Ivonne Acosta's *La Mordaza* and other careless readings by a statehooder
Peter Miller
bfac...@icepr.com wrote:
>*La Mordaza* was a ground breaking book in PR. As Dr. Acosta says in her
>Prologue, "The history that I will reconstruct was forgotten, even though
>it is very important, maybe because it is too painful." The book
>describedsthe Decade of the Gag Laws in Puerto Rico, uncovering documents
>that had been classified as "secret" for more than 30 years in the US
>National Archives. It is careful, methodical and enlightening. Dr.
>Acosta now directs the History Section of the Ateneo Puertorriqueño in
>great measure, I think, because of the contribution her book made to the
>clarification of our past.
And because the Ateneo is another one of those institutions that
is controlled by the independentista pseudo-intellectual elite.
As for her book, it's just the publication of her master thesis,
and as such, is a hard read, boring even. She's at her strongest
when she's footnoting newspaper articles of the period (they make
up the bulk of her footnotes) when she's at her weakest is when
she goes into "big picture" explanations.
BTW, Blanca isn't talking about her personal connection to
Acosta, neither does she mention Acosta's connection to J.M.
Passalacqua.
Miller criticizes that Dr. Acosta "footnotes to the hilt." Of
course she
>does...and so does any serious historical writer breaking new ground must
>do in order to be believed. She doesn't write to entertain, much less to
>confuse. If you are not prepared to examine her work carefully, better
>not attempt to read it. Miller calls it "a biased tract, set out to
>point out a particular point of view and then, of course, backed up by
>all these facts." I'm amazed at this naive admission of ignorance
>regarding historical research, historical publications, and the rules of
>historical evidence.
Don't be amazed. What happened was that by mistake I didn't put
the word facts in quotation marks. Thus, instead of an
acceptance that her writing is backed up, what I'm actually
saying is that she culled the sources and put in what agreed with
her story and omitted what didn't. For example, she gives the
distinct impression that around 1948, independentistas were being
persecuted (not just nazionalistas, Blanca) right and left. She
paints a picture of a nervous and afraid Munoz (this after his
monstrous electoral sweep of 1944). Yet she doesn't mention that
the PIP turned out to be the party that finished in 2nd place,
getting well over 20% of the vote (which they have yet to match
since; maybe they need to be persecuted in order to get people to
vote for them) To me, to neglect to mention the performance of
the PIP in a work that goes into one of the seminal events in PR
history, is a tremendous transgression.
>What Miller accusses Sr. Acosta of doing is what
>*all* serious historians do: present the product and conclusions >of their research, providing readers with references to the docum=
ents and other
>original sources that were utilized to construct their historical
>narration. I assume that, had Dr. Acosta *not* written footnotes, the
>Miller would accuse her of not providing evidence for her findings. Palo
>si boga y palo si no boga.
You accuse me of careless reading, but why don't you mention that
I told you that I understood why she used all those footnotes?
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
>All because Miller can't accept that
>independentistas *were* persecuted in Puerto Rico until very recently.
>Dr. Acosta not just "gives the impression that the independentista
>movement was being supressed." She demonstrates it.
With the PIP finishing in 2nd place in 48 and 52? I think not. I
want you to notice that at this juncture, you are talking about
ALL independentistas, later on, when it suits your purposes, you
start making distinctions...
Besides, you challenged me to disprove that "independentistas"
were not persecuted from 1935 on. I gave you my reasons. How
about providing the law that criminalized being an
independentista in 1935? You're pretty good about challenging
other's, now it's your turn.
>Now, Miller errs again when he identifies *independentistas* with
>*nacionalistas*. A matter of being careless with words, again and maybe
>ignorance about the history of our political parties.
So far, that's exactly what you've been doing all along Blanca
>In Dr. Acosta's book, *independentistas* were members of the PIP >and *nacionalistas* members of the Puerto Rico Nationalist >Party=
Both have been persecuted
>in Puerto Rico, of course, but because nacionalistas defended >armed struggle as a legitimate mechanism for decolonization, the >re=
pression they faced was harsher. The PIP was founded in the >late 1940's. The Nationalist Party in 1922. Before PIP, most >indepen=
dentistas were affiliated to the Liberal Party (founded >in 1932) and, when expelled from it, together with Luis Munoz >Marin, by A=
ntonio R. Barcelo in 1937, they
>became members of the Popular Democratic Party. Only when Munoz declared
>that PPD members couldn't belong to the Congreso Pro Independencia (1945)
>did independentistas in the PPD move to create PIP.
So? All along you've been talking about "independentistas" being
persecuted and so forth. Now you hide behind Acosta's book to
make distinctions.
>Lacking this information, Miller misreads Dr. Acosta's arguments. Because
>PIP was the second largest party in 1952, he claims, the fact "severely
>damages the theory behind her book." Dr. Acosta concentrates her efforts
>on the persecution of members of the *Nationalist Party* and demonstrates
>it beyond any doubt.
Because the law was enacted to go after them. They were the ones
who were advocating violence, and their numbers were quite small.
Thus, this "large scale" persecution is reduced to the police
going after a reduced number of people who were advocating and
committing criminal acts. In the sense that the government went
after the nazionalists, she's accurate, in the sense that she
tries to portray this as some kind of big-time witch hunt she's
wrong.
>Her book only covers the decade of 1947 to 1957,
>when the Gag Laws were repealed. The contents of the book is not a
>theory, nor are theoretical the many documents she uncovered to
>demonstrate the degree of repression we suffered.
Nazionalists, I guess, could make this claim, since they were the
ones that accepted violence as a legitimate means of achieving
power and were stopped from doing so.
>Miller stresses the fact that La Mordaza "met constitutional muster at
>the time." Of course it did. I never said otherwise. It was the apogee
>of the Cold war era and of macarthysm! A similar law had been enacted in
>the US. Many abuses were committed, shielded by those laws, in the US
>and PR. Meeting constitutional muster may just mean that judges are not
>brave enough to defy the executive and legislative powers. It doesn't
>turn a bad law into a good one. And constitutions are amended when laws
>are found to be "bad": that's how the racist doctrine of "separate but
>equal" was finally repealed in the US.
I know that I'm going to digress but I can't help but noticing
how Blanca disapproves of the court going around and upholding
the law. Meanwhile, today, when the court also acts badly, and
the governor goes around it in a legal way, he's branded as a
dictator and so forth. This is the traditional independentista
manner of wanting their cake and eating it too.
>The only source provided by Peter Miller for his claims is that >of Don Arturo Morales Carrion's (very general) cultural and >poli=
tical history of PR. He obviously didn't read his own source >to get the facts of the 1930's straight.
And when presented with a source, of course it's not good enough.
Talk about "palo si boga, palo si no boga". As to reading my
"own source", what, did you expect me to go off to Lazaro
Cardenas and burn the midnight oil just to prove a point? The
fact is that Morales Carrion is correctly regarded as one of the
top, if not the top historians PR has ever produced. Of course,
his book doesn't jive with the political pamphlets that pass
themselves off as "scholarly tracts" these days, but it's
readable (he also has 3 other collaborators on it, so it is a
collective effort) has plenty of those footnotes Blanca loves and
is accurate.
>When I say we have been persecuted I never intend to
>mean that we don't participate. We are not cowards. Repression >never stopped us from being who we are. It just made many of us >mo=
re careful about what we did and who we told about it.
That's not true Blanca, you said that being an independentista
was criminalized from 1935 onward. This would imply that to
advocate independence would be met with a criminal accusation.
Why don't you just admit that you went over the top instead of
doing all this fancy footwork backtracking?
>The elections of 1952 had the largest non-participation percentages (retraimiento) we've had since 1950. It was the >fateful elect=
ion when our nation was asked to ratify
>ELA. It was held under fierce persecution and with thousands of
>independentistas and nacionalistas jailed. And still PIP >received more votes than the Partido Estadista Republicano.
Some repression, huh? And what about the one in 1948, when the
PIP was also the #2 party. Boy, what a cold shower the Mordaza
was, under it, the PIP obtained the best results its ever gotten.
>"Statehood is for the poor" was not yet a slogan: there were no >foodstamps then. But that is best
>left for another posting. I will adress the issue in the near future, for
>all who are interested. This posting is devoted to correct the
>misinformation spread by Miller regarding La Mordaza.
With more misinformation?
BTW, don't you think it's about time you let your readers know
that Acosta is married to Juanma and that she's a good friend of
yours? Don't you think that those facts are pertinent? Could
this perhaps explain the impassioned defense of her work that you
undertake?
Samuel Quirós
bfac...@icepr.com wrote in article <8681340...@dejanews.com>...
> As promised, this is the second part of my response to peter Miller's
> articles today.
>
> *La Mordaza* was a ground breaking book in PR. As Dr. Acosta says in her
> Prologue, "The history that I will reconstruct was forgotten, even though
> it is very important, maybe because it is too painful." [SNIP]
I have read your post with care, and I must admit this one is getting
interesting. Without wanting to interfere or seem to come out in defense
of Peter (as he is a big boy and needs no defense :), I do have to respond.
The history of the United States is filled with "painful" chapters -- from
the virtual elimination of the indians to the internment of
Japanese-Americans during World War II, radiation experiments, the McCarthy
years (yuck!), arms shipments to Iran, etc. etc. etc. Puerto Rico's
history is no different, and although I see the value of making sure
history is set straight, I disagree with using it to what amounts to
"whining" because the independentista movement has too few supporters in
1997.
The simple truth of the matter is that since 1952, when Puerto Ricans were
able to elect their government, that government laid the foundation for
what Puerto Rico is today. Whether we like or dislike Mu~noz Marin, he is
one of the key figures for shaping the Puerto Rico of today -- an him being
a pro-independence supporter prior to his "change of heart" can be
attributed to many things -- I submit to you he knew independence was not
possible at that time.
He may have had plans to push independence further down the road, and a
historical investigation may reveal or refute this, but the FACT of the
matter is that Mu~noz plunged Puerto Rico further and further into the
colonial status it suffers today. And Mu~noz was ELECTED year after year,
so we, the Puerto Rican people, bear the reponsibility for this.
Yes, of course, some may say we, as a voting people, are not sufficiently
educated in political affairs. Some may attribute Mu~noz success to "las
parcelas" and the many other social and economic programs that put food on
people's tables and clothes on people's backs. But isn't this what it is
all about? We can cry "patria" all we want, but we won't be doing that
long on an empty stomach. The mark of a true patriot is one who fights to
improve the conditions of his people, improving the standard of living,
defending the rights and priviliges under a democratic system, and ensuring
that ones family has a future. So in that regard, Mu~noz was a patriot, as
he moved Puerto Rico forward. We may disagree in the direction he headed
us, but we did indeed move forward.
Now, 40 or 50 years after that, we can continue to reminisce on the past or
look towards the future. Puerto Rico's colonial dilema is NOT THE SOLE
responsibility of the U.S. Congress. We, the Puerto Rican people, bear
much of the responsiblity. Whether it be because we chose to vote for the
PPD or for the ELA regardless of whether it was a good idea or not, or
whether we chose blue over red because we hated red, it is irrelevant. The
fact of the matter is that Puerto Rico has excersied its democratic right
since the 1950's, and in 1968 and again recently chose to REMAIN A COLONY.
Whether we knew that was what we were voting for or not. We could have
voted for independence (3.8% of the people did). Or, we could have voted
for Statehood (46% did). But 48% chose the ELA, and now that the ELA has
been exposed for the fraud it REALLY is, now we can focus on SOVEREIGNTY,
and on the END OF COLONIALISM. Whether its independence or statehood.
Statehood is looking pretty good these days, with strong support from the
people. Independence, on the other hand, looks weak. It is 1997, and it
is time to put up or shut up. This in not the 1950s, and there is no
mordaza law today. Independence supporters should start looking inward
into their own party (as some of them are already doing) and look for the
root cause of their poor performance over the last four elections (16
years). Or are we still going to continue to blame la mordaza and a
repressive federal government?
Sorry folks, but although I do not deny that at some point this may have
been true, we are on the verge of the 21st century, and from personal
experience I KNOW this is not true anymore. As long as you are a
tax-paying, law abiding citizen, you should not worry about being
persecuted. If you are planning a shooting spree in Congress or an
assasination attempt on the President, the Secret Service or the FBI WILL
have a word with you (or two). Otherwise, express yourself freely and
vote your consicence. The time for the final decision is coming very, very
soon.
The independence movement should start educating people on how they plan to
lead us into the 21st century, and in convincing us we can trust them with
our future. But a party that has had the same president for 27 years, does
not allow internal dissent (yes Maria Font had a right to a primary, and
the lack of money excuse was LAME), and has some of its leaders fail to
condemn violence as a political tool scares some people. It scares me.
And during the last elections, the poor turnout is proof that the PIP is
unable to garner the support necessary to mount a credible and effective
campaign.
As a statehooder, I should be happy. However, as a Puerto Rican, I am
saddened by this. I honestly hope they can do better.
Saludos!
Samuel
R. Lopez-Aleman
Samuel Quirós <jiba...@puertorico51.org> wrote in article
<5psdmh$9rf$1...@news10.gte.net>...
> Statehood is looking pretty good these days, with strong support from the
> people. Independence, on the other hand, looks weak. It is 1997, and it
> is time to put up or shut up. This in not the 1950s, and there is no
> mordaza law today. Independence supporters should start looking inward
> into their own party (as some of them are already doing) and look for the
> root cause of their poor performance over the last four elections (16
> years). Or are we still going to continue to blame la mordaza and a
> repressive federal government?
>
> Sorry folks, but although I do not deny that at some point this may have
> been true, we are on the verge of the 21st century, and from personal
> experience I KNOW this is not true anymore. As long as you are a
> tax-paying, law abiding citizen, you should not worry about being
> persecuted.
Para decir esto hay que ser bien ingenuo o bien maquiavelico.
Suponte que vives en el campo y tienes junto a la finca tuya, la finca de
un vecino trabajador. Contratas unos "matones", se meten en la casa,
amarran al campesino y su familia. Le dicen a todos sus clientes que le
compraban los productos que el se mudó y que ya no vende más, le sacan de
cuajo todas las cosechas y las queman, le echan veneno al suelo y le sacan
toda la tierra fértil para llenarle la finca de arena, tierra seca y
piedras. Lo hacen por 10 o 12 años y luego lo sueltan y se van. El pobre
campesino no tiene a quien quejarse pues tu tienes panas en los jueces y la
policia y no le hacen caso y botan todas las pistas del caso. Luego vienes
a los dos an~os, y lo ves fajandose por restaurse y casi muerto de hambre
él y su familia, y dices con cara de sinverguenza: "¿Lo ves? Eso es que
este tipo es un vago y no sabe administrar su finca como yo. Yo no lo
persigo ya ni le hago nada, y miralo como esta.Que clase de incompetente,
¿no?"
Ahora no nos persiguen. Pero ya el daño está hecho. Ya han regado su
veneno y la mayoría de la ciudadanía cree los embustes perpetuados por
décadas, y han elevado el miedo a la independencia a un nivel emocional que
no oye ni QUIERE OIR razones ni lógica. Ya el partido es chiquito y sin
recursos, y se le hace casi imposible conseguirlos para competir de tú a tú
con las campañas sucias y millonarias de los otros partidos.Ya los otros
partidos tienen el control de todos los empleados públicos y pueden usar
todos los recursos del gobierno y municipios para comprar adeptos y manejar
conciencias. Ya hay una dependencia crónica de los puertorriqueños en los
fondos federales que no les permite creer que puedan sobrevivir por el
fruto de su trabajo. Ah, pero ya "you should not worry about being
persecuted". Ya es borrón y cuenta nueva. El pasado no importa. ¡Sea la
Madre de los hipócritas, coño!
> The independence movement should start educating people on how they plan
to
> lead us into the 21st century, and in convincing us we can trust them
with
> our future. But a party that has had the same president for 27 years,
does
> not allow internal dissent (yes Maria Font had a right to a primary, and
> the lack of money excuse was LAME), and has some of its leaders fail to
> condemn violence as a political tool scares some people. It scares me.
> And during the last elections, the poor turnout is proof that the PIP is
> unable to garner the support necessary to mount a credible and effective
> campaign.
El PIP tiene que analizar errores y mejorar. No es que seamos
perfectos, pues nadie lo es. Pero ignorar la historia de abusos,
suciedades, trampas y persecución que hemos sufrido para ahora decir que
eso no importa y venir a estar ensuciando reputaciones de gente honesta,
inteligente, que no tienen ni un vestigio de la corrupción y el oportunismo
que es el pan nuestro de cada día en los partidos de mayoría es una
indignante hipocresía. Nosotros no pedimos reparaciones, no queremos la
pena de nadie. Pero lo único que tenemos es nuestra conciencia, nuestro
orgullo y nuestra honestidad, y no vamos a permitir que ningun embustero
hipócrita que apoya sin chistar a corruptos y pillos de otros partidos nos
venga a insultar con mentiras y calumnias.
A nosotros NO NOS IMPORTA QUE TENGAMOS el 4%. Es mas, para
nosotros es motivo de orgullo pues sabemos que nada más eso de estar con
vida es un milagro ante tanto abuso, tanto oportunismo, tanta compra de
conciencia y tanta mentira propagada por décadas. Y así seamos el 4%, el
3%, el 2% o aunque solo seamos 4 o 5 personas sobre la faz de la Tierra que
creamos que la libertad, la justicia y la patria puertorriqueña merecen que
se luche por ellas, seguiremos habiendo independentistas. Nunca nos vamos a
rendir, ni vamos a dejar de llevar el mensaje, ni nos van a callar, ni nos
vamos a desanimar. Porque queremos a Puerto Rico y estamos seguros de que
la Independencia es lo mejor y lo mas justo, porque la historia nos dará la
razón y triunfaremos eventualmente, y porque los principios ni se venden ni
se claudican. Así tome mil años y nunca lo veamos, seguiremos trabajando
por la libertad y NUNCA pararemos. Para que nuestros hijos puedan ver en
nuestra vida un ejemplo de verticalidad y coraje. Para que puedan decir :"
Papi fué de los que cuando las cosas eran díficiles se fajó con el 4% para
legarnos una patria libre..." ¡¡He dicho!!
--
***********************************************************
Ramon Lopez-Aleman lo...@phys.psu.edu
Dept. of Physics Penn State University
Homepage: http://www.phys.psu.edu/~lopez
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not
simpler." - Albert Einstein
***********************************************************
RZayas1143
Based on what I see here, Acosta's premises are flawed,biased and/or
incomplete, consequently so are her conclusions. I tend to agree with
Miller.
Marcos Mercado
Suena la tumba ,la tumba moderna . . .
RZayas1143 <rzaya...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19970719225...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> Based on what I see here, Acosta's premises are flawed,biased and/or
> incomplete, consequently so are her conclusions. I tend to agree with
> Miller.
>
To tend is like to "creer" . "Las que creen son las gallinas". Take a
stand.
Be them flawed , biased and incomplete , so is most of the so called truth
spit to us by the powers that be , and yet , life goes on . To all those
who struggled and suffered through the hostile political and ideological
persecution from la Mordaza , it was as real as the enter key on your panel
Just the facts , man .
Si no conoce ,no critique :investigue . Defiendase!
RZayas1143
Frankly Mr. Mercado, I'm not responsible for you assumptions and you can
''creer'' whatever you like. When I say tend, I'm giving Acosta the
benefit of the doubt. Let's hear from her.
bfac...@icepr.com
Blanca Facundo-Santiago responds:
I had the honor of reading several drafts of La Mordaza before it was
published. I have the good fortune of having been Ivonne Acosta's friend
and colleague in several profesional endeavors for more than two decades
now.
As a reader-editor I am the *cruelest* most obnoxious person any writer
has the misfortune of asking to read a manuscript. As we call it in my
small circle of beloved friends, we practice "la ternura cruel." No one
will *ever* say to Acosta worse things than those I told her before her
manuscript was ready for publication. That's what scholarly friends are
for, in our group.
As a book, *La Mordaza* now stands tall and proud before *any* possible
SERIOUS cricitism. The author was careful enough to give it to scholars
of all political preferences to read and criticize, then she laboriously
checked her sources again, added others, etc.
What the book says isn't pleasant. It's painful. It provokes shame in all
who collaborated, for electoral purposes and cowardly self defense, in
making the gag laws a reality in Puerto Rico.
Statehooders can rant and rave. After all, knowing that *their* USA
behaved in violation of those principles their nation says it holds true
is a tough one to swallow. But it happened.
Whoever is in doubt, get a copy of the book and read it. Make sure you
also read all the footnotes that Acosta so responsibly provided. That is,
unless, like a statehooder once implied here, you think footnotes are a
bore and a waste of time.
Ms. Acosta doesn't visit the Internet, but I am printing everything
published here about her book, and will make sure she receives it. If you
would like further contact with her to clarify doubts, send her, to my
care, your questions, with a real mail address/phone where she can reach
you. I am sure she will oblige.
Blanca
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
Peter Miller
bfac...@icepr.com wrote:
>I had the honor of reading several drafts of La Mordaza before it was
>published. I have the good fortune of having been Ivonne Acosta's friend
>and colleague in several profesional endeavors for more than two decades
>now.
That's what I like to see, full and total disclosures. BTW, you
might remind her hubby to do the same. He plugged her book in
his column today, without once telling the readers that the book
he was urging people to read was written by his wife.
>As a reader-editor I am the *cruelest* most obnoxious person any >writer has the misfortune of asking to read a manuscript.
And of anybody who posts in the internet something you don't
like, hahahahahhahahaha....
>As a book, *La Mordaza* now stands tall and proud before *any* possible
>SERIOUS cricitism. The author was careful enough to give it to scholars
>of all political preferences to read and criticize, then she laboriously
>checked her sources again, added others, etc.
OK, name some PPD people she gave it to beforehand...
I bet Trias wasn't one of them...
>What the book says isn't pleasant. It's painful. It provokes shame in all
>who collaborated, for electoral purposes and cowardly self defense, in
>making the gag laws a reality in Puerto Rico.
Really? Last year the University of Puerto Rico Law School
dedicated an issue of the Law Review to Dr. Jose Trias Monge. He
sure didn't look ashamed to me. In fact, there he
was,pontificating about the importance of having judges who will
knock down inconstitutional laws. So there you have it, the
first Puerto Rican honored with a book dedication by our premier
law school happens to be the architect of "La Mordaza". They
even brought Cuchin out so he could mention what a great guy
Trias was. Didn't look even slightly embarrassed to me..
>Statehooders can rant and rave. After all, knowing that *their* USA
>behaved in violation of those principles their nation says it holds true
>is a tough one to swallow. But it happened.
Check out Sam's riposte...
BTW, don't give the impression that "La Mordaza" was a
statehooder contraption. It was a total PPD creation, in fact,
as Acosta points out in her book, statehooders opposed its
passing. This is why I find this particular argument so amusing,
after all, both statehooders and independentistas opposed La
Mordaza. I just don't think it had the effect she claims it did
(remember, you're the one who says that we don't know what the
people of PR think, so then how do we know for sure that the
independentista vote withered on the vine due to La Mordaza) and
she doesn't go into that much detail about the
terroristic/patriotic (take your pick) acts of the Nationalists
at precisely that time period. Sure the USA was involved, this
was the time of McCarthyism. So what? That was then, this is
now.
Were injustices committed? Sure, let's make sure they don't
happen again. But let's move on to the future...
>Whoever is in doubt, get a copy of the book and read it. Make >sure you also read all the footnotes that Acosta so responsibly >pro=
vided. That is,
>unless, like a statehooder once implied here, you think footnotes are a
>bore and a waste of time.
Once again, taking my words and reaching a totally erroneous
conclusion. All I meant is that personally I prefer to have the
footnotes at the end of the page rather than in an index at the
end of the book, that way you can scan down and read them. The
other way, you have to go to the back of the book and then go to
the front again. It's just a matter of reading preference. You
gave it the wrong spin. But I did read every darn footnote, most
of them were idems, anyway.
>Ms. Acosta doesn't visit the Internet, but I am printing >everything published here about her book, and will make sure she >receive=
s it. If you would like further contact with her to >clarify doubts, send her, to my care, your questions, with a >real mail address=
/phone where she can reach
>you. I am sure she will oblige.
You could have just said that she can be reached at El Ateneo
Puertorriqueño. Isn't she like the Historian there?