A story for the future
Mauricio Tenorio Trillo Interview *
Ariel Ruiz Mondragón
The commemoration of the centennial of the great deeds of our history ha conducido a algunas reflexiones (no muchas, la verdad sea dicha) sobre el pasado, presente y, sobre todo, el futuro de nuestro país. Perdidos entre celebraciones tan espectaculares como vacías, discusiones anecdóticas, biografías noveladas y procesos telenovelados, así como ataques a la historia oficial, se ha desaprovechado el tiempo para pensar y cimentar un porvenir distinto.
Uno de los intentos más serios proviene de una colección de ensayos reunidos bajo el título de Historia y celebración. México y sus Centenarios (México, Tusquets, 2009) de Mauricio Tenorio Trillo. En este conjunto de textos el autor aborda, con irreverencia, humor and rigor, different edges of the celebrations and their motives, and some proposals for future coexistence for the country.
On some of those issues we talked to Tenorio Trillo: the essay as a form of knowledge, understanding and how this affects the understanding of the past, the PAN's discomfort with the story took place, the continuing importance of nationalism revolutionary and the responsibility of historians in the creation of new myths.
also touched issues such as the revaluation of the past, present and common future with the United States the country's democratization process and its relation to historiography and intellectual relationship with the government, as well as proposals for a new mixing and to limit liability deficiencies of the political class.
Tenorio Trillo has a doctorate in history from Stanford University and a professor at both the University of Chicago and the Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE). Author of five books, in 2006 also held the chair Rosario Castellanos at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Ariel Ruiz (AR): Why what to write and publish this book?
Mauricio Tenorio (MT): There are three main reasons why I decided to write this book. The first has to do with my work not a professional historian who writes books complicated and boring that only read other historians, but to education. I am a teacher, and I've been all my life I've been teaching here in the United States and Spain, for example.
Teaching is another of the parts of the story, the least valued of the historical profession, but it is very interesting. As a teacher, one of the things I always wondered was why the boys were put to my courses. Actually you know what is history and that's what surprised me a lot. I ask: what's the story? Reply: "History is written by the victors history is the past and you have to know because if not, we repeat the mistakes of the past. It is essential to have an identity, not to betray you to be yourself. "And I said," Well, then close the door and let's go. You know what's the story. The data, dates and take them out of these shit Google. "
What happened to me was that after so many years of giving history, I started using this way of writing, to speak, to make a kind of test to unlearn, first, before learning. My teaching work has led me to have some concern about basic questions about the story they have to do more than inform, to try to create doubt, to see the irony of things.
The second reason that seemed important to write this book is very cyclical. I am a historian of what Eric Hobsbawm called "the era of centenarians", from 1870 to 1970, and all my academic life has been dedicated to that period, about which I have written many things. Suddenly I realized that I have reached the Bicentennial, and then maybe pretentious and improperly, I believed armed with some knowledge of history and conduct issues and talk about what's coming.
The last reason is that I write professional books, monographs, full of quotations. But I think for longer-as we say, an essayist in the strict sense of the word, use the essay as a form of knowledge, ie to use irony as a form of knowledge.
I know that part of history professionals, including Mexico and my own colleagues have said that the great error of our academic life is abuse of the trial. Everyone writes essays, is created with the ability to say anything. I think, on the contrary, the trial is a form of social awareness, political and historiographical very important. But it is a form that requires an initiation rite, an entrance fee, in my opinion: I like to write historical essays those who have written history, research in archives, read history, and now they can say aloud essays, with irony , capable of provocation, something . I enjoy reading science tests, which, in Castilian, unfortunately they are few. Who writes the essay in economics? The economist, who has already paid the cost of entry and who has written very complicated mathematical formulas. That is the price that I can have a clear essays.
AR: There is an essay that caught my attention, "The law of nature pachanguera of history", which states that the celebration is a political decision and that what is celebrated the present. Today, what is the political decision that now leads the festivities, on the one hand, and on the other, what is the mind that is celebrated? Especially considering that the federal government is the PAN, which I believe does not share many of the old thesis official history.
MT: would answer with two very specific comments about what you just said that I find very interesting. On the one hand said: "I want to believe, Mauritius, you say you hold is not a matter of history, but the present, and is a political issue. What is the mind that we have today? Describe it. "
And the second is in view of a PAN seems uncomfortable with the textbook that we all learned, with a story from the post-revolution took over the liberal story porfiriana, and urged him we all learn.
Regarding the former, it is curious: one believes that the hardest part of the story is to find those documents that no one has taken, or to find phrases and facts that will give us the truth, and then we will understand completely. But it's so hard to tell, because the past is over and is lost. No, the hardest part of the story, since it is dictated from the present is to understand it, so it is very difficult because you never have the relevant distance.
The other day, in an interview asked me if we are in a revolution. Well, we can be and not have realized. The story always work like that kind of galaxy that exploits two light years and only now comes to us and we learn. In 1911, the end of the year they learned that Mexico had a revolution. How are things? For a change of government, Porfirio Diaz resigned, politicians negotiated with Madero, all agreed. But no one knew, at least not the one we know. In 1815, when Hidalgo had been killed and the royalist army and the English Crown had defeated all but one or two guerrillas, and Ferdinand VII had returned, no one knew that Mexico was going to Independence, had not even spoken it. So this is very difficult to understand.
But this is what dictates what we see the past, sometimes unconsciously. Seen now in our centenary, we must see what is being discussed in the press about how to celebrate. One speaks, for example, that there will be a book about women in Independence. Why? For the present, because now women are important, because we had a movement that comes from the sixties, multiculturalism, the struggle for civil rights in the United States and Mexico. Now we have to do that, this is a mandate. However, it is very obvious: how can we, when one is put in the garlic, describe it? It is very difficult. The more chaotic and unacceptable is the present, is much more difficult to organize the past, because we have no notion of what we want, not even a glimpse of what we want or are afraid to come. In this live without an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat is coming, because there is a feeling that this is fucked up, we are all wrong, what else can you fear?
So, this is difficult to decipher, and I think it's one thing to envision. But if one thinks of the great moment of transition in Spain, in 1980, yet no one knew what would happen to the English democracy, and post we have rebuilt, and with good reason, the figure Adolfo Suarez, who knew what he wanted. Maybe not true, but it is important to keep these myths, because at least maintained the notion of future and state in these difficult times, when some were put under the table and plotted or were in the all or nothing.
I think we have many ideas of how to enter government, few of the state and the future that follows. It is normal, and not the fault only of bad politicians. Intellectuals have much guilt.
the opposite is also some intellectuals: Jorge Cuesta into the twenties, who had no idea what was happening and knew his critical describe this, the best Octavio Paz, in the age of seventy, who knew what was the present, where we were going, that communism and Marxism were being made were not presentable. Gabriel Zaid is in the same decade, opposition to the guerrillas. You need a vision not fully present, and I do not see here, among us, myself included.
On the second subject, I think you hit the nail, and is something that is not mentioned in the book: I believe that the PAN-no Vicente Fox, who is not a PAN, the first of the Presidents the whole tradition is PAN Felipe Calderón is very uncomfortable with the story that when I give a class and I make fun of it, stand up to protest in Los Angeles or Chicago. The Blue-Whites are very uncomfortable with that story Jacobin liberalona, \u200b\u200bsocialistic and populist. However, it is curious that dare not get out of the closet to our heroes of Catholic consciousness that it would be nice, why not talk about them? - Or the importance of Catholic thought to the Mexican Constitution. Could have, and rightly, but they are afraid that they come over the populism of the left, right and center of the PRI and the PRD.
What do we have? A PAN uncomfortable with the official story, but the shares with López Obrador, if you ask their heroes, it says the same. What does this occur? Atrophy of the imagination.
AR: Another thing that struck me is the mention in a couple of tests, revolutionary nationalism, that despite everything, including democratization, "remains as the only accessible from us." What can be built to replace the revolutionary nationalism, with its hindrance of authoritarianism, backwardness? Is there a choice?
MT: I do not think so. It's like a huge cow udders keeps feeding us, but nobody feeds it to her. He gave us our pride in the mixture, the heroes of the Revolution, in the Aztec past, in all that we learned in our textbooks. Construction is very complex, because there was not even a will that has made, but was a trial and error: it was appropriate of liberalism and indigenismo Porfirian rebuild it and use what was more or less working. A cow that is then put back an army of teachers union and fucking!, That grew as you have no idea. But mostly it was a welfare state, corrupt, filthy, but also was the IMSS, Infonavit, the CTM, everything without which the cow has nothing to eat.
So we're going to milk, but it has no protein. But there is nothing more than that, there is no substitute. Not even the right has dared to propose something.
As I have studied history in the ancient and historical consciousness, I find some examples: in Spain, in 1980 education drove Franco Spain pride in a great and unique, it is extremely alive, despite that are making big changes in education including the notion of centrality that can speak Catalan, Basque that is published, democracy, freedom of worship, passing the divorce. However, there is a big resistance, today, there is a deep Spain still think imperial. That still alive but no one daily feeding.
But, how do you replace that? Not replace this type of structures, historical consciousness, with a "take it off and put another tape", no. You have to live there, to know, even share
I'm not a critic of nationalism because I think it is a belief ignorant and stupid, and highly educated people, like me, who studied in America and you think, consider that these are things of barbarians. It is a feeling of belonging important, and I respect that. Yesterday someone asked me: "Why these fools in the United States will celebrate the May 5?" Let them celebrate! Who am I, stupid historian, who has not given them anything, not the Mexican government, which now wants to teach history if not give them anything? To celebrate what they like, and who is not me telling them not to do so.
Since nationalism is important, starting to understand and inhabit, First, as in Spain, to build from the bottom. Was on the verge of collapse, but had two central ideas: democracy and Europe. At two filled them with content, not spiritual or discourse, but of money and opportunities. Democracy meant: "You'll have access to a pension, social security, and above all a great investment in education." Europe wanted to say: "Here are the resources for infrastructure, here's the money to build."
We are in the era of "transition," I hate to say, because I make fun of her in a the laws of history that postulated in the book, which is what historians say we do not know what is happening. So we are in transition because we do not know what will happen: either the right or left dare to think. The left, largely shares this revolutionary nationalism and the right not dare to challenge him and has nothing to make change.
But how could fill revolutionary nationalism? Better educate, provide critical. I propose a little fun of the story, live, discuss and laugh, and then, through education, investment opportunities, begin to move away.
AR: You said that José Vasconcelos himself admitted that was dedicated to making myths. But it has been assumed that one of the tasks of historians is to dismantle the myths, but you say you also have to inhabit these myths, share the objectives of national coexistence and redefine them. From this, can you believe that one of the tasks that should be doing the historians would also manufacture myths?
MT: Do not put so clear, but now that you ask me, put me against the wall. I think I should answer you that to be consistent with me itself, historians must effectively participate in the myths, because we make them anyway. What is the problem? See what myths. This does not mean I'm giving up my work "scientific" in quotes: I'm on my meetings with my students in their dissertations and theses in the investigation. Historians have an almost traditional view of history "let's discuss what you mean, where did you get this" and so on.
But we have another role, and we have always fulfilled: it was with historians and history that created this nation. Why should we leave now that?, why not begin to choose those myths that we create, as others have done in other countries, beyond a hero? We need to change size, not history, assuming it, inhabit it and resize it, make democracy can be proud, we belong to a place that allows me to be what I want to be, in which the laws give me justice, including things. Historians have to start creating it.
So, while I as a historian and a connoisseur of English history know that King is not the myth that being said, I think it is well established. As Caetano Veloso responded when American anthropologists and many people told him: "In Brazil it of racial democracy is a myth, no such." "Of course it is a myth, but to be not so bad. I'm not saying there, but not bad to have it. It's a good myth. "
Myth does not mean trick, no cheating, I will not lie to the story. Rather, it is starting to create a form in which everything is memory and forgetting, and start playing with it to be proud, despite the troubles. For example, democratic structures that give us ownership, or to begin creating a joint idea between the U.S. and Mexico, a myth that we allow the Americans, Americans and Mexicans live in a way beyond Tom and Jerry, in a way that assumes that in the past, for what you want, we made history together. At present we are doing, and if there will be future will be together.
Then, create myths necessary. I proposed that the Bicentennial was time to sit at them, what will be a very difficult construction. These things do not happen in the overnight, but yes indeed we are to create myths, but a good historian is one that does not make them, but he who does good myths.
AR: You do exercises historical imagination, for example, calls to look into this other part of Mexico that is America, with the idea that our future is destined to North America, which would be composed of the two countries and Canada. Is it a good idea to make myths? Is it the equivalent of the European idea?
MT: I am a victim and prisoner of my mind, and I can not catch a glimpse. But in fact, I throw a water bottle saying something: North America, the Great Lakes region and the great deserts, should give a historical dimension to our consciences, for us to start making something there to give us pride. Not to say that it has to stop being Mexican or American, or what this means, because there are 13 million Mexicans, and the United States has Mexicanized and we have Gringotization.
In both countries, I notice a nostalgia for the strong hand, in Mexico from the arrival of democracy and, above all, the unleashing of violence and insecurity, and also a U.S. concern by terrorism. Before anything happens, why not begin to sow the seeds of these myths that allow us to say: "we're together"? It is not whether Mexico is safe or not, but that what happens here happens United States, and it is our responsibility to do something. Not to say that we will follow the European model, because our neighbor is an empire.
should be put certain conditions: you you get to your wars, I give you soldiers. Yesterday someone asked me: "You mean that Mexicans are going to fight U.S. wars?" They have been fought all, what is the problem? From the First and Second World, in Korea and Vietnam, Mexicans everywhere have fought for the Americans. You may say: "Americans are bastards." But I talked to the descendants of those Mexicans, and are proud of having fought for the United States. Who am I to say, "You were wrong. False consciousness. "No, this country will not give them anything. He gave citizenship to those who fought the Korean War gave them education and retirement, are proud, therefore, that there are now four or five generations of soldiers.
So I think we should sit down and discuss, not only include a new concept of history, but also insecurity, underdevelopment and poverty. Would be the time that the rich take responsibility, which the United States and Mexico have never existed. Here there was no Marshall Plan, but not so bad to tell us: "Here is the investment, but you have to come to this." Our country will not ever be like the American Union, or what we want, but must reach a certain level of development, income distribution and inflation, such a judicial system, and so on. To tell us: "Here are the funds, I'm not giving you the free, and eventually we'll have to have some agreement." The Americans and Mexicans have lived all the time, they like and dislike, and there no problem. I believe that America is one of those ideas that can reshape our revolutionary nationalism, cast. But it is not easy to sell this idea here and there.
But historians are in the dilemma of doing what we always do, or at least release a message for the future historian: "Look, I already realized that this was dangerous and wanted do something, but did not fly. There was more imagination. "
Why it did happen in Europe? Why were much more intelligent historians and intellectuals? No, because there had already been killed enough, and because they had no other. How much more we have to do with the destruction of our institutions by drug traffickers? How many more you have to go to America, many more remittances, how many more massacres must be to think otherwise? I do not know.
AR: In Mexico, what has been the impact on the Mexican democratization process historiography?, Is this has contributed to this process?
MT: I think the process of democratization has brought good news and bad news for those who create historical consciousness. One, I think democracy has undoubtedly become more insecure the grid, which has meant that fewer people leave the academy, and has created incentives for it is more stable, professional, at least, all fields of social sciences. Although lacking a lot of investment and is a disaster of higher education, academia is much better, and is good news.
Second good news, and not say publicly because they are secrets between us has brought democracy to the intellectuals, historians and opinion makers who think myths and more money. If our major sponsor before the state was and still is, we never left our pattern-revenue sources have diversified so that most of us our income doubled and we have entered the elite pundits and the media. And democracy also brought press freedom relatively quickly, rather than creating a mass of well-paid journalists do research, then the spaces we occupy.
Turn on the radio or television on any channel, and there we are, all of us. That is good news, nobody will say no. Many of us live very well off of it, which is good news, which would reduce that we are participating. At the beginning of the democratic transition, before the election of Fox, I saw people like Enrique Krauze, Roger Bartra, or even the actions and speeches of a person as Cuauhtemoc Cardenas, and then José Woldenberg, and others who were thinking they were participating and creating these myths democratic then we would need.
Something happened in the process, and some felt betrayed because it was they wanted democracy. Jorge Castaneda has lived in this, but then was disappointed because he was not the sponsor
Sometimes I think that some believe that democracy will be much more, and who are their parents, and indeed we are . López Obrador, in his final campaign in 2006, together Elena Poniatowska, appointed the great heroes of democracy, and did not include the engineer Cardenas. However, while the enemy, you have to recognize that even with its responsibility in the 1988 electoral fraud, not rising, no fuss, to behave at the limit of the notion of state in this country, did much to this country. To me it makes me a boring person, but it's almost our Suárez. Fool, if you want, but he behaved like a statesman.
But even though we have a better academia and a lot more influence in the media and in public life, I would say that today's intellectuals and academics we speak of the political class as if "fuchi" but we are politicians, we are on the subject garlic all the time, not only because we believe, but because we are in the halls where politicians consult us. I think many of my generation who are in the CIDE, who have become counselors, school directors, OECD Secretaries of Education, IFE officials. We are the political class.
I expect that history would have been most affected by the democratic change: the way we write, the discussions, the role of historians and themes. While they have changed: is an interpretation of the institution-based Independence, the Constitution of Cadiz, all of which has to do with this, with democratization, but not as much as I expected. I think this has to do with that despite the democratic changes, which are very large in many respects, one thing has not changed with the Fox administration or the Calderon Cardenas nor is the relationship of intellectuals to the state . Sponsorship remains the same weird, yes, but go to work at my television, or go to the embassy this, or why not my advisor, why not pay you the textbook, why not arrange me Bicentennial.
Fox I thought that something would happen, but not only nothing happened, but turned to the best of terms against the intellectuals, and Calderón think some intellectuals were horrified that this itself would be the first Catholic was fags out to hunt and we would be in fair to intellectuals, but we as always.
But there was, at the level of expertise, much discussion. For example, a new branch of history, very important election history. Not previously studied nineteenth-century elections, because they did not, and less in the Porfiriato. Now I have people doing research elections.
AR: There is a chapter on Guatemala. We have seen that ran out the ideology of mestizaje as an element of national cohesion. On the other hand we have the threat multicultural, and you point out some of the dangers of it. However, in some way suggests a mixing reformed. What changes proposed in this notion of miscegenation?
MT: I think it's a weird cycle. We must accept that the breed has failed as a state ideology, if fulfilled his role is one thing we historians and political scientists can discuss, but no longer works because it has nothing behind: there is no welfare state, and we must accept that it was also a way to cover the deep racism in this country.
Then the second part of the cycle is: we throw away the mixture, is a racist ideology, has not been for nothing. What's next? What I propose is that unless we find something better to assume that the breed we have a problem of race and racism in this country, we endow the idea, that is inevitable and undeniable. Then, start building a new concept of mestizaje, which serves to say: "Because we have issues of race, we must emphasize that the breed has existed, exists and will exist, and we have do everything possible to continue to exist, because the opposite choice is even worse, and that, ultimately, the race is not an issue. Miscegenation is a fact and there is nothing to do about it, but start to give institutions a chance to protect the chances of identity.
To me the problem of identity market does not worry me, I worry about the problem to occur in misery, as in Guatemala and Mexico. So if there are institutions, courts, laws and economic possibilities, then, that each person choose their identity. Anyway we mestizos, and it does not matter if you want to plead as mestizo more indigenous or redeem your English. But you have institutions that protect you, you can not kill you and you can be or cease to be.
The problem now is not just that you can not, for example, be an Indian because you discriminate, but can not stop being indigenous because the anthropologist gringo and Mexican multiculturalist will scare because you have your "truck", you'll go to America and then you let your identity.
Then it is institutions that allow opportunities for the indigenous do not have to say "I have mixed", and just access to education, there road, hospital, etc., and now if he wants to keep talking Tzotzil do so. If you want, is a meat-free market institutions.
AR: In much of the book are historical imagination exercises, but not limited to the past, but also attempts to scan the future, for example the idea of \u200b\u200bAmerica. In one part of the book you say: "In 2010 we must also hold future potential." As is now the country, what future notes in two issues raised in the book: democracy "ugly" and inequality?
MT: I think I have the right to have a little hope and optimism in this regard. One of the future that I like most is that these two major issues, democracy and inequality, they start to discuss in a more than Mexican. I think this idea of \u200b\u200bAmerica would be a way to reframe the situation with the United States made more accountable to our political class.
think one thing: one of the major reasons for the irresponsibility of our political class is not afraid of anything. And the poor are poor, the rich are rich, and I can hijack but I live like a king.
If you put a plan of investment for development by the United States and Canada as well as they did in Europe with Spain, Portugal and Greece, and told our leaders: "Goals are transexenales, no matter if they are PRI or PAN, have to be responsible for fulfilling, in everyone's interest because it is a fortune. " Thus even governments become responsible.
I also think, hopefully, that any president should spend the whole six years to educate. At least entertain on that expenditure, and I bet that something good will happen. Not necessarily have to destroy Elba Esther Gordillo, as this, as my friend Fernando Escalante, be happy that their teachers had a lot of money and lots of visibility.
In these futures do not know what would happen, and I can not imagine, but it would be something different. What more do I have to fear is the inertia of not being afraid or future, or, apparently, the need to think about it.
* A slightly shorter version of this interview was published in M Weekly, no. 681, November 15, 2010. Reprinted with permission from the director.
0 comments:
Post a Comment