By Luis Mattini
left to formal that in the seventies was passive and critique of the revolutionary project q 
ue face and many of the younger generation the President of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, Hebe de Bonafini is the memory of that time, and indeed it is from the point in view of the withdrawal of the atrocities of the military, or war crimes. That explains the unfortunate fact that almost all the memory that comes from the immediately subsequent events, is the memory of death. Part nega tive that limited vision, in part, is that we are filling the museum's Argentina seem Panteones memory of death
The bias is that the vast reports work carried out by the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo is very important and irreplaceable part of the story, but not the whole story, much less the richest and educational. Because most important part of that history, is the vital part, which leaves lessons for the present and future, which speaks of vi da, rebellion, passion for the struggle, the joy of militancy, happiness provided by the act of freedom, also of intelligence and the misunderstanding of the projects, any or say from the successes and mistakes.
The ferocity and brutality of the military was not due to a special pathology in the military body, or our mistakes, but precisely to our successes. Indeed, the growing strength of popular movements, the which were part especially active, very concerned about the powers established so that solid plans to defend the privileges repressive put under real threat. Our main success was the decision to fight and putting into practice , action. Our biggest mistake was underestimating the strength of the enemy, overestimated tion of our own forces and have not noticed in time that the hardness of the repression was due to a rational and well-defined strategy, which was developed by French School, while we had prepared to resist the doctrine of so-called School of the Americas, it, incidentally, for having shared with the former socialist bloc, unilateral vision a focus on U.S. imperialism
Of that, Hebe can not speak, because as she herself has said, at that time was devoted to the kitchen. Instead there are dozens of fellow survivors, former prisoners or former exiles, the age of Hebe and hundreds of the age of their children, who can speak because they were active, armed and unarmed. Women who, faithful to the time of doing, doing. No threatened, acted and talked after, sometimes to explain what was done, and only if necessary. They are the full report, yet very little is asked them. The new generations are not being interrogated because they can not because the information monopoly that has institutionalized the organization headed Hebe and is misused. The others, witnesses observers at the time, not asked depth can be uncomfortable because the answers to the question "What you were doing at that time?"
Moreover there are also some players who do not want to speak for various reasons, some legitimate and others for fear they will say and there are even those who can not rationally explain why they thought the passion of the fight, not because they are stupid, but because the evidence of the facts did not need speeches.
For example, one of the things that Hebe does not know is that we, the PRT-ERP, and much of the seventies allies, we considered a policy of rupture characterized by action, including armed action . And that meant a profound ideological discussion because it broke the traditional concept of membership is more or less which has been taken today. In other words, the vast majority of those militants who paraded the streets in uniform rather than the government sets for them, they have no idea that there is even a concept of rupture and that it is not rubble accurately and the police is not democracy or dictatorship. It is an attitude, a decision of the revolutionaries, one of the basic teachings Che which I am not aware that they discuss the theoretical courses at the University of Mothers: Choose the field of battle.
. Indeed, we do not choose armed struggle because we had no other choice. Ours, right or wrong, was a conscious and highly debated and was in fact a break. New generations should also know that the rule of law and political system called democracy, is not invented by now. Most of those years fighting judicial system worked, so, in many cases, our colleagues were tried for violating the law. Especially in the beginning, during the dictatorship of Lanusse. In such cases the fellow on the dock, they would ask to speak to express the opinion of rupture, ie not accept the court and were declared prisoners of war and invoking the Geneva Convention.
course, the mature eyewitnesses, those who accused us of foquistas, smile with pity for this "naive", or worse, of this "childishness" our of those times. What is not taken into account is that this colleague of ours played in a policy of rupture, was on trial for a misdemeanor not to cut the American to claim for a pay rise, hurting people, but for attempting to assault a police station or military barracks to seize power and change the root system, clashing with armed professionals, avoiding risk to civilians. The proposed takeover was not seeking to twist the will of the judges, but to create a new system of justice. That was the "small" difference with the present attitude of Hebe. Our partners had not threatened in a speech to occupy the courts to force the decision of the judges, no, no way, they first, before speaking, had taken the Palace seriously, then perhaps it would have an assembly to see how to proceed.
Also, another thing that a limited, partial, of these the memories of those years, concealed, concrete action is vital and a priority especially in pursuit of social justice. Our companions did not threaten to assault the courts to help resolve a power struggle for the government, not our fellow reserved those powers to attack food trucks, for social justice in particular distributing to the needy, calling for action by example, not speaking.
insist, were years of isolationist policies, action. No speeches. And they were for various reasons, but among the most important, because it had available to make that decision militant by hundreds of girls and boys. Today you can not raise the break because that provision does not appear to be, perhaps because the shirts, flags and uniforms de Guevara, have covered His words and boys parading down the avenue daily May have no idea of \u200b\u200bthis matter and are convinced that this is the path of Che. Or maybe issue more closely and discuss it.
In any case what is objective is that we are facing a political breakdown, thus threatening to break acts without meeting them, is pure speech, is the negation of the seventies, the make the word facts or to repeat the practice of traditional Left that he spent decades threatening to take power and made that speech a modus vivendi.
0 comments:
Post a Comment