How can I not feel inspired?

As a follow-up to that last blog about the neo-Zapatistas being over-romanticized, I realize that I am a hypocrite. Why? Because I find myself admiring and idealizing the people of Atenco, themselves supporters of the neo-Zapatistas. Maybe it was just because I met them. I already wrote about Atenco, but I didn't explain it well, perhaps.

How they stood up, at the signal of fireworks, against the people who wanted to buy parcels of land for the price of a Coke. How the government was willing to stop at nothing to get this land, including the cemetery, before finally changing its mind.

How they went on to help flower vendors in Texcoco defend their space from a coming Wal-Mart. Sure it turned brutal, they had gasoline bombs with them then, I won't lie. Yet these were people defending their space that they used. I can admire their conviction, even if I have doubts about their claims to "non-violence."

How the police (or possibly army dressed as police) took its vengance on the town. All the accusation (not explained in detail at the time, but easy to find on the web) of rape and sexual torture. All to defend a Wal-Mart. How the government placed a toxic waste dump there, out in the Atenco fields, literally.

I saw the land they were fighting for, from up on a hill. It's too bad my camera wasn't working well. Sure it looked like desert, where once it had been the swamps surrounding the lake. Yet that was it for them, the Mexico City people were trying to expand here to take their water. That was the real purpose of the airport in some peoples' view.

Okay, Okay, I need to chill out. I already wrote about Atenco, didn't I? Well, that was a bit too long, and too dry in terms of only presenting information. What struck me in Atenco was the sense of a community rising.

It's a far cry from the U.S. world of web petitions, or of Che Guevarra's "vanguards" coming in and waiting for the people to support them. Or of people back at Warren Wilson College being "in solidarity" with people that they may not have even met.
Anyways, in short, I am a hypocrite who can't help admiring rebels in other countries, even if their cause, I know, is not truely mine. I'll write about something more calm next entry, I promise!

Atenco

This Thursday and Friday we went to Atenco, a place of resistance in the face of brutal government actions, of love for the land and compadres. It happens to be located near Mexico City, but it remains semi-rural ejido land.

Basically the government wanted to build an airport right over their fields, houses, even their cemetary, while negociations about water and schools were already underway. They were accused of kidnapping public officials, a charge that many in the town say was false. Protesters took to the street with machetes shouting Tierra Si, Aviones No! The protesters avoided violence except in self defence, and even then their weaponry was limited to machetes. The government decided to put their airport elsewhere.

In addition to attracting visitors from other resistance movements (including Subcomandante Marcos and other neo-Zapatistas) Atenco began to help other nearby towns. In a particular case they were trying to help flower vendors in another town who stood in resistance to a Wal Mart being built over their flower market. To make a long story short the state police came in, possibly with some national military dressed as State Police, and led a campaign of arrests, rape, and in one case literally beating people to death. Some of the people in prison from that time still have yet to be released.

Touring Atenco, I was amazed by how the people could still remain smiling, and determined (right now freeing prisoners is the main concern) after all that happened. They no longer vote in elections, but to me they seemed more engaged than anyone I had met in the U.S.

Barack Obama was in Mexico City at the same time, and we saw his heiliocopter passing. What struck me here was that, unlike elsewhere in Mexico, here I actually found cynicism about Obama, rather than indifference, or (rarely) hope, as I've found elsewhere. They considered him to be the same as Bush, which to them made him at least something of an enemy. Like me, they were concerned about the troops in Juarez, although theirs was in some ways the opposite of my concern. While I worried that the army would encounter hatred, violence, and endless war (another Columbia, or another Iraq) they were worried that it would be another Puerto Rico! It's not too surprising to hear that kind of sentiment in what history has taught me is the Polland of the Americas. Yet no one else seems to have any problem with the foreign troops. It could be their own experience has made them distrust armies, while in Cuernavaca, one still finds tanks patrolling Holy Week processions.

I worry about writing entries like this. I worry that I will be blacklisted here in Mexico, or that dissidents will get unwanted exposure. For that reason I did not give names.

Embassy talk.

The only requirement for the day was that we go to the U.S. embassy to talk to the various officials there. That was the first part of our day.

Embassy officials are bound to be biased to supporting U.S. policies, whatever those are. Administrations have changed since they started their work, but policies often have not. However I found the talk to be refreshing in some ways, because, being a Warren Wilson student, I've heard the anti-NAFTA, anti-border-control arguements many times, perhaps too many times.

Concerning the boarder control issues, the consulate official pointed out that it's not as hard to enter the U.S. as Russia. Another official pointed out that Guatemala's boarder swith Mexico had some difficult steps involved for immigration as well, and even suggested that one of us write a paper on the subject of Guatemalan immigrants to Mexico. Of course he was trying to change the subject, but that doesn't make Guatemala any less important.

As far as NAFTA, the trade and agriculture delagates' response could be summed up by saying "There are winners and loosers" while adding that there are more winners than loosers. The particular example that we discussed was an example (brought up in Ixlilco, but not recognized by the locals as related to NAFTA) of no longer being able to sell onions. Of course it's true that they've started on new industries in Ixlilco, such as tomatos and figs, but especially with the tomatos they need government assistance to do so. Their particular village had good connections with PAN, so they could get help with greenhouses for tomatos. It seems to me that "loosers" may well stay "loosers" without that kind of help.

I heard another thing that I'm sure will come up again on this blog. One man (they were all men) said that the army was trusted more here than the police, which is why they are often deployed for civil purposes.

I'm not convinced, although I've heard before that the police here are often corrupt, perhaps due to their low salaries. The embassy personnel claimed that Mexio's attempt to create a more high-paid police force was met with violence. I didn't ask, but I've read in newspapers about private contractors taking some responsibilities as well, which I consider to be an even worse solution, and which has caused some controversy.

Oh, and one more thing. I heard from the embassy personnel that the military training given by the U.S. is primarily non-compbat training, including PR work. This was meant to be reassuring, but to me it sounded strange, and possibly a waste of money. Training other countries' militaries is one thing, but training them on how to promote themselves has a very weird ring to it in my opinion.