Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations
Welcome to 'Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations,' the podcast where we analyze and look at the events, people and actions that have shaped the nations of our world . From revolutions to treaties, conflicts to triumphs, we explore the historical blueprints that continue to influence the way nations think and act today.
Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations
The Colombian Conflict: The Roots of Rebellion (Part 1)
Journey back with us to the early 19th century, where the seeds of Colombia's political factionalism were sown. From the clash between Federalists and Centralists in the Republic of New Granada to the transformation of these factions into the enduring Liberal and Conservative parties, we explore how relentless ideological battles over centralization, secularization, and modernization ignited civil wars like the War of the Supremes and the War of a Thousand Days. These conflicts not only shaped Colombia’s political landscape but also deepened social and economic inequalities, paving the way for future unrest.
We then spotlight pivotal events that underscored Colombia’s stark urban-rural divide, such as the Banana Massacre of 1928 and the assassination of Jorge Eliazer Gaitan, leading to the infamous Bogotazo. These moments of turmoil and violence etched scars into Colombia's history, revealing the resilience of its people in their quest for justice and progress. Join us as we trace the historical roots and enduring legacy of a nation striving to rise above its tumultuous past.
Like, Share, and Follow, Wherever you get your podcasts!
Twitter: @HistoryHelix
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
Instagram: History_Helix
Email: DoubleHelixHistorypodcast@gmail.com
Have feedback? Send us a Text and Interact with us!
Alitu- Podcasting made easierJoin Alitu. With easy to use tool and intuitive processes, you will be podcasting in no time
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Hello and welcome to Season 2 of Double Helix. My name is Paul and you're listening to Double Helix Blueprint of Nations. This is a podcast where we like to uncover the DNA of nations. I'm thrilled that you've joined us once again and, as promised, you can go back and listen to those episodes. This season we will explore civil wars. Civil wars are conflicts that have fundamentally altered how nations perceive themselves, how they govern themselves and how the societies in those nations work. We've specifically chosen civil wars that have driven deep wedges into the nations into which they happen and in many cases, those scars continue to fester like open wounds. They're always threatening to turn into full-blown infections and they continue to affect the entire nation over and over throughout the years. Despite the steps forward that each of these countries has taken, many of these conflicts continue to leave deep scars that are still creating much conflict in those societies and continue to drive the core social dynamics of the nations into which they happened.
Speaker 1:Our first stop is Colombia and to start, I guess I have to ask the question what do you think about when you think about Colombia? Maybe some of you will say that you think about coffee, others may say soccer or football, salsa, perhaps the dancing, yes, but I know some of you may be ashamed to say what you really think about when you think about Colombia. Maybe you think about violence, maybe you think about the drug trade, perhaps you think about a single name Pablo Escobar. But this is the problem. Colombia is so much more than those stereotypes, and yet it is one of the byproducts of the Colombian armed conflict that most people associate with the nation. That byproduct is, of course, violence. It is the same desire to explore the other aspects of Colombia that drove me to explore the Colombian conflict, which has been running, at least officially, since 1964 and is one of the longest-running internal conflicts in the world. And is one of the longest-running internal conflicts in the world. The Colombian conflict may have officially begun in 1964, but it has ties that overlap the 19th, the 20th and now the 21st centuries. For decades, colombia has found itself at the center of international attention, for its notorious ties to the drug trade, yes, but also for his difficult political history and for his ties to the US military, economic and political strategy in Latin America as well. But there is this other side of Colombia that I told you about, and it is a side that I have begun to learn about through my writing of this series. This other side is the Colombian people their incredible resiliency, their tenacity and their courage. It is these things that I also want to explore as we deep dive into the history of the Colombian conflict.
Speaker 1:As we deep dive into the history of the Colombian conflict, even though the Colombian conflict has been ongoing since 1964, the sides of the conflict are always interchanging. They are complex and they are multifaceted, and they involve various elements across Colombian society, from far-left guerrillas to right-wing paramilitaries, from armed gangs to drug traffickers, the national government, the national police, the military and even international interests, as represented by the United States, by Russia and by the neighbor country Venezuela. This conflict has cost Colombia a reputation in lives in progress and economic advancement, and in many other innumerable ways. In fact, 80% of the deaths of the conflict have been civilian. Since 1958, it is estimated that around 220,000 people have died in the conflict, that around 220,000 people have died in the conflict. Most of these, like I said, are civilian. More than 5 million civilians were forced out of their homes between 1985 and 2012, which is one of the largest population migrations forced migrations in world history. And in 2022, the Truth Commission of Colombia estimated that paramilitaries were responsible for 45% of the civilian deaths, guerrillas for 27% and even the state forces for up to 12%, with the remaining 16% attributable to all sorts of other groups.
Speaker 1:We'll examine how this nation has grappled with a legacy steeped in division, sectarianism and strife, all the while trying to navigate its path towards reconciliation and progress. Our journey into the Colombian conflict is going to begin here, with part one examining the roots of rebellion. Examining the Roots of Rebellion. Welcome to Double Helix Blueprint of Nations, season 2, episode 1.1 the Columbian Conflict the Roots of Rebellion. The Roots of Rebellion, of rebellion.
Speaker 1:The conflict in Colombia is deeply entrenched in the nation's history, tracing its origins back to the nation's founding. This conflict has, in many ways, defined the nation and has stunted its growth. Has, in many ways, defined the nation and has stunted its growth. If we go all the way back to the very foundation of Colombia in the early part of the 19th century, we see that sectarianism and regional rivalries have always played a pivotal role in shaping the political and social landscape of the country. And so, if you really want to know the roots of the rebellion, you have to go back to the very beginning of the country, and so if you really want to know the roots of the rebellion, you have to go back to the very beginning of the nation.
Speaker 1:Early in Colombia's independent history, we witnessed a period that historians would come to know as La Patria Boba, or the Foolish Fatherland. This was an era that highlighted the initial challenges of forming a Colombian state that was stable and cohesive, with one national identity, as factions with differing visions for the country's future vied for control. This set a precedent for the persistent conflicts that would continue to shape Colombia's political landscape into the future landscape into the future. Spanning from 1810 to 1816,. The Patria Boba period unfolded right after Colombia's initial declaration of independence from Spanish rule. As we said, the term Patria Boba translates to foolish fatherland, and it is used by historians because it encapsulates the intense political factionalism and the sequence of short-lived and ineffective governments that define these years. The Patria Boba began after the deposition of the Spanish authorities in Santa Fe de Bogotá, the Colombian capital, in 1810. This was part of a broader wave of independence movements across Latin America. This was part of a broader wave of independence movements across Latin America. These movements were spurred by Spain's weakening grip on its colonies due to the Napoleonic Wars in Europe and, thanks to our companion, you also know what the Napoleonic Wars were, and if you don't, please go back, give them a listen, it'll be worth your time. Anyway, the key features of the Patria Boba period in Colombia not only defined that era, but they also foreshadowed the recurring themes throughout Colombian history, culminating in the protracted armed conflict that we know today, and so I thought it'd be worth pointing out what these critical airmen were. I thought it would be worth pointing out what these critical airmen were, enumerating them to help you orient some of the key components of dissatisfaction and rivalry in Colombian society. Later on, we will explore the specific trigger points for the conflict that we know today, but these factors run through the DNA of Colombian society, and so I thought it would be important to point them out.
Speaker 1:Number one you have rival factions. The core of the political strife during the Patriarca period stemmed from two primary groups. The centralists advocated for a strong, centralized government based in Bogota, believing it would bring order and unity to the nation. Conversely, the federalists pushed for greater autonomy for local regions, and they argued that a confederation of provinces would be better to represent the diverse interests across Colombia of provinces would be better to represent the diverse interest across Colombia. Number two you have competing administrative policies Reflecting their different ideologies. Each of the factions we just mentioned sought to codify its vision for Colombia through separate constitutions. The centralists put forth the Constitution of Cundinamarca in 1811, emphasizing a consolidated central authority. Simultaneously, the federalists drafted a Constitution for the United Provinces of New Granada, also in 1811, which advocated for a decentralized state structure that would grant significant powers to provincial governments. This is a dichotomy in constitutional design and it underscored the deep divisions within the nascent state.
Speaker 1:3. Ineffective Governance the continual power struggles and the absence of a consensus on governance structure left the country in a state of political flux, which was compounded by the lack of a cohesive military strategy to defend against external threats. This is a vulnerability that was significant and it is a weakness that the Spanish exploited when they launched their reconquest efforts in New Granada. The disarray within both military and political spheres showcased the profound challenges of state building in Colombia's early years of independence. And finally, ideological and regional divides and this one is really important and regional divides, and this one is really important. Complicating the political landscape further were the stark ideological differences and regional loyalties that influenced each faction. Economic interests were also at play, because each region had different economic foundations, which would go on to shape their political priorities and the alliances that they went to make. If you're an American, this is akin to the same divide that would be experienced in the United States between the North and the South. On economic terms, these entrenched differences made it exceedingly difficult to achieve any lasting or effective governance, and it led to frequent changes in leadership and governmental structure.
Speaker 1:All of these factors, like we said before, would re-emerge consistently and constantly. They underscore the deep fault lines that divide Colombian society right at its very core. Throughout this series, we are going to explore various nations and civil conflicts, and we'll see that these fault lines manifest differently in each country. However, their effects are strikingly similar. They carve divisions that penetrate deep into the soul of a nation. They're always latent, they're always dormant, like a volcano pulsing beneath the surface, ready to erupt and wreak havoc in those societies. So the Colombian conflict, then, can trace its origins back to the very founding of the nation. These were, as I like to call, poison pills embedded within the structure of the nation. There were fundamental flaws and unresolved tensions that were built into the fabric of the state, these inherent contradictions and conflicts set the stage for perpetual strife. They influenced the country's political and social dynamics for centuries to come and they would shape the future and the present centuries to come. And they would shape the future and the present. As we go deeper into Colombia's history and its protracted conflicts, we begin to gain a clear understanding of how these historical legacies shaped, decade after decade, the direction of the country.
Speaker 1:By 1818, a mixture of Venezuelan and Colombian forces had re-invaded Colombia from Venezuela, and they were headed by Simón Bolívar, the liberator. We'll skip forward here, even though I do love the history of the Latin American wars of independence and I can talk for hours about it. That's not the point of this podcast. It that's not the point of this podcast. The combined patriot forces wrestled control of Colombian independence on August 7, 1919 from the Spanish at the crucial battle of Boyacá. Colombia was now an independent nation.
Speaker 1:After Colombia declared independence from Spain in 1819, it initially became part of Gran Colombia, which was a large republic that included present-day Colombia, venezuela, ecuador and Panama. Simón Bolívar envisioned a united Latin America, but deep regional and ideological differences soon surfaced, leading to the dissolution of Gran Colombia in 1831. This is not just Colombia's fault. A lot of the divisions actually began in Venezuela, which was a native land of Simón Bolívar. Anyway, this breakup resulted in the formation of the Republic of New Granada, which was the precursor state to modern-day Colombia. Historian David Bushnell notes in his book the Making of Modern Colombia that Bolívar's vision was quickly clouded by intense regional and ideological divisions. As we discussed, these were present from the very beginning, during the Patria Boba, remember. These divisions emerged almost immediately after independence, and they precipitated the dissolution of Gran Colombia by 1831, setting a precedent for a century dominated by internal conflict and fragile national unity.
Speaker 1:In the newly independent Republic of New Granada, two main factions emerged, and you know these already. They were the Federalist and the Centralist. These groups had starkly different visions for the future of the nation too. They were the same factions that had created a rift during the Patria Boba period, and they continued to create fracture after independence. The Federalists advocated for a decentralized form of government where the provinces or the states had significant autonomy. They believed that local governments were better suited to address the unique needs and interests of the regions. This faction also emphasized the importance of regional governance, and they argued that it would allow for more responsive and tailored policies.
Speaker 1:The Federalists drew their support from regional leaders, from rural communities and from those who favored local control over governance. They often represented the interest of the emerging middle class, of the small landowners, merchants and any of those who sought more economic freedom and less interference from a central authority. Then you have the centralists, and in contrast, they argued for a strong centralized government to maintain order and unity across the nation. They believed that a central authority was necessary to prevent regionalism from weakening the country. They may have been onto something here. This faction valued a cohesive national policy and centralized decision-making to ensure stability and consistency.
Speaker 1:Now I must warn you, in the Colombian conflict, as you will soon see, there are no good guys and bad guys. So even though a number of the qualities and ideals that these factions believed in you may relate to and say yes, they were the right ones, or no, these were the wrong ones, you'll soon find out that they all devolve into straight savagery pretty soon in the history of Colombia. Anyway, the centralists were supported by the urban elites, the military and the Catholic Church, all of which favored centralized structure, the ability to preserve their influence and their existing power bases. They represented the interest of large landowners and traditional power holders who benefited from stable, hierarchical society. They also represented the interest of slaveholders because at this point in Colombian history slavery was still legal.
Speaker 1:The socioeconomic dynamics of this contentious relationship also had much to do with the structure inherited from the Spanish racial caste system of the pre-independence or colonial period. At the top of that heap were the peninsulares and the criollos. The peninsulares were the Spanish-born whites, along with the criollos, who were the native-born whites, and they controlled most of the large haciendas and were, for the most part, the interests represented by the centralists. Meanwhile, you had the mestizos and the mulatos. You had the mestizos and the mulatos. The mestizos were the mixed caste of the society and the mulatos were the mostly African descendant caste of the society, some of them freemen, a lot of them slaves, and they were often relegated to the margins and to rural sustenance, with some wealthier parts of them part of the small but influential class of merchants and small landowners who were generally represented by the interests of the Federalists.
Speaker 1:By the mid-19th century, the Federalists had evolved into the Liberal Party. This transformation was driven by the need to create a more organized and cohesive political force that could effectively advocate for the ideals of a national scale. The liberals continued to champion decentralization and they advocated for federalism. Where regions had significant autonomy, the liberal party promoted secularization, aiming to reduce the power of the Catholic Church in public affairs. They also supported economic modernization, including free trade, infrastructure development and even foreign investment. Liberals also pushed for civil liberties and democratic reforms, aiming to expand political participation and safeguard individual rights. So again you may be thinking the liberals were the good guys right. Like I said before, not so fast. Listen on and you will see why these things tend to come around full circle in the Colombian conflict.
Speaker 1:Similarly, the centralists transform into the conservative party, maintaining their emphasis on a strong central government. This transition also allowed them to better organize and consolidate their power. To counter the growing influence of the liberals, the conservatives sought to preserve traditional values and social hierarchies. They upheld the importance of the Catholic Church in public and private life, advocating for its continued influence in education and in governance, and this is important. Conservatives also supported policies that protected the interests of large landowners and the traditional elite. And, finally, they emphasized the need for a strong, centralized government to maintain order and prevent social upheaval. The ideological clash between Federalists and Centralists laid the groundwork for the emergence of Colombia's two dominant political parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives. This transition marked a significant shift in the nation's political landscape, with both parties shaping Colombia's governance and society forever.
Speaker 1:The entire 19th century in Colombia was marked by a series of relentless civil wars, largely driven by power struggles between the liberals and the conservative parties. These conflicts were more than just power grabs. They were fundamental debates over the structure of government and the distribution of power. Fundamental debates over the structure of government and the distribution of power, centralization versus federalism, regional authority over national authority, rich versus poor, landowners versus not-landed classes. Historian Frank Saffer describes in his book Colombia Fragmented Land, divided Society, how each conflict entrenched regional identities, further complicating the political landscape. The rate of civil conflict in Colombia throughout the 19th century is just incredible. Sometimes it is hard to wrap your head around all of the different civil wars that occurred during the 19th century. We will cover just a few, the most consequential ones, that help explain and expose the depth of the internal conflict in Colombian society.
Speaker 1:Just nine years after the dissolution of Gran Colombia, new Granada faced its first civil war. That faced its first civil war From 1839 to 1842,. There was the so-called War of the Supreme Commanders or the War of the Supremes. This first civil war erupted due to religious and political tensions. The central government, led by President José Ignacio de Marques, attempted to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church, sparking resistance from local caudillos or military leaders, who were then known as the Supremos. This was the first time that military resistance would rise in the southern jungles of Colombia against the central government. It would certainly not be the last time the Supremos, primarily from the southern provinces, rose against the central government, leading to widespread violence. At the Battle of Cauca, government forces struggled to quell the rebellion, demonstrating the potency of discontent, while the conflict ended with the central government wrestling control. Resorting to armed insurrection against the central government was quickly becoming the modus operandi if you wanted to express disapproval, and it was now recognized as a legitimate means of protest.
Speaker 1:Just nine years later, in 1851, the newly elected liberal government, led by President José Hilario López, implemented radical reforms throughout the land, including the abolition of slavery, expelling of the Jesuits, the separation of church and state and the creation of individual freedoms. These reforms incited backlash from conservative and pro-slavery factions, particularly in the Cauca regions in the south of the country. This devolved into the 1851 Civil War in Colombia, which lasted from May to September of that year. The conflict saw intense battles in regions such as Cauca and Antioquia, with both sides committing significant resources to the fight. The liberal government managed to suppress the rebellion, but the conflict underscored the volatility of implementing progressive reforms in a deeply divided society. Once again, learning that armed uprisings were the best way to quote-unquote get your way was becoming an all-too-common theme in Colombia was becoming an all-too-common theme in Colombia.
Speaker 1:After the 1851 Civil War, there was a new constitution passed in Colombia in 1853. This constitution was radical for its time, promising further freedoms and federalization of the Colombian national system. However, this would be short-lived. New tensions arose and another civil war ensued in Colombia, which we'll not go into the details of, but it was fought roughly around the mid-1850s. The next major civil war in Colombia began in 1860, and it lasted until 1862. This one was between liberals and conservatives, and it rocked the young nation. This war was also known as the Colombian Federal War, and it arose from tensions between the conservative government and liberal factions for the advocacy of federalism. General Tomás Cipriano de Mosquera, a prominent liberal leader, played a crucial role in challenging the central government At the Battle of La Culebra and the Battle of Manizales, liberal forces defeated the conservative government forces and, as a result, a new federal republic was established. The United States of Colombia were finally established in 1863, and they would last in place until the late 19th century, when, finally, the Republic of Colombia would be established. Finally, a federal republic that reflected the liberal vision of decentralized governance was established, but this would not be without opposition, and while this all sounds bad enough, it was not yet over for Colombia. In fact, it would get much worse Another decade later, and religious and educational differences surface once again and again, along the lines of conservatives versus liberals.
Speaker 1:The Civil War of 1876 through 1877 was known as the War of the Schools, and it was sparked by disputes over educational policies and religious influence in schools. The liberal government's push for secular education clashed with conservative demands for maintaining religious instruction. The war was mainly fought across Tolima and Antioquia, with both sides rallying their supporters in a struggle over cultural and educational control. Culture wars were happening in the 19th century in Colombia, so it's not an exclusive American thing for you American listeners. Anyway, while the Federal Republic was preserved, conservatives triumphed. This time, they reasserted the church's influence over education, marking a temporary setback for liberal reforms. From this point forward, conservative governments will alternate throughout Colombia, further strangling liberal power throughout the country, creating resentment and further calcification of the tensions that had plagued Colombia since the very beginning had plagued Colombia since the very beginning.
Speaker 1:The civil wars of the 19th century in Colombia were always characterized by these recurring clashes between the Federalist and the Centralist ideologies, which evolved into broader political identities of the Liberals and the Conservatives. These conflicts reflected the deeper social, economic and regional divides that we spoke about earlier and that would continue to shape Colombia's political landscape for decades to come. Understanding these early struggles is crucial to grasping the roots of Colombia's enduring conflict and the evolution of its political parties into the conflict that we know today. The worst chapter of Colombia's interminable half-century of conflict was undoubtedly the War of a Thousand Days. The brutality and the hatred that emerged during this period from 1899 to 1902, surpassed all previous confrontations, casting them into the shadows of its ferocity. This war was particularly catastrophic, violent and decisive, as decades of resentment and hatred came pouring out. It is here that the foundations of the modern conflict were laid, in my opinion, and they are exemplified by its no-holds-barred attitude and the war's extermination and near-genocide of supporting civilian populations and near genocide, of supporting civilian populations.
Speaker 1:The War of a Thousand Days, which was poetically named so because it was longer, bloodier and more sustained than any of the ones that had come before, lasted 1,130 days. To be exact, it lasted from 1899 to 1902, and the war resulted in the victory of the conservative or government forces against the liberals. The unitary nature of the Colombian state has not been challenged since, although it has been severely tested. The war was about the age-old argument of federalism versus centralism, of who gets to control the fortunes and powers of Colombia. The catalyst was the new constitution of 1886 establishing the Republic of Colombia, but it would be triggered by the contested presidential election of 1898. It is important to understand the War of a Thousand Days and its lethality, for it had a profound impact on Colombian society and has impacted the modern conflict and the way Colombians perceive themselves to this day. In fact, if there are two key events you should remember about how Colombia got to where it did, there's the War of a Thousand Days and La Violencia, which we will discuss in the next part of our series.
Speaker 1:This proto-civil war, which was the original, true bloodletting of Colombia, pitted the conservative party, as I said, against the liberal party, and it was fueled by deep political, social and economic divisions that had been simmering for decades. The conflict resulted in widespread destruction and loss of life, and it had a profound long-term effect on the nation, including the eventual secession of Panama, which was part of Colombia. At the time, the ruling conservative party had maintained power through repressive measures and electoral fraud, marginalizing the liberal party and its supporters. The country was also suffering from economic instability, exacerbated by declining coffee prices and widespread poverty, particularly in rural areas. Economically, colombia was suffering due to a decline in the global price of coffee and other exports. The economic downturn exacerbated the existing inequalities between the rural poor and the urban elites, fueling discontent and providing fertile ground for conflict.
Speaker 1:The immediate spark for the war was the contested presidential election of 1898, which saw conservative candidate Manuel Antonio San Clemente declare the winner amid accusations of fraud. Accusations of fraud. Frustrated by their exclusion from power and emboldened by rising public discontent, the liberals took up arms in October 1899, leading to the outbreak of civil war, and so the war officially began on October 17, 1899, with an armed uprising by the liberals in the Santander region. The conflict quickly spread throughout Colombia, with major battles occurring across the country. Key battles included the Battle of Peralonso and the Battle of Palo Negro, both in 1900, which were significant due to their scale and the high number of casualties.
Speaker 1:One of the most critical aspects of the War of a Thousand Days was its sheer savagery. Both sides committed atrocities against combatants and civilians alike, leading to a humanitarian crisis. Historians estimate that the war resulted in nearly 100,000 to 180,000 deaths, or about 2.5 to 3.8 percent of the population of Colombia at the time, both from combat and from starvation and disease, which were rampant due to the disruption of farming and trade. The sheer brutality of wars like this, of a lot of civil wars, is often fueled by these passions of fratricidal bloodlust, and it's a feature of these conflicts rather than a bug. It also speaks to deep divisions that are often exposed in conflicts where people who have hated each other, often for generations, have been forced, in their minds at least, to coexist with the other. The war of a thousand days, then, like many civil conflicts, was no different. These brutal acts not only exemplify the vicious nature of the war, but also contributed significantly to the high casualty rates and the long-lasting trauma among the Colombian population. The war was finally ended by the treaties of Nerlandia, an implantation in Colombia, and Wisconsin actually signed on board the battleship Wisconsin November 21st 1902. Child soldiers were prominent throughout the conflict and they were actually prominent throughout the 19th century wars in Colombia. And it was actually Venezuelan involvement which prolonged the war, the Venezuelan government throwing its weight behind the liberal cause, venezuelan government throwing its weight behind the liberal cause, ultimately to no avail. Both liberal and conservative forces were responsible for numerous massacres throughout the War of a Thousand Days.
Speaker 1:And remember I told you that things come around in the Colombian conflict. Well, this is the first of those instances. There are just no good guys in this conflict, and here's where those lines get really blurred, because both sides committed retaliatory strikes seeking to punish communities believed to support the opposition. In fact, entire villages were sometimes rounded up and executed. This left deep scars in the social fabric of Colombia, scars that one could argue have not healed all the way to this day.
Speaker 1:Torture was commonly used by both sides as a means to extract information, to intimidate and to spread terror among the enemy supporters. Reports from the time include gruesome accounts of combatants and non-combatants being mutilated or disfigured as part of these torture practices. These practices were the pioneering acts of what later would become the common practice of paramilitaries and guerrilla forces all over Colombia. Imagine entire villages dismembered with body parts left over the main streets to send a message to the enemy. Unfortunately, this is not fiction. This is stuff that happened in Colombia during the War of a Thousand Days and later during the armed conflict.
Speaker 1:There was extensive destruction to property as well. This was a tactical move that was used to deny shelter and resources to the enemy. Farms were burned and livestock was killed, which not only deprived the enemy of resources, but also left the civilian population in complete destitution. Eyewitness accounts from survivors and contemporary reports provide even more harrowing details of the atrocities. One notable account is from José María Vargas Vila, a Colombian writer who documented the war's effects on civilian populations. His writings describe villages raised, families torn apart and a countryside soaked in blood. For instance, after the Battle of Palo Negro, the defeated liberal soldiers were mutilated and families aiding them summarily executed en masse, and then the heat of the tropics and the jungles created festering clouds of decay as bodies were left to rot in the oak.
Speaker 1:Historians such as Jorge Orlando Melo have noted that the atrocities committed during the War of a Thousand Days went beyond military strategy. They reflected deeper social and political animosities that had been festering in the Colombian society for decades, and the war's violence was not just a product of the military engagements, but also a byproduct of this deeply divided society, a society that was divided by class, by political allegiance, by regional loyalties and by social status. The atrocities of the War of a Thousand Days have had a long and lasting impact on Colombia, contributing to a culture of violence and mistrust that has complicated efforts at national reconciliation ever since. The war also severely weakened Colombia, both in the national and international front. The infrastructure was devastated and the economy was left in ruins, further deepening social cleavages and setting the stage for rapacious international conglomerates to come in and try to rebuild the economy on their terms, and more on that later. Moreover, the war did not resolve the underlying political issues. Instead, it just deepened the animosity between the conservatives and the liberals, between cities and the rural populations. This was a harbinger of things to come. Colombia with the assistance of the United States in 1903. This was influenced by US interest in building the Panama Canal, a project that the Colombian Senate had been reluctant to approve. The political instability and weakened state of Colombia after the war made it difficult for the government to effectively respond to the secessionist movements in Panama, which had been ongoing for the better part of half a century, to be fair, but the war ravaged Colombia completely and set the foundations for future agony and pain.
Speaker 1:Thank you, recording, producing and editing your episodes a breeze With Alitu. You can easily create professional quality podcasts without any technical hassle. Just hit record and Alitu takes care of the rest, from editing out mistakes to adding your favorite music and sound effects. Ready to share your voice with the world, join me on Alitu and start your podcasting journey today. Visit alley2.com slash historyhelix to get started. That's alley2.com slash historyhelix. Alley2, podcasting made simple.
Speaker 1:As the 20th century dawned, colombia was marked by stark contrasts between urban prosperity and rural neglect. As such, state control over large parts of Colombia was never and has never been fully established. Eduardo Pizarro León Gómez points out in Insurgency, diplomacy, guerrilla Movements and International Relations that, while cities benefited from the lucrative coffee boom of the early 20th century, rural areas were left in a state of severe deprivation Because, you see, wealth and land became increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few, sowing the seeds of discontent across the countryside and setting the stage for the rise of guerrilla movements, and really any movement offering better prospects than does under the current status quo. The modern conflict features such factions, who find ready recruits in the still impoverished and unintegrated rural areas of Colombia. While political violence had decreased in Colombia after the turn of the 20th century, partly as a result of the outcome of the War of a Thousand Days, land reform became a key issue that would drive the masses of Colombian peasantry to revolt. The mid-20th century brought new challenges and political tension, which escalated dramatically after the Banana Massacre of 1928, which saw an explosion of left-wing organizations and later the assassination of Jorge Eliezer Gaitán.
Speaker 1:The origins of the armed conflict in Colombia then can be traced specifically back to the 1920s, which was a period marked by intense agrarian disputes and mounting tension in rural regions like the areas of Sumapaz and Tequendama. This was a time when the seeds of rebellion were sown more concretely, as local farmers faced severe injustices that would eventually erupt into widespread conflict. In the 1920s, colombia's landscape was dominated by vast estates owned by a small elite, which was a legacy of the colonial era that entrenched deep social and economic inequalities. These large landholders, or hacendados, controlled immense tracts of fertile land, while the majority of the rural population, composed of tenant farmers and laborers, lived in poverty and lacked land ownership. The government's policies favored these elites, granting them more land and influence, while ignoring the plight of the rural poor. The Sumapas and Tekendama regions became flashpoints for these tensions. Here, local farmers were increasingly agitated by the unfair land distribution and the encroachment of large landowners onto lands that smallholders and indigenous communities had traditionally cultivated. The struggle for land rights was not just a matter of economic survival, but it also became a fight for dignity, for justice and, simply, survival. As this content grew, so did resistance. The farmers began organizing themselves, forming peasant leagues and unions to demand fair land distribution and better working conditions. These movements were often met with violent repression from the landowner private militias and from government forces. The rural poor found themselves trapped in a cycle of exploitation and violence. Their calls for justice were going unanswered or being answered with brutality.
Speaker 1:One of the most influential factors exacerbating these tensions was the presence of an old friend, the United Fruit Company. This American corporation wielded enormous power in Colombia. It controlled vast agricultural lands and dictated the economic lives of countless farmers. The United Fruit Company bought large amounts of agricultural products at minimal prices and then sold these goods in foreign markets for substantial profits. This practice entrenched a system where local farmers were impoverished and dependent on the company for their livelihoods. Farmers were forced to grow specific crops, creating a monoculture that undermined their ability to sustain themselves independently. The company paid its workers in coupons redeemable only at company stores, which charge exorbitant prices for basic goods. This is a system that kept farmers in perpetual debt, unable to break free from the economic stranglehold of the United Fruit Company. This exploitation was compounded by the company's practice of hiring private militias to enforce its power, suppress worker demands for reform. Private militias to enforce his power, suppress worker demands for reform, destroy unions and to crush any semblance of rebellion.
Speaker 1:The private armies employed by the United Fruit Company were notorious for their brutality. They acted with total impunity, using violence to silence dissent and maintain control over the workers. Any potential threat to the company's dominance was swiftly neutralized, often through company-backed coups that installed puppet politicians favorable to the corporation's interests. The systemic violence and repression further fueled the anger and the resentment among rural populations. The climax of all this corporate and governmental repression occurred in December 1928, in what came to be known as the Banana Massacre, or Masacre de las Bananeras in Spanish. The massacre happened in the town of Ciénaga, near Santa Marta, where thousands of banana plantation workers had been on strike demanding better working conditions, fair pay and the right to form unions. The strike was organized by the workers of the United Fruit Company, who had long been subjective to the inhumane working conditions we described before and to economic exploitation.
Speaker 1:Despite the peaceful nature of the strike at first, the United Fruit Company and the Colombian government viewed it as a significant threat to its economic viability. They feared that the strike could inspire similar movements across the country and would disrupt the economic interests of both the company and the government. In response, the government declared martial law and sent the army to Cienega to suppress the strike. On the night of December 5, 1928, colombian army troops, under the command of General Carlos Cortes Vargas, surrounded the striking workers who had gathered in the central square of Cienega. Without warning, the soldiers opened fire on the unarmed crowd, killing an estimated 47 to 2,000 people. I don't know, that's a wide range, but record-keeping wasn't exactly a strong suit back then. The exact number of casualties remains unknown, due to the chaotic nature of the massacre and the subsequent cover-up efforts by the government and the United Fruit Company. Gabriel Garcia Marquez, the renowned Colombian author immortalized the event in this novel 100 Years of Solitude. If you haven't read that book, I highly highly recommend it. In the book he describes how the massacre's true scale was hidden from the public, and I quote the official version of the events, which reported only a handful of casualties, was a blatant lie, end quote.
Speaker 1:This massacre shocked the nation and the world, revealing the brutal lengths to which the government and foreign corporations would go to maintain control and suppress dissent. The Banana Massacre had a profound and far-reaching consequence and effect on the Colombian nation. It intensified the already simmering discontent among rural populations and galvanized the labor movement in Colombia, driving them towards a liberal party and more radical policies. The brutal suppression of the strike demonstrated the violent repression faced by those who dared to challenge the status quo and exposed the collusion between the Colombian government and foreign corporate interests. It also exposed the collusion between the two leading parties, the old foes, the conservatives and the liberals, who had made some sort of uneasy peace since the War of a Thousand Days and had decided to power sharing Colombia, with corruption all sprinkled in between. The massacre also had significant political repercussions because it highlighted the urgent need for agrarian reform and social justice, further fueling the ideological divide between conservatives and liberals. The brutality of the event contributed to the radicalization of many Colombians, pushing them towards more extreme measures to achieve their goals.
Speaker 1:The government's failure to address the grievances of the rural poor led to an increase in organized resistance. The agrarian disputes of the regions of Sumapaz and Tequendama became symbols of the broader struggle for social justice in Colombia. The rural communities, marginalized and oppressed, saw the need for radical change and began to rally around leaders who promised to fight for their rights. The resistance of these regions was not an isolated phenomenon, but part of a larger pattern of social unrest sweeping across Colombia. The conflicts over land in the 1920s laid the groundwork for the broader revolutionary movements that would emerge in the following decades. These early struggles highlighted the deep-seated inequalities and injustices that plagued Colombian society, setting the stage for the long and bloody conflict that would follow.
Speaker 1:The events of the 1920s, then, were more than just localized conflicts. They were the sparks that ignited the fire of rebellion, a fire that would burn fiercely for decades, shaping the course of Colombian history. Later, in 1948, jorge Eliezer Gaitan, a popular liberal politician on the path to the presidency of Colombia, promising an agenda of radical reform, was murdered of radical reform was murdered. His death was a personal tragedy, of course, but it was also a national crisis that ignited long-standing grievances. Paul Oquist explains in his book Violence, conflict and Politics in Colombia that this event marked the beginning of la violencia, a brutal period of civil unrest that traced its roots back to the entrenched political exclusion and regional divides of the 19th century civil wars.
Speaker 1:As we're reaching the end of the first part of the Colombian conflict, a recurring theme in social conflict is the reluctance of advantage or privilege classes to relinquish even a small portion of their status for the benefit of the broader mass. To relinquish even a small portion of their status for the benefit of the broader mass. Despite understanding the potential long-term benefits, their fear of losing power and prestige often leads them to resist change. This intransigence typically results in perilous consequences for the entire nation, including themselves. As societal tensions eventually reach a breaking point, colombia would be no different. While Colombia in the 1940s was a nation divided again between liberals and conservatives, those lines had blurred somewhat into class divides. More than just political divides, these divisions extended beyond a deep-seated ideological and regional rivalries. Gaitan's rise to prominence intensified these tensions as he became a serious contender for the presidency with a platform advocating for significant societal changes. The prospect of his leadership alarmed many within the Conservative Party and elements of the Liberal Party, who were wary of his populist approach.
Speaker 1:In our next episode, we will talk in detail about who Jorge Eliazer Gaitan was, his untimely demise and the protests that were sparked as a result of his death, which then devolved into the decade-long conflict known as La Violencia, the precursor to the modern Colombian armed conflict and the birthplace of the guerrilla movements that would come to define the age. Next time La Violencia and his child, the armed conflict that has plagued Colombia since 1964, would enter the scene, we will learn about the brutality of the violence that desensitized Colombian society and set it on a path to near implosion. The inequality and turmoil that led to the explosion of the Bogotazo and La Violencia would not abate, but would increase in intensity, are fully on display, and a new, insatiable hunger in the developed world for the byproduct of the COCA plan would further sink Colombia into a maelstrom from which it is still seeking redemption. So join us next time on Double Helix Blueprint of Nations for part two of the Colombian conflict La Violencia and the Rise of the Gorillas.
