Double Helix: Blueprint of Nations

The Colombian Conflict: La Violencia and the Rise of the Guerrillas (Part 2)

Paul De La Rosa Season 2 Episode 1

Can a single assassination change the course of a nation's history? Join us this week on Double Helix as we dissect the watershed moment of Jorge Eliezer Gaitán's murder in 1948 and the ensuing chaos that reshaped Colombia. We'll uncover the deep-seated issues of land inequality, rural poverty, and political exclusion that fueled La Violencia, a decade-long period of brutal violence. Through firsthand accounts, including vivid recollections from Gabriel Garcia Marquez, we paint a compelling picture of the turmoil and upheaval that followed Gaitán's assassination and the infamous El Bogotazo.

Discover the men behind Colombia's most notorious guerrilla movements in our exploration of revolutionary leaders Manuel Marulanda and Camilo Torres. From Marulanda's journey from peasant farmer to FARC leader to Torres' unique blend of Christian values and Marxist principles, we delve into their motivations and the profound impact they had on the country's fight for social justice and agrarian reform. We'll also scrutinize the National Front's power-sharing agreement and its unintended consequences, providing a critical look at how attempts to quash violence ended up institutionalizing political exclusion and setting the stage for future unrest.

Lastly, we transport you to the Cold War era, where Colombia became a proxy battleground for global superpowers. Understand how ideological struggles between the United States and the Soviet Union influenced and escalated the Colombian conflict. As we navigate through these complex historical narratives, you'll gain a deeper understanding of the enduring struggle for peace and justice in Colombia. Don't miss this comprehensive episode on the intricate web of factors that have shaped this nation's turbulent history.


Like, Share, and Follow, Wherever you get your podcasts!
Twitter: @HistoryHelix
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
Instagram: History_Helix
Email: DoubleHelixHistorypodcast@gmail.com

Alitu- Podcasting made easier
Join 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.

Have feedback? Send us a Text and Interact with us!

Support the show

Speaker 1:

Before we begin the episode, I want to caution you that some of the accounts that we are going to hear about the period of La Violencia may be disturbing to some of the audience, so please exercise caution. I will also provide a warning during the episode before I get into those trickier parts of the narrative. Okay, thank you. And thank you for joining me for part two of the Colombian conflict story, la Violencia and the Rise of the Guerrillas. Welcome to Double Helix. Blueprint of Nations, season 2, episode 1.2, la Violencia and the Rise of the Guerrilla. Last time on Double Helix, we explored the roots of the rebellion simmering within Colombia from the very start of the nation. We examined the two competing political parties, the conservatives and the liberals, and how their all-encompassing conflict consumed and divided Colombian society, leading to several civil wars in the 19th century and culminating in the clashes over land distribution by the late 1920s. We also hinted at the appearance of a singular character in our narrative Jorge Eliezer Gaitán, leader of the Liberal Party and a leading presidential candidate in the run-up to the 1950 elections. His assassination in 1948 unleashed a profound transformation in Colombia, with an outbreak of violence and political hatred similar to the one that was seen during the Thousand Days War some 50 years earlier. Gaitan's murder was a demarcation line in Colombian history and triggered a period of 10 years known as La Violencia, a decade of untold violence and cruelty that almost tore the Colombian state apart.

Speaker 1:

In our last episode, we looked at the trigger points throughout Colombian history that led to the conflict we know today. We talked about the poison pills of Colombian society, as well as how they worked against any future national unity and continue to do so. But there are some other specific grievances that not only fuel the political and regional divides in Colombia, but continue to drive flux of Colombians into the arms of the groups and individuals that offer quick solutions to these seemingly impossible problems. And remember what I said before about simple solutions to complex problems. Well, colombia is no different. The notion has proven as dangerous there as it has everywhere else it has been employed. Complex problems like the ones in Colombia, often embedded into the foundational markers, the blueprint of a nation, usually require complex solutions, but more on that later. Anyway, before we dive into La Violencia, we need to ask why here? Why Colombia? Despite its rich natural resources, fertile land and significant population natural resources, fertile land and significant population Colombia became a hotbed for intense conflict, as you saw in our last episode, even by the standards of Latin American nations, colombia's foundation and subsequent settlement into a nation was particularly violent. To understand how a society can reach such levels of division and fracture, we must outline the specific grievances that built up and led to La Violencia and its aftermath, the armed conflict that we know today. As I've already warned you, the answer is complex and multifaceted.

Speaker 1:

One of the key issues in Colombia is land distribution. Colombia has long had a highly unequal distribution of land, with a small elite owning vast estates, while the majority of the population, particularly rural farmers, held little or no land. As historian Frank Saffer explains, land has always been a critical issue in Colombia, and its unequal distribution has often fueled social tensions. We saw this during the peasant revolts in the 1920s and we will continue to see it as our story evolves. The inequitable distribution of land in Colombia dates back to the colonial era, when Spanish conquerors established large haciendas or estates by granting vast tracts of land to a small number of elites. This system entrenched a feudal-like structure, with the majority of the rural population working as laborers or tenant farmers on lands they did not own.

Speaker 1:

Following independence from Spain in 1819, the new Colombian Republic, part of Gran Colombia at the time, continued to perpetuate land concentration in the hands of a few. Various governments granted large parcels of land to military officers and political allies, further solidifying the power of the land-owning elite. Efforts at land reform were minimal and largely ineffective, leading to growing disenchantment among the rural poor. By the mid-20th century, land ownership remained highly concentrated. The 1960s saw the introduction of the National Agrarian Reform, which aimed to redistribute land to peasants. However, resistance from powerful landowners and a lack of political will resulted in limited implementation. According to political scientist James Robinson, the agrarian reform efforts were too limited and met with stiff opposition, undermining their effectiveness and leaving many peasants' grievances unaddressed.

Speaker 1:

The failure of land reform policies exacerbated rural poverty and inequality, creating fertile ground for rebellion. Many rural inhabitants, faced with limited opportunities and systemic exploitation, were drawn to the promises of guerrilla movements that advocated for radical agrarian reform and social justice. Another major factor was rural poverty. Poverty was widespread among the rural populations, who faced harsh living conditions and limited access to resources. The average Colombian lived in abject poverty throughout most of the history of the nation, with little material improvement following the coffee boom of the early 20th century. Historian Marco Palacios describes how many peasants lived in makeshift homes, struggled with malnutrition and lacked basic services such as as healthcare, education, sewage and the like. This poverty exacerbated feelings of disenfranchisement and neglect, further motivating the desire for change and aligning many rural inhabitants with emerging guerrilla movements. The desperation generated by systemic and unending poverty worked as a force that drove thousands into the arms of radical leaders promising to right historical wrongs.

Speaker 1:

In addition to socioeconomic inequalities, political exclusion also played a key role in setting the stage for conflict. The political landscape in Colombia was dominated, as we've said before, by the conservative and the liberal parties, which often excluded rural communities completely from meaningful participation. This political exclusion meant that the concerns and needs of rural populations were overlooked or ignored time and again, deepening their sense of alienation. Deepening their sense of alienation, the lack of political representation and avenues for redress led to the emergence of movements advocating for agrarian reform and greater political inclusion. As historian James D Henderson notes in his books about Colombia, peasant movements were driven by a desire for land and a voice in politics, but they faced strong opposition from powerful landowners and a government reluctant to challenge the status quo their livelihoods. Movements such as the National Association of Peasant Users, or ANUC, emerged, advocating for land redistribution and the protection of peasant interest. Finally, the broader context of the Cold War also played a significant role in shaping the modern Colombian conflict, and this is a factor we should not ignore.

Speaker 1:

I want to be clear here the Cold War was like rocket fuel to the already existing problems of Colombia, because they began to be looked at, like everything else during the Cold War, through the context of the Cold War. Oh, what's that? You don't know what the Cold War is? No worries, I've got a companion for you. So go back and listen and you'll get all the information you need to be ready to go and understand what the Cold War was. But anyway, the ideological battle between the United States and the Soviet Union influenced local politics, with each side supporting factions aligned with their respective interests. Historian Eduardo Pizarro León Gómez highlights that the Cold War heightened polarization, as left-wing guerrilla groups received support from communist states, while the Colombian government aligned with the United States and its anti-communist agenda, be it governmental or otherwise. This external involvement intensified the internal struggles in Colombia, making it harder to resolve and increasing the scale of the conflict. In fact, the involvement of external powers provided the resources and training that made the conflict much more protracted and destructive.

Speaker 1:

The period of la violencia was ignited by the assassination of Jorge Eliezer Gaitán, a popular liberal leader, on April 9, 1948. According to Paul Oquist, gaitán's assassination was not just a loss of a leader, but a spark that ignited an existing powder keg of social and political tensions. Powder keg of social and political tensions. Some historians offer the election of 1946, when conservatives came back into power, as an alternative date for the start of La Violencia, because from that point forward, government and conservative repression against rural areas had really begun. However, most agree that the catalyst that pushed Colombia over the abyss was the murder of Gaitan. At any rate, jorge Eliezer Gaitan was a champion of the marginalized, advocating for sweeping social and economic reforms. His assassination unleashed a profound sense of loss and betrayal among the populace, sparking widespread violence between liberals and conservative factions. Gaitan's movement, known as Gaitanismo, aimed to lead Colombia down a path of radical societal and economic change. As was typical of the era, gaitan was often labeled as a communist.

Speaker 1:

Gaitan first rose to prominence in Colombia as a lawyer defending the rights of striking farmers in the aftermath of the 1928 Banana Massacre. His advocacy for these workers highlighted the deep inequalities in Colombian society and positioned him as a voice for the oppressed. Later, as Minister of Education in the early 1940s, he introduced cultural reforms while continuing to promote his platform of radical change, painting himself as a man of the people. His impressive oratory and public speaking made him a powerful conduit for the frustrations of Colombia's masses. Gaitán fueled long-standing divides by contrasting the quote-unquote admirable people with the quote-unquote blood-sucking oligarchs. He also criticized the emerging alliance between wealthy, well-connected liberals and conservatives, who had historically been adversaries. Gaitan divided the country into what he termed the political country and the national country, the latter representing the common people. His promises of aggressive land reform threatened the foundations of Colombian power like nothing else had before, challenging the entrenched interest of the elite and advocating for a more equitable distribution of resources.

Speaker 1:

On the morning of April 9, 1948, jorge Eliezer Gaitán was attending to his legal practice and political meetings in his office located in the Central Business District of Bogotá. At approximately 1.05 pm, gaitán left his office for lunch with a group of colleagues. 1.05 pm. Gaitan left his office for lunch with a group of colleagues. As he stepped onto the sidewalk of Carrera Septima, one of Bogota's busiest streets, he was approached by Juan Roa Sierra, a young man with unknown motives. Roa Sierra fired three shots at close range, striking Gaitan in the head and chest. Gaitan collapsed to the ground, mortally wounded.

Speaker 1:

The assassination occurred in broad daylight in a crowded area. Witnesses immediately reacted with shock and horror. Bystanders quickly subdued Roacierra, preventing his escape, and despite efforts to save him, gaitan succumbed to his injuries shortly after the shooting. His death was confirmed within hours to his injuries shortly after the shooting. His death was confirmed within hours, sending shockwaves throughout the nation. For his part, the enraged crowd, convinced that Roa Sierra was part of a larger conspiracy, beat him to death before the police could intervene.

Speaker 1:

Some theories suggest that Gaitán's assassination might have involved external influences, including foreign entities concerned about the spread of leftist politics in Latin America during the early Cold War period. Caytan's policies and rhetoric aligned more with social democracy and reform which, although not explicitly communist, were seen as sympathetic to socialist ideals. This raised concerns among those who were keen to curve any left-leaning political movements in the region. Later examples of Nicaragua, el Salvador and Chile showed the lengths to which the United States would be willing to go to influence political outcomes in Latin America. So the conspiracies were not completely far-fetched. Gaitán's murder remains shrouded in mystery and numerous conspiracy theories have emerged over the years. The identity and motives of the assassin, juan Roa Sierra, remain debated, with some arguing that Roa was a mentally disturbed lone gunman, while others contend he was part of a broader conspiracy involving powerful interests. The lack of clear and convincing explanation for the assassination has only fueled speculation and controversy, suggesting that Gaitan's death was not just the result of a personal vendetta, but rather a politically motivated act aimed at derailing his reformist agenda.

Speaker 1:

Following the shocking assassination of Jorge Eliezer Gaitán on April 9, 1948, which we just covered in some detail, colombia was plunged into chaos. The profound sense of loss and betrayal felt by Gaitan's supporters ignited a massive and violent response, marking the beginning of what would become one of the most tumultuous days in Bogotá's history, indeed, colombia's history known as El Bogotazo. The day Colombia burned as news of Gaitan's death spread throughout the city. Burn as news of Gaitan's death spread throughout the city, thousands of his supporters poured into the streets. The initial outpouring of grief quickly transformed into rage. Within hours, bogota descended into anarchy. Rioters, driven by anger and desperation, began looting stores, setting buildings ablaze and attacking symbols of the conservative government, who they blamed for Gaitan's assassination. The heart of the violence was in downtown Bogotá, where the destruction was most intense. Government buildings, businesses and homes were engulfed in flames. The once bustling streets turned into war zones, littered with debris and echoing with the sounds of gunfire and shattering glass. The chaos was unprecedented. Entire blocks were reduced to rubble as rioters sought to vent their fury against the establishment.

Speaker 1:

The Bogotazo represented the largest and most concrete popular insurrection against a national government in Latin America ever since independence and was the stuff of nightmares for many Latin American politicians. The government's response was swift and brutal. In a desperate attempt to regain control, president Mariano Espina Pérez declared martial law and deployed the military to the streets. Soldiers armed with rifles and bayonets confronted the rioters. Soldiers armed with rifles and bayonets confronted the rioters, leading to violent clashes. The air was thick with tear gas and smoke from burning buildings. The army fired into the crowds throughout Bogota, leading to numerous casualties and further inflaming the rioters' anger.

Speaker 1:

It is also important to note that the violence was not confined to Bogota alone. News of El Bogotazo spread rapidly across Colombia, inciting similar uprisings in other cities and towns. The entire nation was gripped by a wave of violence as long-standing political and social tensions erupted into open conflict. The death toll from El Bogotazo was staggering, with estimates ranging from several hundred to over 2,000 people killed in just a few days. Before I forget, just a few blocks away from where Gaitan was murdered, there was a witness to the murder of his killer by the enraged mob of Bogota. This witness was one of the most prodigious Colombians to have ever lived. We mentioned him before briefly was one of the most prodigious Colombians to have ever lived. We mentioned him before briefly.

Speaker 1:

His writing would always serve as a salve, a soothing medicine of sorts to the ailments of his country. His name was Gabriel Garcia Marquez. He wrote in detail about this day in his memoirs called Living. To Tell a Tale, he mentions a dark figure, a well-dressed man, who was egging the crowd on as they beat Roa Sierra to death before being led away in a fancy vehicle. For those of you looking for conspiracy fuel, make of that what you will.

Speaker 1:

Moving on, the impact of El Bogotazo was profound and far-reaching, marking a pivotal moment in Colombian history. It illuminated the deep divisions within the country and the explosive potential of its political and social tensions. These tensions, which had remained largely dormant since the War of a Thousand Days, resurfaced with a vengeance. This resurgence of conflict can be likened to the ancient Roman tradition of the Temple of Janus, the double-faced god of war. In Rome, the temple doors were open to signify the time of war and closed to indicate peace. With El Bogotazo, it was as though the doors of Janus' temple were thrown open in Colombia, heralding a new era of strife. Since then, those doors have not yet closed. Colombia has been trying ever since. Nonetheless, the violence and destruction left terrible marks on Bogota, with scars of that day visible in the burnt-out shells of buildings and the grieving families who had lost loved ones.

Speaker 1:

El Bogotazo, then, was the launchpad for the decade-long period of intense civil conflict between liberals and conservatives. We know that decade by a single name La Violencia. The scale of the violence and the government's harsh response deepened the existing divides and fueled a cycle of retaliation and brutality. The events of that fateful day demonstrated the fragility of Colombian society and the volatile nature of its political landscape. From 1948 to 1958, colombia was engulfed in a brutal civil war between the liberal and conservative factions, resulting in profound and lasting consequences. For the nation, this period is the precursor to the modern conflict. For the nation, this period is the precursor to the modern conflict.

Speaker 1:

La violencia was characterized by widespread violence and lawlessness, as factions battled for control of the nation. The conflict was primarily fought by armed civilian groups and paramilitaries aligned with either the liberals or the conservatives. These groups terrorized the countryside, committing heinous acts of violence against those they deemed enemies. Rural populations bore the brunt of a fight that was as much about political power as it was about land control and land rights. The fighting often took the form of guerrilla warfare, with small mobile units attacking isolated villages, ambushing convoys and engaging in brutal skirmishes. Both sides employed scorched-earth tactics, burning homes and crops to deny resources to their enemy. The lack of a centralized command structure led to a chaotic and fragmented conflict, with atrocities committed by both sides. I told you before that there were no good guys in the Colombian civil struggle, and La Violencia, with its revival of the top hits of the Thousand Days War, would prove that to be the case, and more.

Speaker 1:

As La Violencia unfolded, the roles of partisan militias became central to the escalation of the conflict. The key armed gangs were the pájaros, aligned with the conservative party, and the chusma, associated with liberals. Each evolved into formidable forces wreaking havoc across Colombia. These groups not only symbolized the deep political divide, but also embodied the brutality that characterized this dark chapter in Colombian history. The pájaros a term that translates to birds in English which belied their deadly nature, were notorious for their ruthless tactics. Armed and often wearing civilian clothes to blend in, they targeted anyone suspected of supporting the liberal cause. Historian Robert Dix notes in his analyses that these squads had more in common with hitmen, and then later sicarios, than with soldiers. They were executioners known for their ambushes on rural roads, where they often left bodies as a grim warning to others. And yes, that is another throwback to the Thousand Days War.

Speaker 1:

Similarly, the chusma, roughly translated as the rabble, initially formed as a reactionary force to protect liberal communities, quickly gained a reputation for reciprocal brutality. Their raids on conservative towns were marked by arson and indiscriminate killings. Historian Gonzalo Sanchez, in his detailed account of the period, describes scenes where the chusma would storm into a village at night, set fire to the houses and execute anyone affiliated with the conservative party. Both groups employed terror tactics that escalated the violence to staggering levels. The pájaros were particularly feared for their methods of picar, which was a savage practice where victims were hacked with machetes before being left in public spaces. This gruesome method was intended to kill and also to instill fear among the populace. The chusma were no less brutal. Often their attacks would end with the public display of their victims, sometimes hanging their bodies from lampposts in town squares, to send a clear message of defiance and strength.

Speaker 1:

This tit-for-tat violence between the pájaros and the chusma created a cycle of retaliation that seemed endless, with each atrocity prompting another one in kind. The cycle of indiscriminate and desensitized killing only escalated from there. That is why they called it labulencia. What made labulencia labulencia was the extreme sadism of the acts which occurred during that terrible decade. Historians and social scientists are not sure why this sadism exploded in such ways, but I want to warn you now some of the descriptions of what went on are going to be very tough to hear, so please proceed with caution. The purpose of me conveying these atrocities, which is something I will do for all the conflicts we cover this season, is not to be gratuitous, but to convey to you what it was like for Colombians and for other humans who had to live through these kinds of events.

Speaker 1:

Certain death and torture techniques became so commonplace during La Violencia that they were given specific names and euphemisms Picar para tamal, which is to cut for tamals, involves slowly dismembering a living person's body, cutting small pieces to prolong the death and the suffering, while pocachiquear entailed making hundreds of small punctures until the victim bled to death, similar to the process used to bleed a fish out as part of a local delicacy. Norman A Bailey, a former senior director of international economic affairs for the United States National Security Council and the current president of the Institute of Global Economic Growth, describes the atrocities succinctly. Ingenious forms of quartering and beheading were invented and given such names as the Corte de Mica, corte de Corbata, also known as the Colombian necktie, and so on. Crucifixions and hangings were commonplace. Political prisoners were thrown from airplanes in flight. Infants were bayoneted and raped. Schoolgirls, some as young as eight years old, were raped en masse. Unborn infants were removed by crude cesarean sections and replaced by roosters. Ears were cut off, scalps removed and so on.

Speaker 1:

The Colombian necktie, which is slashing someone below the throat and pulling their tongue out through the cut, and other horrible mutilations like the flower vase cut, tongue out through the cut, and other horrible mutilations like the flower vase cut, where the person was dismembered and the limbs were then reinserted into the cavities carved on the body, were both gruesome and yet common. There was also the t-shirt cut, where the limbs and the head would be cut off, leaving only the torso. A favorite of the chusmas and pájaros was to mutilate the dead bodies of their opponents and cut off their genitals and stuff them in the mouth of their dead rivals. All of these methods became popular during La Violencia and have since been attributed erroneously to Pablo Escobar as the inventor. Most of the euphemistically named methods first saw light during La Violencia.

Speaker 1:

Sadly, the level of dehumanizing torture mostly originated there. The creative and horrific methods of torture and killing reflected a society deeply fractured and consumed by hatred, where human life was often disregarded and violence became a routine instrument of power and retribution. This period of unparalleled violence left deep scars in the Colombian psyche and laid the groundwork for the subsequent decades of conflict. Out of the period of la violencia came the guerrillas and the paramilitaries. The next stage of the Colombian conflict was being set up. Families were torn apart not only by the loss of loved ones, but also by the pervasive fear that settled over towns and villages caught between these violent forces. The countryside, once the heart of Colombia's agrarian culture, turned into a battlefield where no one was safe, as described by journalist Arturo Alape in his first-hand accounts. The Colombian countryside was transformed into a checkerboard of horror, with each square controlled by either the pájaros or the chusma, each perpetuating a cycle of murder and retribution.

Speaker 1:

The atrocities committed during La Violencia were horrific and widespread. Civilians bore the brunt of the violence, with countless massacres, rapes and acts of torture perpetrated by both liberal and conservative forces. Villages were often targeted based on the political affiliations of their inhabitants, leading to indiscriminate slaughter and destruction. One particularly gruesome example was the massacre in the town of Villarrica in 1954, where government forces, in their attempt to quell liberal resistance, killed hundreds of villagers and burned the town to the ground. The brutality of such acts left deep scars on the national psyche and fueled further cycles of revenge and retribution. As La Violencia wore on, the distinctions between the pájaros and the chusma were often blurred, with both sides committing atrocities that would haunt Colombian society for generations. The scars left by these bands contributed significantly to the mistrust and division that would later fuel further conflict and the rise of guerrilla movements seeking to challenge the status quo.

Speaker 1:

The countryside became a primary battleground, as historian David Bushnell details, rural guerrilla bands, initially formed as self-defense groups, sometimes called cowboys, soon took on more offensive roles, attacking adversaries and trying to control territories. These forces wrote in rebellion against the increasingly authoritarian and anti-democratic conservative government forces of Colombia in the 1950s. This rule factions, one of those led by figures such as Manuel Marulanda, alias Tito Fijo, would eventually coalesce into formal guerrilla movements like the FARC. We will certainly have a lot more to say about Manuel Marulanda as our story of the Colombian conflict develops, but keep the name in your back pocket. We will come back to it. It was also during this time period that a young Argentinian revolutionary by the name of Ernesto Che Guevara you know him from t-shirts probably shows up in Colombia and gets embroiled in its internal conflict, aligning with the many left-wing guerrillas that sprung on the eastern plains of the country.

Speaker 1:

The human toll of La Violencia was staggering. Estimates suggest that between 200,000 and 300,000 people were killed during the conflict, with countless others injured or left psychologically scarred. Roughly 1 in 50 Colombians were killed by La Violencia. The decade left no one in the nation untouched. The economic impact was equally severe, with widespread destruction of property and infrastructure contributing to a prolonged period of instability and poverty. La Violencia fundamentally reshaped the Colombian political and social landscape. The conflict deepened the divide between liberals and conservatives, embedding a legacy of mistrust and animosity even further.

Speaker 1:

During La Violencia, the government struggled to project authority beyond the urban centers, where rural areas often left to fend for themselves amidst the growing power of partisan militias. Historian Daniel Picot describes how the Colombian state, weakened by partisan divisions, failed to enforce laws uniformly or protect the citizens from violence. Local governments, which should have been the first line of defense against the escalation of violence, were themselves often compromised. Many local officials were either aligned with conservative or liberal parties and thus, part of the problem, they frequently used their positions to persecute political opponents rather than maintain order and, as a result, the state's legitimacy eroded and public trust in government institutions plummeted.

Speaker 1:

Law enforcement agencies were not only underfunded and understaffed, but also deeply divided along partisan lines. Many police units were co-opted by local political leaders and used as private militias rather than neutral peacekeepers. There were instances where the police actively participated in attacks against villages known to support the opposition faction. The Chulavitas, a police unit which later became part of the Murderos Pajaros, is an example of this conversion from law enforcement into paramilitary thuggery. The judiciary, too, was incapacitated by the pervasive influence of political patronage and corruption was incapacitated by the pervasive influence of political patronage and corruption. Courts were reluctant to prosecute crimes associated with la violencia, especially those committed by individuals connected to the ruling party. This lack of judicial perpetuated impunity and also discouraged citizens from seeking legal redress, forcing many to turn to armed groups for protection and for revenge.

Speaker 1:

The military, which could have played a stabilizing role, was often hesitant to engage fully in internal security operations, partly due to a lack of clear directives from the central government and partly due to fears of sparking a full-blown civil war. Historians note that the army was stretched thin across a rugged and vast terrain, struggling to contend with both liberal guerrillas and conservative militias. This is not to say that they were innocent bystanders during La Violencia. As we've discussed, they often played a role in the partisan violence itself. When the military did intervene, their actions often exacerbated the situation. Their efforts were marked by a heavy-handed approach that included bombing of rural areas suspected of harboring guerrillas, which alienated the local population and pushed more people towards armed resistance. Finally, in an effort to end the bloodshed, a power-sharing agreement known as the National Front was established in 1958. This agreement mandated that the presidency would alternate between liberals and conservatives every four years and aim to stabilize the political situation by ensuring that both parties had a stake in governance. While the National Front succeeded in ending the open conflict of La Violencia, it also institutionalized the exclusion of other political movements and ideologies, sowing deceits for future unrest. The conflict also highlighted the profound inequalities and injustices within the Colombian society, particularly in rural areas. The failure to address these underlying issues during and after La Violencia meant that the grievances that had fueled the conflict remained unresolved, paving the way for the emergence of new forms of resistance and rebellion. La Violencia left Colombia further divided, desensitized and angry. Those marks contributed to the vehemence of the Colombian conflict we know today. It also set the stage for the emergence of guerrillas and paramilitary groups, which are now the hallmark of the current Colombian conflict.

Speaker 1:

La Violencia fundamentally altered the dynamics of rural and urban communities alike. The indiscriminate violence and the widespread atrocities disrupted traditional ways of life, displacing hundreds of thousands of people from their homes and lands. This mass displacement contributed to the rapid urbanization of Colombia, as rural inhabitants fled to cities in search for safety and economic opportunity. However, these cities were ill-prepared to handle the influx leading to the expansion of urban slums, or later, barrios, and heightened socioeconomic disparities. Historian Marie Roldan argued that this period also intensified class divisions and hardened social hierarchies, as communities became more insular and suspicious of outsiders fearing betrayal or violence. This vacuum of power and legitimacy paved the way for the emergence of guerrilla movements, which positioned themselves as alternative sources of authority and protection against the backdrop of a failing state. These movements exploited the grievances left by La Violencia to gain support and expand their influence, particularly in rural areas where the state's influence was minimal. The impact of La Violencia extended into the cultural realm as well. The collective trauma of this period influenced Colombian literature, art and film, which often reflects themes of loss, memory and resilience. Nobel laureate Gabriel García Márquez, for example, incorporated elements of La Violencia into his magical realist novels, most notably in 100 Years of Solitude, where the fictional town of Macondo becomes a mirror reflecting the nation's cyclical violence and despair.

Speaker 1:

In the wake of La Violencia, there were attempts to reform Colombia's legal and institutional frameworks to prevent the recurrence of such widespread violence. These reforms included measures to strengthen the judiciary, reform the police and military forces and promote land and agricultural reforms. However, these reforms were often limited in scope and, as we said before, poorly implemented. What many of the deeper structural issues remaining unaddressed? Now you would think that a decade of untold violence, as we've just described, would leave Colombians exhausted, but you would be wrong for thinking that, if anything, the roots of grievance only became more pronounced. And I should say Colombians were probably, and are probably still, exhausted of violence. But the underlying issues that have fueled violence in the country have remained largely unaddressed.

Speaker 1:

The first of the multifaceted sides of the current Colombian conflict emerging from the turbulent decade of la violencia are the left-wing guerrillas. From the turbulent decade of La Violencia are the left-wing guerrillas. These groups, primarily rooted in the rural areas, but not confined to them, form a significant part of the country's ongoing struggle. The two main factions, which you will become familiar with throughout the series by their Spanish acronyms, are FARC, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, and the ELN, the National Liberation Army. In this episode, we will dive into their origins and the lives of their respective founders. Manuel Marulanda and Camilo Torres was not a founder but the key, influential figure in launching the ELN to national prominence within Colombia. Following a decade of unabated violence, murder and factional fighting that we just described a violencia in the 1960s, the situation escalated further due to targeted anti-communist repression in many rural areas of Colombia, which predominantly affected peasant communities. This crackdown pushed both liberal and communist militants to unify their efforts against perceived injustices, culminating in the establishment of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. The FARC, along with other guerrilla groups like the ELN, framed the struggle as a fight for the rights of the oppressed, aiming to protect the rural poor from government oppression and to achieve social justice through the implementation of communist principles.

Speaker 1:

Manuel Marulanda, born Pedro Antonio Marín in 1930 in Quindio, colombia, was a figure of immense influence within FARC. Of immense influence within FARC, often known by his war name during the years of La Violencia, alias Tito Fijo or Sure Shot. Manolanda's early life as a peasant farmer was marked by the pervasive violence and social injustice of the Colombian countryside. Manolanda's political awakening began in the late 1940s, during the beginning of La Violencia. Initially, he was a member of the Liberal Party's youth wing and he was radicalized by the brutal suppression of liberal and peasant communities, which he witnessed firsthand by groups like the Pajaros and the Chulavitas, also known as government-sponsored paramilitaries. This experience galvanized his commitment to armed struggle as a means to defend peasant rights and ultimately reshape Colombian society.

Speaker 1:

In the early 1960s, amid growing rural unrest, marulanda was instrumental in organizing self-defense groups in response to state and paramilitary violence. These groups laid the groundwork for what would become the FARC in 1964. Under Marulanda's leadership, the FARC adopted a Marxist-Leninist framework aiming to overthrow the oligarchic government and implement communist agrarian reforms. Historian Dario Villamizar, in his work, highlights how Marulanda's leadership was characterized by his deep understanding of rural dynamics and guerrilla warfare. His strategy involved military actions and also building a parallel state structure within areas under FARC control, where the group provided social services and enforced its own form of justice. Marulanda envisioned a Colombia where land was redistributed fairly among peasants and where the rural poor had a significant voice in national affairs. His commitment to these principles made him both a revered and controversial figure. Critics argue that, while he championed the rights of peasants, his methods, particularly the use of violence and kidnapping, often undermined the very democratic ideals he sought to promote.

Speaker 1:

Parallel to the rise of FARC, the ELN was established, also in 1964, drawing inspiration from the Cuban revolutions and figures like Che Guevara who, as you may remember, had gotten his early taste of revolution, fighting with left-wing guerrillas in the rural areas of Colombia in the early days of La Violencia. The ELN's founder, fabio Vázquez Castano, along with other intellectuals and students, including the influential priest Camilo Torres, aimed to ignite a broader social revolution, encompassing both urban intellectuals and rural peasants. Unlike FARC, which focused primarily on rural peasant mobilization, the ELN sought to integrate urban resistance and education into its strategy. This included staging dramatic acts of sabotage and kidnapping to fund their operations and raise awareness of their cause. The ELN's approach was marked by a strong emphasis on ethical and cultural dimensions of revolution, viewing moral leadership as essential to societal transformation.

Speaker 1:

Camilo Torres was born in 1929 in Bogota, colombia. He was trained as a sociologist and a priest. Torres was deeply influenced by the profound poverty and inequality he witnessed in Colombia. His dual role as a clergyman and an academic allowed him a unique perspective on the social injustices faced by his countrymen, which drove him towards radicalism. Before his engagement in direct revolutionary activities, torres was a respected lecturer at the National University of Colombia, where he was involved in the sociology department. His academic work focused on the structural causes of poverty and inequality, and he was an early proponent of liberation theology, which advocated for the church's active involvement in the fight against social injustice. Torres's transition from a clergyman to a revolutionary was marked by his growing conviction that the existing social order could not be changed through peaceful means alone. His famous declaration that it was better to be a guerrilla than a priest marked his full commitment to armed struggle.

Speaker 1:

In 1965, torres formally joined the ELN, bringing with him a charisma and a moral authority that significantly boosted the movement's appeal, particularly among young intellectuals and students. Camilo Torres believed that true Christian practice necessitated direct action against oppression. This belief led him to advocate for a synthesis of Christian values and Marxist principles, arguing that the liberation of the poor was both a spiritual and a material struggle. His involvement in the ELN helped shape the group's ideological stance, emphasizing the role of education, ethics and community engagement in guerrilla warfare. Role of education, ethics and community engagement in guerrilla warfare. Historian Aldo Cívico notes that Torres' approach to revolution was holistic. He saw cultural and educational activities as crucial to the success of the guerrilla movement. Torres was instrumental in developing the ELN strategy of combination of all forms of struggle, which integrated armed resistance with political education and alliances with other progressive sectors of society.

Speaker 1:

Camilo Torres's commitment to his cause was total. He died in his first combat encounter in 1966, becoming a martyr and a symbol. His death galvanized existing supporters of the ELN and attracted new adherents, drawn by his example of sacrifice and dedication to the liberation of the oppressed people. As he saw it, the contrasting yet complementary paths of FARC and ELN, under leaders like Manuel Marulanda and Camilo Torres, represented diverse responses to Colombia's deep-seated issues of inequality and exclusion. As these movements grew, they significantly shaped the political and social dialogue in Colombia, pushing the country into a prolonged and complex conflict that we will continue to explore in our series.

Speaker 1:

We're going to pause our story here. It's the mid-1960s in Colombia, and the most notorious guerrilla movements of the conflict have been founded. The battle lines of the modern Colombian conflict have been drawn. After a decade of untold violence, the country moves into the next phase of its internal struggle. New players emerge on the scene, namely the United States and the Soviet Union, as the vortex of the Cold War consumes all in its path, turning this long-standing fight into a battleground for global ideological supremacy. Next time on Double Helix, join us for part three of our series on the Colombian conflict, guerrilla warfare and the Iron Fist. Until next time, we will see you soon.

People on this episode

Podcasts we love

Check out these other fine podcasts recommended by us, not an algorithm.