Woodchip Select is a selection of reprints from our chipstack and abbreviated articles or features, the full versions of which can be accessed by clicking on the link at the end of the article or by returning to the Gazette's home page.


Friday, November 11, 2011

In Remembrance of Armistice Day

Today was Armistice Day but I did not wear a red poppy.

Today, 93 years ago, on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month a haunting stillness fell upon Europe's battlefields as acrid smoke dispersed into the sky. In the bomb-plowed ground, red poppies bloomed.

I was nowhere in existence then but I was taught to fix a poppy onto my coat, to stand and ponder the vileness of war, the evanescence of peace and the tragedy of a species that is left to remembrance of its folly.

"What passing bells for those who died as cattle?"

But today, Armistice Day, lies buried under a heap of War Days and loud remembrances of heroes gone to wars.

What shadow of civilization have we become that we number our mass murders like cattle and pretend to remember the nameless fallen? Is it not obscene? Today is not “Veterans Day.” Today is not a one-for-all size “Remembrance Day” of service in war. Armistice Day marked an existential passing for a species that had shown its true quintessence.

World War I was the Great War. It was great because it was absolutely senseless and destructive of all sensibility save despair.

The World War -- that is, the one which really did engulf the world 21 years later -- killed six times as many humans beings with a diabolical murderousness that rivaled the fires of hell. But there were grievances and causes and, hence, reasons for war, misbegotten as they might have been. There was no reason for the Great War.

Historians have sought in vain for some tissue of a reason to cover the depravity of mass suicidal slaughter. The war was caused, it is said, by interlocking alliances, or by national jealousy, or by the building of boats or of a desert railroad. But none of these attempts explain what was the supposed advantage to be gained or the alleged grievance to be settled by marching off to war. The true explanation was the one offered by the historian, Emil Ludwig: the Great War was unleashed by two very, very bored aristocratic junior diplomats in Vienna. In other words, the cause of a senseless war was itself senselessness.

I heard my country calling, away across the sea,
Across the waste of waters she calls and calls to me.
Her sword is girded at her side, her helmet on her head,
And round her feet are lying the dying and the dead.
---Cecil Spring-Ryce (I vow to Thee My Country)
The Great War was great because it was a pure war, intrinsic and pristine like a bloody sacrament.

What passing-bells for these who die as cattle?
Only the monstrous anger of the guns.
Only the stuttering rifles' rapid rattle
Can patter out their hasty orisons.
---Wilfred Owen (Anthem for Doomed Youth)

Just as senseless was the devotion with which men just threw themselves into the daily dread of killing and being killed in numbers that staggered the imagination. This was not strategic carnage but ritualized suicide. Four years, day after day, men rose up from the within the earth, ran into a leaden rain and fell back dead into the muck oozing with blood.

Here dead we lie
Because we did not choose
To live and shame the land
From which we sprung.

Life, to be sure,
Is nothing much to lose,
But young men think it is,
And we were young.
--- AE Houseman

And being young, men were lifted upward by shimmering allures of Faith! Country! Freedom! and, above all, Honour! until one by one all the noble sentiments too were slain and lay befouled in the muck oozing with blood.

If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
Pro patria mori.
--- Wilfred Owens (Dulce et Decorum)
The Great War was great because Man emerged from the clouds of smoke and gas knowing that he had become more senseless than a beast.

“Their senses in some scorching cautery of battle now long since ironed, can laugh among the dying unconcerned."
--- Wilfred Owens (Insensiblity)

And a lover of death.

Rain, midnight rain, nothing but the wild rain
Remembering again that I shall die
And neither hear the rain nor give it thanks
For washing me cleaner than I have been
Since I was born into this solitude.
Blessed are the dead ...

Myriads of broken reeds all still and stiff,
Like me who have no love which this wild rain
Has not dissolved except the love of death,
If love it be for what is perfect and
Cannot, the tempest tells me, disappoint.
-- Edward Thomas (Rain)

The Great War was great because, like no war before it, it hollowed out the soul and left civilization a mere husk of appearances.

“After the shells ... and the gas, the bullets were like the gentle rain from heaven ... I cannot say I suffered anything; having let my brain grow dull”
---Wilfred Owens

Senseless in purpose, senselessly begun, begetting senselessness, the Great War rendered civilization itself senseless.

“Now men will go content with what we spoiled.
as we miss the march of this retreating world”
---Wilfred Owens

No war has produced such poetry, for in no other war was the overweening hope of civilization so cast down into the nightmare of senselessness and despair. All war is stupid and its teasing vainglory exacts a vengeful price. But the Great War was a pure communion with death that revealed Europe’s marbled cities to be white washed sepulchres. It is only through understanding the existential passage traversed in the Great War that we can comprehend the unique essence of that day when the passage ended.

For if despite all progress, Man relapsed into murdering suicide; and if every courage and every lofty hope and every cowardice and every sordid lust was cut down equally in the muck oozing with blood, then there was no hope greater than that we might from time to time relapse into Armistice.

Armistice. A time to remember that peace is but a pause in the pace of war.

For years that day, that pause and that dismissal silence was marked by two minutes of stillness throughout the land

What passing bells? None.

leaving us to ponder in pitiful poverty

What have we done?
for we know not what we do

Once the pause was turned from a confession of senselessness into a commemoration of those who died in battle, and the ones thereafter and after that and thence of all veterans proudly "flesh-marked by the Beast", the holy and awful memory of Armistice Day was whored to war.

The scribes on all the people shove
And bawl allegiance to the state,
But they who love the greater love
Lay down their life; they do not hate.
---Wilfred Owens

Subtly and vilely the remembrance of a tenuous and evanescent peace has been corrupted into a celebration of heroic sacrifice in war; tricked out as always with sham affect and easy tears for the fallen while urging the young ever more to live the old lie and die.

What a defilement that we should remember Armistice Day even while, at the very moment, engaged in war.

No. I did not wear a poppy today. It was stolen from me.

Wilfred Owen’s mother received notification of his death on 11 November 1918.

©WCG, 2011

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

The Plundering of America

A public hew and cry has arisen against the announced plan of major banks to charge depositors three to five dollars a month for the use of debit cards to make purchases. In an extremely rare instance of 'market justice' the value of Bank of America’s shares tumbled.

As significant as the fact of the planned charges is the logic that drives them. Facts on the ground are always merely manifestations of a paradigm in the air. As important as opposing the charges is opposing the twisted thinking behind them.

The shylockian mind-set behind the planned debit-card charges was best illustrated by JP Morgan-Chase’s Jamie Dimon who stated, “If you’re a restaurant and you can’t charge for the soda, you’re going to charge more for the burger.”

Dimon was referring to the fact that, under the Durbin-Frank financial “overhaul” law, banks are prohibited from charging more than 24 cents in service fees per purchase transaction. Prior to the “overhaul,” banks were charging 44 cents per purchase transaction. The law halved the amount they could charge.

But like most garbage flowing down from Capitol Hill, the overhaul contained a loophaul. (We are shocked!) The debit fee was charged to the merchant not to the customer and the law only limited the amounts banks can charge their merchant customers. There was a silver streak in the legislative swill after all.

With this background in mind, Jamie Dimon’s twisted logic boils down to saying that what the banks can’t take from Paul’s hide, they will take from Peter’s. But one way or another the banks will get their pound -- a full English pound -- of flesh.

The rhetorical cheat behind the financial cheat is easy to see. The banks are not charging more for one service (a coke) to make up for price controls on another (the burger); they are rather like gangs of hoods prowling the street looking for pockets to plunder. “Hey! If we can’t roll the guy in the suit, let’s roll the little old lady in the walker.”

But, irrespective of Jamie Dimon’s spurious analogies, the driving force of the paradigm is the notion that banks are entitled by some divinely ordained law of nature to a certain maximum level of profit. The point of departure for Bank of America, JP Morgan-Chase and Wells Fargo is simply the presumption that they are entitled to 44 cents per purchase transaction.

The banks would have us believe that this amount reflects some sort of “natural market law” like water seeking its own level. If they can’t get the quantum of flow from one source it is “only natural” that they should extract it from another. Dimon’s analogy simply assumes and would have us believe that 44 cents is what banks are entitled to and cannot be faulted for demanding.

Wherefrom this 44 cents? Banks no longer bother with the pretence of justifying the charge on the basis of costs of operations. The amount is simply what they (on average) have decided to charge. The “natural market level” is nothing more than the ad hoc level of banker avarice.

A 2010 Nilson Report report showed that in 2006 debit card usage generated just over 10 billion dollars in profits. In 2010 those profits had soared to just over 20 billion. This roaring, soaring surge of money certainly did not reflect a doubling of the costs of maintaining installed telemetric swiping machines.

In fact, the Federal Reserve has calculated the average variable costs of a debit charge at $0.071 for transaction processing, $0.059 for network fees, $0.049 for fraud losses, and $0.018 for fraud prevention costs, for a total of .19 cents per purchase. There can be no claim that banks are simply passing along their operating costs to the customer be it in the price of a coke or of a burger.

In fact, the Federal Reserve limit of 24 cents has a built in profit of 4.8 percent per transaction. That’s over half the average State sales tax. But that is not enough to satisfy the rapacity of Jamie Dimon or Bank of America’s Brian Moynihan. They want more, more and more of your flesh.

The bankers’ lust for geld is epitomized by a famous motto from Spain’s Siglo de Oro which symbolized the conquistadors’ lust for gold.

Al espada y el compás, más y más y más y más.
By sword and compass, more and more and more and more!

The lust for more is the same sin as the ne plus ultra of rapacious Iberia. The only difference is that today’s river of gold is extracted from the diminishing pay checks of struggling workers rather than from the sweat of Indian press gangs.

Needless to say, if they don’t bother justifying the charges on the basis of costs, it would never occur to Dimon or Moynihan to justify them on the basis of social utility. The idea that privilege, position and property should subserve the social good simply does not exist in the world of so-called “financial services”.

Understandably, most people oppose the monthly charges because they financially hurt. But there is a more fundamental point that progressives in particular need to press.

Defining the Progressive platform a century ago, Teddy Roosevelt insisted that corporate profit should be allowed “only so long as the gaining represents benefit to the community.” “The true conservative,” he said, “is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth.”

Progressives should not concede or overlook fundamentals while complaining about symptoms. They need to drive home the point that banks and all financial institutions should be treated and regulated as public utilities. They exist to lubricate the economy, not to suck it dry.

But plundering America is what Dimon and Moynihan have done and continue to do. We should not forget that Bank of America, Wells Fargo and banks throughout the land were responsible for the mortgage meltdown and global financial collapse that ensued. These same crooks are now trying to foreclose on properties they don’t have title to precisely because they “diced and dished” the securities.

When the same culprits who caused the financial meltdown get flooded with treasury dollars at effectively negative interest, they still refuse to lend or to renegotiate mortgages. When the common economic interest depends on restimulating consumer spending, these same banks still insist on charging 15% to 24% credit card interest and now insist on the right to suck out of the economy 20 billion a year in debit card fees.

There is simply no economic or social justification for such behavior. And the spuriously justified notion that business is just plunder needs to be opposed. The planned debit charges are not some isolated incident of over-reaching. They are yet another maw of a man eating plant that needs to be raked up, eradicated and purged from the garden.

© Woodchip Gazette, 2011

Monday, January 31, 2011

Earth & Sky -- An Historical Obituary for Bishop Ruiz of Chiapas.

Samuel Ruiz Garcia, bishop emeritus of Chiapas, died last Monday at age 87 of cardio-pulmonary complications. In the United States, Ruiz was eclipsed by the more Romantic image of Subcomandante Marcos, the poster-boy guerilla of Zapatista Liberation Army (EZLN). However, Ruiz’s socio-religious mission was more fundamentally radical and, among the Indians themselves, he is remembered with sorrow and gratitude.

Ruiz joins a long procession of Catholic priests and prelates who fought on behalf of the Indians for the humanity of us all. His efforts to enfranchise the indigenous Maya communities was rooted in a Christian option for the poor without which the present day struggle for “liberation” cannot be understood. The mandate of that option is at the core of the Ibero-Indian encounter and exists to provoke the torpor of the First World.

As everyone knows, Queen Isabel of Spain financed Columbus’s mission to the New World in order to evangelize whatever peoples might be encountered. But within years of 1492 the worser beasts of man’s nature had annihilated the Indians of Hispaniola and Spanish settlers were hard at work enslaving the natives of Venezuela.

The Spanish friars were appalled and, on 21 December 1511, the Dominican Antonio Montesinos pronounced his famous Advent Sermon:

“By what authority have you committed such detestable wars against these peoples who were inhabiting these lands so prosperously and pacifically? ... Are these not men? Do they not have rational souls? Are you not obliged to love them as you love yourselves? ... Do you not understand? Have you no senses? How can you subsist in such a deep and lethargic sleep?"

He then pronounced judgement,

“Know then that you are all in mortal sin and in sin you live and in sin will die on account of the cruelty and tyranny with which you abuse these innocent people.” [1]

Montesinos took his campaign to Spain and in 1512 the Crown decreed the Laws of Burgos which imposed a trusteeship (“encomienda”) on the Spanish settlers making them responsible individually and collectively for the material welfare, education and religious salvation of the indigenous people. [2]

Needless to say, the settlers soon found ways to abuse the encomienda so that within 20 years the same Dominicans who had proposed the system fought to abolish it.

But as important as its immediate success was the theological impetus behind the reform. In Montesino’s words inhere all the sum and substance of the Church’s present day “Liberation Theology” and of its utopianism throughout the centuries. [3]

Three words are key: authority, soul, sin.

The bedrock of Montesino’s denunciation was the premise that the Indian had a soul; i.e. he was a human being entitled to all the natural rights and spiritual benefits human welfare needs and human dignity desires. If seeming humans do not have souls then they are reduced to exploitable objects. Today we might prefer to speak of “empowerment” and “depersonalization” but the reality being spoken is the same. Either there is a law that applies to all nations or there isn’t; either only our tribe is human or we exist in the “other.” It is a crucible question.

Whatever side they were on, the Spanish understood that this was the most fundamental issue of all and, throughout the 16th century, they threw themselves into the fray. Jesuits like Francisco Vitoria [4] and Francisco Suarez revived Greco-Roman concepts of natural rights, read them into Scripture and applied them to the New World. It is to them that we are directly indebted for our present day ideas of international humanitarian law. [5]

In the end, the King Charles V prohibited the enslavement of the Indian (1530) and Pope Paul III reaffirmed (1537) that Indians had souls, were entitled to the Sacraments, including marriage, and were, in short, citizens. [6]

The Pope’s decree went further and denounced “the enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds” and who had inspired his minions to claim that the Indians “should be treated as dumb brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of receiving the Catholic Faith.”

But that was not the end of it. If the natives had souls and had been living peaceably among themselves (as noted by Pope Alexander V in 1493), the next question was: by what authority were the Spaniards setting foot on these American lands at all? [7]

The Battle over “authority” was taken up by Fray Bartolomé de las Casas, Ruiz’s first predecessor as Bishop of Chiapas. Politically correct academics have completely misunderstood what Las Casas was about. Taking his reports of cruelties at face value, they have sought to fit the events into the mold of Uncle Tom’s Cabin. This distortion satisfies three urges: a paternalistic desire to rescue the Indian (a sentimental variant of the white man’s burden), indulgence in Anglo-American prejudice against the Spaniard or, alternatively, a resentful victimology against all Europeans.

Las Casas never published a ‘history’. He wrote a brief, which Cromwellian spies got ahold of and published by way of propaganda salvo to justify the English ‘liberation’ of Jamaica -- a liberation which immediately resulted in the importation into Jamaica of thousands of African slaves. [8]

As pointed out by Kenneth Pennnington, Las Casas was a lawyer and he was making an argument in the King’s council against Spanish authority in the New World. Under medieval law, unjust war acquired no rights. In order for war or conquest to acquire lawful possession it had to be waged on just provocation against occupiers who themselves had committed some wrong. If on the other hand, the original occupiers had been “wholly innocent” then conquest was unjust and no authority was thereby acquired. [9]

It was a stunning gambit. Las Casas was telling the King that his writ did not run to America. But if not the King’s, whose writ then? Las Casas was clear: the Church as trustee (encomendero) for the Indian over all the Americas.

It has to be remembered that, in this critical and transitional period, the nation state had not yet been fully birthed. The world was governed by “competent authorities” each in their own sphere. Church versus Crown had been at it for 1000 years and Las Casas was going for the ultimate gold.

As good lawyers do, Las Casas ‘adjusted’ his facts to the legal theory of his case. Not only was the Indian ‘wholly innocent’ but the Spaniard was ‘entirely sinful’. Thus had it to be if the Church were to establish a Brave New Theocracy -- the Civitas Dei -- in the New World.

To say as much is not to deny that abuses and cruelties were committed; it is only to say that a very mixed reality was turned into a legal polemic.

This is also not to say that Las Casas did not really care about the Indian -- he most emphatically did. It is rather to say that he was not fighting for a species of charity but for a broader more fundamental concept of the state.

Las Casas did not win his brief, but the ‘consolation’ prize was nothing to sneer at. Montesinos and Las Casas established a moral benchmark that power lacked legitimacy in direct correlation to its oppression of the weak.

Throughout the colonial period, church radicals would invoke this standard which ultimately become became known as the Church’s “preferential option for the poor” and a key tenet of 20th Liberation Theology.

It bears emphasis that when Montesinos or Las Casas coupled 'authority' with 'sin 'and 'tyranny' they were not speaking solely in individual terms. They were indicting collective action and social constructs that denied reciprocity of rights and aspirations to an entire class of people.

A sort of stupid Voltairian literalism blinds us to what our ancestors were saying. Although the talk is of souls, sacraments and sins the subject matter was what it is today: human dignity within an ordered system of social justice.

Nevertheless, in the intervening 500 years, the record of the Church as a whole was nothing if not equivocal. It appears that the clergy identified with whichever flock they happened to be closest to. The hierarchy in the cities and capitals identified with the oligarchical establishment; the clergy in the fields and villages with the poor and the oppressed. It could be said, very generally, that the urban hierarchy proved itself as obscenely reactionary as the clerical “Jacobins” were heroically humanistic.

Among the radicals were the likes of Bishop Vasco de Quiroga of Michoacan who established (1536) indigenous communities modeled on Thomas Moore’s Utopia and later 18th century Jesuit millenarians who revived the agenda with the ‘Reductions’ of Bolivia and Paraguay (popularized by the movie The Mission). [10], [11]

Mission in Paraguay

Sometimes clerics got too radical. Although Mexico’s post-Revolution, pro-atheist ruling party, the PRI, did its best to gloss over the fact, the twin heroes of the Mexican War of Independence, Hidalgo and Morelos, were both priests who had resorted to the sword.

It was precisely that resort that had the Vatican worried. Although the “preferential option for the poor” became official Church policy in 1983 [12], the Vatican’s condemnation of Liberation Theology was made on the ground that if the sins of the rich were interpreted collectively so as to give rise to a postulated endemic class conflict then the Church’s “preferential option” became simply a code word for a resort to violence. [13]

The worry arose precisely because the ‘sin’ of the system is so utterly obscene. The poverty is so desperate, so revolting, that is almost impossible for a man or woman of good will not to feel that opting for the poor impels a resort to arms, like Jesus’ outrage at the Temple money changers or Yaweh’s collective punishment of Sodom’s “prosperous ease, which did not aid the poor and needy” (Ezekiel 16:49).

How is class war avoidable if, as Paul III wrote, the oppressors are the minions of the enemy of the human race?

The dilemma got catalyzed in Yucatan and Guatemala, because the history of the Maya is among the worst in Indo-Ibero relations.

After 12 years of bloody warfare, the Spanish conquered most of Yucatan in 1541. Almost immediately the settlers began to enslave the Indians and just as immediately the Franciscans began their abolitionist agitation resulting in yet another royal decree (1549) prohibiting slavery in the peninsula.

But exploitation ensued by other means triggering uprisings in 1610-33, 1636-44, 1653, 1669, 1670. The principal grievance was the burden and abuse of fees, taxes and conscript labor (‘repartimiento’) -- the same types of abuses that led to the French Revolution.

Arriving in 1722, and moved by the Maya’s pitiful complaints, Bishop Juan Gomez Parada initiated a successful campaign to reform and mitigate the servitudes. In 1728, beloved by the Indians whom he had defended, Parada died. Within years the former harsh conditions were reimposed triggering another revolt in 1761 which was brutally suppressed. [14]

In 1847 Yucatecan Maya rose up again, setting in motion the 75 year, intermittent "War of the Castes." For a while, the Maya almost took over the entire peninsula but, in 1901, the Mexican Army launched a major campaign and re-established national control. [15]

Following the 1910-1920 Revolution, Mexico’s corporatist, quasi social-democratic government adopted a new approach aimed at incorporating the Maya into the broader economy and national life. Of key importance was the teaching of Spanish. The Maya didn’t bite. From their perspective, the “Mexican” government was just as foreign as the “Spanish” and being “incorporated” was noting they were interested in. The result was a “benign oppression” under the banner of reform and rehabilitation which was simply a modern, secular version of forced conversion.

Because forced conversions of any sort treat the subject of rehabilitation as an object they are heteronomously self-defeating. Even if subjectively well intentioned, they only compound the underlying oppression.

It was the same ol’ same ol’. The ultimate result of the PRI’s interventions was the promotion of industrial agriculture at the expense of campesinos and the fragmentation of the Maya into those who got coopted into government policies and those who resisted being dispossessed from their communal land holdings (ejidos).

It was into this historical and theological “dialectic” that Ruiz walked as very young newly appointed bishop in 1960.

Ruiz came from Guanajuato, one of Mexico’s more conservative and Spanish cities. Appointed by Pope John Paul II, he himself was theologically conservative. By his own account, he was radicalized almost over night seeing Indians used as beasts of burden and at the same time being prohibited from walking on sidewalks.

However, Ruiz rejected the paternalistic paradigm. He began the fight against material poverty by recognizing the freedom and dignity of the Maya to express his Catholic faith in an “autochthonous” (self-originating) indigenous manner. (Ruiz, Indian Theology.) [16]

Open Air Chapel in southern State of Oaxaca

This was not a new idea. Throughout southern Mexico there exist the remains of vast open air chapels constructed because, for the Indians, it made no sense to worship other than on earth under open skies. The earliest 16th century missionaries had allowed extraordinary liturgical liberties to the newly converted Indians until the Church, afrighted by the Reformation, put an end to all risky innovations. [17] Ruiz revived these earlier liturgies and juxtaposed Gregorian chants with zampango rythms and prayers in Tztotzil and Tzeltal. [18]

In line with his concept of a grass roots “Indian Theology,” Ruiz ordained 300 married deacons to assist in the process of evangelization. It was Ruiz’s expectation that these deacons would become the vanguard of a communitarian self-awareness which, thus legitimized, could coalesce around political and economic objectives of its own making. (Ruiz, Hora de Gracia § 5.1) The ecclessial Church, with its expertise, contacts and resources, could then assist in the process political self-expression, economic development and social assistance. (§ 5.3) [19]

It was all a post-Vatican II variant of “The Mission”.

The almost automatic reflex of well-disposed outsiders is to eulogize Ruiz as having helped ‘marginalized’ Indians. To say as much incorrectly assumes that the end-game was to ‘incorporate’ the Maya into the globalized economy of the capitalist nation state. Ruiz’s aim was rather for the larger society to recognize the cultural, political and economic legitimacy of the indigenous communities.

Equally short of the mark are encomiums which laud Ruiz for ‘mediating’ between the Government and the Indians. In some instances Ruiz’s role did indeed fall into the normal context of brokering between rival factions or parties. What tends to get overlooked in the North is that, where the goal of one party is the annihilation of the other, negotiation is, in itself, a victory.

It is sometimes forgotten that, throughout Central America in the second half of the 20th century, the War of the Castes was continued by other means with CIA-backed, ‘anti-communist’ dictatorships slaughtering literally hundreds of thousands of Maya. [20]

Thus, when in 1995 a Chase Manhattan Bank memo advised that "[t]he government will have to eliminate the Zapatistas to demonstrate their effective control of the national territory and security policy,” it was no small matter to get the government to sit at a table instead. [21]

Nor was it an “incidental” matter to work for the unity and reconciliation among the rival groups in Chiapas, given that to do so ran exactly counter to the PRI’s divisive policies.

Ruiz himself rejected being characterized as an advocate for any one faction or even on behalf of “the” Indians. “The so called ‘Indian problem’," he said, “is an international problem.”

Ruiz was proved right when, ensuing upon the passage of NAFTA, world corn prices fell through the floor and the Mexican farmer -- Maya and other - were driven into destitution. He supported the political theater of the Zapatistas to the extent that their aim was “to shake up the socio-political conscience” of Mexican citizens and world opinion as a whole.

In all of this, Ruiz skillfully played off his opponents. Needless to say, the reactionary church hierarchy in Mexico City tried to snag him into heresy and get him deposed. But Ruiz never broke the envelope and for every accusation, he wryly quoted some supportive passage from Canon Law or a papal encyclical. When the Vatican was on the verge of recalling him, 20,000 Indians demonstrated in his favor. It was too much for the Curia and the end result was a palaver of favorable words from John Paul II himself.

In a way the best eulogy of Ruiz came from Subcomandante Marcos himself. A university educated “niño bien” ('fair haired boy'), Marcos arrived in La Selva with a back-pack full of socialist wisdom and a burning desire to “enlighten” the natives. The result was a series of long “Declarations” in the usual “dialectal style” that had a devoted readership among a certain class in Mexico City, Berkeley, Paris and perhaps Barcelona. But Marcos was more than a mere dogmatic. He later confessed “I came thinking I had something to teach the Indians, when in fact it was they who had something to teach us.”

Did Ruiz succeed? In an immediate sense? Of course not. In Hispanic America only “the enemy” succeeds. But he continued a long and vigorous tradition of opting for the poor and in doing so he cleared a path for Indians to reclaim their dignity. That was no small victory.

©Woodchip Gazette, 2011

URL's to Notes

[1] Advent Sermon:
English: http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/learning_history/spain/spain_montesinos.cfm
Spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_de_Montesinos

[2] Laws of Burgos
Summary : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Burgos
Spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyes_de_Burgos
English: http://faculty.smu.edu/bakewell/BAKEWELL/texts/burgoslaws.html

[3] Liberation Theology;
Generally: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberation_theology
Concise History of Liberation Theology: http://www.landreform.org/boff2.htm

[4] Francisco Vitoria

[5] De Indiis

[6] Sublime Deus:

[7] Inter Caetera

[8] Donovan: Las Casas as Polemicist

[9] Pennington:
Medieval Law http://classes.maxwell.syr.edu/His381/LasCasas2.html

[10] Vasco de Quiroga
http://www.mexconnect.com/articles/312-vasco-de-quiroga notes-on-a-practical-utopian-1470%E2%80%931565

[11] Reductions

[12] Canon Law (Autochthonous Prayer & Option for Poor):

[13] Ratzinger in Opposition
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19840806_theology liberation_en.html

[14] Chronology Maya

[15] Cast War

[16] Ruiz Indian Theology

[17] Teponazcuicatl (Aztec 16th Cent.)

[18] Revived Liturgies (Maya, 20th Cent.)
Tzeltal Mass
Zampango rythms

[19] EstaHora De Gracia (1993)

[20] U.S. Interventions In Central America

[21]David Batstone Bishop Samuel Ruiz and the Zapatistas

Friday, January 7, 2011

Design Test


This is text and this is a link within the text

"and this is indented paragraph"