Talk:Subcomandante Marcos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Contents 1 Rage Against the Machine 2 Ethnicity 3 Ethnicity - Birthdate - Rewrite 4 Historical Resemblances 5 Article needs balance 6 Name change 7 1994 uprising and 1995 arrest orders 8 Missing reference 9 Parse the grammar? 10 Quote

[edit] Rage Against the Machine

I removed the reference to Rage Against the Machine in the =Background= section. It really has nothing to do with Marcos' background. Perhaps it should be included in a section about "Marcos in Popular Culture." As it was in the background it only added confusion as to whether the subject of a sentence was Marcos or de la Rocha. User:Editoro 10 May 2006 7:26 GMT

[edit] Ethnicity

I read a while ago that Marcos was falling back in favour of other Zapatista leaders, as his ethnicity (reportedly largely european) was on contrast to the largely indigenous ethnic makeup of the majority of Zapatistas and Chiapans in general. If this is the case (or if there's some reasonable chitchat to that effect) then I think this would make a decent improvement to the article. Comments? -- Finlay McWalter 19:29, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If Marcos was born 1964, how was he radicalized in 1968? As a 4-year old? If you tell about his student times it would be interesting to know his real name, because as far as I know Marcos is his nom de guerre. User: Klas Heising, 22 jun 2004

[edit] Ethnicity - Birthdate - Rewrite

Marcos is clearly white (or rather mestizo), but I'd be very surprised if this were a problem with other Zapatistas all of a sudden, after they've worked with him for twenty years. People I know who've actually been to Chiapas (in human rights observation camps etc.) have told me that the indigenous population (i.e. those who are Zapatistas or at least sympathizers) absolutely worship Marcos - and I don't think this would've changed so rapidly.

As to the question about a four-year-old being radicalized in 1968: Guillén was born in 1957, not in 1964 (at this point, neither date is in the article). That makes him an eleven-year-old in 1968 - still somewhat young to undergo a major political formation... I suggest that the whole 1968 thing be deleted until proven.

Speaking of this: I intend to do a major rewrite of this article myself, including e.g. some interesting new stuff about Guillén (I personally absolutely do believe he's Marcos), as my first (!) contribution to Wikipedia. - User:DownTown

He was't radicalized in 1968. It is common for Mexican "Revolutionists" alining themselves with popular ideas like the 1968 protests, or "our brother" Che Guevarra, etc. It is all a part of "How to be a popular revolutionary 101." It has nothing to do with reality.

If you do do a re-write, then please include a piece that expresess the the fact that most Mexicans don't veiw Marcos as a Hero in any context. The Zapatistas are feared in the mountains of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas and other small idigenous comunities. Unlike Marcos, the Zapatistas are armed very poor uneducated people. Killings, maimings, robbings are realities in the forgoton small towns. Chiapas in particular has seen tremendous violence in the name of the Zapatistas. I find the original article hard to read because there is no reference to the bad side of what Marcos represents.

Cites, please, not random speculation. There doesn't look to be much fear of the Zapatistas in Oaxaca at the moment, quite the opposite. There's a lot of propaganda thrown in the face of the EZLN, but if you want to write a piece on criticism and negativity, provide reliable citations. I'm not doubting there are some who abuse their position, but it's by no means clear that this is widespread and not black propaganda by the many powers in Mexico who dispise them. Donnacha 00:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Resemblances

Marcos? Zorro? Comments?

Marcos styles himself after Zorro? SqueakBox 19:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

looks more like he bought his clothe at the local terrorists R us store. Zorro is not exactly a figure that mexicans look up to in mexico, particulary is not a political figure.

I disagree with the anonymous comment here. Whether or not it is intentional, there are certainly parallels between Marcos and Zorro. I've been studying Zapatismo in Hispanic Studies; I'll go through my papers and cite some sources when it isn't so late. In the meantime, I'll mention that Marcos, at one point, encouraged EZLN sympathizers to don ski masks and call themselves Marcos; in his discourse and writings he seems to view "Marcos" as something other than a specific person, such as himself. This reminded me of the scene in The Mask of Zorro (a shaky source, to be sure, and possibly itself inspired by Spartacus) in which all of the prisoners began claiming "I am Zorro!" That movie also had Antonio Banderas assuming the role of Zorro once lived by Anthony Hopkins' character, implying that the "idea" of Zorro transcends any one person. It's something to think about, but, at least until we have sources, wouldn't do well in the article. --BDD 06:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

• • • It's an interesting point, and early in the campaign Marcos certainly did say that if anything happened to him, someone else could step into the role. It might be worth a couple of sentences about "Marcos" as a role rather than a single person. Of course, with a character as strong as Marcos has, that's not a realistic possibility, but it was an interesting idea. bikeable (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The quote at the bottom of the page is Marcos' self-description and would be good as a quote in any such piece. Donnacha 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs balance

Subcomandante Marcos is a well known and controversial international figure, his ideas and actions are heavily reported and followed by many. This is true not just in his own community, but globally. I think the article should include some criticism or at least a larger group of opinions on him, his political philosophy and his actions. The article right now is very sympathetic, regardless of your opinion of Subcomandante Marcos, the article needs balance. Arm

The article is not sympathetic as you say, it is just a simple description of few facts. How criticism will make it neutral?--tequendamia 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, just because half the page isn't devoted to foaming right wing bile doesn't mean it's imbalanced, it's just a short bio.

If you think he needs to be criticised then put it up, find some sources that agree with you and add it to the article, don't just moan about it. --Horses In The Sky 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs balance. It really seems to cast Marcos as some sort of Mexican Hero. It is clear from the article why people would like him. But in the present state an uninformed reader wouldn't understand that most mexicans don't sympathize with with the Zapatista movement, or what Comandante Marcos would like to achieve. The article seems to have been written by someone who obviosly admires Marcos.

Please provide a cite that "most Mexican's don't sympathize with the Zapatista movement." They don't run in elections, there have been no polls that I know of. There is considerable grassroots support around the country for them (as shown by the Zapatour and the recent Delegate Zero tour). Donnacha 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I assume you are not from Mexico. Here in Mexico it is clear that most Mexicans do not sypathize with the Zapatista movement. That is why Mexico sent it's army to put down their uprising. While the Zapatistas do indeed have reasons to be upset, taken up arms is hardly going to be a popular solution. Who do you think they are pointing their guns at? Most Zapatistas are not smart philosophers seeking the national spotlight like Subcomandante Marcos. They are angy people with guns. The Christian church in particular have suffered extreem persecution in Chiapas at the hands of armed groups. The happening of the small towns in the mountains goes largely un noticed by the outside world. Maybe some reading this will find some good links on this subject. If you care to read a simple criticism you can find one here: http://www.aciprensa.com/notic1999/mayo/notic645.htm

I will keep looking.

I found at least one more: ii. Quote: "Zapatistas: Calling themselves the National Liberation Army, they espouse a "Join, leave the area, or die" philosophy." Site

And another worth reading: Quote: "Since the mid-nineties, however, public interest in the Zapatistas has waned considerably. Although the rebels continue in their cause, Mexicans appear to be more concerned about unemployment, social and economic problems, crime, and corruption than the demands for democracy and land reform. A poll conducted in Mexico just six months after the initial uprising revealed that Mexicans viewed automobile traffic as a greater issue facing the country than the Zapatista revolt. In fact, the Zapatista rebellion did not even make the top ten answers.

Journalist Joel Simon argues that the Zapatistas failed in garnering public attention throughout the late-nineties because they were not quite savvy enough to keep up with the rapid changes that popular culture demands." Site2

You're contradicting yourself, if popularity waned, then it must have existed in the first place. You're right, I'm not Mexican, but I have been interested in and following the events in Mexico since '94. You say "That is why Mexico sent it's army to put down their uprising" - so, are you really arguing that the PRI in 1994 represented the wishes of the people? Don't make me laugh. Donnacha 09:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You missread the quote. Mexico's interest waned. What existed at one point was a genuine interest in Marcos and the situation in Chiapas. That interest waned. But don't confuse interest with public support. Regardless, the fact remains that most Mexicans don't sympathize with Marcos, and the majority are really are not that interested in him anymore.

Understand, Marcos has a following. He is popular in certain circles. He makes for a good T-shirt in the same way that Che Guevarra does. He is in a way an anti-establishment symbol, and that is an easy sell for some of the youth, It just isn't with the great majority. The circles where Marcos finds Popularity are greatly outnumbered by the people who aren't interested, don't think much of him, or simply don't care. Even Lopez Obrador, who holds much more sway that Marcos ever came close to holding, isn't popular with most Mexicans. Obrador's 33% of the vote paled in comparison to the split conservative vote in mexico, which represented about 60%.

The Pri in '94 better represented Mexico's wishes than Commandante Marcos ever did. Most people just want things to run smoothly. An uprising will eventually become unpopular whether it is in Chiapas, the DF, Oaxaca, or any other part of the country. The general public just wants to get on with their lives.

[edit] Name change

Seeing as he is now known as Delegado Zero should the title of this article be changed to that? --Horses In The Sky 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

• I would say not -- he's been the Sup for a decade, and there's a link from Delegado Zero. Seems good enough for now. bikeable (talk)

There's an error. The line "He later moved to Mexico City where he graduated from the Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM), then received a masters' degree in philosophy at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and began work as a professor at the UAM." is wrong.

Marcos studied the Bachelor of Arts (or Science) on Philosophy at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). He won the "Gabino Barreda" award for being the top in his class. Then he got a couple of classes by working as a professor at the Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM).

[edit] 1994 uprising and 1995 arrest orders

The article currently lacks a detailed discussion of Marcos's role in the 1994 Chiapas Uprising, the 1995 arrest orders announced by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León and the related negotiations that took place several years later. These will be critical to explaining the strong adverse views of Marcos still in circulation. It is not clear whether the 1995 arrest orders have been quashed, but as of 2006 Marcos is able to circulate in Mexico.

Craig Bolon 06:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing reference

The article has no reference for this quote, just "in any interview...": "The only way to get their attention is to kill or be killed. If you ask us what's going to happen in the near future, we have no fucking idea. Sorry for using the word 'idea' We are ready to go to war or move on to peace" — MikeG (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parse the grammar?

This kind of came out of nowhere:

they have been unable to parse the grammar of labor unions.

I understand the reference since I have a computer science background myself, but the analogy is rather strained and certainly doesn't aid in understanding because so few readers will understand the reference. It comes across as quite pretentious, actually. --Saforrest 05:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quote

I think this should go into the introduction, but it's a bit long:

In a letter to the media in May, 1994, Marcos described himself as "a gay person in San Francisco, a black person in South Africa, an asian person in Europe, a chicano in San Isidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, an indigenous person in the streets of San Cristóbal, a gang-member in Neza, a rocker in the Ex-Soviet Union, a Jew in Germany, an ombudsman in Sedena, a feminist in a political party, a communist in the post-Cold War period, a prisoner in Cintalapa, a pacifist in Bosnia, a Mapuche in the Andes, a teacher in CNTE, an artist without a gallery or a portfolio, a housewife in any neighborhood in any city in any part of Mexico on a Saturday night, a guerilla in Mexico at the end of the twentieth century, a worker of the CTM on strike, a sexist in the feminist movement, a lone woman in a Metro station at 10pm, a retired person standing around in el Zócalo, a peasant without land, an underground editor, an unemployed worker, a non-conformist student, a dissident against neoliberalism, a writer without books or readers, and a Zapatista in southeastern Mexico. In other words, Marcos is a human being in this world. Marcos is every untolerated, oppressed, exploited minority that is resisting and saying, 'Enough already!' He is every minority who is now beginning to speak and every majority that must shut up and listen. He is every untolerated group searching for a way to speak, their way to speak. Everything that makes Power and the good consciences of those in power uncomfortable - this is Marcos." Letter from Subcomandante Marcos, May 28, 1994, retrieved 5 September, 2006

What do others think? Donnacha 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)