[Marxism] Mistakes

Nestor Gorojovsky nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar
Tue Dec 7 06:40:49 MST 2004


Richard Fidler sent what follows:

"[from the Green Left Weekly list]

South America takes first step to a union of nations

By Phil Davison
04 December 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=X9587

The Peruvian highland town of Ayacucho, where fine-fleeced vicuñas 
roam wild along the snowline, is already a focus of South American 
history. 

Here, in December 1824, forces loyal to Simon Bolivar, the 
independence hero, drove the Spanish conquistadors from the lands 
they had dominated for three centuries. Next Thursday, on the 180th 
anniversary of the battle, the presidents of all South American 
nations will sign a declaration that could prove historic in its own 
right."

There are a lot of mistakes here.

1) South America is _not_ taking the first step to a "Union of 
Nations" but to the _re_unification of the Latin American Nation.  It 
is as if the Italian Union of 1870 would have been presented as the 
unification of the Lombard, Roman, or Sicillian, etc., "nations".

[There is a world of a difference here.  For example:  after World 
War II, the American High Command devised (and partially carried on) 
a plan to secede Sicilly from Italy and to put it under the control 
of a peasant leader, Salvatore Giuliano, closely linked to the New 
York Maffia bosses.  All of this in the name of Sicillian 
"nationalism".  

In fact, this adventurous pretension by the American "saviour" to 
split a whole province from Italy was one of the reasons why the 
Italian Communist Party agreed with the Christian Democrats to reach 
a non-aggression pact and disarmed itself.] 

2) "forces loyal to Simon Bolivar, the independence hero, drove the 
Spanish conquistadors from the lands they had dominated for three 
centuries" is a ridiculous display of miscomprehension.  To begin 
with: the whole thing was a civil war between Royalists 
(conservative, Ancien Régime --even though the Spanish Peninsular 
Generals at Ayacucho were against that regime and were imprisoned 
immediately after they arrived back to Spain) and Liberals (who had 
chosen to become independent from Spain proper only because reaction 
had won the stakes there).  Secondly, this was _not_ a struggle 
between the "occupied Americans" and the "Spanish conquistadores".  
The "conquistadores" explain a very short part of the Spanish 
American history, spanning more or less between 1500 and 1580.  
Whatever came after that cannot be explained out in these simplistic 
Black Legend terms.  There were children of "conquistadores" on both 
camps, Spanish-born officers and troop on both camps, Creole, Black 
and Indian officers and troops on both camps.

But there is one sprinkling of truth:  if winds blow from the good 
side, the declaration may actually prove historic.

Let us hope so.

It is not in the best hands.


Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro at fibertel.com.ar

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de 
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 






More information about the Marxism mailing list