Reply #37: There are a number of reflexive imputations in your analysis of my analysis :-)

[GliderGuider]

Peace Patriot,

You have concerns about two of my statements that I believe are fuelled more by your expectations than my actual words.

The confrontations in Oaxaca were violent. I said nothing whatever about who initiated the violence or the background of it, just that the confrontations involved violence. That simple fact is indisputable, as you yourself confirm. I am firmly on the side of the protesters in that confrontation. I have third-generation socialist, social-democratic and social justice credentials, though I don't often proclaim them, and it would be literally inconceivable for me to side with the authorities in this situation. I was simply making the bald statement that revolutionary confrontation is a feature of the present as well as the past in Mexico. The question of who initiates the violence in any specific event speaks to the underlying dynamic but makes little difference when one is simply considering the revolutionary tenor of the times. In such times violence is to be expected, though we should always hope that it will be initiated by the institutional powers as in this case it was. To reiterate, my analysis said nothing whatsoever about the dynamics of this particular clash, beyond the fact that there was violence involved. I think you may be understandably over-prepared to interpret analysis from unknown sources as representative of establishment views. In my case you should read the words as written.

A similar response applies to your second criticism about my mention of the Bolivarian Revolution. My use of the word "incendiary" was deliberate, as it applies no matter which side of the barricades you examine. On the side of the Mexican peasants it would indeed be incendiary, as it ignites the fires of nationalist passion and solidarity in their communities even if it does not explicitly aim to rouse them to violent resistance. To the American imperialists it is also an incendiary event as it is seen to fire the hearts of the people people to resist the wishes of their would-be corporatist masters. Of course the American corporatists will demonize the revolution - their fear of it and Chavez as its champion are justified from their point of view as it has a real chance of unseating their influence in the region. Again, you appear to be reading your own expectations into my use of the word "incendiary". It may be that I was too terse in my language, allowing room for such misinterpretations to creep in. I assure you I did not mean that the Bolivarian Revolution was an intrinsically violent movement.

I hope this clarifies my position on the matter.

Paul Chefurka