The Colombian Conflict: The Roots of Rebellion (Part 1)

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello and welcome to Season 2 of Double Helix.
My name is Paul and you'relistening to Double Helix
Blueprint of Nations.
This is a podcast where we liketo uncover the DNA of nations.
I'm thrilled that you've joinedus once again and, as promised,
you can go back and listen tothose episodes.
This season we will explorecivil wars.

(00:23):
Civil wars are conflicts thathave fundamentally altered how
nations perceive themselves, howthey govern themselves and how
the societies in those nationswork.
We've specifically chosen civilwars that have driven deep
wedges into the nations intowhich they happen and in many

(00:43):
cases, those scars continue tofester like open wounds.
They're always threatening toturn into full-blown infections
and they continue to affect theentire nation over and over
throughout the years.
Despite the steps forward thateach of these countries has
taken, many of these conflictscontinue to leave deep scars

(01:05):
that are still creating muchconflict in those societies and
continue to drive the coresocial dynamics of the nations
into which they happened.
Our first stop is Colombia andto start, I guess I have to ask
the question what do you thinkabout when you think about
Colombia?
Maybe some of you will say thatyou think about coffee, others

(01:30):
may say soccer or football,salsa, perhaps the dancing, yes,
but I know some of you may beashamed to say what you really
think about when you think aboutColombia.
Maybe you think about violence,maybe you think about the drug
trade, perhaps you think about asingle name Pablo Escobar.

(01:51):
But this is the problem.
Colombia is so much more thanthose stereotypes, and yet it is
one of the byproducts of theColombian armed conflict that
most people associate with thenation.
That byproduct is, of course,violence.
It is the same desire toexplore the other aspects of

(02:13):
Colombia that drove me toexplore the Colombian conflict,
which has been running, at leastofficially, since 1964 and is
one of the longest-runninginternal conflicts in the world.
And is one of thelongest-running internal
conflicts in the world.
The Colombian conflict may haveofficially begun in 1964, but
it has ties that overlap the19th, the 20th and now the 21st

(02:37):
centuries.
For decades, colombia has founditself at the center of
international attention, for itsnotorious ties to the drug
trade, yes, but also for hisdifficult political history and
for his ties to the US military,economic and political strategy
in Latin America as well.

(02:57):
But there is this other side ofColombia that I told you about,
and it is a side that I havebegun to learn about through my
writing of this series.
This other side is theColombian people their
incredible resiliency, theirtenacity and their courage.
It is these things that I alsowant to explore as we deep dive

(03:21):
into the history of theColombian conflict.
As we deep dive into the historyof the Colombian conflict, even
though the Colombian conflicthas been ongoing since 1964, the
sides of the conflict arealways interchanging.
They are complex and they aremultifaceted, and they involve

(03:42):
various elements acrossColombian society, from far-left
guerrillas to right-wingparamilitaries, from armed gangs
to drug traffickers, thenational government, the
national police, the militaryand even international interests
, as represented by the UnitedStates, by Russia and by the
neighbor country Venezuela.
This conflict has cost Colombiaa reputation in lives in

(04:06):
progress and economicadvancement, and in many other
innumerable ways.
In fact, 80% of the deaths ofthe conflict have been civilian.
Since 1958, it is estimatedthat around 220,000 people have
died in the conflict, thataround 220,000 people have died
in the conflict.
Most of these, like I said, arecivilian.

(04:26):
More than 5 million civilianswere forced out of their homes
between 1985 and 2012, which isone of the largest population
migrations forced migrations inworld history.
And in 2022, the TruthCommission of Colombia estimated

(04:48):
that paramilitaries wereresponsible for 45% of the
civilian deaths, guerrillas for27% and even the state forces
for up to 12%, with theremaining 16% attributable to
all sorts of other groups.
We'll examine how this nationhas grappled with a legacy
steeped in division,sectarianism and strife, all the

(05:10):
while trying to navigate itspath towards reconciliation and
progress.
Our journey into the Colombianconflict is going to begin here,
with part one examining theroots of rebellion.
Examining the Roots ofRebellion.

(05:31):
Welcome to Double HelixBlueprint of Nations, season 2,
episode 1.1 the ColumbianConflict the Roots of Rebellion.
The Roots of Rebellion, ofrebellion.
The conflict in Colombia isdeeply entrenched in the

(05:53):
nation's history, tracing itsorigins 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 thenation and has stunted its
growth.
If we go all the way back tothe very foundation of Colombia
in the early part of the 19thcentury, we see that
sectarianism and regionalrivalries have always played a

(06:16):
pivotal role in shaping thepolitical and social landscape
of the country.
And so, if you really want toknow the roots of the rebellion,
you have to go back to the verybeginning of the country, and
so if you really want to knowthe roots of the rebellion, you
have to go back to the verybeginning of the nation.
Early in Colombia's independenthistory, we witnessed a period
that historians would come toknow as La Patria Boba, or the

(06:39):
Foolish Fatherland.
This was an era thathighlighted the initial
challenges of forming aColombian state that was stable
and cohesive, with one nationalidentity, as factions with
differing visions for thecountry's future vied for
control.
This set a precedent for thepersistent conflicts that would
continue to shape Colombia'spolitical landscape into the

(07:01):
future landscape into the future.
Spanning from 1810 to 1816,.
The Patria Boba period unfoldedright after Colombia's initial
declaration of independence fromSpanish rule.
As we said, the term PatriaBoba translates to foolish
fatherland, and it is used byhistorians because it
encapsulates the intensepolitical factionalism and the

(07:25):
sequence of short-lived andineffective governments that
define these years.
The Patria Boba began after thedeposition of the Spanish
authorities in Santa Fe deBogotá, the Colombian capital,
in 1810.
This was part of a broader waveof independence movements
across Latin America.
This was part of a broader waveof independence movements

(07:47):
across Latin America.
These movements were spurred bySpain's weakening grip on its
colonies due to the NapoleonicWars in Europe and, thanks to
our companion, you also knowwhat 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 thePatria Boba period in Colombia

(08:08):
not only defined that era, butthey also foreshadowed the
recurring themes throughoutColombian history, culminating
in the protracted armed conflictthat we know today, and so I
thought it'd be worth pointingout what these critical airmen
were.
I thought it would be worthpointing out what these critical
airmen were, enumerating themto help you orient some of the
key components ofdissatisfaction and rivalry in

(08:31):
Colombian society.
Later on, we will explore thespecific trigger points for the
conflict that we know today, butthese factors run through the
DNA of Colombian society, and soI thought it would be important

(08:52):
to point them out.
Number one you have rivalfactions.
The core of the politicalstrife during the Patriarca
period stemmed from two primarygroups.
The centralists advocated for astrong, centralized government
based in Bogota, believing itwould bring order and unity to
the nation.
Conversely, the federalistspushed for greater autonomy for

(09:16):
local regions, and they arguedthat a confederation of
provinces would be better torepresent the diverse interests
across Colombia of provinceswould be better to represent the
diverse interest acrossColombia.
Number two you have competingadministrative policies
Reflecting their differentideologies.

(09:37):
Each of the factions we justmentioned sought to codify its
vision for Colombia throughseparate constitutions.
The centralists put forth theConstitution of Cundinamarca in
1811, emphasizing a consolidatedcentral authority.
Simultaneously, the federalistsdrafted a Constitution for the
United Provinces of New Granada,also in 1811, which advocated

(10:01):
for a decentralized statestructure that would grant
significant powers to provincialgovernments.
This is a dichotomy inconstitutional design and it
underscored the deep divisionswithin the nascent state.
3.
Ineffective Governance thecontinual power struggles and

(10:22):
the absence of a consensus ongovernance structure left the
country in a state of politicalflux, which was compounded by
the lack of a cohesive militarystrategy to defend against
external threats.
This is a vulnerability thatwas significant and it is a
weakness that the Spanishexploited when they launched

(10:44):
their reconquest efforts in NewGranada.
The disarray within bothmilitary and political spheres
showcased the profoundchallenges of state building in
Colombia's early years ofindependence.
And finally, ideological andregional divides and this one is
really important and regionaldivides, and this one is really

(11:08):
important.
Complicating the politicallandscape further were the stark
ideological differences andregional loyalties that
influenced each faction.
Economic interests were also atplay, because each region had
different economic foundations,which would go on to shape their
political priorities and thealliances that they went to make
.
If you're an American, this isakin to the same divide that

(11:31):
would be experienced in theUnited States between the North
and the South.
On economic terms, theseentrenched differences made it
exceedingly difficult to achieveany lasting or effective
governance, and it led tofrequent changes in leadership
and governmental structure.
All of these factors, like wesaid before, would re-emerge

(11:52):
consistently and constantly.
They underscore the deep faultlines that divide Colombian
society right at its very core.
Throughout this series, we aregoing to explore various nations
and civil conflicts, and we'llsee that these fault lines
manifest differently in eachcountry.
However, their effects arestrikingly similar.

(12:15):
They carve divisions thatpenetrate deep into the soul of
a nation.
They're always latent, they'realways 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.

(12:36):
These were, as I like to call,poison pills embedded within the
structure of the nation.
There were fundamental flawsand unresolved tensions that
were built into the fabric ofthe state, these inherent
contradictions and conflicts setthe stage for perpetual strife.
They influenced the country'spolitical and social dynamics

(13:00):
for centuries to come and theywould shape the future and the
present centuries to come.
And they would shape the futureand the present.
As we go deeper into Colombia'shistory and its protracted
conflicts, we begin to gain aclear understanding of how these
historical legacies shaped,decade after decade, the
direction of the country.

(13:20):
By 1818, a mixture of Venezuelanand Colombian forces had
re-invaded Colombia fromVenezuela, and they were headed
by Simón Bolívar, the liberator.
We'll skip forward here, eventhough I do love the history of
the Latin American wars ofindependence and I can talk for
hours about it.
That's not the point of thispodcast.

(13:42):
It that's not the point of thispodcast.
The combined patriot forceswrestled control of Colombian
independence on August 7, 1919from the Spanish at the crucial
battle of Boyacá.
Colombia was now an independentnation.
After Colombia declaredindependence from Spain in 1819,

(14:03):
it initially became part ofGran Colombia, which was a large
republic that includedpresent-day Colombia, venezuela,
ecuador and Panama.
Simón Bolívar envisioned aunited Latin America, but deep
regional and ideologicaldifferences soon surfaced,

(14:24):
leading to the dissolution ofGran Colombia in 1831.
This is not just Colombia'sfault.
A lot of the divisions actuallybegan in Venezuela, which was a
native land of Simón Bolívar.
Anyway, this breakup resultedin the formation of the Republic
of New Granada, which was theprecursor state to modern-day

(14:44):
Colombia.
Historian David Bushnell notesin his book the Making of Modern
Colombia that Bolívar's visionwas quickly clouded by intense
regional and ideologicaldivisions.
As we discussed, these werepresent from the very beginning,
during the Patria Boba,remember.
These divisions emerged almostimmediately after independence,

(15:13):
and they precipitated thedissolution of Gran Colombia by
1831, setting a precedent for acentury dominated by internal
conflict and fragile nationalunity.
In the newly independentRepublic of New Granada, two
main factions emerged, and youknow these already.
They were the Federalist andthe Centralist.
These groups had starklydifferent visions for the future

(15:37):
of the nation too.
They were the same factionsthat had created a rift during
the Patria Boba period, and theycontinued to create fracture
after independence.
The Federalists advocated for adecentralized form of
government where the provincesor the states had significant
autonomy.
They believed that localgovernments were better suited

(16:00):
to address the unique needs andinterests of the regions.
This faction also emphasizedthe importance of regional
governance, and they argued thatit would allow for more
responsive and tailored policies.
The Federalists drew theirsupport from regional leaders,
from rural communities and fromthose who favored local control

(16:21):
over governance.
They often represented theinterest of the emerging middle
class, of the small landowners,merchants and any of those who
sought more economic freedom andless interference from a
central authority.
Then you have the centralists,and in contrast, they argued for
a strong centralized governmentto maintain order and unity

(16:45):
across the nation.
They believed that a centralauthority was necessary to
prevent regionalism fromweakening the country.
They may have been ontosomething here.
This faction valued a cohesivenational policy and centralized
decision-making to ensurestability and consistency.

(17:06):
Now I must warn you, in theColombian conflict, as you will
soon see, there are no good guysand bad guys.
So even though a number of thequalities and ideals that these
factions believed in you mayrelate to and say yes, they were
the right ones, or no, thesewere the wrong ones, you'll soon
find out that they all devolveinto straight savagery pretty

(17:31):
soon in the history of Colombia.
Anyway, the centralists weresupported by the urban elites,
the military and the CatholicChurch, all of which favored
centralized structure, theability to preserve their
influence and their existingpower bases.
They represented the interestof large landowners and

(17:52):
traditional power holders whobenefited from stable,
hierarchical society.
They also represented theinterest of slaveholders because
at this point in Colombianhistory slavery was still legal.
The socioeconomic dynamics ofthis contentious relationship
also had much to do with thestructure inherited from the

(18:14):
Spanish racial caste system ofthe pre-independence or colonial
period.
At the top of that heap werethe peninsulares and the
criollos.
The peninsulares were theSpanish-born whites, along with
the criollos, who were thenative-born whites, and they
controlled most of the largehaciendas and were, for the most

(18:35):
part, the interests representedby the centralists.
Meanwhile, you had the mestizosand the mulatos.
You had the mestizos and themulatos.
The mestizos were the mixedcaste of the society and the
mulatos were the mostly Africandescendant caste of the society,
some of them freemen, a lot ofthem slaves, and they were often

(18:58):
relegated to the margins and torural sustenance, with some
wealthier parts of them part ofthe small but influential class
of merchants and smalllandowners who were generally
represented by the interests ofthe Federalists.
By the mid-19th century, theFederalists had evolved into the
Liberal Party.
This transformation was drivenby the need to create a more

(19:21):
organized and cohesive politicalforce that could effectively
advocate for the ideals of anational scale.
The liberals continued tochampion decentralization and
they advocated for federalism.
Where regions had significantautonomy, the liberal party
promoted secularization, aimingto reduce the power of the

(19:42):
Catholic Church in publicaffairs.
They also supported economicmodernization, including free
trade, infrastructuredevelopment and even foreign
investment.
Liberals also pushed for civilliberties and democratic reforms
, aiming to expand politicalparticipation and safeguard
individual rights.

(20:02):
So again you may be thinkingthe liberals were the good guys
right.
Like I said before, not so fast.
Listen on and you will see whythese things tend to come around
full circle in the Colombianconflict.
Similarly, the centraliststransform into the conservative

(20:23):
party, maintaining theiremphasis on a strong central
government.
This transition also allowedthem to better organize and
consolidate their power.
To counter the growinginfluence of the liberals, the
conservatives sought to preservetraditional values and social
hierarchies.
They upheld the importance ofthe Catholic Church in public

(20:44):
and private life, advocating forits continued influence in
education and in governance, andthis is important.
Conservatives also supportedpolicies that protected the
interests of large landownersand the traditional elite.
And, finally, they emphasizedthe need for a strong,
centralized government tomaintain order and prevent

(21:05):
social upheaval.
The ideological clash betweenFederalists and Centralists laid
the groundwork for theemergence of Colombia's two
dominant political parties, theLiberals and the Conservatives.
This transition marked asignificant shift in the
nation's political landscape,with both parties shaping
Colombia's governance andsociety forever.

(21:34):
The entire 19th century inColombia was marked by a series
of relentless civil wars,largely driven by power
struggles between the liberalsand the conservative parties.
These conflicts were more thanjust power grabs.
They were fundamental debatesover the structure of government
and the distribution of power.

(21:56):
Fundamental debates over thestructure of government and the
distribution of power,centralization versus federalism
, regional authority overnational authority, rich versus
poor, landowners versusnot-landed classes.
Historian Frank Safferdescribes in his book Colombia
Fragmented Land, divided Society, how each conflict entrenched

(22:18):
regional identities, furthercomplicating the political
landscape.
The rate of civil conflict inColombia throughout the 19th
century is just incredible.
Sometimes it is hard to wrapyour head around all of the
different civil wars thatoccurred during the 19th century
.
We will cover just a few, themost consequential ones, that

(22:40):
help explain and expose thedepth of the internal conflict
in Colombian society.
Just nine years after thedissolution of Gran Colombia,
new Granada faced its firstcivil war.
That faced its first civil warFrom 1839 to 1842,.

(23:02):
There was the so-called War ofthe Supreme Commanders or the
War of the Supremes.
This first civil war erupteddue to religious and political
tensions.
The central government, led byPresident José Ignacio de
Marques, attempted to reduce theinfluence of the Catholic
Church, sparking resistance fromlocal caudillos or military
leaders, who were then known asthe Supremos.

(23:23):
This was the first time thatmilitary resistance would rise
in the southern jungles ofColombia against the central
government.
It would certainly not be thelast time the Supremos,
primarily from the southernprovinces, rose against the
central government, leading towidespread violence.
At the Battle of Cauca,government forces struggled to

(23:46):
quell the rebellion,demonstrating the potency of
discontent, while the conflictended with the central
government wrestling control.
Resorting to armed insurrectionagainst the central government
was quickly becoming the modusoperandi if you wanted to
express disapproval, and it wasnow recognized as a legitimate

(24:07):
means of protest.
Just nine years later, in 1851,the newly elected liberal
government, led by PresidentJosé Hilario López, implemented
radical reforms throughout theland, including the abolition of
slavery, expelling of theJesuits, the separation of
church and state and thecreation of individual freedoms.

(24:28):
These reforms incited backlashfrom conservative and
pro-slavery factions,particularly in the Cauca
regions in the south of thecountry.
This devolved into the 1851Civil War in Colombia, which
lasted from May to September ofthat year.
The conflict saw intensebattles in regions such as Cauca

(24:49):
and Antioquia, with both sidescommitting significant resources
to the fight.
The liberal government managedto suppress the rebellion, but
the conflict underscored thevolatility of implementing
progressive reforms in a deeplydivided society.
Once again, learning that armeduprisings were the best way to

(25:10):
quote-unquote get your way wasbecoming an all-too-common theme
in Colombia was becoming anall-too-common theme in Colombia
.
After the 1851 Civil War, therewas a new constitution passed in
Colombia in 1853.
This constitution was radicalfor its time, promising further

(25:32):
freedoms and federalization ofthe Colombian national system.
However, this would beshort-lived.
New tensions arose and anothercivil war ensued in Colombia,
which we'll not go into thedetails of, but it was fought
roughly around the mid-1850s.
The next major civil war inColombia began in 1860, and it
lasted until 1862.

(25:52):
This one was between liberalsand conservatives, and it rocked
the young nation.
This war was also known as theColombian Federal War, and it
arose from tensions between theconservative government and
liberal factions for theadvocacy of federalism.
General Tomás Cipriano deMosquera, a prominent liberal

(26:12):
leader, played a crucial role inchallenging the central
government At the Battle of LaCulebra and the Battle of
Manizales, liberal forcesdefeated the conservative
government forces and, as aresult, a new federal republic
was established.
The United States of Colombiawere finally established in 1863
, and they would last in placeuntil the late 19th century,

(26:37):
when, finally, the Republic ofColombia would be established.
Finally, a federal republicthat reflected the liberal
vision of decentralizedgovernance was established, but
this would not be withoutopposition, and while this all
sounds bad enough, it was notyet over for Colombia.
In fact, it would get muchworse Another decade later, and

(26:59):
religious and educationaldifferences surface once again
and again, along the lines ofconservatives versus liberals.
The Civil War of 1876 through1877 was known as the War of the
Schools, and it was sparked bydisputes over educational
policies and religious influencein schools.

(27:20):
The liberal government's pushfor secular education clashed
with conservative demands formaintaining religious
instruction.
The war was mainly foughtacross Tolima and Antioquia,
with both sides rallying theirsupporters in a struggle over
cultural and educational control.
Culture wars were happening inthe 19th century in Colombia, so

(27:42):
it's not an exclusive Americanthing for you American listeners
.
Anyway, while the FederalRepublic was preserved,
conservatives triumphed.
This time, they reasserted thechurch's influence over
education, marking a temporarysetback for liberal reforms.
From this point forward,conservative governments will
alternate throughout Colombia,further strangling liberal power

(28:05):
throughout the country,creating resentment and further
calcification of the tensionsthat had plagued Colombia since
the very beginning had plaguedColombia since the very
beginning.
The civil wars of the 19thcentury in Colombia were always
characterized by these recurringclashes between the Federalist
and the Centralist ideologies,which evolved into broader
political identities of theLiberals and the Conservatives.

(28:27):
These conflicts reflected thedeeper social, economic and
regional divides that we spokeabout earlier and that would
continue to shape Colombia'spolitical landscape for decades
to come.
Understanding these earlystruggles is crucial to grasping
the roots of Colombia'senduring conflict and the
evolution of its politicalparties into the conflict that

(28:49):
we know today.
The worst chapter of Colombia'sinterminable half-century of
conflict was undoubtedly the Warof a Thousand Days.
The brutality and the hatredthat emerged during this period
from 1899 to 1902, surpassed allprevious confrontations,
casting them into the shadows ofits ferocity.

(29:11):
This war was particularlycatastrophic, violent and
decisive, as decades ofresentment and hatred came
pouring out.
It is here that the foundationsof the modern conflict were
laid, in my opinion, and theyare exemplified by its
no-holds-barred attitude and thewar's extermination and

(29:32):
near-genocide of supportingcivilian populations and near
genocide, of supporting civilianpopulations.
The War of a Thousand Days,which was poetically named so
because it was longer, bloodierand more sustained than any of
the ones that had come before,lasted 1,130 days.
To be exact, it lasted from1899 to 1902, and the war

(29:56):
resulted in the victory of theconservative or government
forces against the liberals.
The unitary nature of theColombian state has not been
challenged since, although ithas been severely tested.
The war was about the age-oldargument of federalism versus
centralism, of who gets tocontrol the fortunes and powers

(30:18):
of Colombia.
The catalyst was the newconstitution of 1886
establishing the Republic ofColombia, but it would be
triggered by the contestedpresidential election of 1898.
It is important to understandthe War of a Thousand Days and
its lethality, for it had aprofound impact on Colombian
society and has impacted themodern conflict and the way

(30:41):
Colombians perceive themselvesto this day.
In fact, if there are two keyevents you should remember about
how Colombia got to where itdid, there's the War of a
Thousand Days and La Violencia,which we will discuss in the
next part of our series.
This proto-civil war, which wasthe original, true bloodletting
of Colombia, pitted theconservative party, as I said,

(31:03):
against the liberal party, andit was fueled by deep political,
social and economic divisionsthat had been simmering for
decades.
The conflict resulted inwidespread destruction and loss
of life, and it had a profoundlong-term effect on the nation,
including the eventual secessionof Panama, which was part of
Colombia.
At the time, the rulingconservative party had

(31:27):
maintained power throughrepressive measures and
electoral fraud, marginalizingthe liberal party and its
supporters.
The country was also sufferingfrom economic instability,
exacerbated by declining coffeeprices and widespread poverty,
particularly in rural areas.
Economically, colombia wassuffering due to a decline in

(31:47):
the global price of coffee andother exports.
The economic downturnexacerbated the existing
inequalities between the ruralpoor and the urban elites,
fueling discontent and providingfertile ground for conflict.
The immediate spark for the warwas the contested presidential
election of 1898, which sawconservative candidate Manuel

(32:08):
Antonio San Clemente declare thewinner amid accusations of
fraud.
Accusations of fraud.
Frustrated by their exclusionfrom power and emboldened by
rising public discontent, theliberals took up arms in October
1899, leading to the outbreakof civil war, and so the war
officially began on October 17,1899, with an armed uprising by

(32:32):
the liberals in the Santanderregion.
The conflict quickly spreadthroughout Colombia, with major
battles occurring across thecountry.
Key battles included the Battleof Peralonso and the Battle of
Palo Negro, both in 1900, whichwere significant due to their
scale and the high number ofcasualties.
One of the most critical aspectsof the War of a Thousand Days

(32:55):
was its sheer savagery.
Both sides committed atrocitiesagainst combatants and
civilians alike, leading to ahumanitarian crisis.
Historians estimate that thewar resulted in nearly 100,000
to 180,000 deaths, or about 2.5to 3.8 percent of the population

(33:17):
of Colombia at the time, bothfrom combat and from starvation
and disease, which were rampantdue to the disruption of farming
and trade.
The sheer brutality of warslike this, of a lot of civil
wars, is often fueled by thesepassions of fratricidal
bloodlust, and it's a feature ofthese conflicts rather than a
bug.
It also speaks to deepdivisions that are often exposed

(33:40):
in conflicts where people whohave 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 onlyexemplify the vicious nature of
the war, but also contributedsignificantly to the high

(34:01):
casualty rates and thelong-lasting trauma among the
Colombian population.
The war was finally ended bythe treaties of Nerlandia, an
implantation in Colombia, andWisconsin actually signed on
board the battleship WisconsinNovember 21st 1902.
Child soldiers were prominentthroughout the conflict and they

(34:22):
were actually prominentthroughout the 19th century wars
in Colombia.
And it was actually Venezuelaninvolvement which prolonged the
war, the Venezuelan governmentthrowing its weight behind the
liberal cause, venezuelangovernment throwing its weight
behind the liberal cause,ultimately to no avail.
Both liberal and conservativeforces were responsible for

(34:45):
numerous massacres throughoutthe War of a Thousand Days.
And remember I told you thatthings come around in the
Colombian conflict.
Well, this is the first ofthose instances.
There are just no good guys inthis conflict, and here's where
those lines get really blurred,because both sides committed
retaliatory strikes seeking topunish communities believed to
support the opposition.

(35:06):
In fact, entire villages weresometimes rounded up and
executed.
This left deep scars in thesocial fabric of Colombia, scars
that one could argue have nothealed all the way to this day.
Torture was commonly used byboth sides as a means to extract
information, to intimidate andto spread terror among the enemy

(35:26):
supporters.
Reports from the time includegruesome accounts of combatants
and non-combatants beingmutilated or disfigured as part
of these torture practices.
These practices were thepioneering acts of what later
would become the common practiceof paramilitaries and guerrilla
forces all over Colombia.
Imagine entire villagesdismembered with body parts left

(35:50):
over the main streets to send amessage to the enemy.
Unfortunately, this is notfiction.
This is stuff that happened inColombia during the War of a
Thousand Days and later duringthe armed conflict.
There was extensive destructionto property as well.
This was a tactical move thatwas used to deny shelter and
resources to the enemy.

(36:10):
Farms were burned and livestockwas killed, which not only
deprived the enemy of resources,but also left the civilian
population in completedestitution.
Eyewitness accounts fromsurvivors and contemporary
reports provide even moreharrowing details of the
atrocities.
One notable account is fromJosé María Vargas Vila, a

(36:31):
Colombian writer who documentedthe war's effects on civilian
populations.
His writings describe villagesraised, families torn apart and
a countryside soaked in blood.
For instance, after the Battleof Palo Negro, the defeated
liberal soldiers were mutilatedand families aiding them

(36:52):
summarily executed en masse, andthen the heat of the tropics
and the jungles createdfestering clouds of decay as
bodies were left to rot in theoak.
Historians such as Jorge OrlandoMelo have noted that the
atrocities committed during theWar of a Thousand Days went
beyond military strategy.
They reflected deeper socialand political animosities that

(37:15):
had been festering in theColombian society for decades,
and the war's violence was notjust a product of the military
engagements, but also abyproduct of this deeply divided
society, a society that wasdivided by class, by political
allegiance, by regionalloyalties and by social status.

(37:35):
The atrocities of the War of aThousand Days have had a long
and lasting impact on Colombia,contributing to a culture of
violence and mistrust that hascomplicated efforts at national
reconciliation ever since.
The war also severely weakenedColombia, both in the national
and international front.
The infrastructure wasdevastated and the economy was

(37:59):
left in ruins, further deepeningsocial cleavages and setting
the stage for rapaciousinternational conglomerates to
come in and try to rebuild theeconomy on their terms, and more
on that later.
Moreover, the war did notresolve the underlying political
issues.
Instead, it just deepened theanimosity between the

(38:19):
conservatives and the liberals,between cities and the rural
populations.
This was a harbinger of thingsto come.
Colombia with the assistance ofthe United States in 1903.

(38:39):
This was influenced by USinterest in building the Panama
Canal, a project that theColombian Senate had been
reluctant to approve.
The political instability andweakened state of Colombia after
the war made it difficult forthe government to effectively
respond to the secessionistmovements in Panama, which had
been ongoing for the better partof half a century, to be fair,

(39:03):
but the war ravaged Colombiacompletely and set the
foundations for future agony andpain.

(39:24):
Thank you, recording, producingand editing your episodes a
breeze With Alitu.
You can easily createprofessional quality podcasts
without any technical hassle.
Just hit record and Alitu takescare of the rest, from editing
out mistakes to adding yourfavorite music and sound effects
.
Ready to share your voice withthe world, join me on Alitu and

(39:48):
start your podcasting journeytoday.
Visit alley2.com slashhistoryhelix to get started.
That's alley2.com slashhistoryhelix.
Alley2, podcasting made simple.

(40:13):
As the 20th century dawned,colombia was marked by stark
contrasts between urbanprosperity and rural neglect.
As such, state control overlarge parts of Colombia was
never and has never been fullyestablished.
Eduardo Pizarro León Gómezpoints out in Insurgency,
diplomacy, guerrilla Movementsand International Relations that

(40:36):
, while cities benefited fromthe lucrative coffee boom of the
early 20th century, rural areaswere left in a state of severe
deprivation Because, you see,wealth and land became
increasingly concentrated in thehands of a few, sowing the
seeds of discontent across thecountryside and setting the
stage for the rise of guerrillamovements, and really any

(40:59):
movement offering betterprospects than does under the
current status quo.
The modern conflict featuressuch factions, who find ready
recruits in the stillimpoverished and unintegrated
rural areas of Colombia.
While political violence haddecreased in Colombia after the
turn of the 20th century, partlyas a result of the outcome of

(41:22):
the War of a Thousand Days, landreform became a key issue that
would drive the masses ofColombian peasantry to revolt.
The mid-20th century broughtnew challenges and political
tension, which escalateddramatically after the Banana
Massacre of 1928, which saw anexplosion of left-wing

(41:43):
organizations and later theassassination of Jorge Eliezer
Gaitán.
The origins of the armedconflict in Colombia then can be
traced specifically back to the1920s, which was a period
marked by intense agrariandisputes and mounting tension in
rural regions like the areas ofSumapaz and Tequendama.

(42:05):
This was a time when the seedsof rebellion were sown more
concretely, as local farmersfaced severe injustices that
would eventually erupt intowidespread conflict.
In the 1920s, colombia'slandscape was dominated by vast
estates owned by a small elite,which was a legacy of the

(42:27):
colonial era that entrencheddeep social and economic
inequalities.
These large landholders, orhacendados, controlled immense
tracts of fertile land, whilethe majority of the rural
population, composed of tenantfarmers and laborers, lived in
poverty and lacked landownership.

(42:47):
The government's policiesfavored these elites, granting
them more land and influence,while ignoring the plight of the
rural poor.
The Sumapas and Tekendamaregions became flashpoints for
these tensions.
Here, local farmers wereincreasingly agitated by the
unfair land distribution and theencroachment of large

(43:10):
landowners onto lands thatsmallholders and indigenous
communities had traditionallycultivated.
The struggle for land rightswas not just a matter of
economic survival, but it alsobecame a fight for dignity, for
justice and, simply, survival.
As this content grew, so didresistance.
The farmers began organizingthemselves, forming peasant

(43:33):
leagues and unions to demandfair land distribution and
better working conditions.
These movements were often metwith violent repression from the
landowner private militias andfrom government forces.
The rural poor found themselvestrapped in a cycle of
exploitation and violence.
Their calls for justice weregoing unanswered or being

(43:54):
answered with brutality.
One of the most influentialfactors exacerbating these
tensions was the presence of anold friend, the United Fruit
Company.
This American corporationwielded enormous power in
Colombia.
It controlled vast agriculturallands and dictated the economic
lives of countless farmers.

(44:15):
The United Fruit Company boughtlarge amounts of agricultural
products at minimal prices andthen sold these goods in foreign
markets for substantial profits.
This practice entrenched asystem where local farmers were
impoverished and dependent onthe company for their
livelihoods.
Farmers were forced to growspecific crops, creating a

(44:38):
monoculture that underminedtheir ability to sustain
themselves independently.
The company paid its workers incoupons redeemable only at
company stores, which chargeexorbitant prices for basic
goods.
This is a system that keptfarmers in perpetual debt,
unable to break free from theeconomic stranglehold of the

(44:59):
United Fruit Company.
This exploitation wascompounded by the company's
practice of hiring privatemilitias to enforce its power,
suppress worker demands forreform.
Private militias to enforce hispower, suppress worker demands
for reform, destroy unions andto crush any semblance of
rebellion.
The private armies employed bythe United Fruit Company were

(45:19):
notorious for their brutality.
They acted with total impunity,using violence to silence
dissent and maintain controlover the workers.
Any potential threat to thecompany's dominance was swiftly
neutralized, often throughcompany-backed coups that
installed puppet politiciansfavorable to the corporation's
interests.
The systemic violence andrepression further fueled the

(45:41):
anger and the resentment amongrural populations.
The climax of all thiscorporate and governmental
repression occurred in December1928, in what came to be known
as the Banana Massacre, orMasacre de las Bananeras in
Spanish.
The massacre happened in thetown of Ciénaga, near Santa

(46:02):
Marta, where thousands of bananaplantation workers had been on
strike demanding better workingconditions, fair pay and the
right to form unions.
The strike was organized by theworkers of the United Fruit
Company, who had long beensubjective to the inhumane
working conditions we describedbefore and to economic
exploitation.
Despite the peaceful nature ofthe strike at first, the United

(46:26):
Fruit Company and the Colombiangovernment viewed it as a
significant threat to itseconomic viability.
They feared that the strikecould inspire similar movements
across the country and woulddisrupt the economic interests
of both the company and thegovernment.
In response, the governmentdeclared martial law and sent
the army to Cienega to suppressthe strike.
On the night of December 5,1928, colombian army troops,

(46:51):
under the command of GeneralCarlos Cortes Vargas, surrounded
the striking workers who hadgathered in the central square
of Cienega.
Without warning, the soldiersopened fire on the unarmed crowd
, killing an estimated 47 to2,000 people.
I don't know, that's a widerange, but record-keeping wasn't
exactly a strong suit back then.

(47:12):
The exact number of casualtiesremains unknown, due to the
chaotic nature of the massacreand the subsequent cover-up
efforts by the government andthe United Fruit Company.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, therenowned Colombian author
immortalized the event in thisnovel 100 Years of Solitude.
If you haven't read that book,I highly highly recommend it.

(47:34):
In the book he describes howthe massacre's true scale was
hidden from the public, and Iquote the official version of
the events, which reported onlya handful of casualties, was a
blatant lie, end quote.
This massacre shocked the nationand the world, revealing the
brutal lengths to which thegovernment and foreign

(47:55):
corporations would go tomaintain control and suppress
dissent.
The Banana Massacre had aprofound and far-reaching
consequence and effect on theColombian nation.
It intensified the alreadysimmering discontent among rural
populations and galvanized thelabor movement in Colombia,

(48:15):
driving them towards a liberalparty and more radical policies.
The brutal suppression of thestrike demonstrated the violent
repression faced by those whodared to challenge the status
quo and exposed the collusionbetween the Colombian government
and foreign corporate interests.
It also exposed the collusionbetween the two leading parties,
the old foes, the conservativesand the liberals, who had made

(48:38):
some sort of uneasy peace sincethe War of a Thousand Days and
had decided to power sharingColombia, with corruption all
sprinkled in between.
The massacre also hadsignificant political
repercussions because ithighlighted the urgent need for
agrarian reform and socialjustice, further fueling the
ideological divide betweenconservatives and liberals.

(49:00):
The brutality of the eventcontributed to the
radicalization of manyColombians, pushing them towards
more extreme measures toachieve their goals.
The government's failure toaddress the grievances of the
rural poor led to an increase inorganized resistance.
The agrarian disputes of theregions of Sumapaz and
Tequendama became symbols of thebroader struggle for social

(49:23):
justice in Colombia.
The rural communities,marginalized and oppressed, saw
the need for radical change andbegan to rally around leaders
who promised to fight for theirrights.
The resistance of these regionswas not an isolated phenomenon,
but part of a larger pattern ofsocial unrest sweeping across
Colombia.
The conflicts over land in the1920s laid the groundwork for

(49:46):
the broader revolutionarymovements that would emerge in
the following decades.
These early struggleshighlighted the deep-seated
inequalities and injustices thatplagued Colombian society,
setting the stage for the longand bloody conflict that would
follow.
The events of the 1920s, then,were more than just localized
conflicts.
They were the sparks thatignited the fire of rebellion, a

(50:09):
fire that would burn fiercelyfor decades, shaping the course
of Colombian history.
Later, in 1948, jorge EliezerGaitan, a popular liberal
politician on the path to thepresidency of Colombia,
promising an agenda of radicalreform, was murdered of radical

(50:32):
reform was murdered.
His death was a personaltragedy, of course, but it was
also a national crisis thatignited long-standing grievances
.
Paul Oquist explains in hisbook Violence, conflict and
Politics in Colombia that thisevent marked the beginning of la
violencia, a brutal period ofcivil unrest that traced its
roots back to the entrenchedpolitical exclusion and regional
divides of the 19th centurycivil wars.

(50:56):
As we're reaching the end of thefirst part of the Colombian
conflict, a recurring theme insocial conflict is the
reluctance of advantage orprivilege classes to relinquish
even a small portion of theirstatus for the benefit of the
broader mass.
To relinquish even a smallportion of their status for the
benefit of the broader mass.
Despite understanding thepotential long-term benefits,

(51:19):
their fear of losing power andprestige often leads them to
resist change.
This intransigence typicallyresults in perilous consequences
for the entire nation,including themselves.
As societal tensions eventuallyreach a breaking point,
colombia would be no different.
While Colombia in the 1940s wasa nation divided again between

(51:42):
liberals and conservatives,those lines had blurred somewhat
into class divides.
More than just politicaldivides, these divisions
extended beyond a deep-seatedideological and regional
rivalries.
Gaitan's rise to prominenceintensified these tensions as he
became a serious contender forthe presidency with a platform

(52:03):
advocating for significantsocietal changes.
The prospect of his leadershipalarmed many within the
Conservative Party and elementsof the Liberal Party, who were
wary of his populist approach.
In our next episode, we willtalk in detail about who Jorge
Eliazer Gaitan was, his untimelydemise and the protests that
were sparked as a result of hisdeath, which then devolved into

(52:23):
the decade-long conflict knownas La Violencia, the precursor
to the modern Colombian armedconflict and the birthplace of
the guerrilla movements thatwould come to define the age.
Next time La Violencia and hischild, the armed conflict that
has plagued Colombia since 1964,would enter the scene, we will

(52:46):
learn about the brutality of theviolence that desensitized
Colombian society and set it ona path to near implosion.
The inequality and turmoil thatled to the explosion of the
Bogotazo and La Violencia wouldnot abate, but would increase in
intensity, are fully on display, and a new, insatiable hunger

(53:13):
in the developed world for thebyproduct of the COCA plan would
further sink Colombia into amaelstrom from which it is still
seeking redemption.
So join us next time on DoubleHelix Blueprint of Nations for
part two of the Colombianconflict La Violencia and the
Rise of the Gorillas.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Breakfast Club

The Joe Rogan Experience

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Colombian Conflict: The Roots of Rebellion (Part 1)

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}On Purpose with Jay Shetty

The Breakfast Club

The Joe Rogan Experience

All Episodes

The Colombian Conflict: The Roots of Rebellion (Part 1)

On Purpose with Jay Shetty