What Is The EZNL?

[SaNbItZ]

What is EZNL? Sorry If Its A Dumb Question But IM new

[ComradeRed]

its to protect the rights of indigenous mexicans, and protest nafta, it is not trying to make a socialist regime, so sayeth comandante marcos

[BOZG]

EZLN - Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista Army of National Liberation)


It's a peasant based revolutionary movement in Mexico, which fights for a socialist Mexico and in particular to improve the lives of the indigenous peoples of Mexico who have become in their words "faceless" and "foreigners in their own country". They take their name from Emiliano Zapata, who was a peasant revolutionary leader in the early part of the last century and who overthrow the Diaz dictatorship which had ruled Mexico. Zapata gave numerous land rights and declared the indigenous communities autonomous.

Just enter Zapatistas or EZLN in any search engine and you'll find information on them.

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 01:09 AM
its to protect the rights of indigenous mexicans, and protest nafta, it is not trying to make a socialist regime, so sayeth comandante marcos
Where exactly has Marcos said they do not fight for socialism?

[Guerilla22]

EZLN stands for ERICIO ZAPAPISTA NACIONAL LIBERACION (Zapapista national liberation Army) It was started by a group of indigeneous Indians living in the vast jungles of the Mexican state of Chiapas.

You see these Indians, mainly Ixchel and Mayan enjoyed a system that they used to have called common law land. Common law land is land that is not owned by anyone, no citicizen or the government and can be used by anyone. This is how these indigeneous peoples lived for thousands of years, they share the land.

In 1994 NAFTA was approved, one of the provisions of NAFTA was that no country involved can have any common law land in their nation's boundries. This was done to ensure that their would be plenty of land avaible for industraial development in Mexico.

The government of Mexico then proceeded to seize all the common law land from the Indians, declared the land property of the state and kicked the indians off the land and into vastly smaller areas of land, or made them purchase the land. The seized land is know being sold off to companies to put plants and factories on and as a result the jungles and their ecosystems are being systamatically eradicated.

The EZLN, often reffeded to as the Zapapista movement was formed by these indigeneous groups in response to the robbery of their land by the government.

[SaNbItZ]

So would you all say that Comandande Marcos was a "CHE" decendant?

[BOZG]

A little...

[ComradeRed]

I'd call him/her a socialist;however, he/she doesnt want to start a socialist "regime"

[SaNbItZ]

LEFTI?

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Here's a little blurb I wrote about the Zapatistas a little while back...



Everything for Everyone- the Zapatista Uprising in Mexico
As confetti dropped from the sky, noisemakers polluted the air and the world began the countdown to a new year, a war was declared. It was not declared by politicians or instigated by businessmen; it was not to be waged between nations or fought with dogma; it was a declaration of war spoken defiantly from the humblest corner of southern Mexico that echoed in the hearts of idealists around the world.

On that day, January 1st, 1994, the indigenous farmers of Chiapas, Mexico announced their armed struggle against the unjust and illegitimate Mexican government. They told the world they “are tired of years of abuse, lies, and death” and they “have the right to fight” for their “lives and dignity.” After generations of being murdered, oppressed, robbed, deceived, and treated like children, they rose up and openly asserted that they would not back down until their people received democracy, liberty, and justice; that they would rather die standing than continue to live on their knees; that the Zapatista rebellion had begun.

Although the Zapatista movement is only 7 years old today, it is a manifestation of a war that has been raging for 5 centuries. Since the arrival of conquistadors in the 16th century, the inhabitants of Mexico have resisted European genocide, American expansionism and have fought bravely for their independence and freedom against dictators like Porfirio Diaz; a struggle in which Emilio Zapata led Mexicans in revolt to topple the Diaz dictatorship. But when the revolution ended and Diaz was toppled, Zapata had been killed and none of his agrarian reforms were adopted. The years of bloodshed seemed to be in vain, and the PRI merely became the next dictatorial power, holding false elections which would keep them in power for over 70 years. Whatever means necessary were employed to retain the PRI dictatorship, from vote buying to ballot stuffing to political assassinations. In the 1968, for example, mass demonstrations rocked Mexico City before the Olympic Games, but they were brutally put down by the military, which murdered 300 student activists. And in the1988 presidential election, the electoral computers conveniently crashed when the opposition was leading the count.

To the Mayans in the Chiapas region of Mexico, they are merely continuing Zapata’s battle against despotism and inequality. This is why they have declared themselves the Zapatistas, to affirm their solidarity with the centuries-old fight for justice, and to testify that Zapata’s blood was not spilled in vain.

On the same day that the Zapatista National Liberation Army, or EZLN in Spanish, called up its struggle, the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed into legislation. To the Zapatistas, the agreement was nothing short of a death certificate to the indigenous people of Mexico. When the momentous treaty was signed by the continent’s leaders, it was the Mayan Indians who stole the media spotlight, exposing Mexico's massive social inequalities and the exclusion of the countries indigenous population from its economic development. As Zapatista Comandante Ramona was quoted "We were not taken into consideration when NAFTA was negotiated, never again will there be a Mexico without us!"

The Zapatistas began their movement by peacefully capturing 4 municipalities in order to draw attention to their cause. In response the Mexican army mobilized 12,000 soldiers, armored vehicles, and air support to combat the Zapatistas. The poorly armed movement was beaten back into the jungle in 10 days before a cease-fire halted Mexico's army, but the Zapatista banner of Indian rights and opposition to free trade won it international support and the army was held from taking brutal action behind bars of international morality assembled by millions of sympathizers world wide.

Since then, however, the EZLN has been able to establish centers of resistance, towns entirely self-governed that stand as a symbol of native strength and independence, and the need for further autonomy. Though these communities have been encircled by the Mexican army and they are in constant threat of attack by paramilitary death squads, they continue to prove that the indigenous forms of government can challenge not only the Mexican administration, but the absolutist philosophies of capitalism, globalization, and neoliberalism. The very existence of these towns strikes a harder blow to corporate globalization than a hundred battles.

Against the authorization of the state, EZLN spokespersons such as Subcommandante Marcos and Commandanta Esther often make trips to major Mexican cities to present speeches and updates to the people. Though the government has always disapproved, they are constantly protected by mobs of supporters and the watch of millions worldwide. On March 11th, 2001, they concluded a cross-country journey by marching straight into the heart of Mexico City to press their demands for indigenous rights. Escorted by cheers of solidarity from up to 150,000 people, they became the first rebel force to enter the city since Pancho Villa and Emilio Zapata in 1914. As always, the Zapatistas were seen with black ski masks concealing their faces; the face of a Zapatista has never been seen. The mask is the emblem of the Zapatistas' struggle for greater autonomy for impoverished Indians in Chiapas, and they do not want their struggle to be associated with any personalities, but rather recognize as a single movement led by a single, unified people; although this has not stopped the charismatic guerilla Marcos from achieving admiration world-wide and claims of being the next Che Guevara, a popular idol of opposition to capitalism and advocacy of equality for our generation.

The Zapatistas, however, are not a revolutionary army, they are instead “armed reformists” who seek to use their movement as an appendage to achieve work, land, housing, food, health care, education, independence, liberty, democracy, justice and peace. Despite centuries of suppression, they retain a vibrant tradition of democracy that they are realizing by attaining the support and solidarity of the Mexican people and inspiring the urge for immediate change. With their “voice of fire”, the EZLN have illuminated the darkest corner of Mexico, shown light on the consequences of global corporatism and ignited a shining path towards equality and justice.

The Zapatista’s struggle is not an assumption of power, but a return of power to the people. They fight not to seize control of the country, but to cede control of the country to the country itself. As the EZLN slogan says, “Everything for everyone, and nothing for ourselves.”

[Regicidal Insomniac]

And just so everyone knows, the EZLN is not a socialist army.

"In order for us to make concrete change in our social and political struggles, we cannot limit ourselves by adhering to a singular ideology. Our political and military body encompasses a wide range of belief systems from a wide range of cultures that cannot be defined under a narrow ideological microscope. There are anarchists in our midst, just as there are Catholics and Communists and followers of Santeria. We are Indians in the countryside and workers in the city. We are politicians in office and homeless children on the street. We are gay and straight, male and female, wealthy and poor. What we all have in common is a love for our families and our homelands. What we all have in common is a desire to make things better for ourselves and our country. None of this can be accomplished if we are to build walls of words and abstract ideas around ourselves."
-- Zapatista responce to claims of being an anarchist movement (http://greenanarchy.org/zine/GA08/zapatistaresponse.php)

[BOZG]

By saying that the EZLN are not a socialist army, do you mean that they merely wish to retain capitalism or that they are not limited to pure socialism?

[YKTMX]

"In order for us to make concrete change in our social and political struggles, we cannot limit ourselves by adhering to a singular ideology. Our political and military body encompasses a wide range of belief systems from a wide range of cultures that cannot be defined under a narrow ideological microscope. There are anarchists in our midst, just as there are Catholics and Communists and followers of Santeria. We are Indians in the countryside and workers in the city. We are politicians in office and homeless children on the street. We are gay and straight, male and female, wealthy and poor. What we all have in common is a love for our families and our homelands. What we all have in common is a desire to make things better for ourselves and our country. None of this can be accomplished if we are to build walls of words and abstract ideas around ourselves."

Man, that quote gives me a boner.

Zapatista!

[praxis1966]

By saying that the EZLN are not a socialist army, do you mean that they merely wish to retain capitalism or that they are not limited to pure socialism?

I believe the assertion was that they were seeking to avoid labels. While a large portion of the Zapatista platform could accurately be described as socialist, they wish not to be assigned any political designation. If you interpret this from a Frierist perspective, it's really not hard to understand why.

Friere argues that by allowing yourself to be labeled, you are giving up the ability to define yourself. Doing so is inherintly dehumanising. Even if the label connotes or is defined by a liberatory philosophy, it still creates a limit situation which by definition works against the tilt of an evolving consciousness. In Frierism, the revolution is not simply the seizure of power but an ongowing evolution towards a more perfect consciousness. Labels and sloganizing are, therefore, the antithesis to the nature of the revolutionary.

[BOZG]

That's what my interpretation of the quote would have been Praxis but I'm just wondering what Regicidal Insomniac's interpretation is.

[Regicidal Insomniac]

Sorry for the delay,

But yes, I'd have to agree with both of you. It's unqestionable that the EZLN opposes capitalism (especially neo-liberal streams and globalization), but their struggle is a mosiac is so many different people, lives, and minds.. it would be counter-productive to align themselves to but one idealogical thread. Once you're just running on one thread, it's always easy to snip. The Zapatistas become stonger with more support this way. In fact, we could learn a good deal from them...