PDF | Juxtaposing televised news coverage of the student Poniatowska's translated version of La noche, Massacre in Mexico, trans. PDF | The student movement Mexico '68 (Sesenta-y-ocho) that was active y los años by Luis González de Alba (), and La noche de Tlatelolco by. Read online or Download La noche de Tlatelolco by Elena Poniatowska (Full PDF ebook with essay, r.
|Language:||English, Spanish, German|
|Genre:||Business & Career|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
Subjects. Tlatelolco Massacre, Mexico City, Mexico, Students -- Political activity -- Mexico -- Tlatelolco. Notes: Translation of La noche de Tlatelolco. Photopoetics at Tlatelolco: Afterimages of Mexico, .. the Lecumberri prisoners – along with Elena Poniatowska's La noche de Tlatelolco. Even today, the narrative of La noche de Tlatelolco (PONIATOWSKA, ) rings with a universal voice. For months, Poniatowska visited the demonstrators.
While he self-consciously situates himself as a scholar writing more than four decades after the massacre, his primary goal in writing is to look at the student movement with new, perhaps more critical, eyes.
Steinberg focuses more on the transcendental or not nature of Tlatelolco in the national imaginary.
Rather than dwell on the movement, he traces its reverberation across a country — marred by the return of the PRI — that, at least in , remained as authoritarian and deadly as ever. Flaherty, an art historian by trade, engages in a cutting-edge cultural stud- ies project that discusses how the state employed art, architecture, and even civil engineering to promote a clientelistic relationship between the Party and the peo- ple prior to and even after From there he discusses how student activists undermined and at times refashioned carefully planned cities, buildings, and streets in ways that challenged official narratives.
As Flaherty argues, the post- revolutionary state viewed itself as an entity not unlike a hotel: it provided hospi- tality services to its citizens, all of whom it viewed not as equals or as the drivers of the state, but rather as tenants. Referencing the corporatist nature of the PRI, he argues that the state did not concede full citizenship to its citizens; rather, it attempted to coopt the interests of different sectors of society in a way that would allow the state to appear to consider multiple perspectives despite the fact that, in practice, it largely enforced its own ideals.
One of the great strengths of the book is its in-depth discussion about how art, architecture, and even city planning reflected the paternalistic nature of the PRI.
For Flaherty, the single most important objective of the postrevolutionary state was to project an image of modernity and unity. As such, it asserted its techno- logical supremacy through various means.
This was perhaps most evident with regard to architecture. Flaherty discusses this concept in particu- lar depth during the first five chapters of the book. He eschews a historiographical approach, opting instead to discuss how different incarnations of the metaphor of paternalistic hospitality have played out across time within Mexican space.
This scholarly approach certainly has its shortcomings, particularly as it occasionally appears to ignore the importance of individual events in favour of a big picture. That said, his approach allows him to make fascinating arguments about the biopo- litical nature of a Mexican state that, to this day, depends on casual violence to justify its claims to sovereignty.
Tlatelolco, far from exceptional, simply becomes the event in which this violence was shown most bare; it serves as a starting point in his discussion of state violence rather than a culmination. The first chapter discusses the Lecumberri penitentiary that held numerous polit- ical prisoners — as well as violent criminals — prior to, during, and after the movement.
Clearly, the state used this prison more to safeguard its own sovereignty than to ensure public safety. Many of the most important male mem- bers of the Mexican left would serve sentences in the prison; indeed, Flaherty dis- cusses the curious role that David Alfaro Siqueiros played in s Mexico. Flaherty notes that the state attempted to turn the dwellings around Tlatelolco into a miniature, inde- pendent city that enjoyed all the amenities that it would need.
This ranged from laundromats to movie screens, to supermarkets. Such an interpretation fits his characterisation of a corporatist ruling party and state that ascribed itself the position of ultimate knowledge about the needs of its citizens. One key way that the PRI could portray itself as representing the interests and needs of every sector of the population was to keep disparate groups separate from each other so that they could not discuss common grievances.
Little by little, the people began to refashion the architecture that had been designed to contain them, and they began to use it to enunciate their displeasure with certain elements of the ruling party. Universities and their students were a necessary component of society in that an educated gen- eration would be needed to lead the nation forward. Nevertheless, students held a subversive potential that the PRI would have to mitigate.
It was able to more easily uphold such an imaginary of near-perfect union as it kept poten- tially dissident actors separate. Flaherty once again returns to the metaphor of hos- pitality: those students and faculty who denounced the PRI were seen as ungrateful to a state that had invested so much into their own well-being.
This in turn played into depictions of these actors as coddled children who did not realise how much they owed to the paternalistic regime. As such, commonplace — rather than exceptional — violence would be needed to evict the movement from the social discourse. Lost voices: a plurality of perspectives in the movement A principal theme that Flaherty emphasises is the democratic nature of the Movement: far from monolithic, it encompassed a wide cross section of the population that had at times conflicting views.
For this very reason, movement organisers held democratic meetings that allowed for vigorous debate.
What united the movement, then, was not a shared ideology, but a commitment to a process that attempted to allow all voices to be heard. New York: Columbia University Press, Tarde o temprano. Google Scholar Poniatowska, Elena. Massacre in Mexico. Translated by Helen R. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, Google Scholar Poniatowska, Elena—. La noche de Tlatelolco. Mexico City: Era, Google Scholar Roth, Michael S.
Lyons and Charles Merewether.
Records and information released by American and Mexican government sources since have enabled researchers to study the events and draw new conclusions. The question of who fired first remained unresolved years after the massacre. The Mexican government said gunfire from the surrounding apartments prompted the army's attack. But the students said that the helicopters appeared to signal the army to fire into the crowd.
Journalist Elena Poniatowska culled interviews from those present and described events in her book Massacre in Mexico: "Flares suddenly appeared in the sky overhead and everyone automatically looked up.
The first shots were heard then. The crowd panicked…[and] started running in all directions. Shortly thereafter, the Olympia Battalion, a secret government branch made for the security of the Olympic Games composed of soldiers, police officers, and federal security agents,  were ordered to arrest the leaders of the CNH and advanced into the plaza. The Olympia Battalion members wore white gloves or white handkerchiefs tied to their left hands to distinguish themselves from the civilians and prevent the soldiers from shooting them.
The soldiers responded by firing into the nearby buildings and into the crowd, hitting not only the protesters, but also watchers and bystanders.
Demonstrators and passersby alike, including students, journalists one of which was Italian reporter Oriana Fallaci , and children, were hit by bullets, and mounds of bodies soon lay on the ground. Meanwhile, on the Chihuahua building, where the speakers stood, Olympia Battalion members pushed people and ordered them to lie on the ground near the elevator walls. People claim these men were the people who shot first at the soldiers and the crowd.
Video evidence shows 10 white-gloved men leaving the church and bumping into soldiers, who point their weapons at them. One of the men shows what appears to be an ID, and they are let go.
The Chihuahua Building as well as the rest of the neighborhood had its electricity and phones cut off. Witnesses to the event claim that the bodies were first removed in ambulances and later military officials came and piled up bodies, not knowing if they were dead or alive, into the military trucks, while some say that the bodies were piled up on garbage trucks and sent to unknown destinations.
The soldiers rounded up the students onto the Chihuahua Building's elevator walls, stripped them, and beat them. Other witnesses claim that in the later days, Olympia Battalion members would disguise themselves as utilities employees and inspect the houses in search of students. The official government explanation of the incident was that armed provocateurs among the demonstrators, stationed in buildings overlooking the crowd, had begun the firefight.
Suddenly finding themselves sniper targets, the security forces had simply returned the shooting in self-defense.