Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (108869)	4/13/2005 10:46:51 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793858

For my purposes, when statues of saints are smashed and replaced with images of Emiliano Zapata, that's sufficient to support my argument, that Marxists took over at least parts of Mexico (Chiapas, Tabasco, etc.) and replaced religion with Marxism as "the opiate of the people". Say what? First, you say that Marxists took over Mexico, a really, well, flip and indefensible thing to say. Then you say that these make-believe Marxists were "virulently anti-cleric, and killed priests and nuns and others involved with the Catholic Church." Zapata was no Marxist. A populist and a revolutionary, yes, but at heart a peasant leader with no systematic ideology beyond redistribution of land and a rough kind of social justice. He was not particulary well-educated, and wouldn't know Groucho Marx from Karl Marx. And breaking statues and replacing them with figures of Zapata is hardly the killing of of priests and nuns. Zapata did not engage in any systematic killing of priests and nuns. Plutarco Elias Calles did fight the Church in the mid-1920s, after the bulk of the revoutionary violence had abated, and after the Church began to resist some of the revolutionary changes. And Calles, too, was no Marxist. Your learned Hispanic family led you astray. Too funny.