Marcos: la genial impostura( nuevo siglo)

Rating:
Summary: PUNTOS SOBRE LAS íES
Review: Aclaro:

Maité Rico y Bertrand De La Grange no son ningunos tinterillos improvisados. Son periodistas profesionales que hacen su trabajo a conciencia, no por consigna. Una y otro eran entonces corresponsales en México para los diarios europeos El País y Le Monde respectivamente. Como tales cubrieron con celo exhaustivo el conflicto chiapaneco.

Su libro fue escrito desde una posición de admitida simpatía hacia el movimiento zapatista. Pero 'simpatía' no es lo mismo que 'acrítica', y mucho menos 'incondicional' (pequeña diferencia desconocida para la prensa "crítica" mexicana, tan proclive al panfleto y la hagiografía).

Cuando ambos autores señalaron que no todo era del color rosa con el que el Subcomandante quería pintar su intentona, y más cuando le pisaron sus caciquiles callos al obispo Samuel Ruiz, la prensa "de izquierda" -que hasta entonces los había agasajado con toda la obsequiosidad malinchista de la que es famosa si de
colegas extranjeros 'afines' se trata- tronó contra ellos y procedió a lincharlos conforme a sus 'usos y costumbres': no contentos con inventarles todo tipo de calumnias (como las que repite el cobarde anónimo de la reseña anterior), nuestras 'buenas conciencias', en su mejor tradición estalinista, presionaron cielo, mar y tierra para expulsar del país (y posteriormente de sus respectivos diarios) a ambos periodistas. ¿Su 'crimen'? Ser objetivos.

Esto es, no asumirse como apóstoles sino como testigos. No comulgar de rodillas con las ruedas de molino que acostumbran desayunarse sus detractores. No anteponer las simpatías personales a la ética profesional. Reportar lo bueno y lo malo, las luces y las sombras. En una palabra, ser periodistas. Su libro es como ellos: EXCELENTE.

Rating:
Summary: PUNTOS SOBRE LAS íES
Review: Aclaro:

Maité Rico y Bertrand De La Grange no son ningunos tinterillos improvisados. Son periodistas profesionales que hacen su trabajo a conciencia, no por consigna. Una y otro eran entonces corresponsales en México para los diarios europeos El País y Le Monde respectivamente. Como tales cubrieron con celo exhaustivo el conflicto chiapaneco.

Su libro fue escrito desde una posición de admitida simpatía hacia el movimiento zapatista. Pero 'simpatía' no es lo mismo que 'acrítica', y mucho menos 'incondicional' (pequeña diferencia desconocida para la prensa "crítica" mexicana, tan proclive al panfleto y la hagiografía).

Cuando ambos autores señalaron que no todo era del color rosa con el que el Subcomandante quería pintar su intentona, y más cuando le pisaron sus caciquiles callos al obispo Samuel Ruiz, la prensa "de izquierda" -que hasta entonces los había agasajado con toda la obsequiosidad malinchista de la que es famosa si de
colegas extranjeros 'afines' se trata- tronó contra ellos y procedió a lincharlos conforme a sus 'usos y costumbres': no contentos con inventarles todo tipo de calumnias (como las que repite el cobarde anónimo de la reseña anterior), nuestras 'buenas conciencias', en su mejor tradición estalinista, presionaron cielo, mar y tierra para expulsar del país (y posteriormente de sus respectivos diarios) a ambos periodistas. ¿Su 'crimen'? Ser objetivos.

Esto es, no asumirse como apóstoles sino como testigos. No comulgar de rodillas con las ruedas de molino que acostumbran desayunarse sus detractores. No anteponer las simpatías personales a la ética profesional. Reportar lo bueno y lo malo, las luces y las sombras. En una palabra, ser periodistas. Su libro es como ellos: EXCELENTE.

Rating:
Summary: Well researched, but flawed because of its bias
Review: De La Grange's book on Subcommander Marcos is obviously a thoroughly researched work. The author clearly has a great deal of experience of Mexico in general and Chiapas in particular. He writes with authority and does a great service in providing a more nuanced view of Chiapan society than many other books on the subject. He correctly observes the folly of some writers - fellow journalists and academics alike - who, from reasons stemming from their own political viewpoints, have idealized the Zapatistas and promoted an oversimplified image of Chiapas as a state comprising only two extremes: noble, impoverished and exploited indians, and fabulously wealthy, exploitative land owners. Thanks to Grange's work, the considerable number of people who comprise the middle ground between these two extremes are now given a voice. He also does well to capture and commit to the record some of the abuses perpetrated by the Zapatistas, conducting interviews with aggrieved members of the Chiapan community. Of course, Grange is perhaps at his strongest when providing details of little known, behind the scenes facts connected with the media. Thus we hear of the self-censorship of the Press by its own members and the fabrications and distortions promoted by the politically correct majority. Being himself a journalist, however, leads Grange to perpetuate some distortions of his own. He polarizes his fellow journalists, portraying them as either sycophantic lap-dogs to Marcos or as scrupulously honest men and women bent on giving the public the truth. In my experience at least, the vast majority of the Press are neither of these, they are simply people who are carrying out their job of making stories (sometimes factual, sometimes not) in order to boost the sales of their newspapers.
Much of the focus of Grange's work concerns Marcos' Marxist past and the complicity of Bishop Samuel Ruiz in nurturing the EZLN.However, for anyone with a reading knowledge of English, these facts - presented as being of earth-shattering consequence - were exposed two years earlier in Andres Oppenheimer's book "Bordering on Chaos". (Anyone who is anyone in Mexico has had a Marxist past, including former president Salinas' older brother Raul; while the complicity of the Church in revolutionary movements in Latin America is far from surprising.) Moreover, Grange places far too much importance on Marcos being white, urban and middle-class. This ultimately leads him to present a totally incomprehensible depiction of the Zapatista movement, since he completely fails to account for Marcos' undoubted popularity with many impoverished, rural, Mayan Indians. One is forced to conclude that Grange believes these Mayan Indians must have been duped by Marcos - a view that borders on the patronizing notion that they are childlike and easily fooled. Indeed, reading Grange one gets the impression that he thinks everyone is either a fool or a knave. Marcos appears in his pages as a self-aggrandizing impostor; Ruiz as a self-serving bigot; peace camp attenders are naive, callow youths with an over-inflated view of their own significance; and anthropologists are patronizing idealists who love the sound of their own voices. It would appear that only Grange knows the truth, the rest of us have been duped!
Finally, it should be noted that although the general tone of the work leaves one in no doubt as to Grange's hostile view of Marcos, nowhere does the author openly declare the reasons for his hostility. To be blunt, Grange detests Marcos personally - this clash of personalities led to Marcos excluding Grange from all Zapatista press conferences. This personal hatred, although evident throughout the work, ought perhaps to have been declared in the foreword so as to warn the readers of this potential source of bias.

Rating:
Summary: Well researched, but flawed because of its bias
Review: De La Grange's book on Subcommander Marcos is obviously a thoroughly researched work. The author clearly has a great deal of experience of Mexico in general and Chiapas in particular. He writes with authority and does a great service in providing a more nuanced view of Chiapan society than many other books on the subject. He correctly observes the folly of some writers - fellow journalists and academics alike - who, from reasons stemming from their own political viewpoints, have idealized the Zapatistas and promoted an oversimplified image of Chiapas as a state comprising only two extremes: noble, impoverished and exploited indians, and fabulously wealthy, exploitative land owners. Thanks to Grange's work, the considerable number of people who comprise the middle ground between these two extremes are now given a voice. He also does well to capture and commit to the record some of the abuses perpetrated by the Zapatistas, conducting interviews with aggrieved members of the Chiapan community. Of course, Grange is perhaps at his strongest when providing details of little known, behind the scenes facts connected with the media. Thus we hear of the self-censorship of the Press by its own members and the fabrications and distortions promoted by the politically correct majority. Being himself a journalist, however, leads Grange to perpetuate some distortions of his own. He polarizes his fellow journalists, portraying them as either sycophantic lap-dogs to Marcos or as scrupulously honest men and women bent on giving the public the truth. In my experience at least, the vast majority of the Press are neither of these, they are simply people who are carrying out their job of making stories (sometimes factual, sometimes not) in order to boost the sales of their newspapers.
Much of the focus of Grange's work concerns Marcos' Marxist past and the complicity of Bishop Samuel Ruiz in nurturing the EZLN.However, for anyone with a reading knowledge of English, these facts - presented as being of earth-shattering consequence - were exposed two years earlier in Andres Oppenheimer's book "Bordering on Chaos". (Anyone who is anyone in Mexico has had a Marxist past, including former president Salinas' older brother Raul; while the complicity of the Church in revolutionary movements in Latin America is far from surprising.) Moreover, Grange places far too much importance on Marcos being white, urban and middle-class. This ultimately leads him to present a totally incomprehensible depiction of the Zapatista movement, since he completely fails to account for Marcos' undoubted popularity with many impoverished, rural, Mayan Indians. One is forced to conclude that Grange believes these Mayan Indians must have been duped by Marcos - a view that borders on the patronizing notion that they are childlike and easily fooled. Indeed, reading Grange one gets the impression that he thinks everyone is either a fool or a knave. Marcos appears in his pages as a self-aggrandizing impostor; Ruiz as a self-serving bigot; peace camp attenders are naive, callow youths with an over-inflated view of their own significance; and anthropologists are patronizing idealists who love the sound of their own voices. It would appear that only Grange knows the truth, the rest of us have been duped!
Finally, it should be noted that although the general tone of the work leaves one in no doubt as to Grange's hostile view of Marcos, nowhere does the author openly declare the reasons for his hostility. To be blunt, Grange detests Marcos personally - this clash of personalities led to Marcos excluding Grange from all Zapatista press conferences. This personal hatred, although evident throughout the work, ought perhaps to have been declared in the foreword so as to warn the readers of this potential source of bias.

Rating:
Summary: la emotividad frustra un buen intento
Review: La investigación es buena por el acceso a fuentes oficiales del gobierno mexicano negadas a investigadores más afines al zapatismo. Sin embargo, el racismo y la soberbia latentes de ambos autores frustran el buen empeño documental. Suponer que un sólo hombre (Marcos) tiene el poder suficiente para manipular a miles de personas es similar al prejuicio de considerar a los indígenas mexicanos como seres incapaces de pensar o decidir por sí mismos lo que es mejor para ellos. Como hijo de un mixteco puro y de una mestiza de raíces nahuas, he visto y padecido el sutil racismo que permea la cultura mexicana. Algo que ambos autores jamás podrán sufrir o imaginar siquiera, sirviendo de paso a las causas más cínicas de la élite que gobierna México.