Tlatelolco: the Shame of a Nation

History 204F: FinalSilvia Medina

Tlatelolco: The Shame of a Nation

History books from all parts of the world are filled with endless pages on wars and violence. Some believe that violence is an innate human characteristic not a learned behavior. In societies it usually presents itself when there is a threat to the status quo. Because dominant groups do not simply hand over their power, some argue that violence is necessary to bring about change. Others argue that violence can be controlled and that changes can be made through nonviolent means. Two names that usually come to mind when one thinks of nonviolence are Mahatma K. Gandhi and Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Although the degree of their success might be debatable, no one can deny that both men successfully fought oppressive government systems through nonviolent active resistance.

We certainly live in a very different time now. Any given day of the week we turn on the evening news to stories on countries at war or torn by internal turmoil. One possibility is that perhaps it merely appears to be a more violent period because of our accessibility to the world. Globalization and the increased focus on technology make things, both good and bad, possible today that were unavailable before. With the threat of nuclear weapons and our seemingly endless advances in technology, one wonders if nonviolent resistance is even a viable option in today’s world. When considering images of violence from around the globe keep in mind that even Dr. King’s nonviolent struggle for Civil Rights often resulted in violence. Nonviolence does not necessarily mean no violence. To help us understand and further explore these ideas we examine the 1968 student movement in Mexico City which ended in a massacre.

Governments adopt hundreds of laws to prevent violence among its people and yetare the primary perpetrators themselves. Often, like in this case, against their own people. The Tlatelolco massacre and the events that lead up to it during the summer of 1968 in Mexico City illustrate the many different factors at play in such struggles. History can be complex and messy. Events cannot always be neatly organized into convenient categories. Each writer is reconstructing the past from their memory and at different points in time so accounts of the same event are often different. In this paper we discuss how the 1968 student movement led by the Consejo Nacional de Huelga fits into the context of nonviolence. We will also describe how the movement went from failure to success over time. Finally, we will explain why it is important to understand such events and consider the implications for the future of nonviolence. First, we discuss Tlatelolco and the student movement itself.

La Noche Triste (The Sad Night)

October 2, 1968 is a date that will live in infamy for the people of Mexico. On October 12 instead of celebrating the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games, Mexico City was in mourning and the rest of the nation in disbelief. More than 10,000 demonstrators congregated in La Plaza de Las Tres Culturas in the Tlatelolco region of the city on the evening of October 2nd. There was a heavy presence of military personnel--tanks and all--and police officers in full riot gear. At the end of the night hundreds lay dead and wounded. To this day, many questions remain. The exact body count remains unknown and countless others are still missing.

Government Response

That same night government officials issued a statement identifying a group of students as the agitators. The next morning, all major newspapers reported that the students had initiated the violence leaving police officers and military personnel no choice but to open fire in self defense. Officials added that the estimates given by other demonstrators as to the total number dead were grossly exaggerated. According to them casualties, although unfortunate, were minimal.

That was all the government said. Despite the endless number of eyewitness accounts telling a different version of events an investigation was never conducted. The official version was that student snipers positioned on the balconies of a very large apartment complex across from the plaza initiated the gunfire. It was the same building the leaders of the movement addressed the crowd from that evening. Due to the government’s response and lack of action, the date was burned into the memories of the Mexican people, but little else was known. And it remained that way for thirty years. In 1998 a number of events, which will be briefly discussed later, have since shed some light on that night. Among these is the declassification of many official FBI, CIA, and Pentagon documents that were made available to the public.

The 1968 Student Movement Begins

On July 22, 1968 a fight broke out between two students of rival campuses. The following day the conflict escalated to a group brawl. The director called the police and to his surprise the police dispatched an overwhelming number of granaderos (riot police), easily overpowering and putting a stop to the fight but not the abuse. When classes let out the granaderos did not distinguish between those involved in the fight and those walking out of class and began beating innocent students. Students were outraged. The event that triggered the movement occurred a few days later on July 26th. One of the main student groups at this time was the Federacion Nacional de Estudiantes Tecnicos (National Federation of Technical Students, FNET). It organized a peaceful demonstration to protest the police violence unleashed on students days before. Despite the legal and peaceful protest, there was a large police presence.

Coincidentally, a second student group was also holding a rally that day. This group was commemorating the start of the Cuban Revolution. While demonstrating, the two groups accidentally crossed paths. The two groups decided to march together to their final destination as a sign of solidarity against police abuse. The granaderos met the group with brutal force for no apparent reason. Initially, the police said it was to prevent gang violence—referring to the student fights from the days before. Although that might explain the police presence that day, it does not justify the actions they took and the events that played out the next several days.

The granaderos then made their way onto some of the campuses where they continued to wreak havoc. It was at this point that the military was called in. Since one of the student groups had Communist connections, officers not only beat the demonstrators but used this as an excuse to raid their offices and arrest its leaders. The military established a perimeter enclosing several of the smaller campuses and for several days the violence continued. Students trapped inside, many who were not involved in the demonstrations,attempted to defend themselves with rocks and sticks and by lighting buses on fire to form barricades. As time dragged on, some students became agitated and violent. They began to launch molotov cocktails. In the early morning hours of July 30thwith tank supportthe military forcefully took control of the campuses. In one instance a bazooka was used to get through the main doors. That same morning government officials including Luis Echeverria (succeeded Diaz Ordaz as President of Mexico), made an official statement claiming those responsible for the violence were Communist agitators “strangers to the students”wanting to discredit Mexico as the Olympics approached. Six students were said to have died during these days of violence. The government only recognized one and blamed his death on a brain hemorrhage suffered a year before.

Isolating these events makes it difficult to comprehend how a fight between two students could escalate into a massacre a few months later. In order to make sense of this we must consider the context at the time. There were both national and international events that help us better understand the actions and decisions made by not only the students but government officials as well. Although there was disagreement regarding the degree of influence the following factors played on the events of that summer, our sources all identified the seemingly unprovoked police violence of July 26th as the event that gave birth to the movement. The protesters intended to have peaceful demonstrations, but were met with police force. This violence helped bring the movement together and set the tone for that summer.

The International Scene

The 1960’s were a time like no other. A revolutionary spirit seemed to be present everywhere. There were four main influences that acted on the student conscious worldwide:

1. The Cold War – shift to technology
2. The Vietnam War – images of death and destruction; U.S no longer seen as unbeatable
3. War-torn Latin America – guerrilla warfare
4. Ideological debate – students studied everyone from Lenin, Mao, and Trotsky to Sweezy and Wright Mills to Weber, Kelsen and Heller

Many of the already established student organizations were Communist groups that publicly celebrated the Revolution in Cuba and leaders Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. War-torn Latin America and guerrilla warfare also weighed heavily on many students’ minds. The revolutionary spirit towards the end of the 1960s had at its center armed conflict. This led many to advance a theory of Communist conspiracy. They claimed that the student movement was receiving its orders directly from La Habana and would attempt to overthrow the Mexican government. The threat of Communism during the Cold War era had a huge impact on many world leaders and it definitely fogged the judgment of President Diaz Ordaz and Mexican officials. Despite the militant focus of activism spreading at the time, not everyone accepted armed conflict. 1968 was a busy year but Dr. King’s recent assassination in April was not forgotten. The highly visible protests against the Vietnam War were also very influential in promoting nonviolence.

The National Scene

A thriving economy and political stability of forty years are usually considered very positive for a country. However, the corrupt system that reigned Mexico under the PRI political party and whichits false image was based upon was soon to come crumbling down. The divide between rich and poor continued to grow. Frustration with working conditions and the class system continued to mount. President Diaz Ordaz headed the regime at the time. He was well aware of the dissatisfaction growing among the masses. After all, the government had recently suppressed strikes by doctors, railroad workers, and a number of other civil servants. The government appeared to have other priorities at the time. It was hosting the Olympic Games scheduled to commence on October 12, 1968. Hosting the Olympics is very important in the international community and can affect a nation in many ways.[1] President Diaz Ordaz was determined to show the world the progress and stability of his country. One of the President’s biggest anxieties was that Communist student groups would attempt to disrupt the Olympic Games and embarrass him in front of the world. This fear drove the President to make a number of unsound decisions. Among the classified documents released in 1998were two letters sent from President Diaz Ordaz to the FBI asking for riot gear and training of the Mexican military in handling riot situations. Several months later the second note expressed continued concern over student Communist organizations disrupting the Olympics and requested additional riot equipment. Two years later, 1970, Mexico’s economy would take a turn for the worse and the country would enter one of its worst political crises.

University students are generally known for their passion and activism. During this time political activism seemed almost contagious and Mexico’s students were no different. Perhaps the strongest evidence that the police violence the students were subjected to on July 26th was in fact the event that ignited the movement is that prior to the fights that broke out in late July, demonstrations were already taking place in Mexico City for a number of different reasons. The different student organizations would have never united had they not been beaten. Among the FBI documents released in 1998 was a memo from an official stationed in Mexico City during the time of the movement. In it he explains that although students were demonstrating, they did not pose a threat to the government or the stability of the nation the way the French student protests were doing at the time. He went on to say that the Mexican government had a system in place that would not allow that to happen. To elaborate, student protests were not uncommon, but students never seemed to push the limits. To be successful under a one party system that had ruled the country for forty years and where a large percentage of university graduates enter the workforce as government employees, it was not a very wise idea to aggravate the future bosses. Furthermore, up until then, student protests had focused on university policies and academic matters never the government itself. This was about to change.

Students Organize

Students everywhere were shocked and appalled by the events unfolding before them. Once the military took control on the 30th, students from schools other than the four involved, turned to their respective campus for information and to confirm the most recent developments. Students exchanged opinions and began to plan their actions. At the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), the rector Javier Barros Sierra lowered the Mexican flag to half-mast and publicly denounced the military’s actions. Sierra expressed his outrage and explained the critical importance of maintaining university autonomy. He lent all of his support to the students and advised that they act with intelligence and energy. With his help, students called for an orientation meeting to take place the following day to plan the August 1st demonstration. On the 31st a significant step was taken when leaders from their hated rival the Instituto Politecnico Nacional (IPN) requested Sierra’s permission to participate in the march. Collaboration between these universities was previously nonexistent and unimaginable. It gave the movement a strong base and helped discredit the media’s negative portrayal of them. The demonstration had a high turnout and was considered a success. It managed to draw enough attention to significantly reduce the repressive actions continued to be carried out by the police and military officers occupying the city. The next protest was scheduled for August 5th. Despite several attempts to coordinate with many of the other campuses, the movement was still very disorganized and fragmented without a cohesive voice.

Consejo Nacional de Huelga (National Strike Council, CNH)

The students recognized that their failure to coordinate resulted in demands that lacked uniformity and would fail to produce government action. They understood that the next major step necessary to establish legitimacy was the creation ofa visible organization to head the movement. On August 5th the plans to form the Consejo Nacional de Huelga (CNH) were announced. Each school officially on strike electedtwo representatives to serve on the council. Over the next three days voting took place on school campuses everywhere and all of the universities in central Mexico and many other schools finally joined the movement.

At the demonstration on August 5th, students gave the President of Mexico 72 hours to address a list of grievances presented to him that evening. The students did not expect him to respond but merely did it to illustrate his hypocrisy. Days before, the President stated he was extending an “open-arms” policy to the students as a sign of reconciliation and his willingness to work together to resolve the problems. From this day forward the movement distinguished itself from previous struggles by directing all of their efforts to the attention of the masses not the government. Since their protest grew out of their distrust of the government they considered it necessary to appeal to the public so that a new political order truly democratic could be established.

The first demonstration under the newly established CNH was held August 13thto the heart of the city, El Zocalo. They handed out flyers that read “a demonstration free of police, is a demonstration free of violence.” Once the CNH became official so did their demands:

1. That all political prisoners be released.
2. Repeal of Articles 145 and 145b of the Penal Code (sanctioned imprisonment of anyone attending meetings of three or more people, deemed to threaten public order)
3. Abolition of granaderos
4. Dismissal of the chief of police and deputy
5. Indemnification of the families of the dead and injured who had been victims of the aggression since July 26
6. Clarification of the responsibility of officials for the acts of repression and vandalism committed by the police, granaderos, and army

While determining what would be included on their list of demands the CNH considered a number of other issues. A recent movement made the mistake of presenting a long list of demands from which officials were able to pick and choose. The movement had most of its demands met but not the most critical and lost public support for complaining. To avoid making the same mistake the CNH decided to keep the list of demands to only six. Although it was very important to them, they decided not to include university autonomy as a demand because that had already been fought for and was rightfully theirs. The CNH did agree that the negotiations would be conducted in public with everything out in the open. This was to avoid any distrust within the movement.