Cruel Modernity by Jean Franco

Cruel Modernity  JEAN FRANCO

CRUEL MODERNITY

C R U EL M O D E R N I T Y

Jean Franco

duke universit y press | durham and london | 2013

© ���� Duke Universiy Press  All righs reserved Prined in he Unied Saes o America on acid-ree paper ∞ Typese in Arno by Copperline Book Services, Inc. Library o Congress Caaloging-in-Publicaion Daa Franco, Jean. Cruel moderniy / Jean Franco. pages cm Includes bibliographical reerences and index. ���� ���-�-����-����-� (cloh : alk. paper) ���� ���-�-����-����-� (pbk. : alk. paper) �. Lain America —Poliics and governmen—��h cenury. �. Lain America —Poliics and governmen—��s cenury. �. Sae-sponsored errorism —Lain America —Hisory — ��h cenury. �. Sae-sponsored errorism—Lain America— Hisory —��s cenury. I. Tile. �����. � ��� ���� ���.�� —dc�� ����������

 

CONTENTS

Acknowledgmens vii Inroducion � ONE

The “Insignifican Inciden” and Is Afermah ��

T WO

 Alien o Moderniy ��

  THREE

Raping he Dead ��

  FOUR

Killers, Torurers, Sadiss, and Collaboraors ��

FIVE SI X

Revoluionary Jusice ��� Cruel Survival ���

  SEVEN

Torured Souls ���

  EIGHT

The Ghosly Ars ���

  NINE

 Apocalypse Now ��� Aferword. Hypocrie Moderniy ��� Noes ��� Bibliography ��� Index ���

INTRODUCTION

Cruely, a word ha suggess a deliberae inenion o hur and damage anoher, is no only praciced by governmens, including democracies, ha employ orure and arociy or many differen reasons — rom he exracion o inormaion, o he suppression o dissiden and ehnically differen groups — and by criminal groups, especially drug gangs ha use muilaed bodies as warnings. I is now deeply embedded in anasy lie: in caroon violence, in video games, in lieraure and visual ar, in mass media versions o he Holocaus and he “diry wars.” Consider a film like Quenin Taranino’s  Inglourious Basterds , in which exreme cruely is played or laughs as Jewish commandos in Nazi Germany rival he �� in horrendous acs and scalp heir prisoners. Taranino boased ha “aboos are mean o be broken,” bu when he aboo agains harming anoher is broken, here can be no limis, no social pac. Jonahan Litell’s novel The Kindly Ones devoes several hundred pages o acs o cruely as he proagonis, a Nazi officer, welcomes he reader as his  broher, as someone who in he same circumsances would behave jus as he did. Posapocalypic devasaion in counless films, in comics and in novels akes us back o primiive saes where violence was he necessary ool o survival. Noorious crimes are rapidly ficionalized or

�

|

cruel modernity

adaped o he cinema. The young women murdered in Ciudad Juárez  were scarcely cold in heir graves beore a eaure film,  Border Town ,  was released, wih is sickening vulgarizaion o he murders. Holocaus films such as The Boy in the Striped Pajamas , The Pianist  , and The Reader   bring ogeher enemies — he Nazi and he Jew, he German officer who loves music and he Jewish musician, a ormer camp policewoman and an adolescen boy — in a manuacured reconciliaion. Neiher cruely nor he exploiaion o cruely is new, bu he lifing o he aboo, he accepance and jusificaion o cruely and he raionale or cruel acs, have  become a eaure o moderniy.  Alhough Cruel Modernity ocuses on Lain America, I do no inend o sugges ha cruely is uniquely exercised here; raher, I examine under  wha condiions i became he insrumen o armies, governmens, and rogue groups and how such condiions migh be differen in hese cases han in he ofen-discussed European cases. Why, in Lain America, did he pressures o modernizaion and he lure o moderniy lead saes o kill? The anxiey over moderniy defined and represened by Norh  America and Europe all oo ofen se governmens on he as rack ha  bypassed he arduous pahs o democraic decision making while marginalizing indigenous and black peoples. Saes o excepion and saes o siege no only jusified he suppression o groups deemed subversive or alien o moderniy bu also creaed an environmen in which cruely was enabled in he name o sae securiy. Alhough democraizaion has recenly empered some ormerly auhoriarian saes, he flourishing drug rade has creaed zones where all manner o cruely can be exercised wih impuniy. Wriing o he murder o hundreds o women in Ciudad Juárez, Ria Laura Segao argues ha here, as wih he Holocaus, “he hisorical condiions ha ransorm us ino monsers or accomplices o monsers lie in wai or us all [nos acechan a odos].”� To his mus be added anoher acor in Lain America, where he “war on communism” brough US advisers who remained aloo rom he arociies on he ground ye provided he jusificaion, he weapons, and he raining. I ook he arocious deah o millions during he Firs World War and he Holocaus o raise he problem o evil in relaion o paricular evens. In ����, conroning he ac ha he Grea War was as bloody as and more desrucive han previous wars because weaponry had become

introduction |

�

more sophisicaed, Sigmund Freud wondered how i came abou ha “he world-dominaing naions o he whie race, o which he leadership o he human race has allen and which we knew o have he ineress o he world a hear,” could find hemselves involved in such devasaion.� The “civilized cosmopolian” finds himsel in disarray, or he war seems o have reversed human developmen. “I is jus as hough, since we ake a large number, even millions o people, all he moral acquisiions o individuals are oblieraed, and only he mos primiive, he oldes and mos brual psychical atiudes remain” (���). In ����, in a leter o Einsein, Freud acknowledges ha his work, like every science, is a kind o myhology and argues ha “here is no poin in  wishing o wipe away mankind’s aggressive endencies,” alhough hey can be divered.� Alhough hey were writen a very differen imes, hese essays clearly documen his shaken belie in a civilized Europe in  which people orm muually beneficial communiies. Beween he wo essays on war, Freud wroe Civilization and Its Discontents , in which he  was orced o recognize aggression as “an original, sel-subsising insincual disposiion in man” ha “consiues he greaes impedimen o civilizaion.”� He acknowledged ha or a long ime he had been relucan o engage wih his noneroic aggression (��). Whereas he work o Eros binds humaniy ino a communiy, aggression hreaens his bond,  bu in he bes o cases i is checked by he superego, which waches over he individual “like a garrison in a conquered ciy” (��). Throughou his  wriing, Freud insiss on communiy as an achievemen and guil as is insrumen. The murder o he aher in Totem and Taboo consolidaes hrough heir common guil he band o brohers and, a he same ime, ounds he communiy on he basis o prohibiion. Bu wha happens  when conscience does no repudiae cruely, when he superego ails o kick in, and when he band o brohers eels no guil bu raher celebraes heir bonding hrough some inamous ac o sacrifice? Afer he Pinoche coup in Chile in ����, he miliary and he police immediaely se on unarmed men and women and execued hundreds o hem, consolidaing heir own loyaly o each oher and o he new regime. For Derrida, “i is he obscure word cruelty ha concenraes all he equivocaions. Wha does ‘cruel’ mean? Do we have, did Freud have, a rigorous concep o he cruely ha, like Niezsche, he spoke o so much

�

|

cruel modernity

(as regards he deah drive, he aggression drive, sadism, ec.)? Where does cruely begin and end? Can an ehics, a legal code, a poliics pu an end o i?”� Such quesions have o be asked, bu all oo ofen he European perspecive narrows he enquiry by ocusing on one even, he Holocaus, as he nec plus ultra . Hannah Arend described he Holocaus as a maniesaion o radical evil ha could no longer be undersood and explained by “he evil moives o sel-ineres, greed, coveousness, resenmen, lus or power and cowardice and which hereore anger could no revenge, love could no endure, riendship could no orgive.”� Because he Holocaus is generally depiced as unique in is horror, oher environmens in which cruely was praciced have received less atenion. The concenraion camp horrified because i was he place where exreme cruely was enaced, where humans were reduced o he living dead in one o he mos advanced indusrial naions o he world. Because Germany was echnologically advanced, he breakdown o he link beween civilizaion and progress was dramaically hrus beore a global public when he crude barbarism o he camps was exposed o he world a he end o he Second World War. People were hen orced o ask “how crimes o such arociy can be commited agains human  beings”— a quesion ha Giorgio Agamben dismisses as hypocriical, arguing ha “i would be more hones and, above all, more useul o invesigae careully he juridical procedures and deploymens o power  by which human beings could be so compleely deprived o heir righs and prerogaives ha no ac commited agains hem could appear any longer as a crime.”� Boh Arend and Agamben are eager o claim no only he uniqueness o he concenraion camp bu also he ac ha i exemplified universal developmens. Arend, or example, claims ha he camp’s desrucion o he individual refleced “he experience o he masses o heir superfluiy on an overcrowded earh” (���). Agamben grealy amplifies his global claim. Drawing on Foucaul’s erm “biopoliics” (he managemen o populaions and he conrol o heir bodies hrough he diffuse micromanagemen or governabiliy), he argues ha he camp is he very space where poliics becomes biopoliics, ha is, where lie isel is a he cener o sae poliics. Thus “he birh o he camp in our ime appears as an even ha decisively signals he poliical space o moderniy

introduction |

�

isel” (���). However, he overlooks he ac ha he “poliical space o moderniy” can ake on many differen orms. In his influenial essay “Necropoliics,” Achille Mbembe assers ha “any accoun o he rise o modern error needs o address slavery, which could be considered one o he firs insances o biopoliical experimenaion.”� He hen goes on o argue ha, wih he aparheid sae, here comes ino being a peculiar error ormaion, which combines “he disciplinary, he biopoliical and he necropoliical.”� Mbembe’s essay makes i clear ha error ormaions ake on disincive characerisics according o heir regional hisories and orms o oppression. To consider he exercise o cruely in Lain America moves he debae ino a differen and complex errain ha links conques o eminicide, he war on communism o genocide and neoliberalism o casual violence wihou limis. Wha makes he Lain American case unique is, as Enrique Dussel argues, ha he Spanish conques o he Americas was an even ha inauguraed moderniy, giving Europe he advanage over he Muslim, Indian, and Chinese worlds.�� “For moderniy, he barbarian is a fault or opposing he civilizing process, and moderniy, osensibly innocen, seems o be emancipaing he  fault   o is own vicims” (���). This is wha Dussel describes as modernizaion’s “ambiguous course by ouing a raionaliy opposed o  primitive , myhic explanaions even as i concocs a myh o conceal is own sacrificial violence owards he oher.”�� Dussel’s second paradigm is he raionalizaion inauguraed in seveneenh-cenury Europe, which he sees as a way o managing a  world sysem by simpliying is complexiy. I would emphasize, however, ha his does no mean ha he wo moderniies ake place in sric sequence. On he conrary, he menaliy and pracice o conques exend well ino he wenieh cenury. Up o he near presen, many areas o Lain America have remained ouside legal resrains on he ill reamen o he original peoples and he descendans o slaves. In remoe areas like he Argenine deser in he nineeenh cenury and he rub ber planaions in he Amazon in he early wenieh, where he robber  baron Arana reerred o he reamen o he slave labor as conquestación , here was no inernaional oucry a he ill reamen o naive peoples.��  As i he conques were sill going on, he special orces o he

�

|

cruel modernity

Guaemalan army appropriaed he name kaibiles rom an Indian chie  who ough agains he conqueror Pedro de Alvarado, hus aking on he courage o he indigenous peoples while commiting he arociies atribued o he conquerors. Arociy has changed very litle since he sixeenh cenury. Las Casas’s descripion o Indians being hrown ino he holes hey had dug —“And hus children and old men and even pregnan women and women bu laely in childbed were hrown in and perished”��— is eerily similar o accouns o he massacres documened in he Guaemalan repor o he Commission on Truh and Reconciliaion, Memoria del silencio . In he prologue o ha repor, members expressed he “sadness and pain” o lisening o he evidence o acs o exreme barbarism.�� Dussel’s second paradigm o moderniy, he raionalizaion and simplificaion o global economic relaions, was pursued as a goal or Lain  America in he wenieh cenury hrough a variey o projecs, he mos imporan o which was developmenalism.�� Under he hegemony o he Unied Saes, he goal o developmenalism was o remove opposiion o he world sysem. When challenged by he insurgency and guerrilla movemens o he ����s and ����s, he miliary, already powerul, ook charge o wha i ermed “he war agains communism” and resored o exreme error and blanke repression no only o milians  bu also o heir supposed supporers. Alhough he repressive measures made a preense o being sophisicaed, he elecric prod and elecrically charged wires were he only modern insrumens. Simulaed execuions and burials, repeaed beaings, hanging so ha he ee barely ouched he floor, he “submarine,” are all age-old pracices. Jacobo Timerman, an early vicim o he Argenine miliary, saw hrough he heaer, poining ou ha he orurers were “rying o creae anoher, a more sophisicaed image o he orure sies, as i hereby endowing heir aciviy  wih a more elevaed saus. The miliary encourage he anasy; he noion o imporan sies, mehods, original echniques, novel equipmen, allows hem o presen a ouch o disincion and legiimacy o he  world.”�� The modernizaion o orure he ound ludicrous: “ha con version o diry, dark, gloomy places ino a world o sponaneous innovaion and insiuional ‘beauy’ is one o he mos arousing pleasures or he orurers. I is as i hey el hemselves maser o he orce required

introduction |

�

o change realiy. And i places hem again in a world o omnipoence. Tha omnipoence in urn hey eel, assures hem o impuniy — a sense o immuniy o pain, guil and emoional imbalance.”�� Bu even hough acs o cruely have changed litle, heir jusificaion has. My book begins wih a mos egregious even — he massacre o black setlers on he border o he Dominican Republic on he orders o General Trujillo in an atemp o creae an absolue division beween he black populaion o Haii and he “whie” populaion o he Dominican Republic. The chaper inroduces many o his book’s recurren hemes — he dehumanizaion o he vicims, he atemped suppression o heir memory, and he legacy o inexplicable loss belaedly regisered in lierary exs. Alien to Modernity

In Guaemala and Peru, he major casualies in he civil wars o he ����s  were he indigenous, who were deemed “alien o moderniy.” Foucaul had claimed, in defining biopower, ha “racism develops primo wih colonizaion, ha is o say wih colonizing genocide. When i is necessary o kill people, kill populaions, kill civilizaions, how can one debae on he basis o biopower? Through he hemes o evoluionism, hrough racism.”�� Bu in Lain America racism preceded evoluionism. I was insilled wih he Conques, which lef an inheriance o guil and above all he longsanding ear ha he old gods would reurn. And indeed hey did reurn, in Bolivia during he katarista rebellion; in he Case Wars in Yucaán during he nineeenh cenury; and in he hundred or so Indian uprisings in Peru, he larges o which was led by José Gabriel Condorcanqui,  who ook he name o Túpac Amaru II.�� In he ronier lands, people lived in ear o an Indian raid. The well-known opening paragraphs o Domingo Sarmieno’s Facundo: Civilización y barbarie (Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism) describes ravelers in he Argenine pampa earully lisening o he wind in he grass and peering ino he darkness, “seeking he siniser shapes o he savage horde ha may, rom one minue o he nex, surprise hem.”�� Wars o exerminaion such as he Argenine “war o he deser” and he drive agains he Mapuche o Chile were couched in erms o conques,�� as was he exploiaion o he indigenous during he rubber boom in Colombia a he end o he nineeenh cenury.��

�

|

cruel modernity

For he conquerors, he pracice o human sacrifice had been he barrier ha divided civilizaion rom barbarism, moderniy rom aniquiy; heir accouns o he cruel acions o he indigenous creaed a recurren ear ha barbarism lurked on he dark side and could resurace as a hrea o modern man. In “Huizilopochli,” a sory by Rubén Darío, a Norh American becomes a sacrificial vicim o he Huizilipochli cul during he chaos o he revoluionary war, leading one o he revoluionary officers o commen, “There is an Azec in he hear o every Mexican.”�� This ear suraces in sories by Darío, Carlos Fuenes, Julio Corázar, Gusavo Saenz, and Carmen Boullosa. I reaches is mos exreme in Ocavio Paz’s essay Postdata , writen afer he massacre o demonsraors in Tlaelolco in ����, which was inended o cleanse Mexico o disorder on he eve o he ���� Olympic Games; Paz atribued his arociy o he oppressive shadow o he Azec pyramid.��  Wha he “hear o darkness” ears reveal, however, is no only ear o regression o a prior sae bu also an anxiey over moderniy and he ear ha he indigenous — especially in counries such as Peru, Guaemala, and Mexico, where hey consiued a subsanial percenage o he naion — would pu a brake on modernizaion. Labels including “underdeveloped,” “marginal,” “peripheral,” and “hird world” placed Lain America on a lower rung han he developed world ha was he advance column o echnological sophisicaion associaed wih he modern. Becoming modern mean overcoming underdevelopmen by loosening he drag o hose secors o he populaion ha were sigmaized as “downsream,” “unproducive,” “radiional,” or, o borrow a erm coined by Noam Chomsky, “unpeople.”�� Tha is why he urgency o modernizaion ransposed racism ino a differen key and urned he indigenous rom an exploied labor orce ino a negaive and undesirable mass. The docrine o developmenalism widely disseminaed afer he Second World War emphasized he independen sel-deermined indi vidual.�� By conras, he basis o indigenous lie was he communiy,  which or he modernizing inellecual was an anachronism. During he civil wars o he ����s, he Guaemalan miliary argeed he indigenous,  whose exerminaion or orced assimilaion was deemed essenial o he horough overhaul o he sae in he name o modernizaion.�� Despie indigenous acivism in numerous organizaions, he miliary considered naive groups primarily as obsacles ha had o be removed

introduction |

�

or horoughly alered. In he words o Greg Grandin, he Guaemalan army “produced an analysis ha undersood error no as a resul o sae decomposiion, a ailure in he insiuions and morals ha guaranee righs and afford proecion, and raher as a componen o sae ormaion, as he oundaion o he miliary’s plan o naional consiuional rule.”�� In Peru, sophisicaed hinkers, no o menion lef-wing revoluionaries, “believed ha he Andean world was radically Oher.”�� This  belie susained a naional imaginary and a pracice based on he segregaion o he Andean masses. Thus projecs o modernizaion were buil on he colonial srucure o separaion.�� No only culure bu skin color was a problem as long as civilizaion  was idenified wih whieness. In ����, General Trujillo o he Dominican Republic underook an ehnic cleansing o black Haiians who had setled along he Rio Masacre, he river ha marked he border beween he wo counries, in an atemp o exploi naionalis senimen and define he Dominican populaion as whier and more civilized. Reerred o, in diplomaic correspondence, as an “insignifican inciden,” he massacre received he ideological suppor o a phalanx o ideologues  who divered he blame rom he Dominican army o he supposedly criminal Haiians who were said o have invaded Dominican erriory.�� Trujillo waned o consolidae wha had been a porous border and make i an absolue barrier beween he wo naions, and he did his by creaing he myh o he whie Dominican, spiriually and physically dieren rom he black Haiian. Wha he also creaed was a melancholy afermah refleced in he novels ha I discuss in he opening chaper. Cruely leaves long-lasing memory races — hence he recurren heme o buried books, aded phoographs, ragmened esimonies, exhumed  bodies, harvess o bones.�� Reason of State

In many Lain American naions, “here was an iron-clad civiliy or he privileged ew, and violence agains he underprivileged masses was a rouine affair.”�� Sriking workers, rebellious sudens, and oppressed peasans all became arges o he miliary, which, wih is srong sense o corporae ideniy and privilege, was responsible or insalling auhoriarian governmens and proecing hem agains he hrea o srikes and proess.

��

|

cruel modernity

The “mehod” or exerminaing opposiion under dicaorships was described by he Cuban wrier Alejo Carpenier in his novel El recurso del método (The Recourse of the Method ). This was he inallible “mehod” by  which governmens go rid no only o blacks and indigenous peoples bu o sriking workers, lefiss, and demonsraing sudens whose demands  were seen as desabilizing acors. The ile is a sly allusion o Descares’s  Discourse on Method . The proagonis is a culivaed dicaor, ond o luxury and educaed in he classics. Faced wih an uprising, his German colonel, Hoffman, conducs a scorched earh campaign and jusifies i  by quoing Helmuh Molke, he general who led he German invasion o Belgium and France during he Firs World War, o he effec ha “in war i is bes o finish i quickly. To finish i quickly all mehods are good including he mos blameworhy.” The presiden (always reerred o as he  primer magisterio , as i he were in charge o he law) argues ha in counries such as his, hey mus sill figh much as Julius Caesar had done, “wha or Caesar were véneas, marcomanes, hérulos, ri boques . . . ; or us are guahibos, guachinangos, bochos and mandingas” (i.e., blacks, escaped slaves, and he indigenous) (���; my ranslaion). In oher words he civilized Roman conroning barbarians becomes he classical model or he dicaor conroning barbarous blacks and he indigenous. The slaugher o he “mandingos,” however, is only he  beginning. In he ciy o New Córdoba, sudens and workers revol and  barricade hemselves in he cahedral, which is desroyed by Hoffman’s Krupp gun. The survivors are massacred, he women raped. When news o he arociies reaches Europe, he  primer magisterio is given he sou brique “Bucher o New Córdoba.” Shunned by mos people, he is welcomed in Paris by he Illusrious Academic, who asks, “Whoever had  been able o conain he ury, he excesses, he cruelies — lamenable  bu always repeaed hroughou Hisory — o an unleashed army, drunk  wih riumph? And he more so when i was a mater o puting down a rebellion o Indians and blacks” (���; my ranslaion). The cruelies are he ineviable oucome o vicory, and he dead are, in any case, he oucass o civilizaion. Carpenier had pleny o experience o dicaors, having been imprisoned during he Machado regime in Cuba. Bu raher han speaking rom a pulpi o denounce arociy, he ops or he groesque: “The las resisance fighers — some hiry-our o hem — were

introduction |

��

aken o he municipal slaugherhouse, where, among catle skins, innards, gus, and animal bile, over pools o coagulaed blood, hey were hung rom hooks and gaffs by he armpis, by he legs, he ribs or he chin, afer kicking and beaing hem o a pulp.” The resisance fighers have no names; hey are simply dead animals, cerainly no ciizens o he sae, making i impossible or he reader o experience he even as anyhing oher han a groesque example o he dicaor’s excesses. Carpenier’s novel belongs o a subgenre o dicaorship novels ha porray dicaors as groesque, bordering, in some cases, on he comical.  Valle Inclán’s Tirano Banderas , Miguel Angel Asurias’s El señor presidente , García Márquez’s  El otoño del patriarca , and Roa Basos’s Yo el supremo are ousanding examples o he genre. Their all-powerul proagoniss exempliy he absoluis sae and need no alibi or eliminaing dissen and especially movemens o workers and peasans. Scores o such massacres had scarred he hisorical record o Lain America, rom he suppression o he peroleum srikers in Comodoro Rivadavia, Argenina, in ����, o he slaugher o sriking Bolivian miners in ����. The semana trágica in Buenos Aires a he beginning o ���� occurred when a  workers’ srike or shorer hours brough ou he army. Bu in he ����s, hese local evens were superseded by he coninenal war on communism, vigorously preached by he Unied Saes, which jusified a policy o exerminaing no only guerrillas and insurgens bu also heir alleged suppor neworks ha involved housands o people. In Colombia and Guaemala, in Peru and El Salvador and in he afermah o he Pinoche coup in Chile, armies engaged in killing sprees. The mos noorious o hese were he incidens a Dos Erres in Guaemala, El Mozoe in El Salvador, and he Deah Caravan in Chile, orgies o collecive violence ha consolidaed he execuioners as bands o brohers.�� Massacres represen he “degradaion o war.” As he Naional Commitee or Reparaion and Reconciliaion o Colombia commened, “The massacre has a riple uncion — prevenive, puniive, and sym bolic. I is symbolic in ha i disrups all religious and ehical aboos. I represens he degradaion o warare.”�� In Colombia, whole communiies sigmaized as subversives were wiped rom he map by he paramiliary orces, which did no consider hem members o he naional communiy. Such was he ae o El Salado (in he Cauca Valley)

��

|

cruel modernity

and Trujillo beween ���� and ����, where large numbers o ciizens  were orured and killed.�� Torure, in his case, was no primarily or exracing inormaion, since he whole populaion had already been labeled “subversive”; raher, i was a demonsraion o exreme cruely ha included quarering bodies wih an elecric saw so ha vicims  winessed heir own dismembermen. The progressive pries Tiberio Fernández had his hands ampuaed, hen his ee, and finally his capors beheaded him.�� How were men (and some women) persuaded o commi acs ha  were no killings a a disance like bombings bu involved an inimae connecion wih he vicim’s body, a willingness o cu, rape, and muilae? For such acions o become an acceped pracice, here had o be raining, and he one organizaion wih his capaciy was he army. In mos socieies, soldiers are rained no o kill women and children, bu once hese are couned as he enemy, hey oo become arges. The hierarchical miliary srucure makes i possible or higher officials o ac as careakers o he sae while remaining disan rom he diry work o exerminaion.�� The role o he Unied Saes as aciliaor and disan adviser was crucial during he diry wars in he Souhern Cone. The grea sandard-bearer o democracy secrely endorsed no only he orure and killing o he avowed enemy bu also ha o heir social ne work, and here is a cerain irony in he conras beween he public ace o he Unied Saes and is underhanded permissiveness when i came o he anics o is proégés.�� The US-rained Alacal batalion responsible or he Mozoe massacre in El Salvador in ���� invened is own syle. Is members wore he figure o an Indian on heir uniorm and  were named Alacal afer an Indian warrior who resised he conquerors; hey also invoked he name o General Marínez, who had ordered he massacre o Indians and communiss in ����. The convicion ha communism was a cancer ha had o be cu ou, a convicion insilled by heir US allies in he war on communism, was all he jusificaion hey needed. Their aim, like ha o oher counerinsurgency operaions ha had received raining in he Unied Saes, was o “drain he sea,” ha is, o wipe ou no only he guerrillas hemselves bu heir suppor nework as well. “And so i you are a guerrilla hey don’ jus kill you: hey kill  your cousin, you know, everybody in he amily, o make sure ha he

introduction |

��

cancer is cu ou.”�� This was he lesson hey learned oo well. General Monerrosa, he commander o he batalion, creaed a mysique around his roops. “They sho animals and smeared he blood all over heir aces, hey sli open he animals’ bellies and drank he blood.” They celebraed graduaion by collecing dead animals and boiling hem “ino a blood soup, and chugged i down. Then hey sood a rigid atenion and sang, ull hroaed, he uni’s heme song, ‘Somos Guerreros,’ which  boased ha hey were going orh ‘o kill / A mounain o erroriss.’ ”��  Wolgang Sosky wries ha riuals aciliae ransgression and ha riual violence and sacrifice and murder “as communal acs esablish bonds o loyaly.”�� Cerainly, he solidariy o he “band o brohers” was an imporan aspec o he scenes o cruely no only in Guaemala bu also in Peru, in he Souhern Cone, and in he underground operaions o hose who assassinaed young women in Ciudad Juárez.  Whereas arociies are commited by he horde, orure is ofen a more soliary aciviy excep when perormed in public o errorize a populaion. Bu hough he band o brohers is a suppor nework, and hough he orurer is proeced by an insiuion (including he nonsae organizaions o drug raffickers), loyalies orged hrough criminal acions are ragile. The Salvadorian Robocop, he proagonis o El arma en el hombre (The Arm in the Man), a novel by Horacio Casellano Moyá, has no skill excep killing, and when peace is declared, he discovers ha he old loyalies no longer proec him. None o he organizaions he  worked or urn ou o be reliable suppor neworks unil he finally finds his niche in he US war on drugs. Primo Levi labeled he cruelies ha were infliced on hose who  would die in any case “useless violence.” The Nazi years “were characerized by widespread useless violence, as an end in isel . . . occasionally having a purpose, ye always redundan, always disproporionae o he purpose isel.”�� As he Norwegian mass killer Anders Breivik declared during his rial, dehumanizing he vicim is essenial; or, as Levi expressed i, “Beore dying he vicim mus be degraded so ha he murderer will be less burdened by guil. This is an explanaion no devoid o logic bu i shous o heaven: i is he sole useulness o useless violence.”�� The Chilean Commission o Truh and Reconciliaion expressed asonishmen ha hose who were o be execued were

��

|

cruel modernity

firs horribly orured: “The Commission eels ha i mus make i clear ha in many insances he killing was carried ou wih such orms o orure and viciousness when he only objecive seems o have been o inensiy he suffering o he vicim o an unspeakable degree.” They cie he case o Eugenio Ruiz Tagle, killed in Ocober ����. His moher saw he body and described is errible sae: “An eye was missing, he nose had been ripped off, he one ear visible was pulled away a he botom. There was a deep burn mark as hough done by a soldering iron on his neck and ace, his mouh was all swollen up, here were los o cus and cigarete burns and judging rom he angle o his head, he neck was broken; here were los o cus and bleeding.”�� Debasemen ha included curses, beaings, and all kinds o humiliaion was praciced on boh sexes, bu in he case o women i was aken o exremes, as he vicims  were no only submited o rape and even worse bu were also insuled as whores. Moreover, rape was seldom he sexual ac tout court bu ofen involved he inserion o arms or sicks ino he vagina. Reerring o El Salvador, Aldo Lauria-Saniago wries, “The atack on sexual organs, even afer he vicim’s deah, and decapiaion — apparenly praciced in a slaugherhouse wih specialized equipmen — were mehods o orure ha esablished heir own goals and jusificaion and provided he securiy agencies and righis groups wih iconic power ar beyond he acical eliminaion o people perceived as aciviss or revoluionaries.”�� I was no only he living whose bodies were violaed. The exreme desecraion o cadavers is a pracice ha migh seem compleely alien in socieies where he dead were honored wih wakes, where he cuerpo  presente (viewing o he body) and he uneral ceremony and he care o he grave were significan riuals o mourning. Bu in arociies, in disappearances, in revenge killings, desecraion was, and sill is, a regular pracice and a warning o ohers. Cadavers became objecs or ransmiing messages o he civilian populaion or o he enemy. I was a pracice ha became noorious during La Violencia in Colombia, where differen cus were used o send messages: “In he ‘neckie cu,’ he vicim’s ongue  was pulled down hrough an opening in he hroa: in he ‘floris’s cu,’ severed limbs were insered in he neck afer decapiaion; in he ‘monkey’s cu,’ he vicim’s head was placed on his or her ches.”�� From civil  war o he Medellín drug gangs, such pracices passed wih he drug

introduction |

��

raffic ino Mexico, where cruely is a is mos exreme and where he expressive use o he cadaver has become common pracice, a orm o macabre heaer addressed no only o rivals bu also o he public. Extreme Masculinity

 Wha massacres, rape, and desecraion sugges is a meldown o he undamenal core ha makes humans recognize heir own vulnerabiliy and hence acknowledge ha o he oher. I erm his phenomenon “exreme masculiniy,” or I do no believe ha all men are necessarily prone o violence or ha women do no orure. Furher, as I show in he chaper on revoluionary violence (chaper �), women who belong o armies or insurgen groups do figh and execue enemies. Bu in mos pars o he world, women are no regarded as he equals o men. Even  when here is legal equaliy, popular culure reinorces heir subjecion. One has only o read he liany o sexis jokes caalogued in Robero Bolaño’s novel  ���� (discussed in chaper �) o undersand he casual  bu consan reinorcemen o misogyny. The subjecificaion o he male wihin he radiional amily confirms his saus as he superior sex, and alhough i does no ollow ha he is hereore prone o cruely, here is sill, in some quarers, an idealizaion o he dominaing and ruhless male figure. This endency is urher encouraged by popular lieraure. The bes-selling books by John Eldredge have been used as raining manuals or he drug carel known as La Familia, in Michoacán, Mexico. His idealizaion o male developmen rom boy o cow boy and his endorsemen o he suppor offered by a band o brohers migh sound perecly innocuous, ye he carel ha adoped his code  was deadly.�� The implacable, all-powerul male requires subjugaed vicims. In he genocidal wars in Guaemala and Peru, rape, almos always commited agains women, was a crucial and symbolic weapon. I was no simply a sexual ac commited by overexcied warriors bu also a declaraion o superioriy and a orm o orure ha ofen ended in deah.�� Gang rapes consolidaed he rapiss as a group who mingled heir seed in an abjec emale body. Raped corpses had sakes hrus ino he vagina symbolizing he will o preven a populaion’s reproducion hrough complee serilizaion. Rapes were ofen accompanied by he slaugher o children

��

|

cruel modernity

and, since he seed had o be eradicaed, he exracion o he eus rom he moher. Even when he woman was lef alive, he birh o he child o rape was inended o shame her and, among he indigenous, o separae her rom he communiy.�� I sress ha rape is a orm o orure i orure is defined as he inflicion o exreme pain. In he Wesern radiion, he purpose o orure was o exac ruh, bu in conemporary imes, his is no always he case.��  While i is rue ha during he miliary regimes, orure did in ac yield imporan inormaion and ofen led o he discovery and deah o opponens, i was also applied when here was litle or no inormaion o be obained. In her influenial book The Body in Pain , Elaine Scarry wries ha during orure, he body o he orured prisoner is very much presen, all oher sensaions having been subjugaed by pain, while he orurer’s  body is correspondenly “absen”; he orured is reduced o speechless agony, while orurer’s body is aloo rom he experience.�� Bu when rape is recognized as a orm o orure, he scene changes and oher acors come ino play, paricularly he orurer’s pleasure in his display o power and subjugaion; and when rape is auhorized by conques, here are no limis. Conemporary examples abound. In he Congo, rape vicims are said o oal millions.�� How much o a surprise is i o learn ha a emale journalis covering he recen Egypian uprising agains Mubarak was gang-raped or ha emale Peace Corps voluneers sen o remoe areas were raped? The drama o masculiniy is perormed on he body o he helpless woman. Women gang-raped in Peru and Guaemala during he civil wars were a “gif” o he ranks or doing a good  job, underscoring he women’s less-han-human saus. In he inroducion o he edied volume When States Kill , Cecilia Menjívar and Nelson Rodríguez use he erm “violence workers” and poin ou ha orurers undergo raining and atend seminars.�� Bu his erminology does no recognize he sexual and eroic elemens in rape, or he ac ha raped  women have accouned or a subsanial number o he vicims in civil  wars. War permis, jusifies, and rewards he predaory male, who can even ake pleasure in he gang rape o he corpse or he virual corpse.  Ileana Rodríguez, wriing o he murder o women in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, compared he arociies commited agains women o snuff  films.�� She argues ha “sexual crimes are a social warning o every-

introduction |

��

one, an ac o power, and discipline, a sign o masculine, brual, naural, social and poliical power, and an invasion o he public space — when no a complee akeover.”�� Bu while his public display applies o conemporary eminicides, i does no apply o mass rape during civil war,  when, ar rom reflecing a crisis o auhoriy, i represens an exreme asserion o auhoriy, sancioned by officers in he field and in deenion ceners operaed by he secre services. In hese cases, he sae shelers and encourages perversion, a siuaion brillianly ficionalized by Bolaño in his novel Distant Star  , which I discuss in chaper �. Alhough drugs and liquor help o eliminae aboos on killing and orure, he group’s saging o collecive anasy also plays a significan role. The rape o women during he Peruvian and Guaemalan civil wars and he assassinaion o emale workers in Ciudad Juárez (discussed in chaper �) are, as one criic mainains, no individual bu “corporae acs.” This imporan insigh dramaizes a collecive shared anasy o male power and emale subjecion.�� Torurers, unlike many o heir vicims, live o ell he ale, bu heir need o ell he sory usually springs no rom remorse bu rom resenmen when hey are named and accused while superior officers go sco ree. Chaper � considers he orurers’ sories as old in inerviews,  which hey are all oo eager o give.�� These are men like Adolo Scilingo in Argenina and Oswaldo Romo in Chile, who ound hemselves accused, pu on rial, and given prison senences. The Peruvian mass killer,  Jesús Sosa, an exper execuioner who sho many prisoners, was ready o obey he mos bizarre orders beore he was caugh ou or his paricipaion in a noorious inciden — he massacre o sudens rom La Canua Agriculural College. When he clandesine cemeery in which he sudens had been buried was discovered and he press began o piece he sory ogeher, he and a ellow execuioner displayed no remorse or he deahs bu debaed over he quesion o wheher a civilian cour was a beter be or hem han a miliary cour.�� In his chaper I conron he major quesion o how men and women come o perorm acs o exreme cruely and heir appreniceship in he degradaion o humaniy. The Brazilian film Elite Squad , which raced he developmen o a mildmannered law suden ino a fierce killer in he avela war agains drugs, offers a riumphan accoun o his process and has become one o he

��

|

cruel modernity

mos popular films in Brazil. Is populariy raises he quesion o how people in general have come o uncriically accep such a high degree o  violence rom he orces o law. In heir memoirs and conessions, o which here are many, orurers end o deend hemselves by saying hey were jus doing a job or obeying heir superiors. This endency explains why Hannah Arend’s phrase “he banaliy o evil,” which she hersel acknowledged was no he bes possible descripion o Eichmann’s crimes, has been echoed by several criics in heir discussion o Lain American orurers. Bu his is o conuse belaed sel-jusificaion wih he even isel. I concur wih he Argenine philosopher León Rozichner, who saes caegorically “ha crime and murder, wheher individual or collecive, by he sae or by sociey, alhough hey may be “normalized” and bureaucraic, are no and can never be banal. . . . The evil ha leads one o deligh in he murder and orure o anoher human being can never be, in our view, an indifferen experience or he perperaor.”�� The inerviews and conessions o orurers are proos, i proos are needed, ha esimony is anyhing bu ransparen. The esimonies o  women who, afer orure, wen o work or he secre services in Chile and Argenina are even more difficul o assess because heir sories direcly challenge he reader wih he quesion “W ha would you have done?” I is a rick quesion, one ha has been dramaized and narraed in hundreds o plays and books. In chaper �, I discuss  he Chilean Luz  Arce as he conemporary “ancien mariner” who is compelled o ell her sory over and over as she challenges hose who have never had o choose beween berayal and deah. Bu unlike many ohers who gave up inormaion during orure, Arce was able o conver her sory ino a naional allegory o reconciliaion, deflecing atenion rom oher issues, noably her work or he secre service, which coninued afer he end o he Pinoche regime and her liaison wih he second in command a he Villa Grimaldi prison. In Argenina, where he survivors o he camps were labeled raiors while hose who died were regarded as heroes and heroines, i ook years or ormer prisoners whom he miliary had recuperaed o ell heir side o he sory — a sory ha confirmed he effeciveness o orure no only in producing inormaion bu also in changing he very personaliy o he ormer prisoners.��

introduction |

��

Terror was o course no he exclusive sraegy o he righ bu was also deployed by some guerrilla groups, someimes agains heir own members. In chaper �, I discuss he noion o sacrifice ha was em braced by boh he Guevaris guerrillas and he Shining Pah o Peru.�� The macho subjec suraces almos as parody in he episodes ha occurred in Argenina and El Salvador when minuscule guerrilla groups urned on heir own recruis and killed hem or heir incompeence or disobedience. Bu he mos egregious example o guerrilla sacrifice is undoubedly ha demanded by he leadership o he Shining Pah o Peru, whose hierarchy o command exaced exreme sacrifices rom he lowes ranks. Those who acceped he challenge o crossing he river o  blood also acceped ha killing ohers was par o ha sacrifice. Wha makes he Shining Pah experience so srikingly differen, however, is ha women ormed a subsanial percenage o he warriors and were as capable o killing as he men. In an earlier version o his inroducion, I had atribued cruel pracices o “rogue males,” bu on reflecion, I ound he erm misleading. “Rogue” suggess aberraion rom a norm, bu he “normaive” is no a sable or universal caegory because we are dealing  wih he complex quesion o subjecificaion. One o he ew sudies o undersand his is Klaus Thewelei’s encyclopedic and immensely ineresing Male Fantasies.  Thewelei rejecs Freudian caegories in avor o Deleuze and Guatari’s accoun o subjecificaion as desiring producion and inroduces he erm “ani-producion” or hose whose “mode o producion is he ransormaion o lie ino deah, and dismanling o lie.”�� Bu we sill need o undersand by wha means killers dehumanize heir vicims and make hem beings or deah. Wha he Shining Pah example shows is he power o indocrinaion hrough he repeiion o slogans o confirm he collecive will and give he paricipans a sense o power beyond he individual, since collecively hey have become he inelucable orces o hisory. This is no only a male anasy.  Women oo experienced his power and were inoxicaed. Ouestionable Truths

Some evens are difficul or impossible o narrae because here are no precedens, no rameworks. The haling sories o he living dead  who oruiously had survived massacres hover in sark conras o Luz

��

|

cruel modernity

 Arce’s fluen “verbalizaion,” examined in chaper �. Those who aced he firing squad or survived an army massacre were rarely able o ell he ale. Excep or he communis Miguel Mármol, who survived General Marínez’s mass execuion in El Salvador in ���� and who was able, many  years afer he even, o narrae i as a sory o communis heroism, he survivors whose sories I discuss in chaper � have no narraive rame work or heir experience. Like La Llorona, a characer rom Cenral  American olklore, Rufina Amaya, one o he ew survivors o he El Mozoe massacre in El Salvador, perpeually hears her dead children crying ou or her. The survivors o Chile’s “caravan o deah,” during  which Pinoche’s army rounded up and killed armers and laborers, or he mos par, live in a perpeual sae o shock, unable o remake heir lives afer resurrecion, unable o find an explanaion or fi heir experience ino a heroic narraive. Some social scieniss and human righs specialiss righly criicize he blanke represenaion o he orured, he execued, and he disappeared as vicims, a erm ha places pary members, milians, and hose acive in civil righs organizaions under he same rubric wihou disincion. Bu in massacres, here are no disincions; he aim is o banish he memory o he vicims  rom he earh. The massive repression under he miliary regimes o he Souhern Cone was indeed moivaed by his sraegy o exerminaion ha would remove all races o he milians’ ideals, moives, and passions rom he naional memory. Bu he mass killings o opponens had o be done in secrecy in order o hide he exen o he arociies rom he world.  Alhough bodies were disappeared, buried in he deser, hrown ino pis or ino he sea, heir memory, guarded by amily members, lived on. The miliary could no hide he ac ha housands o people whose exisence was recorded in phoographs were unaccouned or. These were he ghoss ha could no be laid o res.�� In he absence o any possible narraive, he phoograph o he disappeared person became an icon, he accusaory evidence o a lie whose exisence had been denied. Families used he phoographs o sons and daughers o undo he official sory and o demand couneracually ha hey be reurned wih lie. Years afer heir disappearance, heir phoographs have grown aded, underscoring he years o impuniy and challenging he amnesia decreed by he governmens no only o he Souhern Cone bu also o Colombia,

introduction |

��

Guaemala, Peru, and Mexico. In chaper �, I discuss he role o phoography and film in memorializaion o he disappeared and he longerm effecs o disappearance no only on parens bu also on he nex generaions. Disappearance has generaed a vas archaeological search, a  whole science o recovery, an archive o films, insallaions, wriing, he aide-mémoire o wha was scheduled o leave no race. The Truh Commissions se up in he afermah o arociy called or reconciliaion ha more ofen han no was a purely rheorical gesure, leaving many counries (Chile, Peru, Argenina, Uruguay, Colombia, Brazil) divided abou he pas. The huge lieraure on memory esifies o he exen o loss even as hese counries setle ino wha is ermed “redemocraizaion,” which leaves unjus social srucures inac. Wha has been my ocus, however, is no memory, however imporan o he  wounded peoples, bu he magniude and he incalculabiliy o loss, or  which my own counry mus ake some share o he blame or supplying, raining, and encouraging he execuioners. In he final chaper, I come o he more recen war, described in he Unied Saes as he war on drugs as i i is a war ha can be waged only souh o he border. In Mexico, Colombia, and Cenral America and in some areas o he Souhern Cone (or insance, he border beween Paraguay, Brazil, and Argenina), young men are drawn ino he drug gangs whose violence exceeds ha o he miliar y governmens. Mexico, a counry ha avoided he exreme consequences o he war on communism has become he showcase o conemporary arociy. In he ����s, he murder o several hundred women in Ciudad Juárez firs drew atenion o “expressive crimes.” These crimes publicized he killers’ power and impuniy, and he vicims’ muilaed bodies dramaized he killers’ deep-rooed misogyny.�� Expressive crimes are hose in which bodies illusrae he logic o he killers. In he case o he murdered women in Ciudad Juárez, i is clear ha, as emale workers in Mexican assem bly plans, hey disruped wha had been a sexual division o labor. The muilaed and beheaded male bodies, on he oher hand, are revenge killings ha speak o reachery and berayal. Thus boh he murder o women and he beheading o males inenionally publicize he persisence o archaic codes.�� Such crimes effecively omen he culure o ear ha dominaes many areas o Lain America and has creaed

��

|

cruel modernity

mini-oaliarianisms on he ronier beween Mexico and he Unied Saes, in he avelas o Brazil and he slums o El Salvador. By minioaliarianism, I mean conrol o he populaion’s everyday lie hrough ear. In some pars o norhern Mexico, children say ou o schools afer hreaening messages appear on walls, people do no go ou afer dark, hose wih relaives norh o he border simply leave. The daily deah oll in norhern Mexico resembles a lis o warime casualies; ���� was a record year, wih �,��� deahs — ha is, one-ourh o he oal deahs in he enire naion.�� Kidnapping and exorion are so rouine ha hey seldom meri a line in he newspapers. The ane has been raised or he oo soldiers, among hem youhs in heir eens, who are required no only o kill and orure bu also o be indifferen o heir own deahs. Drug carels publicize heir supremacy wih expressive crimes and he public display o hreaening mantas (shees used as posers) ha are displayed on bridges over highways. The inernecine wars beween he carels and he army ha was sen in by Presiden Calderón have urned many pars o Mexico ino a batleground where killing is no only rouine bu also sancified by prayers o he Sana Muere (Sain Deah) among he Zeas or, in he case o La Familia, by appeals o di vine jusice. In he mids o his drug war, crimes agains women go on  wih levantones  or emporary kidnappings, especially in he “black riangle” (El Salvador, Guaemala, and Honduras), where he atacks have reached an unprecedened level. For many, his violence marks he end o “civil” sociey and he sar o a dark ime in which humaniy reaps he reward o is ecklessness, giving rise o he apocalypic orebodings ha I examine in he essays o Sergio González Rodríguez and Ria Segao. Carlos Monsiváis’s las collecion o Mexican chronicles,  Apocalipstick , depics conemporary Mexico as an overcrowded disaser ha hides behind he cosmeic gloss “suiable or he arewell kiss.” My final chaper, “Apocalypse Now,” emphasizes ha cruel pracices leave longerm damage and lurking ears ha are shaping our presen and our uure. I Cruel Modernity lingers on his dark side, i is because I believe ha unless here is a beter undersanding o he social vacuum ha allows cruel acs, poliical soluions and ehical principles will remain in he realm o he absrac.

NOTES

Notes to Introduction

�. Segao, “La escriura en el cuerpo de las mujeres asesinadas en Cd. Juárez,” ��. Unless oherwise indicaed, all ranslaions rom sources in Spanish are my own. �. Freud, “Timely Reflecions on War and Deah,” in On Murder, Mourning and Melancholia , ���.  �. Freud, “  Why  War?,” in On Murder, Mourning and Melancholia , ���–��.  �. Freud, Civilization and Its Discontents , ��. �. Derrida, “Psychoanalysis Searches he Saes o he Soul: The Impossible Beyond o a Sovereign Cruely,” in Without Alibi , ���–��.  �. Arend, The Origins of Totalitarianism , ���.   �. Agamben, Homo Sacer  , ���. �. Mbembe, “Necropoliics,” ��–��. �. Mbembe, “Necropoliics,” ��–��. ��. Dussel, The Invention of the Americas , ��.  ��. Dussel, The Invention of the Americas , ��.  ��. Taussig, Shamanism, Colonialism and the Wild Man , ��. ��. De las Casas, A Short Account of the Destruction of the Indies , ��. ��. Guaemala, Comisión de Esclarecimieno Hisórico (���), Guatemala:  Memoria del Silencio , �:��–��.  ��. For more on developmenalism, see Escobar, Encountering Development. ��. Timerman, Prisoner without a Name , ��. ��. Timerman,  Prisoner without a Name , ��–�� . ��. Foucaul, “Society Must Be Defended,”  ���. ��. On he indigenous rebellions in he Andes, see Flores Galindo,  Buscando un Inca.

��. Sarmieno, Facundo , ��–��. ��. In a shor auobiographical essay firs given as a speech and hen published as a preace o Obras completas , Neruda commens ha “afer ���� (he Independence), he Chileans dedicaed hemselves o killing Indians wih

���

|

notes to introduction

he same enhusiasm as he Spanish invaders. Temuco (where Neruda was  born) was he las hearbea o Auracanía” (��). ��. Taussig, Shamanism, Colonialism and the Wild Man , ��; see also ��–��. ��. The sory is included in Lida, Letras hispánicas , ���–��. ��. Fuenes “Chac Mool,”  Cuentos sobrenaturales , �–��; Corázar, “La noche  boca arriba,” in Final del juego , ���–��; Boullosa, Llanto ; Paz, Critique of the  Pyramid ; Gusavo Sáinz, Fantasmas aztecas. ��. He used i in a lecure given a Barnard College on �� Ocober ����. ��. Saldaña, The Revolutionary Imagination , ��. ��. See Schirmer, The Guatemalan Military Project. ��. Grandin, “The Insrucion o a Grea Caasrophe,” par. �. ��. Ubilluz, Vich, and Hibbet, Contra el sueño de los justos , ��–��. ��. Kokoovic, The Colonial Divide in Peruvian Narrative , �.  ��. Turis, Foundations of Despotism , ���. ��. The buried book underscores he conras beween he ae o he lierary record and oral ransmission. ��. Koonings and Kruij, inroducion o Societies of Fear  , �. ��. There is a difference beween he mass hyseria o he massacre and he orure scene discussed in chaps. � and �. See especially he discussion o he “war pack” in Caneti, Crowds and Power  , ��–���. ��. Colombia, Grupo de Memoria Hisórica de la Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación, Trujillo , ��–��. ��. See Colombia, Grupo de Memoria Hisórica de la Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación, El Salado. ��. Colombia, Grupo de Memoria Hisórica de la Comisión Nacional de Reparación y Reconciliación, Trujillo , ��–��. ��. Feilowiz, A Lexicon of Terror  , �–��. ��. For an exended accoun o he raining o Lain Americans in counererrorism, see Gill, The School of the Americas. ��. Danner, The Massacre at El Mozote , ��. ��. Danner, The Massacre at El Mozote , ��. ��. Sosky, Violence , ��. ��. Levi, The Drowned and the Saved , ���–�. ��. Levi, The Drowned and the Saved , ���. ��. Repor o he Chilean Naional Commission on Truh and Reconciliaion Chile, ���. ��. Lauria-Saniago, “The Culure and Poliics o Sae Terror and Repression in El Salvador,” in When States Kill , ���. ��. Hylon, Evil Hour in Colombia , ��–��.