HIST 422

Ollin Garcia Pliego - IHRTLUHCHIST 422

20

The Student Movement of Mexico 1968: Resistance and LeadershipThe student movement of Mexico 68 sought to defend students rights from government repression. It started in Mexico City on July 22, 1968 with a fight among local gangs and high school students in the Ciudadela square, near the downtown area. The origins and course of this fight are disputed among writers. Carlos Monsivis argues that it started with a fight between the criminal groups Los Araas and Los Ciudadela, the students of the Isaac Ochoterena high school of the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM), and the high school students of the Vocacionales 2 and 5 of the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN).[footnoteRef:1] However, Elena Poniatowska suggests that the fight was between the students of Vocacional 2 and the Isaac Ochoterena High School, and that the criminal groups in the area were responsible for initiating this conflict. She also claims that the fight occurred in the Isaac Ochoterena high school as opposed to the Ciudadela square.[footnoteRef:2] Jorge Volpi contends that the students fought against each other due to a soccer game, incited by the gangs in the area. Since the criminal groups had announced that they would return the next day, the IPN authorities requested police intervention.[footnoteRef:3] The authors arguments are consistent on the date and groups who participated in this fight. [1: Carlos Monsivis, El 68: La tradicin de la resistencia (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2008), 15. Vocacionales are a term used for the high schools that are affiliated to the National Polytechnic Institute (IPN) in Mexico City. They usually have a name other than Vocacional and are enumerated. For example, nowadays the Vocacional 2 of the IPN is called Miguel Bernard.] [2: Elena Poniatowska, La Noche de Tlatelolco, 2nd ed (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2012), 275.] [3: Jorge Volpi, La Imaginacin y el Poder (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2006), 224.]

The next day, the police intervened and attacked the high school students of the Vocacionales 2 and 5 of the IPN. The fight ended with the intervention of the grenadiers, [footnoteRef:4] in order to punish the students for their disruption of public order. The school authorities of the Vocacional 5 affirmed that: [4: This term is used in Mexico to refer to the police forces that are adequately equipped and prepared to repel any street march, organization, vandal action, etc. They are mostly composed of trained policemen, who wear special helmets, shields, rubber bats, and tear gases in order to defend themselves and sometimes to punish their adversaries. ]

Upon returning, the students sought refuge in the Vocacional 5. A little after, the grenadiers entered the building, hitting the students, men and women, but the students retaliated against them The pedestrians demanded the grenadiers to stop attacking the students, to which they responded with more attacks and insults. [footnoteRef:5] [5: Carlos Monsivis, El 68: La tradicin de la resistencia (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2008), 16.]

On July 26, 1968, after the police attacked the Vocacional 6 of the IPN, the National Federation of Technician Students (FNET) organized a street march to protest against the brutal police intervention in their schools. The students protested for their rights and autonomy with the support of their relatives, teachers, and friends. This march took place simultaneously with a march that was commemorating the beginning of the Cuban Revolution of 1959. Everything seemed in order until the students reached the streets of Palma and Madero, near the Plaza de la Constitucin, in downtown Mexico City. Here, the police and the grenadiers intervened and broke up the protest using violent means, injuring and incarcerating some of them. Following this event, the struggle against the police started to spread through the entire city. On July 29, the students of the Preparatoria 7 of the UNAM blocked the Viga Avenue and took two policemen as prisoners. In Nonalco-Tlatelolco, the students also took public transportation buses and blocked important avenues with them. On this date, the Preparatoria 1 and the Vocacionales 2, 4, and 7 decided to go on strike indefinitely in support of the movement.Later on, the student movement gained both public and academic support from the UNAM, IPN, El Colegio de Mxico (Mexico College), Universidad Iberoamericana, the Agricultural school of Chapingo, Universidad La Salle (La Salle University), and others. The student movement of Mexico 68 started as a response to the brutal intervention of the grenadiers.[footnoteRef:6] Some days later, on July 30, the army entered the preparatory school of San Idelfonso firing a bazooka, destroying the Baroque style doors of the institution in the process. The army captured, injured, and killed students from the Vocacionales 2 and 5 of the IPN. The numbers of injuries and arrests could not be reported, but it has been estimated that it was from tens to hundreds of massive arrests.[footnoteRef:7] The next day, Javier Barros Sierra, the UNAM rector, led a street protest against the autonomys violation of the UNAM. President Gustavo Daz Ordaz, the Secretary of the Interior Luis Echeverra, the mayor of Mexico City Alfonso Corona del Rosal, and other public functionaries justified the actions of the army, arguing that the movement was promoted by terrorists, communists, radical groups, and vandals, who sought to disrupt the public order, and wanted to ruin the Olympic Games that would commence on October 12, 1968. [6: Isaac Ochoterena high school and the Vocacionales 2 and 5 were affiliated to the UNAM and IPN respectively. Therefore, it is convenient to observe that when these institutions started to support the movement, we refer to the college faculties of the UNAM and IPN.] [7: Elena Poniatowska, La Noche de Tlatelolco, 2nd ed (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2012), 276.]

From July 30 on, the students held other important marches, increasing their followers. On August 8, the National Strike Council (CNH) was formed among students of the UNAM, IPN, the Agricultural School of Chapingo, El Colegio de Mxico, La Salle University, and the province universities.[footnoteRef:8] On this day, the CNH made the list public of demands to the government: the freedom of political prisoners, abolition of the article 145 in the Federal Criminal code, disintegration of the grenadiers body, dismissal of the police chiefs Luis Cueto, Raul Mendiolea, and A. Frias, indemnification to the relatives of students who were killed and injured, and the proper punishment to the functionaries who were responsible for the violent acts.[footnoteRef:9] The formation of the CNH politicized and institutionalized the movement, giving it a defined purpose with an organized internal structure. In many ways, the CNH served as the internal government body for the students movement. Many more street marches occurred. Among the most important was the one that occurred on August 27 and ended in Mexico Citys main square, the Plaza de la Constitucin. Three hundred thousand people participated, showing their support for the student cause. There was also a silent protest march that occurred on September 13, where the students showed the government their ability to be respectful, peaceful, and organized. [8: Ibid, 278.] [9: Ibid, 60.]

The army took the UNAM campus on September 18, directly attacking the CNH leaders, students, professors, and intellectuals who were part of this movement. This was a crucial event for the movement, since the government violated the autonomy of the university with the direct intervention of the army and the detention, repression, incarceration, and injury of thousands of students. Shortly afterwards, the rector of the UNAM, Javier Barrios Sierra, resigned from his position due to the fact that the government started to blame him for being a weak leader who did not know how to control and promote the order of the university. On October 2, the CNH called for a meeting at La Plaza de las Tres Culturas in the dwelling unit of Nonalco-Tlatelolco, in northern Mexico City. The leaders of the CNH scheduled the meeting to start at 5pm, choosing this place because of the space available on the third floor of the Chihuahua buildings balcony. This scenery also had a profound historical significance, since it was the place in which the conquistador Hernn Corts defeated Cuauhtmoc in 1521 and completed the conquest of the Aztecs. Around eight thousand people were in the square on that evening. Around 6:10 PM, a helicopter that was flying around the area released a green flare, which was the signal for the army and the police forces to start firing on the multitude. Around 2,360 people were arrested and incarcerated, and the number of casualties at Tlatelolco has been estimated to be around 325 people.[footnoteRef:10] The students and people arrested were sent to prisons, military camps, and judicial delegations, while some others were taken to be tortured. This signified the end of the movement and the disintegration of the CNH. The students who were able to escape the massacre were hiding for months and years after Tlatelolco. In addition, the psychological impact on the students made them unable to protest with the same intensity than before the massacre of Tlatelolco.[footnoteRef:11] [10: Julia Preston and Samuel Dillon, El Despertar de Mxico: Episodios de una bsqueda de la Democracia (Mxico D.F.: Ocano, 2004), 39.] [11: Elena Poniatowska, La Noche de Tlatelolco, 2nd ed (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2012, 106-108. ]

The government and some student leaders claimed that this was a revolutionary movement. However, it was not revolutionary but instead sought to defend the basic rights that the students felt were already legally granted to them by the Constitution. The CNH leaders were the principal agents in organizing this resistance campaign with the support of diverse sectors of the population such as intellectuals, politicians, public figures, relatives, and friends. The student movement of Mexico 68 was a bright moment of resistance to an authoritarian repressive government. It failed to achieve its ends, but the movement reveals the degree to which the students of Mexico of that generation believed that the Mexican government needed to be changed.Student Movements around the World in 1968The year of 1968 is well-known for the high number of student movements around the world. Volpi proposed that the different causes explaining the global uprising of students were: the economic abundance following the war; the renewed interest of spirituality; the influence of pop, rock, and intellectual idols; the distance between parents and their children; and the opposition to the Vietnam War. The heroes of WWII and liberators of third world countries were still in power, making their ideologies more conservative with time. The students were tired of the United States and Soviet Union interventions in foreign affairs. As a response, the students used inefficient governments and educative institutions as an excuse, protesting for their right to freedom and education reforms. Volpi writes,Using as an excuse the inefficiency of the college institutions and adopting revolution as a motto, they [the students] went onto transforming the old power structures. Although their ideology did not change from nation to nation, the need of a world change joined them together anywhere they were. Not only did they share the same problems, but they also had been educated with the same ideas: the rigidity of their societies over their desires of freedom, the social obligations against the free individual will, the selfish nationalism against the humanitarian responsibilities. [footnoteRef:12] [12: Jorge Volpi, La Imaginacin y el Poder (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2006), 155.]

In France, the student movement sought to protest against the Vietnam War and demanded an integral educative reform. Even though the French government wanted to repress the movement at first, a national strike forced the government to implement the educative reform. General Charles de Gaulle established contact with the students and workers after the strike, fulfilling their demands and reestablishing the social order. The students never intended to overthrow the government in a revolutionary way. They were only protesting against their educational system and the Vietnam War. The Mexican media, especially the Siempre! magazine, covered the French events and argued that the problems that France was experiencing due to the student revolt had been resolved in Mexico in 1929, with the autonomy of their university. On June 1968, students of the IPN made a visit to the Residencia Oficial de los Pinos, the presidents house: Last week, during an interview with the President that students of the IPN had, Mexico offered one of the reasons of that international image that contrasts with the ones that day after day are offered in our world. When in all directions of the planet the students cause rebellions for the sake of causing them; when the college students appear to the worlds environment they reach, in Mexico the students talk in peace with the President.[footnoteRef:13] [13: Jorge Volpi, La Imaginacin y el Poder (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2006), 217. ]

The Mexicans were proud of the stability that Mexico was experiencing during the decade of the 1960s and were preparing their country to be home to the Olympic Games of 1968 to be commenced on October 12 of that year. Writers from the Siempre! magazine commented upon the availability of President Gustavo Daz Ordaz to talk to the students. However, they never imagined that a student movement was about to occur during the next weeks and that the Mexican government was going to be more problematic than the French one.Mexico 1968: Resistance to authoritarian rule.During the 1960s, Mexico experienced a series of changes that included both the economic and social sectors. The urban sector in Mexico City now had better public transportation with the arrival of the subway system and the construction of new highways and roads. The stability that Mexico experienced during the 1960s was promising, with a 6.8% of annual economic growth and a 2.5% of inflation[footnoteRef:14]. The Mexican currency had a value of 12.50 pesos per U.S. dollar. The middle class started to have access to commodities such as cars, appliances, and televisions. However, the development had its limits; it did not reach the Mexican countryside the way it reached the urban sectors. Thus, immigration to the cities was a common trend among the population. The Mexican political system was a federal democratic republic, with one political party in absolute control of the country. The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) held the executive, legislative, and judicial power in Mexico since 1929. [14: Mexico convulso (1968-1976): El movimiento estudiantil de 1968, Mxico la Historia de su Democracia, DVD, directed by Jos Woldenberg and Leopoldo Gmez (Mxico, D.F.: Noticieros Televisa, 2004). ]

In 1968, President Gustavo Daz Ordaz had been in power for four years and his government was regarded as a rigid and authoritarian one by all sectors of people. When the student movement broke in Mexico, the government immediately sought to put an end to the protests. To do so, President Daz Ordaz made direct use of the police and the army. In order to legitimize his actions against the students, the President accused the movement to be disrupting the public order. On August 1, after the UNAM rector Barrios Sierra led a public protest after the army was sent to the Preparatoria 1 of San Idelfonso, the President gave a public speech in Guadalajara:A hand is stretched: it is the hand of a man that through the history of his life has demonstrated that he knows how to be loyal. The Mexicans would say if this hand stays outstretched in the air, or if this hand, according to the tradition of the Mexican, with the true tradition of the real, nave, and authentic Mexican, would be shaken by millions of hands that, among all, want to reestablish the peace and the liberty of the souls.[footnoteRef:15] [15: Jorge Volpi, La Imaginacin y el Poder (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2006), 230.]

In his speech, the President invited the Mexicans to shake his hand and reestablish the order of the nation. In many ways, his words are indicative of his authoritarian character, suggesting that every Mexican had to agree with the government actions, no matter how violent they were. The government also controlled the media, offering different explanations for the repressive measures it took against the student movement. Nevertheless, these different explanations were not consistent with each other. The newspapers front pages suggested that the people instigating the movement were spies, terrorists, radical vandals, communists, and foreigners that sought to ruin the Olympic Games. The Sol de Puebla newspaper wrote, The police declared [on July 28, 1968] and has concrete proofs that the events occurred [two days ago], in which the public order was disrupted and where there was a threat to the civic integrity, were enhanced by a group of foreigners of extremist political views who were infiltrated among the students.[footnoteRef:16] At first, Daz Ordaz disqualified the movement arguing that the students only looked to disrupt the public order. According to him, the students did not have concrete demands. In his fourth government report, he mentioned that: [16: Francisco Martn Moreno, 100 mitos de la historia de Mxico (Mxico D.F.: Aguilar, 2011), 255.]

The juvenile disorders occurred in the world have coincided with the celebration of an important act in the city they happen. In Punta del Este, Uruguay, upon the announcement of the American Presidents reunion, the young student population caused great conflictsIt is evident that in the recent disturbs there were people who were not students; but also, by their own choice or being convinced, a good number of students took part in the movement We have not received any document written from any scholar institution or teachers committee, of students, or of others, with concrete demandsThe same dissimilar internal and external forces that have been fluctuating to aggravate the conflict, extend it, complicating other groups and preventing them from fixing the issue. The incident, a little one in appearance, pointed out as the problems source, was not the first. It was the end of a long series of violent acts and attacks to the liberty and the rights of many people. There have been hundreds of cases in which the students or third parties involved take over schools; pressure their rectors, principals, or teachers; kidnap them; block roads; attack other students or people, etc We do not want to take measures that we do not wish, but that we will enforce if we have to; whatever our duty is, we will do it; as far as we are forced to reach, we will act.[footnoteRef:17] [17: Jorge Volpi, La Imaginacin y el Poder (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2006), 269-82. ]

In his speech, the President argued that the movement was illegitimate, since its only purpose was to cause public disorder. He looked at other countries, commenting on the subversive and chaotic characteristics of the uprisings, convinced that the students only caused conflicts for the sake of causing them. Moreover, he affirms that there were not attempts from any student, academic, or educational body to try to establish contact with the government to fix the problem. He also suggests that internal and external forces were infiltrated within the movement, convincing students to revolt. Lastly, Daz Ordaz directs another threat to the movement and population, indicating that he will do the impossible to end this movement if the disturbs continue. Although the President never presented a concrete proof of what he said in his speeches, he defended his theory until death. On October 2, the movement was killed in what it seemed a heroic intervention of the police and the army. Even though the President did not say it directly, he was convinced that the students wanted to overthrow the political institutions of the country:For Daz Ordaz, the rally at the Plaza de las Tres Culturas had as a goal to take over the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, since the students had already attempted to occupy the National Palace but failed to do so... The only mission of the army was to protect the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. The students, who have already crossed its limits, gave the order to take over the Secretary [the building].[footnoteRef:18] [18: Jorge Volpi, La Imaginacin y el Poder (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2006), 333. ]

But beyond the Presidents thoughts, the media also contributed to create alternative hypothesis looking for a justification of the government acts. The day after the Tlatelolcos massacre, both the news and the national newspapers only mentioned that the number of casualties was low, and that the responsible people were terrorists, foreigners, communists, or vandals that sought to overthrow the political system. El Universal newspaper wrote, The attempts made by every sector towards the studious youth were useless [the attempts to fix the situation], in order for them to stop serving the interests of foreign parties. Although a good amount of youth who were lied to attended their reflections [foreign interests], a number of students, some of them Marxists in heart and others belonging to that categorywent to the meeting, even though they knew that it would not be allowed.[footnoteRef:19] [19: Ibid, 335. ]

Other newspapers declared that the number of casualties in Tlatelolco did not exceed the tens in number, and gave similar explanations arguing that people who were infiltrated within the movement started attacking the army. Elena Garro, the ex-wife of the Mexican famous intellectual Octavio Paz, declared that the movement was intended to overthrow the government through a coup. According to her, the students were anxious to kill the public functionaries in power. However, her declarations lack evidence, since she could never present any concrete proofs. In contrast, it is documented that she received several death threat calls, presumably from the government. Thus, some scholars suggest that she was forced to make these declarations for fear of being killed. [footnoteRef:20] [20: Ibid, 353. ]

Some students within the movement have declared that it was a revolutionary one, or that at least possessed revolutionary characteristics. Some of the students even identified themselves with revolutionary figures such as Fidel Castro and Che Guevara.Nevertheless, the CNH leaders always had clear that their mission was to demand the respect of their rights through the use of law. The CNH leader lvarez Garn reported: Gilberto said: We were always armed with our ideals. On October 2, we did not have any other arms. Only the longings and ideas that, for the government, are more dangerous that the bullets. A bullet kills a man. A revolutionary idea awakens hundreds and thousands of people. [footnoteRef:21] Other leaders also recognized that their movement possessed revolutionary ideals. Political scientist Eric Selbin has argued that in order to be a revolution, the movement needed to possess the following features: the successful overthrow of a ruling elite by a revolutionary vanguard that has mobilized broad popular support and undertaken the transformation of a societys political, economic, and social structures in a contemporaneous and mutually reinforcing fashion.[footnoteRef:22] Moreover, Selbin contends that once the old government is overthrown and political victory is achieved, the new government needs to be institutionalized and consolidated in order for the revolution to be considered as such. [21: Elena Poniatowska, La Noche de Tlatelolco, 2nd ed (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2012, 216. ] [22: Eric Selbin, Modern Latin American Revolutions, 2nd ed (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999), 11.]

The institutionalization of the government implies the establishment of organizations that can gain both international and domestic acceptance. Next, consolidation involves the degree to which the population adopts the core of the social revolutionary project and ideas not only in thought but through everyday actions. The CNH institutionalized the movement, in that it made it more functional than at the beginning. With its creation, the different schools in Mexico City were unified into a single council that served as a central government for the movement, giving it direction and purpose. In contrast, the movement was never consolidated, since the government ended it with Tlatelolcos massacre.However, the students never sought to overthrow the ruling elite in a revolutionary fashion, nor did they take up arms and start war against the government. Since the beginning, the CNH and the supporters of the movement declared that this was a peaceful protest, and that they were only looking for the government to fulfill their six demands. Hence, the concrete demands of the students were: the freedom of political prisoners, abolition of the article 145 in the Federal Criminal code, disintegration of the grenadiers body, dismissal of the police chiefs Luis Cueto, Raul Mendiolea, and A. Frias, indemnification to the relatives of students who were killed and injured, and the proper punishment to the functionaries who were responsible for the violent acts, indicated that their movement did not possess the revolutionary characteristics established by Selbin. Instead, the student movement aimed to resist the authoritarian and repressive regime of Daz Ordaz. Although after Tlatelolco, the movement failed to achieve its demands, the movement reveals the degree to which the students believed that the Mexican government needed to be changed. Leadership: the CNH and public figures within the movementThe CNH, student leaders, and public figures involved, gave the movement an institutionalized structure that organized it in ways that sought political and social recognition from both the government and the citizens. According to Monsivis, the leaders of the CNH were students who had political, philosophical, and economic college instruction. He also contends that some of the leaders were members of the Communist Party (PC) who had been participants in Mexican politics. In his view, the CNH was an organization that resembled an internal student government body, which organized and directed the street protests and public speeches. The CNH leaders also consolidated their ideals, expressing them publicly and to the government, thus politicizing the movement. He writes,The leadership of the CNH members is clear without difficulties. According to the available information ever since, more than the films available from the time, the focus in the decisions comes from the analysis and didactic management of the assemblies held by the CNH members in the public forums. lvarez Garn, a math student of the IPN, has been a political activist since his teenage years, a complete figure in the logistics of the Mexican Communist Party, to which he has belonged. Formal, responsible, tireless, lvarez Garn is shy and surly, but his experience provides him with a quick access to the public perspectives in the movement and among his colleagues.[footnoteRef:23] [23: Carlos Monsivis, El 68: La tradicin de la Resistencia (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2008), 110.]

Nevertheless, even though the students were demanding concrete things and tried to establish a public speech with the government, the CNH leaders were not willing to talk and reason with the citizens. According to Monsivis, the CNH leaders simply imposed their ideas and demands on their meetings, protests, and speeches, without trying to explain these concepts to the rest of the population. Yet student leaders of the CNH such as lvarez Garn contributed a great deal to the resistance campaign that the student movement implied. The fact that he had been a political activist since his teenage years gave the CNH the advantage to possess leaders who were capable of analyzing the public perspectives in the movement and among other CNH members. In addition, members such as Garn benefited the CNH through the coordination of protests, meetings, reunions, assemblies, and speeches. Whether or not the CNH leaders tried to establish a dialogue in which all the sectors of the population could understand their ideas, they made an effort to explain their demands to all citizens.Another prominent leader and figure within the CNH was Gilberto Guevara Niebla, a UNAM student with leftist political views, who was distinguished by his reasonableness and theoretical passion. Together with lvarez Garn, Niebla captured the essence of the movement: the strength of their struggle came from the moral authority that was given by their unity and resistance to the government regime. In addition, they were inspired to seek public demands due to the modernity of the public criticism against the PRI system.[footnoteRef:24] The degree to which the student leaders in the CNH sought to defend the rights that they felt were granted by the constitution was noticeable, making a patriotic effort to make sure their rights were respected. The CNH leaders were the principal agents in organizing the resistance campaign, to which other sectors of the population joined. Relatives, friends, workers, intellectuals, and politicians supported the students. In many ways, the student movement would not have had the influence and support it had from all sectors of the population from July to October 1968 without the formation of the CNH. Some of the leaders within this council were students who had political experience and, thus, a sense of governmental organization. This fact benefited the movement in that it organized the mass of students, directed them, and gave them a concrete purpose in being a part of it. Hence, the student movement asked for specific demands, tried to establish a public speech with the government, and had an institutionalization that distinguished it from other movements: it had a council body which, in many ways, was the students government. [24: Ibid, 111. ]

Other important members of the CNH include the spokesman Marcelino Perell of the UNAM and the Communist Mexican Party (PCM); the representative from the Agricultural School of Chapingo Luis Toms Cervantes Cabeza de Vaca; Gustavo Gordillo and Eduardo Valle El Bho, from the UNAM Faculty of Economics; Gerardo Estrada, from Political Sciences; Luis Gonzlez de Alba, from the Faculty of Psychology; Roberto Escudero, from Philosophy; Flix Hernndez Gamundi; and the brothers Gonzlez Guardado from the IPN. The two important feminine figures of the CNH were Tita Avedao and Nacha Rodrguez.Daz Ordazs regime, especially during the year of 1968, was known to be extremely authoritarian and repressive. The impact that the Presidents violent actions had against the movement was significant. In some cases, the repressive measures signified a moral breakdown for the students involved in it. Through other people, the students learned of the repressive methods used by the police and the army against them. In most cases, the students observed how the police and the army killed, injured, incarcerated, and tortured their fellow mates. However, the majority of the students involved strongly believed in their ideals and continued to participate in the public protests. From the beginning of the movement until Tlatelolcos massacre, the police and the army captured many students. Among them, the principal targets were the CNH leaders. On September 26, Luis Toms Cervantes Cabeza de Vaca from the CNH and the leader of the Agricultural School of Chapingo was captured by commanders of the Federal Security Directorate of Mexico City:The major approached me and put on me a thick cloth cap that felt as a sailcloth, but its texture allowed some rays from the light bulb to trespass the cloth. The cloth cap covered my entire head down until my neck, and it was tied near my throat. They bent and tied my arms on my back. Again, I heard that thick voice that objurgated me:

-Who is your successor in the CNH?-I do not know, I have no idea.-We are going to refresh your memory. Here, you either speak or die.-Traitor, son of a bitch! Look, what do you want motherfuckers? What are you looking for?-We want our Constitution to be respected.-Look little fucker, do not illusion yourselves. We manage the Constitution. Who was giving you the arms?-We have no arms; our movement is not an armed one, it is a democratic and legal movement, our arms are the Constitution and the [human] reason.-Do not fool yourself fucker, you carried arms. yax, Scrates and Osuna already mentioned it.-They lie, I have never carried arms.-It is better that you speak the truth so that you can save your life-Sargent, refresh the memory of this son of a bitch, traitor, who wants to make us communists, while I order the firing squad to be prepared-Do you know Heberto Castillo?-Not really, I have only seen him.-Where is he?-I do not know.More blows to the testicles, stomach, and groin areas. I was screaming of painThe blows were combined with electric shocks on the testicles, rectum, and mouth.[footnoteRef:25] [25: Elena Poniatowska, La Noche de Tlatelolco, 2nd ed (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2012, 106-8.]

Cabeza de Vaca was tortured and punished by elements of the Federal Security Directorate in Mexico City. The brutality of their actions was based on the premise that the CNH leaders and the student movement were communist, and in that they were trying to overthrow the capitalist government. Other CNH leaders were also tortured with in the same way Cabeza de Vaca was punished. Some students, however, were not able to survive the inhumaneness of the tortures. The government infiltrated groups within the movement such as the FNTE. This group was composed of secret agents at the service of the Mexican government, whose principal mission was to convince the students to cause revolts, problems, and public disorder. Some agents even suggested that the movement needed to take an armed pattern. The students identified the FNTE agents during the movement and called them porros. However, the students never followed their suggestions and followed the legal pattern. According to Gilberto Guevera Niebla, from the CNH, the radical fascist group called EL MURO was specialized in armed interventions and had influence from the CIA. It grouped thousands of agents who pretended to be undergraduates, acting violently against the students and hiding their identities behind the UNAM. [footnoteRef:26] The United States infiltration in the movement, which took place through its intelligence agencies, has been documented. The newspaper La Jornada, in collaboration with Canal Seis de Julio, filmed a documentary about Tlatelolcos massacre in which the CIAs infiltration was proven. The Federal Security Directorate in Mexico City reported the movement events back to the United States government through its embassy and the CIA in Mexico, under the threat of a communist attack. The documentary also shows the official CIA reports that explain the United States reasons for its infiltration in the movement. These CIA reports indicate that the Mexican government assured the United States that the student movement in Mexico was a revolution that sought to overthrow them. In addition, the Mexican government argued that the student movement was in direct contact with communist leaders in the Soviet Union and Cuba. However, after several weeks of investigation, the CIA could not found any concrete proofs of the Mexican governments arguments. Furthermore, elements of the Mexican army received both arms and military instruction from the United States. [footnoteRef:27] [26: Elena Poniatowska, La Noche de Tlatelolco, 2nd ed (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2012, 89. ] [27: Tlatelolco: Las claves de la masacre, Coleccin la Lnea Rota, VHS, directed by Carmen Lira Saade and Carlos Mendoza (Mxico D.F.: La Jornada and Canal Seis de Julio, 2002). ]

Other students who were captured and incarcerated have also reported how elements of the intelligence agency interviewed them. Flix Goded Andreu, from the Communist Youth in Mexico, reported:We were interrogated by an American and two Mexican agents. They were concretely asking:-Are you members of the Communist Party?-Are you members of the Communist Youth?-Do you have a United States Visa?-Do you have relatives in the United States?[footnoteRef:28] [28: Elena Poniatowska, La Noche de Tlatelolco, 2nd ed (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2012, 52. ]

Other American agencies such as the FBI also infiltrated the movement through their embassy. These intelligence agencies also repressed and tortured students from the movement, accusing them of being radicals and subversive. [footnoteRef:29] Even though Daz Ordaz could not prove the infiltration of communist agents from the Soviet Union or Cuba, he maintained his position and assured the United States that this was the case. The Mexican and United States government worked together in order to repress and end the student movement under the threat of a communist revolution. In many ways, the infiltration of the United States was a fear response to the Cold War and the Cuban missile crisis that were affecting the United States since after WWII. [29: Francisco Martn Moreno, 100 mitos de la historia de Mxico (Mxico D.F.: Aguilar, 2011), 257. ]

In Mexico, different political institutions and government branches supported the Presidents measures against the movement. With the exception of Octavio Paz, who back then was the ambassador of Mexico in India, none of the public functionaries under the PRIs hegemonic rule resigned from their positions. Instead of defending the students human rights and opposing the President against the violent brutality with which he sought to reestablish the public order, the Chamber of Deputies applauded the heroic intervention of the army at Tlatelolco:It was enough that Daz Ordaz himself declared in 1969 that: For my part, I integrally assume the personal responsibility, ethical, social, juridical, political, and historical for the governments decisions in relation to the events of last year. There they are, all of the deputies, in unison, applauding before Daz Ordaz. And the senate? Who sent to publish on September 11, 1968 the following text on the newspapers?: Warning from the Senate to all of those who subvert the order. We support Daz Ordaz so that he can use the troops [army] if necessary. Tribute to the army for its heroic actuation.[footnoteRef:30] [30: Ibid, 253.]

The Presidents speech served as a reference that other politicians who were involved in the repressive acts against the movement could hold as an excuse to declare their innocence. Within the past fifteen years, the Mexican justice belatedly put the ex-Secretary of the Interior Lus Echeverra under trial, accused of being responsible of the army intervention at Tlatelolco. However, he declared that he was not directly involved in Daz Ordazs repressive measures, arguing that only the President knew what was exactly happening. [footnoteRef:31] Most of the CNH leaders were captured and incarcerated for years after Tlatelolco, serving sentences for crimes that they never committed. The authoritarian rule of the President achieved its goals: it ended the student movement at Tlatelolco with a heroic intervention of the army, reestablishing the public order. Thus, the threat of a communist revolution went away. According to the President, the necessary conditions for the Olympic Games to commence were ready after Tlatelolco. [31: Mexico convulso (1968-1976): El movimiento estudiantil de 1968, Mxico la Historia de su Democracia, DVD, directed by Jos Woldenberg and Leopoldo Gmez (Mxico, D.F.: Noticieros Televisa, 2004). and Carlos Monsivis, El 68: La tradicin de la resistencia (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2008, 132-3.]

Among the public figures who supported the movement was the UNAM rector Javier Barrios Sierra. On August 1, the day after the army entered the Preparatoria 1 firing a bazooka, Barrios Sierra led a public protest in defense of the UNAMs autonomy. Around 80,000 people participated in the event, where the rector declared:We would not only affirm the autonomy and the liberties of our scholar institutions, but we would also fundamentally help to the libertarian causes of Mexico. In this journey, not only the destinies of the University and the Polytechnic are at stake, but also other important causes, the most endearing for the Mexicans.[footnoteRef:32] [32: Jorge Volpi, La Imaginacin y el Poder (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2006), 230. ]

Through his leadership, the rector inspired those students who did not want to participate in the movement for fear of being injured. As the students, Barrios Sierra made an effort to establish a dialogue with the government in order to fix the hostile situations. Later on, the rector announced that the government fulfilled the institutional demands of the UNAM, and that he was only waiting for the President to clear up some juridical aspects related to the UNAMs autonomy. Instead of offering a solution to the students through a public dialogue, the government started to blame Barros Sierra for being a weak leader who did not know how to control and promote the order of the UNAM as an institution. The President continued with his violent measures against the movement. Due to both the governments accusations and the Presidents refusal to talk to the students, the rector was forced to resign from his position. Thus, on September 22, the rector officially resigned from his position but the UNAMs Government Body, to his surprise, rejected it. On September 26, the rector answered the Government Body with a letter in which he withdrew his resignation. He promised to keep working for the good of the university. [footnoteRef:33] The students supported the rector at all moments; they declared that he was not a representative of the student movement but that he was a public figure and a moral support. [33: Jorge Volpi, La Imaginacin y el Poder (Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2006), 314.]

Through his actions, Barrios Sierra sought to establish a link between the government and the students, but the government did not cooperate and turned its back on him. Instead, the violent measures ended the movement in a massacre that killed hundreds and incarcerated thousands of innocent people. It was easier for the government to kill than to establish a dialogue with the students. In a descriptive manner, this was the PRIs way of governing and imposing its rule, for which nobody could contradict the Presidents thoughts, actions, and orders. Anybody who contradicted the government was subject to the horrendous punishments and tortures. The day of Tlatelolco, many CNH leaders were captured and incarcerated. Some of the few who were able to escape would later be captured as well. After Tlatelolco, the remaining leaders of the CNH declared that they would stop the protests during the days that the Olympic Games would last. However, the CNH did not have any further political activity after Tlatelolco, as the remaining members were hiding and were too afraid to make a public appearance. The impact that the student movement had on society took two paths. Part of the left opted for urban movements whereas some radical leftist people took the arms and formed a guerrilla in southwestern Mexico. The Liga Comunista 23 de Septiembre was the most important guerrilla that formed after Tlatelolco, showing the degree to which the students and some sectors of the population disagreed with the hegemonic rule of the PIR and its tyrannical and authoritative measures and actions.The accusations against the students were an excuse to validate Daz Ordazs illegal actions. The students declared that their movement was a peaceful one through the list of their six demands. They never intended to organize a war to overthrow the government, and this makes it different from a revolutionary one. Instead, the students intended to protest against the governments authoritarian and repressive measures imposed against them. They wanted to defend their human rights which were granted to every Mexican in the Constitution. The student movement of Mexico 68 was a movement of resistance to a regime that sought to control Mexico through tyrannical acts of violence. The support that the students received from all sectors of the population showed the degree to which the people of that generation believed that the Mexican governments system needed to be changed. In many ways, the movement would not have been possible without the CNH leaders, intellectuals, and public figures such as the UNAM rector. They institutionalized the movement, providing it with a council that consolidated their demands. In exchange, the students obtained a regime of terror, and the fate some of them was death. The foreign influence and infiltration along with the Mexican government worked together to ensure that no one was heard. The government preferred to implement torture techniques and bullets as opposed to sit and talk with the CNH leaders. The student movement culminated in the Tlatelolco massacre on October 2. This date is still remembered among Mexicans as a symbol of that old PRI regime that ruled until 2000.ReferencesAyocuan. La Mujer Dormida Debe Dar a Luz. 15th ed. Mxico, D.F.: Editorial Jus S.A. de C.V., 1972.Braun, Herbert. Dignity, False Love, and Self-Love in Mexico during 1968. Comparative Studies in Society and History 39, no. 3 (1997): 511-549.Carey, Elaine. Plaza of Sacrifices: Gender, Power, and Terror in 1968 Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005.Gonzlez de Alba, Luis. Los das y los aos. 19th ed. Mxico D.F.: Ediciones Era, 1999.Harris, Chris. Luis Gonzlez de Albas Los das y los aos (1971) and Elena Poniatowskas La noche de Tlatelolco (1971): Foundational Representations of Mexico 68. Bulletin of Latin American Research and Journal of the Society for Latin American Studies 29, (2010): 107-127.Harris, Christopher. Remembering 1968 in Mexico: Elena Poniatowskas La noche de Tlatelolco as Documentary Narrative. Bulletin of Latin American Research 24, no. 4 (2005): 481-495.Kinsbruner, Jay. Independence in Spanish America: Civil Wars, Revolutions, and Underdevelopment. 2nd ed. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 2000. Mexico convulso (1968-1976): El movimiento estudiantil de 1968. Mxico la Historia de su Democracia. DVD. Directed by Jos Woldenberg and Leopoldo Gmez. Mxico, D.F.: Noticieros Televisa, 2004. Monsivis, Carlos. El 68: La tradicin de la resistencia. Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2008.Moreno, Francisco Martn. 100 Mitos de la historia de Mxico. Mxico, D.F.: Aguilar, 2011.Poniatowska, Elena. La noche de Tlatelolco. 2nd ed. Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2012.Preston, Julia and Samuel Dillon. El Despertar de Mxico: Episodios de una bsqueda de la Democracia. Mxico, D.F.: OCEANO, 2004.Rodda, John. Prensa, Prensa: A Journalists Reflections on Mexico 68. Bulletin of Latin American Research and Journal of the Society for Latin American Studies 29, (2010): 11-22.Selbin, Eric. Modern Latin American Revolutions. 2nd ed. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1999.Sherman, John W. The Mexican Miracle and Its Collapse. In The Oxford History of Mexico, edited by Michael C. Meyer and William H. Beezley. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.Soldatenko, Michael. Mxico 68: Power to the Imagination. Latin American Perspectives 32, no. 4 (2005): 111-132.Taibo II, Paco Ignacio. 68: Un libro imprescindible para comprender el Mxico presente. Mxico, D.F.: Booket, 2012.Taylor, William B. Drinking, Homicide and Rebellion in Colonial Mexican Villages. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1979: 113-133.Tlatelolco: Las claves de la masacre. Coleccin la Lnea Rota. VHS. Directed by Carmen Lira Saade and Carlos Mendoza. Mxico, D.F.: La Jornada and Canal Seis de Julio, 2002.Velasco Pia, Antonio. Regina: 2 de octubre no se olvida. 7th ed. Mxico, D.F.: Editorial Jus S.A. de C.V., 1987.Volpi, Jorge. La Imaginacin y El Poder. Mxico, D.F.: Ediciones Era, 2006.

AcknowledgmentsI want to thank Professor Frederick for his help in redefining the focus of this work. Also, I want to thank him for lending me his documentary about the Tlatelolcos massacre. I would also like to thank and dedicate this work to Elia Pliego and Armando Garcia for introducing me to the authors I used in this work. Also, to my tutor Nathan Goodson-Cregg who unexpectedly helped me to check the grammar flow of this essay.