of the PAN and the PRI, 17 constitutions of many other Mexican states have been changed in the opposite direction, ie that provide, as demanded by the Catholic Church, which in any case, abortion is unacceptable, since human life begins at the moment of conception.

A step in this journey of legally impose particular vision held by the churches, has given the Attorney General's Office, ie, Felipe Calderón, to demand that the Supreme Court declared constitutional definition of marriage that did not characterized as "the union of two people" but as "the union of a man and a woman." To succeed Calderón, also have been cast by land the possibility that such unions between same sex can have them right now under the law of 2007 the Federal District, and legally allowed to receive children in adoption.

Today, aware of what is at stake, advocates of a secular state have been proposed to achieve an amendment to Article 40 of the Constitution to make clear that Mexico is explicitly defined as a representative republic, democratic, federal and secular. And it is feared that with the argument of freedom of teaching religion courses are introduced in public schools, as in Spain. Right vs

.
left
From the impeachment of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) in 2004-2005 and later, when he called a "danger to Mexico" in 2006, was biased against the presidential election process. This showed that the Mexican right while they were willing to accept that a left-bureaucratic and innocuous as that now dominates the PRD, retained a niche in the formal structure of power, it will return to work to neutralize AMLO and his social movement for those who simply have a "not pass away." And the reason for the rancor is clear: AMLO heads the only force that seeks to present a substantive policy platform that involves a real redistribution of power and incomes for the working classes. This relentless struggle between the rights entrenched in the party and large concentrations of capital and a social movement from below is the arena where a war takes place without much chance of truce or reconciliation. Conclusion



So far in the three conflict areas examined here, it seems that things will stay the same or will get worse before they get better. Obviously that is not desirable and we are forced to seek, to require a change in its dynamics, since three wars are many for a company in our conditions.

Miromar Outletstore Burberry

Very good ... sorry that is not here

In a democracy, citizens can call to their leaders accountable, calling recent examples of reflection in Mexico

An example of accountability
poor
Our democracy requires, among other things, look good on how mature democracies and draw lessons for our own. What is happening in Britain provides us with a subject of discussion in Mexico to discuss political reforms necessary to revive a system that is taking on water.

this side of the Atlantic, it does draw attention to what happened to Tony Blair in London on Friday: former British prime minister had to respond in public and before television cameras to question of a commission investigating the legality of the order he gave his army in 2003 to accompany the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Blair was subjected to a polite but stern six-hour interrogation by the commission headed by Sir John Chilcot, a high-retired public servant who is entrusted to find out if the invasion of Iraq on behalf of Her Majesty's Government , one of whose purposes was the death of British and many Iraqis, was done properly and in accordance with the laws of the kingdom. And, as we know, the original reason for attacking Iraq in 2003 was soon fully checked false: the government in Baghdad had no weapons of mass destruction that the British intelligence services said they had and could use 45 minutes after being given the order to do so or had ties to Al Qaeda terrorists, as also said.

Former British prime minister defended himself well against his inquisitors, but regardless of the conclusion of the commission and how Blair is facing history, among the crowd were relatives of the 179 British soldiers dead and demanding the political an apology for having led the country into a misguided war, which failed to apologize, the event was a example of how to run a democracy that can demand accountability from their rulers.

first thing pointed questioning about the responsibility of former British prime minister is the absence of a similar process in the United States. Clearly, George W. Bush and some of his colleagues should be subjected to a trial of responsibility for what happened in Iraq, because they were the instigators of an invasion that, according to the most conservative estimates, killed 100 thousand Iraqis.

But let's see the speck in your neighbor's eye and look at the massive beams in terms of accountability we have in Mexico. In our anemic political system will strengthen the subject a severe interrogation, or rather, a trial to former and current living presidents to convince the public that actually already exceeded a central feature of the old regime: impunity. Echeverría



Upon learning "Corpus Thursday of 1971 the deadly aggression carried out by a paramilitary group organized by the Federal District government, the" hawks "- against a peaceful student demonstration in Mexico City a falsely indignant President Luis Echeverria said it would investigate and punish the guilty. Not so, the only capital regent was forced to resign but years later received the governor of Nuevo León. Later, in 1998, when the PRI was on the verge of losing its role as state party, a call 68 Commission, Congress, made the ridiculous to go home to face Echeverria its responsibility in the massacres of 1968 1971. Then in 2006, and an allegedly "new regime", was ordered Echeverria's house arrest but after a pathetic imitation of trial in 2009, ordered his acquittal on charges of genocide. Although no doubt that the ultimate responsibility for the crimes of 68 and 71 falls in the former presidents of the time, today we still do not know what was the "reason of state" by who ordered the murder of the young, we do not know how many victims there were or exactly who was involved or under what circumstances played their roles. De la Madrid



Not long ago, Miguel de la Madrid agreed to the journalist Carmen Aristegui, who is radically wrong in leaving as his successor Carlos Salinas de Gortari, who is now the center of a web of corruption scandals during his administration . However, De la Madrid refused any operation of election fraud allegedly Salinas won with 51 percent of the vote in July 1988. And even though that election ballots and are ashes, it would not hurt an investigation clarify what really happened at the ballot box 22 years ago. Salinas



With regard to Carlos Salinas, there is plenty of material for commissions. Suppose that secret should not find out what and how he spent the "secret", but would be very revealing and useful to know the process and conditions that were privatized at the time important public-phone companies, banks, television, etc. " , currently the source of large private fortunes. The killings of hundreds of PRD could be the subject of another investigation, and never fully explained the executions of members of EZLN Ocosingo market, Luis Donaldo Colosio and Francisco Ruiz Massieu, all in 1994. Zedillo



The so-called "December mistake" of 1994, which led to the penultimate major economic crisis in Mexico and, subsequently, was the reason that brought Ernesto Zedillo to design the infamous Fobaproa-purchase portfolio overdue private bank notes state, "it must be unraveled. Fobaproa it led to internal public debt grew four times in just three years, but also an untold number of bank loans fraudulently end as part of that debt. The fact that a Mexicanized banking system from the government of Venustiano Carranza gradually evolved into one dominated by foreign banks, should also be the subject of an investigation process. And finally there is the mass murder of indigenous people in Chiapas in Acteal, in which case the networks of "justice" only pure small fish caught and now says they were not guilty. The so-called Pemexgate "-the illegal transfer of thousand 100 million dollars from Pemex to the oil union and thence to the PRI in 2000 - led to a fine of one billion pesos for the PRI but ultimately responsible for the operation never had to respond before a judge. All this gives food for several commissions "to the Blair ".

Fox

Despite IFE research the first government of the" new regime "-that so attached to the bill that won the impeachment of the head of city government not to stop in time to open a street- there is still much we do not know about the origin and use of monies from the Friends of Fox ". Another commission could also investigate what TEPJF not studied: how it was and what effect did the intervention of Fox or the Business Coordinating Council in the 2006 election. The federal government's role in the defense of the governor of Oaxaca and the repression of APPO also deserve to be the subject of an investigation.


Calderón
this administration has not yet concluded, but you might be thinking to investigate the reasons and results of this "war" for three years against drug trafficking, which has already caused 16 000 deaths and no end in sight. A thread of research could be suggested in the article by Jorge Torres and Ignacio Alvarado (El Universal, 26 January), whereby the inspiration of the "war" was not only Mexican American: a proposal for officials the DEA, Karen Tandy and David Gaddis, Eduardo Medina Mora and Genaro Garcia Luna in October 2006, and then introduced himself as Mexican decision. As in the case of Blair, this "war" fits well with the American interest, but is also of Mexican? This should be out. Conclusion



The UK is one of the most consolidated democracies and may be luxuries that we can only imagine, but the former president Fujimori and was tried in Peru and former President Alfonso Portillo has been presented before a court in Guatemala. That in Mexico will deepen democracy, should also have the ability to call to account civilly our rulers. Are we there yet?