Shining Path Exchange
In recent months, readers of this
magazine have been treated to
an increasingly common specta-
cle on the Left-published letters
which seem to “cross the line”
between legitimate, passionate
statements of political beliefs and
virtual assassinations of character.
The exchange of letters began with
the publication of Carol Andreas’
letter (July/August 1993), in which
she takes issue with NACLA
author Virginia Vargas’ depiction
of Marfa Elena Moyano and
explains why Shining Path felt
obliged to assassinate the grass-
roots women’s leader. After a brief
reply by Vargas, and a letter from
Peter Waterman criticizing Shining
Path’s world view and methods, the
exchange ended with the publica-
tion of Robin Kirk’s enraged per-
sonal attack on Andreas, in which
Kirk extends the logic of Andreas’
letter to its most extreme conclu-
sions. I am left to wonder why
NACLA decided to publish An-
dreas’ letter in the first place, and,
given that initial decision, if the
publication of Kirk’s response
served any reasonable purpose.
I would assume that in the course
of putting together a magazine, edi-
tors must frequently make deci-
sions about the suitability of arti-
cles and letters for publication.
They constantly draw lines on the
basis of “appropriateness.” We tend
to speak as if these lines are objec-
tively determined when in fact,
they are often quite flexible and
rarely the subject of public discus-
sion. This lack of discussion can
lead readers to be skeptical about
the balance of letters included for
publication. Why, for example, did
NACLA decide that one letter mer-
ited three replies? Readers may
well assume that the letters section
Readers are invited to address letters to The Editors, NACLA Report on the Americas, 475 Riverside Drive, Suite 454, New York, NY 10115
is a mere extension of editorial pol-
icy, as it seems to be in, for in-
stance, the New York Times.
The letter writers themselves are
engaging difficult issues in a partic-
ularly polarized moment in West-
ern history. Passion manifest as
frustration is hardly surprising. I
am glad that NACLA does not
adhere to so-called “canons of
scholarly objectivity,” which would
preclude the publication of this
impassioned exchange. However,
letters akin to Andreas’ denuncia-
tion of a woman unable to defend
herself, and the harsh moral indig-
nation of Kirk’s reply, can too easi-
ly mute healthy argument, create
enemies, and reinforce hardened
positions. We are part of a society
which is quick to answer the ques-
tion, “What do you know?” but
which hesitates to respond to the
more important and process-orient-
ed question, “What have you
learned?”
Many of us came of age during
the 1960s, when the women’s
movement began promoting the
slogan, “the personal is political.”
Today, “the personal” is too fre-
quently expressed as righteous
moralism. This tendency has
seeped into debates among those of
us on the Left. Too often, rather
than taking on the more challeng-
ing task of critiquing ideas and the
ways ideas impact community his-
Continued on page 54
LETTERS CONTINUED FROM PAGE 2
tory, we choose the easier path of
attacking the person who espouses
the idea.
I strongly urge the editors to
carefully consider the criteria by
which letters such as Andreas’ and
Kirk’s merit the forum of such a
respected magazine as NACLA
Report on the Americas. Such con-
siderations should be informed by
a broader and open discussion of
how NACLA can best serve the
interests of its readership. Impa-
tience, self-indulgent hostility, and
meanness, to the extent that they
find space within our work, betray
our claims to represent an alterna-
tive to the competitive and violent
ruling ethic which has trampled on
Latin American interests for far too
long.
Robert Zuber
World Order Models Project
New York, NY
Menu
