Dear NACLA Editors, I have been reading and admir- ing your work for quite some time. I guess it may seem negative that I write only to offer criticism, but I was so upset by a passage in the Sept.-Oct. issue that I just had to sit down and write. I am in complete agreement with your criticism of the lack of coverage of Latin American women and their contributions. Aside from sexism, the other most obvious trait of most historical texts is racism, which brings me to my point. In your “About This Issue” column, you use Inez Suarez as an example of the unfair treatment of women in history 44 books. Pedro de Valdivia, whom she accompanied “through the rugged Andes to Chile and back,” was a racist cutthroat who murdered hundreds of Arauca- nians on his journey to Chile. You describe her “valor” in fighting the Araucanians alongside the Spanish troops, how she helped bind their wounds and bury their dead, and you bemoan her scanty coverage in the pages of history. In seeking to correct the in- consistencies of history in regard to women’s contributions, I feel you have only added another error to the original one. Your example is implicitly racist and does not do justice to the anti-colonialist strug- gle of the Araucanian people, which has been a constant strug- gle against the genocidal war machine of first the Spanish con- quistadors and later the Chilean nationalist bourgeoisie. Their population has been reduced from over one million in the 16th cen- tury to less than 100,000 today. I do not disagree with the fact that history texts should be more objective with regard to women’s contributions. On the contrary, I find your issue on Latin American women most refreshing and infor- mative. However, I feel that you could have found a more revolu- tionary example than Inez Suarez. The legacy of Valdivia and Pizarro is not such that any women’s par- ticipation in their campaign should be glorified. Michael Canney Alfred, Maine Dear NACLA, … At times I think that you are too partisan, with the writers soun- ding as if they are writing pro- paganda for the revolution…You probably lose readers because of the writers, whereas I think your analysis and facts are reasonably accurate, much more so than many other sources I have read. Sober analysis without the Marxist rhetoric would give the same ef- fect without alienating readers who might get put off by this, think- ing you are prejudiced. After all, it is very important to get these facts across, especially to the North American audience. It is not much use preaching to the converted. Obviously by the fact that I am subscribing, I am not entirely critical of your magazine, so keep up the good work. I.M. Latin America
Menu
