Being Consistent, or, Taking Out the Garbage

A document in the state archive of Morelos shows a letter to railroad depots that norteamericanos had been taking pictures of the poor and indigent in the region and exhibiting the pictures in the US. As such, railroad depots were ordered to keep any indigents or other types of poor looking beggars off the platforms so US Americans couldn`t see them. Well, since passenger train service in central Mexico is involved, you know it was not all that recent that such an edict was issued... but this one was 1935.

In 1910, Porfirio Diaz cleanded up the streets of Mexico City for the big centennial bash. As a reward (for that and so many other order and progress actions), folks in Mexico purchased Don Porfirio a one way ticket to Paris. Gaenerous, no? Later, in 1947, the state of Morelos issued cards to tourists explaining that there were so many other nice things to take pictures of besides the beggars, while just a few years later Aleman and his tourist drive would simply toss the poor of Acapulco out on their ears. I understand that Rudy Giuliani and his plan for DF were rejected, but I noticed a real lack of beggars in the north of the city on Molino a few weeks ago, along with tamaleros and other mobile vendors. I suppose what I mean to say is that if nothing, we can give these progress and order types points for being consistent.

I woke up this morning in Cuernavaca to machine guns shooting (I lived in East LA in the early 1990s - I do know what machine gun fire is). I have no idea what happened, but the progress and order folks need to know that the folks that react against them have a pretty good track record of consistency as well. Be they narcos or revolutionaries, somebody who likes a little bit of chaos is going to crash the party. Then again, that is what hegemony is for, no?

Mexico: Fiery Social Explosion?

Sez Todd Miller at NACLA:

"They say that we're due for another revolt in 2010," Javier says. His eyes slightly spark when he says this. It's the kind of spark that says that something has to give, something has to change, there are too many people like him with not much more to lose.

https://nacla.org/node/6141 to read the whole thing.

1) If everybody has been reading drug violence incorrectly, and what we have seen is a series of local revolts then I might buy it. After all, isn't the big emphasis on 19th C social banditry in Mexico designed to explain a precursor to the 1910 Revolution? But I'm not buying that drug violence in Chihuahua is the same as something like a Tomochic ... but then again, my wife does tell me I am wrong about most things. And not all of the violence Miller refers to in the last 20 years is even remotely connected to narcotics.

2) When I hear these reports by U.S. scholars about a possible Revolution, I often wonder if they aren't getting a kick out of the idea. They've spent a lot of time Romancing the Revolution and maybe (just maybe) there's a little tickle in the back of their mind that looks forward to the carnage of a new revolution.

3) Who would lead this thing? Clearly there are groups in the Huasteca and the Tierra Caliente that have operations already in place, but for the most part, who would lead any revolutionary factions? Angry AMLOistas? I'm just not sure who the clear regional leaders are that would stir up a 2010 scuffle.

4) Who would benefit? Clearly there are social factors at play that Scott or Wolf would identify, and I guess I'll have to start looking at what some of the folks in poli sci (sigh...charts and graphs) are up to. But in the end, I'm hard pressed to see what large result would come of a Revolution. While you could turn back the PAN tide, I'm unclear as to what massive changes can happen in Mexico at this point with limited resources - no matter who is in charge. $$$ is global now, and it isn't like a revolution would place all the wealth and resources of Carlos Slim in the hands of the urban poor. More likely, if things continue as they do, I think we can count on urban riots - and we have a long pattern of urban riots in Mexican cities.

Out with Tollotzin and the Revolution, in with the Torre

Mexico is building a tower to celebrate Independence - the state of Mexico, that is. While Mexico City's massive Torre Bicentenario is like a far-left historian's interpretation of the Revolution (a great idea but poorly executed and mired in "irregularity" and controversy), Toluca is going ahead with its own Torre Bicentenario. It will be on the highway coming into Toluca from DF and will replace the Puerta Tollotzin. Though Torre, I would think, might be an exageration - it looks like a really tall Car and Driver award.

Puerta Tollotzin is an interesting (and I think very striking sculpture from the air) modernist portrayal of pre-contact deity. What struck me was the interesting way all of this is done. Puerta Tollotzin was the product of a contest in which the UNAM architecture faculty won the design. Modernity meets indigenous Mexico as portrayed by Mexico City - any historic parallels, Bueller? To continue the rhyming, we see the planned replacement of the monument by a tower designed by local architects and that looks more at independence, not at the Revolution.

Revolution...part deux

Uno Mas Uno is reporting that as unemployment rises in Mexico, that the largest group affected by the trend is the 18 to 24 set. While the general unemployment index is pegged by UAM at just over 3%, the youth unemployment ranking is at 6.3%. Rising visible violence and youth unemployment are a dangerous combination. (Read the article).

Nevertheless, the entire economy contintues to expand, according to INEGI, with agriculture growing at 4.9% - a rate large enough to balance industrial losses associated with the decline of the US economy. This seems like a good sign for the popular Alberto Cardenas, current secretary of ag and a possible candidate in 2012. Most importantly, I think it bodes well (I hope) for keeping a lid on the spread of political violence as the bi/centennial approaches.

They Say You Want a Revolution

This week my students are discussing Daniel Cosio Villegas and the idea of the Mexican Revolution being alive or dead. Some have gotten bogged down with the question as early as 1911, but others are plugging right along in 2008. I am curious about the centennial celebrations, bicentennial celebrations, and the current war with the narcotraficantes that is dominating many of the headlines these days. Is the Calderon push a new Revolution to take Mexico back from organized crime, or is it the effort of a despot looking to stifle a black market economy that provides income for otherwise impoverished sectors? I know I am less convinced of the mafiosos and their altruistic intentions, but it is hard to travel in Chihuahua and not see their hands working to the benefit of local economies on the surface.

On a happier note, I was interested to see the official government site celebrating the Revolution has items on there from Catholic participants. Take a look. The home site can be found here. I'm sure the intro video will be deconstructed in class rooms accross academia using Ilene V. O'Malley and Thomas Benjamin.