Personal Narrative: My Interest In Mexican Culture

“Fist clenched, emulating ‘68 Olympics:” The moment Earl Sweatshirt spit this line during “Hoarse” (Kgositsile 2013) was when I came full circle. My mother is from Mexico, and as a cause of this, I had heard about the 1968 Tlatelolco Massacre, but my comprehension of the subject was low, and I paid no mind to these stories. However, as I grew older and became more interested in politics and social issues, my awareness towards this topic grew. In a way, my stylistic isolation from Mexican culture had brought me back to my family’s roots. For so long, I had little interest in Mexican culture and politics, but now as I've grown, I’ve realized how rich and complex Mexican culture can really be.
During 1968, Mexico was divided, with a stable

middle class just beginning to form. Social issues were starting to become more accessible to the public, and political awareness was growing quickly. Many of these newfound cultural factors can be credited to the rise of the student movement. The number of Mexican youth enrolled in college was incredibly high. Armed with newfound knowledge and a hunger for justice and empowered by their professors and their peers, students began to challenge and question the Mexican government. At the time, Mexico was under the administration of Gustavo Diaz-Ordaz and the “Partido Revolucionario Institucional” [Institutional Revolutionary Party] or the PRI. Under Gustavo Diaz-Ordaz, the PRI was as powerful as ever, but was experiencing major backlash from students and the middle-class. (“Security Conditions in Mexico City”) Many were questioning the integrity of Diaz-Ordaz’ administration, an unprecedented factor which was threatening the success of Mexico’s Olympic Games. In an attempt to show the world that Mexico was a powerful, successful country, its government placed a higher priority on the Olympic Games than its own citizens. This mistake in authoritative action is arguably the main cause of Mexico’s political turmoil at the time, and by extent, the deaths of over 200 university students. Even now, the Tlatelolco Massacre of 1968 remains as controversial as ever. The Tlatelolco Massacre not only violated several [UDHR] human rights, it has been one of the most elusive and scarring events in Mexican history and culture.
I. Logos: The Facts
The events leading up to the Massacre of Tlatelolco are more than disreputable, and a substantial amount of the facts concerning the event point towards an act of genocide and political censorship committed by Gustavo Diaz-Ordaz’s corrupt administration.

Mexican politics were rigged by the PRI, as shown in this Security Report from the US government: “The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) virtually monopolizes Mexican politics, while Diaz Ordaz dominates the party without significant challenge to his authority” (“Security Conditions in Mexico City” 4) Further in this security report concerning the Vice President of the United States, concerns about Mexico’s political instability are presented, although the article seems to view Mexico as safe for the Vice President, despite small political disturbances: “Nonetheless, some individuals and small groups, including students not affiliated with extremist organizations, will probably attempt to demonstrate against the Vice President’s Visit” (“Security Conditions in Mexico City”) This was true, students did protest, but not against the Vice President’s visit, but rather against the corruption in their government and lack of a proper democratic process. Part of the reason that there was such a large resistance against the president was simply how many students there were. “These children of the Mexican Revolution that now lived in comfort were, for the first time, able to send their own children to university in

unprecedented numbers” (Richman and Diaz-Cortes 5) Without the boom of the economy provided during the late 60s, it is likely that the Tlatelolco Massacre would not have occurred. The student movement was the only reason that Gustavo Diaz-Ordaz’ administration was questioned by the public. However, with all the facts and context on the sociopolitical climate in Mexico at the time of the massacre, it is clear that the Mexican government, had (at the least) plausible motives for the crimes committed against the student movement. Further evidence and a confession by Luis Echeverria provide substance, although this injustice has not been corrected.