“From the beginning, several distinct groups have worked together to create NACLA. Organizationally, the prime movers were SDS and University Christian Movement personnel. Also participating were New Peace
Movement people, “traditional” pacifists, left-Catholics, labor movement people, returned Peace Corps ” Volunteers and various young professors and graduate students….
S Because of this diverse background, NACLA has developed what Steve Weissman has called a ‘pragmatic
approach,’ or a ‘popular front.’ All of us work together in what Bill Rogers at Cornell called…a series of
uneasy alliances. But, as Bill went on to say, these alliances are not based on suspicion, but on honest dif- ferences in opinions and/or attitudes. And they need not be disruptive but can perhaps provide the creative
stimulation needed to force the birth of a radical new conceptual framework for the study of Latin Ameri- ca.
S For instance, there are some of us in NACLA who are convinced that ‘violence is reactionary’…, while
” others hold that there is no hope for Latin America except through a violent social revolution. Some feel
” that the major task is to educate the American public, or to create a radical alternative to present attitudes
S and policies. A few feel it is legitimate and helpful to appeal to officials in the establishment in the hope of
* modifying some policies. Still others look upon NACLA as a way to form a cadre for the radical reorganiza-
m tion of American society….”
Further, we have tensions between the ‘Christers’ (Catholic and Protestant) and those who have no par- ticular religious motivation…. As long as the essentially associational nature of NACLA is remembered, and it is conceived of as a forum and not a movement, these differences can contribute to a common, deeper
understanding of U.S.-Latin American relations and can aid in defining common action projects.”
Menu
