Class: EZLN Documents
posted by Michael | 2/01/2007 09:53:00 PM
Contributors
- Pack: Mixquiahuala Letters
- Class: Mixquiahuala Letters
- Pack: Click
- Class: Click
- Cyborg: Seminar (15pp/20min) Weeks 12-16
- Cyborg: Conference (8pp/10min) Weeks 9-11
- Cyborg: Short Option (5pp/10min) Week 7-8
- Pack: Brief Interviews
- Class: Brief Interviews with Hideous Men
- Paper Proposal 3 (of Possible 3)
8 Comments:
1. Why are the zapatistas referred to as "neo-zapatistas" when they are against neo-liberalism?
2. Who are these "bad governments"? Are they any pro neo-liberalism government?
3. What does the term zapatista literally mean?
1) In the first declaration, they call themselves the "inheritors". Does this mean that they are falling back upon a traditional patriarchal system since it would be a patriarchal system that allows for "inheritance"?
2) Why do they call their declaration a "Declaration of War"? It seems, from their reasoning more like a "Declaration of Suffering". And why would they call it a declaration when the obvious reference is the American Declaration of Independence which is obviously foreign? Wouldn't they want to avoid the connotation?
3) In their list of demands, they use the word "permit". It makes their liberation sound like a new occupation. Was that their intention or was it some sort of mistranslation?
1. In the First Declaration, the Zapatistas talk of declaring war on the military, but yet, they retract this for an extended cease-fire in the Second Declaration. I am confused on why they changed their methods to change the government. In the Second Declaration, the Zapatistas state “We have without fail carried out our military actions within the international conventions on war; we have received tacit recognition as a belligerent force, nationally and internationally.” Did they feel they would have a greater impact by expanding their beliefs in a civil manner, or were they truly unsuccessful in military pursuits and unable to admit to their failures?
2. The Fourth Declaration discusses the birth of the Zapatista Front of National Liberation, which is described as being a civil and nonviolent organization. How does this concept fit into my previous question about what was the reasoning behind the cease-fire in the Second Declaration? Were they truly unsuccessful in battle, or did they feel that acting in a manner similar to MLK, Jr. in the Civil Rights Movement was more appropriate? What influence do you think MLK, Jr. had on the Zapatista’s civil and nonviolent tactics?
3. The style of writing in the Fifth Declaration is very similar to the Fourth Declaration when comparing the Zapatista struggle for control against the main government. They pose the national government as an evil entity, and specifically refer to it as “the bad government,” while the Zapatistas are presented as saint like. Is this part of their propaganda to gain more support?
1. The Zapatistas focus on the town as the central organizing point, but how is the town any different than the country in terms of proximity to tyranny of a person or party?
2. What is the ideal world like for the Zapatistias?
3. How is personal safety and liberty secured if citizens must rely on the capabilities of their town?
1. From what we have discussed in class, how do the Zapatistas seem to fall into the same idealistic trap as many of its international predecessors? And what makes them believe that they are different from these groups in that they and their ideology can survive the pitfalls (corruption of power, etc.) of revolutionizing their government?
2. To what extent does the strength of the Zapatista movement rely on nationalism, and nationalistic ideals? (reference Benito Juarez quote in Third Dec and other scattered statements)
3. In the middle of the Fifth Declaration the Zapatistas discuss their 10 year silence. How do they believe that this instance silence and inaction are integral components of their movement?
1. In the First Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle, the EZLN are clearly a violent movement. Why do they later on calm their violent tactics?
2. How can we connect the socio-economic status of the personal lives of the EZLN with the socio-economic and political goals of their movement?
3. Why are the EZLN so tied to gay and lesbian groups, and how could they have an effect on their movement?
1. The Zapatsitas want to change those in power without taking or fighting for the power. How do they expect to change the system without have control over it?
2. Their use of the historical opression makes them more legitmate on the international stage but within their own country they are still see as a fringe group by many. What could they do differently to seem more legitimate to others within Mexico, particularly those in power?
3. They claim to be making declarations of war but also to no longer be violent. Isn't this a contradiction?
What makes the Zapatista’s different from any of the other anti-globalization/anti-neo-liberalism type movements in the world?
What does Zapatista translate to in English?
How close to the originals are the translated documents? Is any of the meaning lost in the misinterpretations of well meaning translators?
Post a Comment
<< Home