>-Propagandistic monopoly of the Internet by radical foreigners and locals
>more interested in the advancement of their own political ideology
>regardless of the dire consequences on the rest of the Mexican people
With regard to this blanket statement (neither wet nor plugged
into a wall socket that blanket, I hope), I must note that I am not,
myself, a radical in any way. I have never before been involved in such
forums on the internet, and I generally dislike politics. As a student
of literature, I also am not fond of the abuse of rhetoric; and I would
like to note the similarity of Ruben de la Sierra's accusation to those of
the Alliance for Progress anti-communist rhetoric genre. It takes
neither a large stretch of the imagination nor a thorough knowledge of
history to determine that anti-communist themes were used as propaganda
to foist foreign policy agendas in Latin America upon the American public.
For example, if we really wanted Fidel and the Castroites out, we would
simply assimilate Cuba through economic absorption rather than keeping him
hanging around as a whipping boy. Clearly, the riddence of Castro has
nothing to do with the plan (ask William Worthy, he might know).
It does not require the much fabled "rocket scientist" to correlate the
overthrow of Guatemala's agrarian reform (cerca 1954) with the economic
interests of the United Fruit Company's complaints--screams rather--of
agony over the loss of their monopolized lands in that country. One could
also imagine, without much difficulty, that the influx of indigenous
refuges from Guatemala might have been related to the advent of U.S.
foreign policy in Guatemala in the form of a grade AA, U.S. Government
sponsored coup d'etat and the subsequent death of 150,000 people at the
hands of this U.S. government sponsored regime.
In light of this, and I could go on, it would seem, Ruben de la Sierra et
al, that any discussion found on the internet, or any support of the EZLN
by students at York University, would seem much less radical than the
kind of direct military (and downright undemocratic) intervention so
often indulged in by the U.S. For example, this level of protest would
appear less radical than say...Riordan Roett suggesting that the PRIstas
cheat in elections and that they "eliminate" groups of people. Now what,
Ruben, might an American bank want with Chiapas? I'll give you a hint:
It probably isn't the thin rainforest topsoil to which the indigenous
were relegated when the Mexican government avoided the issue of land
reform versus the interests of the big land owners. Think hard here,
folks. If not what's on top, then...what did you say your government is
going to use as collateral for its "bail-out?"
Sincerely,
don Adan Cristobal Largo
along@cie-2.uoregon.edu
along@gladstone.uoregon.edu