Empire Strikes Back
Seeing Dan Ortega dressed in red in front of a podium on May Day was enough to elicit a response from the guardians of capitalist order over at the New York Times. James Mc Kinley Jr. at the Americas desk was assigned this particular hatchet job and he performed his duty well. (NY Times May 4) "Citizen Councils stir fears of totalitarianism" James breaks out the T word right away and lets us know this is about Red and Fidel and Hugo. The article itself is about nothing, some complainer in the opposition fed him some quotes concerning his "fear"about the slope slipping towards the gulag. Seems the dictator of Venezuela is selling Nicaragua oil at half price (the balance to be paid over a 23 year loan at 2%) so they can invest in infrastructure and social programs. Talk about a commie plot! And here's the kicker, they are letting community councils make decisions about the investments instead of the regulatory state bureacracy! How dare they! Next thing you know they'll be giving away health care for free. A Socialist Revolution? I think not.
Quite by coincidence, I was reading Dennis Roger's great piece, A Symptom Called Managua , (NLR Jan/Feb.) just this morning wherein he describes the "pathologized development path" this sprawling metropolis has followed through the last several decades, thanks in part to US intervention. Sonia will argue that we didn't invade a country with an elected government but of course there is more than one way to skin a cat (and more than one definition of totalitarian as well.) AFTER invading and occupying Nicaragua from 1912-33 our trained monkey Anastasio Somoza and his National Guard murdered Sandino and crushed the movement for liberation. So much for a "well regulated militia"! Anyway, Somoza and his sons set themselves up in business in a BIG way but the 1972 earthquake was the real opportunity for the family empire and young Somoza II took full advantage. Eventually the corruption and brutality combined with economic collapse began to inspire a resistance movement "But the (US) Democratic Congress continued to vote military funding for the National Guard and-even as the latter were subjecting the civilian population to aerial bombardment and artillary fire- (Pres.) Carter sent a personal letter to Somoza congratulating him on the human rights situation in his country." Jimmy was also a big supporter of the Shah of Iran.
So then the FSLN takes Managua on July 19 1979 but they have a real mess on their hands and Reagan picks up where Carter left off and funds the Contras,basically left over National Guard and other mercenary thugs, and mines the harbor of Managua illegally to establish a virtual embargo. Through the 80's 30,000 impoverished residents join the slums and informal economy each year and in 1990 neo-liberalism arrives in the form of Violeta Chamorro and the election victory of the UNO. As the symbols of Sandinismo are destroyed, Mc Donalds , Subway ,Pizza Hut and "the Miami Boys" arrive to build golf courses and gated communities. High walls keep out the gangs, which take over the slums. The 90's are marked by rampant corruption, privitization, drug related violence and "Free Trade Zones".
Today,"elite factions jostle for power in the New Nicaragua". Ortega mixes anti-imperialist rhetoric with negotiations with the IMF and big business. He takes Chavez's cheap oil, but according to the author, "there are few sign this new Sandinista government is likely to inaugurate a more equitable phase of national development." The Times can rest easy.
posted by troutsky @ 8:16 AM
22 comments
22 Comments:
When Ortega took over Somoza's holdings, he gave them to other capitalists to administer. When the fights made its way to Managua, he had no concept of organizing an independent working class. At best he could be described as believing in a two stage theory, but socialism was never on his agenda.
Not only was Ortega never a socialist, Sandino himself was opposed by the Stalinist communist party, which supported Somoza.
The influence of Hugo Chavez in Nicaragua, can only be beneficial. Ortega has signed on, in the military defense pact of Latin America Chavez is organizing.
I think Nicaraguans should join Ortega's party.
I've got a book recommendation for you: Blowback.
Basically, the book examines the cost of American interventionism, especially in Asia. The short version is that our soldiers and our military is a big pain on a number of rears, but because the American people don't have a clue about what our military does, we always become filled with righteous indignation whenever we experience predictable blowback.
This is not surprising that the Trotskyites would forget massacres of Indians by Sandinazis. Has any of the culprits of these massacres been tried or are Indians acceptable cannon fodder for your webolutionary
madness.
Even Mental Ward Churchill and Russel
Means took up arms against the Sandinazi butchery.
This is Animal Farm at its best.
Indigenous people have no rights when the conflict with the sons of Marx. Contrived indigenous people shall be deified as long as they are a tool to co-opt Muslim anti-semitism and land greed.
While the Indians died at the hands of foreign mercenaries the left ignored them and spit at them.
Beakerkin is too politically impotent, to stay on topic.
Retrograde
The topic is the Sandinazis. The coment is on topic but you can't deal
with the truth. The left was cheer leading butchery of Indians.
It would seem that the truth of your Genocide act hurts.
What is funny is that Beakerkin's blog, hardly anyone comments on his posts. Ducky talks about Godard movies in the comments.
Beakerkin talks about "the left," in the abstract. Who knows what he is talking about. He ignored what you said in your post.
The topic is the Sandinazis. The topic of Commies personally blessing
the butchery of Indians is relevant.
I am glad you note that the Duck is given free reign on my site. Unlike Commies I have no need to wave a strawman when the facts hurt. You lefties are only good at crying victim.
Lets see your posts on butchery of Indians by the Sandinazis.
If you won't stay on topic, reply to Louis Proyect's essay:
Miskitos and Sandinistas
At first blush, it would seem that the Sandinistas and the Miskitos would be natural allies. One of the central Sandinsta leaders was Ernesto Cardenal. This priest and poet thought that pre-Columbian civilizations could provide the basis for a new, egalitarian Nicaraguan nationalism. His epic poem "Lost Cities" contains these lines:
"Their priests had no earthly power and their pyramids were built without forced labor The peak of their civilization did not lead to an empire And they had no colonies. They did not know the arrow."
Jaime Wheelock, another Sandinista leader, had written a book called "Indigenous Roots of Anti-colonial Struggle in Nicaragua." His goal was to show that Indians had resisted the Spaniard invasion for centuries. The passive native was a racist myth.
There is a problem, however. Cardenal and Wheelock were writing about Nicaragua's past, not the present. They regarded the violent assimilation of Indians into white society as a regrettable historic fact. The modern day Spanish-speaking Mestizo was the end-product of this antagonistic social process. He had distant Indian roots, but that was all. The Sandinista goal was to raise the social, economic and cultural level of the Mestizo through government action. The Mestizo was a peasant or a worker, whom the capitalist system had absorbed. The only sort of liberation that made sense to the Marxist Sandinistas was one that raised the subjects of capitalist society to a higher level, namely socialism.
The Sandinistas largely ignored the Atlantic Coast Indians when they put together a strategy for revolution. It is most telling that in Humberto Ortega's "50 Years of Sandinista Struggle," written in 1976, there is absolutely no reference to the Miskito Indians. What conclusion do all these writings support? There was only one way that the Atlantic Coast Indians could become authentic revolutionaries. They had to take part in the Sandinista struggle on the same terms as the Mestizos who lived in on the Pacific Coast and Central region of the country. Their struggle as Indians did not matter.
After the Sandinistas took power, Miskitos demands came to their attention in a most forceful manner. The Sandinistas were ill-prepared to respond in the proper fashion. Their ethnocentrism prevented this from happening. More importantly, there were important gaps in Marxist theory that prevented them from understanding the special oppression of Indian people. Dogmatic Marxism tends to view Indians as a relic of precapitalist society. For the sake of "progress," they should enter the working-class as rapidly as possible. Assimilation is the only worthwhile goal. The Sandinistas gave concessions to this view and it cost them dearly.
Carlos Vilas is an Argentinean sociologist who has written many perceptive articles and books on the Sandinista revolution. In the paper "Revolutionary Change and Multi-Ethnic Regions," he characterizes the Sandinista attitude toward the Miskito:
"In colonial and neo-colonial situations there also appeared as a specific task the building of a nation-state which could express its popular sovereignty in the face of imperialism. It was not difficult, in this context, to view groups which were the product of precapitalist situations, or which had not been formed completely in accordance with the antagonistic polarization of the capitalist social structure, as the result and the symbol of backwardness; in any case, as *temporary* social formations which the inevitable process of social differentiation would convert either into the proletariat or into the bourgeoisie. To the extent that the project of revolutionary transformation blocked the possibility of a conversion into a bourgeoisie, there remained only the possibility of an evolution--slow perhaps, but sure--toward the proletariat. At the same time, the economic reductionism which took hold of a good part of Marxist thought in the 1920s and tinged its later development gave a privileged place to factors related to production in its characterization of social agents."
All this is rather a long-winded way of saying that the Miskitos did not fit into the Sandinista schema of a society composed of capitalists and workers. The clear implication was that Miskitos were some sort of dinosaur-like relic that modernization--either of a capitalist or socialist nature--would sweep away sooner or later, and the sooner the better.
This must have been the message they intended to project upon their arrival to the Atlantic Coast shortly after the overthrow of Somoza. They erected billboards everywhere that stated, "The Atlantic Coast: A giant awakens!" The Miskitos took one look at this and must have said among themselves, "I didn't realize we were asleep, did you?" Had the Sandinistas come to the Atlantic Coast to civilize the savages? This must have been the way it appeared.
The ethnocentrism of the Sandinista movement had deep roots. There were many members who had attended college and studied sociology and anthropology, but they were only studying the Mestizo worker and peasant, whose families they often belonged to. But what did they know of the Miskito, who subsisted on the basis of part-time wage labor and hunting wild boar, deer and armadillos? The Miskito spoke a different language, worshipped in Moravian not Catholic churches and, for all practical purposes, lived in a different country. Carlos Vilas suggests that at some deeper level, the jungles of the Atlantic Coast were as foreboding to the Sandinistas as they were to the original conquistadors. Sandinista guerrillas went through some kind of purification ceremony in Nicaragua's mountains where, as Omar Cabezas put it, there was a "great crucible in which the best cadres were forged." The jungle, on the other hand, was mysterious, unknown and treacherous.
Many supporters of the Sandinista cause, including myself, had very little understanding of the origins of the Miskito struggle. It seemed to appear overnight. All we knew is that there were some idealistic but inexperienced revolutionaries in Managua who had made some mistakes in places like Bluefields. These mistakes enraged the Miskitos, whom Ronald Reagan then manipulated into becoming contras. Unless we get past these clichés and begin to understand the true nature of Miskito concerns in 1980, we will never be able to understand one of the failures of the Sandinista revolution. There is every likelihood that socialists will once again face indigenous movements in places like Mexico or Guatemala either as friend or unnecessarily as foe. Studying the Sandinista-Miskito conflict without prejudice is a necessary first step in preventing misunderstandings in the future.
The best presentation of the Miskito case comes from Charles R. Hale, an American anthropologist who was a Sandinista supporter. The more time he spent with Miskito people, the more he came to realize that the government in Managua had misunderstood their legitimate demands. His book "Resistance and Contradiction: Miskito Indians and the Nicaraguan State, 1894-1987" is essential reading.
Hale explains that Miskito unrest had preceded the Sandinista victory. The same economic forces that precipitated the revolution against Somoza were shaking up the Atlantic Coast. Large-scale commercial exploitation of the land for cattle-ranching and cotton production caused displaced peasants to arrive in the cities with dim economic prospects. When the earthquake hit Managua, these prospects completely disappeared and armed struggle seemed like the only reasonable path.
These peasants also moved eastward, putting pressure on communally owned Miskito land. The UN and the Alliance for Progress sponsored some large-scale projects in partnership with Somoza that the Miskitos resented, including the construction of a deep-water port. The construction interfered with traditional fishing activities. The Miskitos faced challenges on all front.
But mostly the Miskitos felt left out of the economic development that was taking place all around them. The Somoza family had pumped millions of dollars into nearly 200 industrial fishing boats on the Atlantic Coast. Commercial fishing accounted for 4 percent of foreign currency earnings in 1977, but nothing substantial flowed into Miskito improvement. The "trickle down" theory was as false in Nicaragua as it was in Reagan's America. Capital to finance the expansion came from Cuban exiles in Miami and North American banks. All the stepped up economic activity was of no benefit to the Miskitos, who regarded the Spanish-speaking businessmen as little more than invaders. After the commercial fishers had taken the last lobster and shrimp out of the water, they would have gone on their merry way.
It is quite understandable that the Miskitos began to fight for their rights within the context of an indigenist political outlook. Marxism of the Sandinista variety either paid no attention to them at best, or viewed them with hostility.
There were two types of outside attempts to influence the Miskito grass-roots struggle. The first came from NGO's that had US sponsorship. This included USAID and the American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD). There is little doubt that these groups worked hard to foster anti-Communism among the Miskitos. When Cuban technicians showed up in Bluefields in 1980, the brainwashing had the desired effect. The other anti-Communist bulwark of Miskito society was the Moravian church, which encouraged docility.
Working against these institutions, with a goal of promoting political awareness, was the Catholic church, whose lower-level priests identified with liberation theology. They conducted educational programs among the Miskitos that challenged all forms of paternalism and exhorted them to improve the material conditions of their lives. They used biblical references to draw parallels between the "Miskito nation" and the tribes of Israel. These pedagogical techniques were the same that radical priests used to inspire peasant militancy in Nicaragua, Guatemala and El Salvador. Now the same sorts of priests were preaching to the Atlantic Coast Indians.
This ferment led to the formation of ALPROMISU in 1974, a Miskito rights organization. Lina Spark was the first president of the group. She announced the aims:
"Pawanka [a verb or noun meaning develop] was our goal...We pressured the government to provide scholarships for our children. With more education they could become nurses, doctors...We pushed for all kinds of projects...We wanted to build a market in Waspam...the Miskitos exchanged a few pounds of beans for salt, clothing, etc. How could they progress in that way? The merchants profited and left the Miskito empty-handed, impoverished. Those merchants were real exploiters...Our living conditions were dismal...when you look at the coast, you see Spaniards or Creoles whose pawanka is much better. Why can't the Miskito have the same pawanka? After all, the riches of the Coast belong to the Miskito, but when you go to the Coast, there's nothing. Only the Pacific seems to benefit from our gold and all the rest. We want to get some of those riches back, so we can educate our kids. Education was the key to everything."
Other leaders of ALPROMISU were Steadman Fagoth and Brooklyn Rivera, who became leaders of armed anti-Sandinista groups. ALPROMISU eventually became MISURATA, which was initially sympathetic to the Sandinista revolution. It was an official body on the national legislature in 1980. The Sandinistas promised substantial aid to the Atlantic Coast and the Miskitos seemed open at first to working with them.
So what went wrong?
Flaws in the Sandinista theoretical understanding of Indian rights would naturally lead to mistakes on the practical level. And such mistakes did take place from the very beginning. They were a function of the belief that the Miskitos were a "lesser" people. In an atmosphere of distrust, it is possible for flare-ups to turn into major conflagrations. This is what happened in 1980 when a violent confrontation in a Moravian Church led to casualties on both sides. In a matter of days, the Miskitos began their guerrilla war. When the Sandinistas decided to resettle the Miskitos away from the combat, an army spokesman revealed the sort of prejudice that had heightened tensions initially:
"The life of a Miskito family can be summarized in the following manner: they build a house out of bamboo, with a palm roof, and no walls or floor...At daybreak they get into the dugout canoe with their wife, child, and dog, and head upriver. They fish, or hunt a bird, eat, then in the afternoon they return home again."
The strong implication was that resettlement could make better citizens out of the Miskito. Such prejudices were at the heart of the war against the North American Indian and the attempt to "civilize" them on reservations.
The Miskitos unfortunately made the mistake of believing that the enemy of their enemy was a friend. Linking up with the CIA undercut their cause and lost them friends internationally. After all, the CIA was the professional killing-machine of US capitalism, whose genocide against the American Indian should have been common knowledge to the MISURATA leaders.
The biggest problem, however, is that the Miskito leaders saw political conflict in terms of indigenous values versus non-indigenous. For example, their manifesto states:
"We declare that, as national indigenous peoples, we have a system of land use based on social, not individual factors, in profound agreement with all the Biblical teachings in the Old and New Testament on the possession and use of the land. Thus the possibility is eradicated of the domination of some people over others based on the individual exploitation of the means of production.
"All production, fruits of labor or the use of natural resources (the entire economy) is based on the subsistence needs of the people, not on profit. We produce in order to live and we do not work for profit, thus living in a subsistence economy (not a get-rich one)."
This is an inadequate guide to survival in a world run by capitalists, however. Capitalism is much more powerful than indigenous peoples. The coal, oil and uranium companies have the money and the guns to take advantage of any tribe. The real distinction is not between "social" and "individual." It is rather between capitalist and socialist. There is every evidence that capitalist inequality can appear even among members of the same tribe. American corporations have no compunction against making some Indians millionaires as long as they defend their interests in mineral-rich ancestral lands.
The only hope for the Miskitos would have been to work for their demands as allies of the Sandinista government. This is how things turned out eventually as the Sandinistas realized their mistakes. The Sandinistas established an autonomy commission, which produced an ambitious program of self-government for the Miskitos. After two years of senseless fighting, peace came to the poverty-stricken nations. If the Sandinistas had come to terms with the Miskito challenge before they had taken power, the could have saved themselves two painful years.
Tomas Borge was in charge of the negotiations with the Miskitos and said the following at their successful conclusion:
"We are capable of demonstrating to the world that we are capable of overcoming our own mistakes...that we have the modesty to enrich our knowledge of reality. Practice has shown us that it is scientifically incorrect to reduce social reality to class distinctions...We therefore recognize that...ethnic diversity is among the moving forces of the revolution."
Ren
Smoke, mirrors and rationalization for a crime against a genuine indigenous people. Borge and Ortega should have faced a Nuremberg style trial for their crimes.
Meanwhile the left rationalized and lied about the Sandanista crimes. Even as recently as last week Rev Wright goofed and claimed it was the Contras that butchered the Indians. Sorry but the Indians themselves were called the Southern
Contras. The butchery was carried out with Soviet Helicopters Eastern European and Palestinian mercenaries.
Even after these facts are widely known the left still does not hold anyone accountable for these crimes. Just what were these mercenaries doing other than butchery. While the butchery was going on the left held cocktail parties for the butchers.
Beak doing his work of distracting attention from the crimes of US imperialism by pointing at the mote in the other fellows eye.
Ortega is so hated, trhey elected him president.
Beak: Smoke, mirrors and rationalization for a crime against a genuine indigenous people. Borge and Ortega should have faced a Nuremberg style trial for their crimes.
That is your way of saying don't comfuse me with the facts.
Analyze what Proyect said. I want to see your counterpoint. All you are capable of is rhetoric.
Beak's ignorance is really something else. The Sandinista Party is a member of the social democratic international - along with the French SP, the Swedish SD, the Labour Party, the German Social Democratic Party etc. What a scary group they are! (That's irony Beak - I know you Gringos are weak when it comes to irony.) Not are you ignorant, you are also nothing but a wuss, Beak, only a pussy-wussy, pants-wetter would ever be frightened of a social democrat. That is your problem little man, you are afraid. You think therm big bad commies gonna get poor little Beaky weaky. Better not leave your Mommies basement!
Gambone
You are an ignoranus. You have wasted your life on stupidity.The subject of this post is not US imperialism. Then when you veer off subject and I respond Commies cry about being off topic.Funny being off topic is never a problem when Neonazis Joobait or preach the Communist sanctioned Protocols of the Elders of Zion 2.0
on Pinko blogs.
Commies cry when they change the subject and then I kick their ass.
Go run to Graeme Striecher and cry because I hurt your feelings.
You have wasted your life so now prepare for a wasted afterlife, fool.
Ren
I see rationalizations of genocide once again from commies. I would not accept similar idiocy said about the antics of Custer. Moreover, commie historians would correctly brand such idiocy as racist.
Now we are going to measure criminality by polls. Hitler was very popular, what does this have to do with his crimes against humanity. Communist criminal Mugabe
got a few votes and fixed some more
what does that have to do with his crimes?
You are once again rationalizing genocide. Even Ward Churchill and Russel Means took up arms.The reaction of Commies to both shows that dead Indians are less important than Marxist hegemony.
All of this time, you never stated what you disagree with about Troutsky's post, Larry or my comments.
You can't because you have no argument.
Ren
More lies and smoke and mirrors. You
have rationalized Red Genocide, again. Just as the defining event of the Nazis is the Holocaust, the defining event of the Sandinazis is the genocide of Indians.
There are no excuses.
This is akin to Graeme Striecher
lecturing Junglemom about people she lived with. Communism is a cult
and all crimes including genocide
are okay to advance the cult.
There is no excuse for genocide.
Ortega and Borge should be tried
for their crimes at the Hauge.
Beak's got the john birch society blues
Troutsky: If Beak doesn't respond to what is written, your post, the Louis Proyect essay, he should be kicked off this blog.
He hasn't provided one sentence of proof of his accusations.
He is disgracing this blog, by acting too superior to respond.
Ren
The Black Book of Communism details
the genocide of Indians by the Sandanazis. Rather than admit a well known crime you offer rationalizations.
There is no rationalization for ethnocide and genocide. Moreover, even Ward Churchill and Russel Means took up arms against the Sandinazis.
There is no excuse for butchery or rationalizations of it.
Graeme is in Julius Striecher mode again. Obviously he record of arrogantly telling us about the sanitary practices of Venezuelan Indians must have been learned between bong hits. How is it that
a low grade drugged out elitist racist knows more about Venezuelan indians than a woman who dedicated years of her life to serving that community.
Graeme Striecher's next post will be "All I ever learned about life
came from Cheech and Chong Films and Beavis and Butthead Reruns. He will probably be running around saying "I am Marxholio.... I want Manifesto for my Bunghole."
Lastly the Senile Gambone
The topic is not the USA. The topic
is the Sandinazis and it is a great example of how commies piss on genuine indigenous people while venerating contrived ones.
Sorry but if you amatuer Zinnotards
want to hold up American history under a microscope than the record of Commie butchery of Indians in recent history deserves similar scrutiny. There is no rationalization for butchery of Indians.
Graeme Striecher "Missionaries are the worst people in the world because they tell people how to think".
This is amusing coming from a person who rationalizes placing people on collectives at gun point
and genocide. There is no excuse for this idiocy. Rationalization of these abuses is seriously on a par with Holocaust denial. Those who want to critique US history circa 1880 can not rationalize the same crimes in 1980.
Beakerkin: You need to repond to:
1) Troutsky's post attacks Ortega? Agree.
2) My first comment explained that the Sandinistas never were a communist movement.
Two writers of The Black Book of Communism, disassociated themselves from the book, due to the main author trying to make points, at the expense of scholarship. One thing wrong, was calling countries communist, that didn't fit under the books definition.
I was reading about Ward Churchill from left to right. What a story:
1) He was a propogandist for the US Army during the Vietnam War, called an information officer.
2) He has no indigenous family line. A complete fraud.
3) He worked with South Dakota police, against the American Indian Movement. He was some kind of advisor.
4) He and Russell Means were at CIA Headquarters, before going to Nicaragua.
5) Some in the antiwar movement believe his 9/11 statements were designed to make the antiwar movement look bad.
6) David Horowitz backed him against firing.
7) He wqas expelled from AIM.
8) He was a writer for Soldier of Fortune Magazine.
Russell Means
1) Is a liquor distributer to Native Americans,
2) He is a Republican.
Churchill and Means are mercenaries.
According to Revista Envio: Regarding the Miskito Indians, a number of organizations such as Americas Watch and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights have debunked the Reagan administration charges. The Inter-American Commission, after a thorough investigation in May 1984, found one incident in which a group of Miskitos was killed by Sandinista forces (the 1981 Leimus case; Americas Watch found another, in 1982, involving seven deaths, and noted that both cases occurred in war zones and there was no evidence that the central government directed or condoned them). Americas Watch further noted that the 1982 evacuations from the Río Coco to which Reagan was referring "were not aimed at the Miskito culture or people as a whole; in fact some 10% of the Miskito population was affected, and the policy was clearly prompted by military considerations." (They have since returned.) It added that both the Inter-American Commission and the Nicaraguan Bishops Conference have recognized the necessity of the 1982 evacuation from the Río Coco. Americas Watch went on to report that "since 1982 we are aware of one Miskito disappearance." Human rights organizations have also praised the government for its autonomy project for the Atlantic Coast and its dialogue with Miskito rebel leaders, a dialogue the US government is trying to sabotage.
Thanks for the research Ren, little of which I knew existed. Beak serves a valuable purpose on this blog.
Wiser, Chalmers Johnson does some important work but seems to argue for constitutional reform within a market framework, social democratic in other words. I think the market is the empire.
Ren
Here we go again with more lies. Horowitz has never advocated firing people for political views expressed
outside of the classroom. His reforms are aimed at a warped hiring process and abuse of the class room for political activism.
Ward Churchill was not an information officer in Vietnam. His stint involved driving and repairing trucks.
Soldier of Fortune is a far more respectable than Counterpunch. It had first hand reports of Communist
butchery from Afghanistan, Nicargua
and Mymar. It is widely read in the intelligence community. Moreover, unlike Noam Chomsky its writers report from the front lines. The association with SOF was the highlight of a mediocre career.
Ren leaves out the mercenaries who carried out the slaughter of Indians. What were the mercenaries doing in Nicaragua in the first place. The CIA assisted Indians against butchery that Ren and Graeme Striecher still rationalize.
The butchery of Indians defines the Sandinazis. Moreover, continued rationalization of genocide is seriously akin to Holocaust denial.
The legacy of the Sandinistas, is that they were discouraged by the Russians and Cubans from taking the revolution farther.
Post a Comment
<< Home