July 21, 2024 • 47 mins
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!
Twitter: @HistoryHelix
BlueSky: @historyhelix.bsky.social
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/Doublehelixhistory
Instagram: History_Helix
Email: DoubleHelixHistorypodcast@gmail.com
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Before we begin the episode, I want to caution you
that some of the accounts thatwe are going to hear about the
period of La Violencia may bedisturbing to some of the
audience, so please exercisecaution.
I will also provide a warningduring the episode before I get
into those trickier parts of thenarrative.
Okay, thank you.
(00:21):
And thank you for joining mefor part two of the Colombian
conflict story, la Violencia andthe Rise of the Guerrillas.
Welcome to Double Helix.
Blueprint of Nations, season 2,episode 1.2, la Violencia and
(00:45):
the Rise of the Guerrilla.
Last time on Double Helix, weexplored the roots of the
rebellion simmering withinColombia from the very start of
the nation.
We examined the two competingpolitical parties, the
(01:05):
conservatives and the liberals,and how their all-encompassing
conflict consumed and dividedColombian society, leading to
several civil wars in the 19thcentury and culminating in the
clashes over land distributionby the late 1920s.
We also hinted at theappearance of a singular
character in our narrative JorgeEliezer Gaitán, leader of the
(01:29):
Liberal Party and a leadingpresidential candidate in the
run-up to the 1950 elections.
His assassination in 1948unleashed a profound
transformation in Colombia, withan outbreak of violence and
political hatred similar to theone that was seen during the
Thousand Days War some 50 yearsearlier.
(01:49):
Gaitan's murder was ademarcation line in Colombian
history and triggered a periodof 10 years known as La
Violencia, a decade of untoldviolence and cruelty that almost
tore the Colombian state apart.
In our last episode, we lookedat the trigger points throughout
Colombian history that led tothe conflict we know today.
(02:12):
We talked about the poisonpills of Colombian society, as
well as how they worked againstany future national unity and
continue to do so.
But there are some otherspecific grievances that not
only fuel the political andregional divides in Colombia,
but continue to drive flux ofColombians into the arms of the
(02:34):
groups and individuals thatoffer quick solutions to these
seemingly impossible problems.
And remember what I said beforeabout simple solutions to
complex problems.
Well, colombia is no different.
The notion has proven asdangerous there as it has
everywhere else it has beenemployed.
(02:54):
Complex problems like the onesin Colombia, often embedded into
the foundational markers, theblueprint of a nation, usually
require complex solutions, butmore on that later.
Anyway, before we dive into LaViolencia, we need to ask why
(03:16):
here?
Why Colombia?
Despite its rich naturalresources, fertile land and
significant population naturalresources, fertile land and
significant population Colombiabecame a hotbed for intense
conflict, as you saw in our lastepisode, even by the standards
of Latin American nations,colombia's foundation and
subsequent settlement into anation was particularly violent.
(03:39):
To understand how a society canreach such levels of division
and fracture, we must outlinethe specific grievances that
built up and led to La Violenciaand its aftermath, the armed
conflict that we know today.
As I've already warned you, theanswer is complex and
multifaceted.
(04:00):
One of the key issues inColombia is land distribution.
Colombia has long had a highlyunequal distribution of land,
with a small elite owning vastestates, while the majority of
the population, particularlyrural farmers, held little or no
land.
As historian Frank Safferexplains, land has always been a
(04:22):
critical issue in Colombia, andits unequal distribution has
often fueled social tensions.
We saw this during the peasantrevolts in the 1920s and we will
continue to see it as our storyevolves.
The inequitable distribution ofland in Colombia dates back to
the colonial era, when Spanishconquerors established large
(04:43):
haciendas or estates by grantingvast tracts of land to a small
number of elites.
This system entrenched afeudal-like structure, with the
majority of the rural populationworking as laborers or tenant
farmers on lands they did notown.
Following independence fromSpain in 1819, the new Colombian
(05:05):
Republic, part of Gran Colombiaat the time, continued to
perpetuate land concentration inthe hands of a few.
Various governments grantedlarge parcels of land to
military officers and politicalallies, further solidifying the
power of the land-owning elite.
Efforts at land reform wereminimal and largely ineffective,
(05:27):
leading to growingdisenchantment among the rural
poor.
By the mid-20th century, landownership remained highly
concentrated.
The 1960s saw the introductionof the National Agrarian Reform,
which aimed to redistributeland to peasants.
However, resistance frompowerful landowners and a lack
(05:50):
of political will resulted inlimited implementation.
According to politicalscientist James Robinson, the
agrarian reform efforts were toolimited and met with stiff
opposition, undermining theireffectiveness and leaving many
peasants' grievances unaddressed.
The failure of land reformpolicies exacerbated rural
(06:12):
poverty and inequality, creatingfertile ground for rebellion.
Many rural inhabitants, facedwith limited opportunities and
systemic exploitation, weredrawn to the promises of
guerrilla movements thatadvocated for radical agrarian
reform and social justice.
Another major factor was ruralpoverty.
(06:33):
Poverty was widespread amongthe rural populations, who faced
harsh living conditions andlimited access to resources.
The average Colombian lived inabject poverty throughout most
of the history of the nation,with little material improvement
following the coffee boom ofthe early 20th century.
Historian Marco Palaciosdescribes how many peasants
(06:58):
lived in makeshift homes,struggled with malnutrition and
lacked basic services such as ashealthcare, education, sewage
and the like.
This poverty exacerbatedfeelings of disenfranchisement
and neglect, further motivatingthe desire for change and
aligning many rural inhabitantswith emerging guerrilla
(07:18):
movements.
The desperation generated bysystemic and unending poverty
worked as a force that drovethousands into the arms of
radical leaders promising toright historical wrongs.
In addition to socioeconomicinequalities, political
exclusion also played a key rolein setting the stage for
conflict.
(07:38):
The political landscape inColombia was dominated, as we've
said before, by theconservative and the liberal
parties, which often excludedrural communities completely
from meaningful participation.
This political exclusion meantthat the concerns and needs of
rural populations wereoverlooked or ignored time and
(07:59):
again, deepening their sense ofalienation.
Deepening their sense ofalienation, the lack of
political representation andavenues for redress led to the
emergence of movementsadvocating for agrarian reform
and greater political inclusion.
As historian James D Hendersonnotes in his books about
Colombia, peasant movements weredriven by a desire for land and
(08:23):
a voice in politics, but theyfaced strong opposition from
powerful landowners and agovernment reluctant to
challenge the status quo theirlivelihoods.
Movements such as the NationalAssociation of Peasant Users, or
(08:45):
ANUC, emerged, advocating forland redistribution and the
protection of peasant interest.
Finally, the broader context ofthe Cold War also played a
significant role in shaping themodern Colombian conflict, and
this is a factor we should notignore.
I want to be clear here the ColdWar was like rocket fuel to the
(09:07):
already existing problems ofColombia, because they began to
be looked at, like everythingelse during the Cold War,
through the context of the ColdWar.
Oh, what's that?
You don't know what the ColdWar is?
No worries, I've got acompanion for you.
So go back and listen andyou'll get all the information
you need to be ready to go andunderstand what the Cold War was
(09:30):
.
But anyway, the ideologicalbattle between the United States
and the Soviet Union influencedlocal politics, with each side
supporting factions aligned withtheir respective interests.
Historian Eduardo Pizarro LeónGómez highlights that the Cold
War heightened polarization, asleft-wing guerrilla groups
(09:51):
received support from communiststates, while the Colombian
government aligned with theUnited States and its
anti-communist agenda, be itgovernmental or otherwise.
This external involvementintensified the internal
struggles in Colombia, making itharder to resolve and
increasing the scale of theconflict.
In fact, the involvement ofexternal powers provided the
(10:14):
resources and training that madethe conflict much more
protracted and destructive.
The period of la violencia wasignited by the assassination of
Jorge Eliezer Gaitán, a popularliberal leader, on April 9, 1948
.
According to Paul Oquist,gaitán's assassination was not
(10:36):
just a loss of a leader, but aspark that ignited an existing
powder keg of social andpolitical tensions.
Powder keg of social andpolitical tensions.
Some historians offer theelection of 1946, when
conservatives came back intopower, as an alternative date
for the start of La Violencia,because from that point forward,
government and conservativerepression against rural areas
(10:58):
had really begun.
However, most agree that thecatalyst that pushed Colombia
over the abyss was the murder ofGaitan.
At any rate, jorge EliezerGaitan was a champion of the
marginalized, advocating forsweeping social and economic
reforms.
His assassination unleashed aprofound sense of loss and
(11:21):
betrayal among the populace,sparking widespread violence
between liberals andconservative factions.
Gaitan's movement, known asGaitanismo, aimed to lead
Colombia down a path of radicalsocietal and economic change.
As was typical of the era,gaitan was often labeled as a
communist.
(11:42):
Gaitan first rose to prominencein Colombia as a lawyer
defending the rights of strikingfarmers in the aftermath of the
1928 Banana Massacre.
His advocacy for these workershighlighted the deep
inequalities in Colombiansociety and positioned him as a
voice for the oppressed.
Later, as Minister of Educationin the early 1940s, he
(12:05):
introduced cultural reformswhile continuing to promote his
platform of radical change,painting himself as a man of the
people.
His impressive oratory andpublic speaking made him a
powerful conduit for thefrustrations of Colombia's
masses.
Gaitán fueled long-standingdivides by contrasting the
(12:26):
quote-unquote admirable peoplewith the quote-unquote
blood-sucking oligarchs.
He also criticized the emergingalliance between wealthy,
well-connected liberals andconservatives, who had
historically been adversaries.
Gaitan divided the country intowhat he termed the political
country and the national country, the latter representing the
(12:50):
common people.
His promises of aggressive landreform threatened the
foundations of Colombian powerlike nothing else had before,
challenging the entrenchedinterest of the elite and
advocating for a more equitabledistribution of resources.
On the morning of April 9, 1948,jorge Eliezer Gaitán was
(13:11):
attending to his legal practiceand political meetings in his
office located in the CentralBusiness 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 forlunch with a group of colleagues
.
As he stepped onto the sidewalkof Carrera Septima, one of
Bogota's busiest streets, he wasapproached by Juan Roa Sierra,
(13:34):
a young man with unknown motives.
Roa Sierra fired three shots atclose range, striking Gaitan in
the head and chest.
Gaitan collapsed to the ground,mortally wounded.
The assassination occurred inbroad daylight in a crowded area
.
Witnesses immediately reactedwith shock and horror.
Bystanders quickly subduedRoacierra, preventing his escape
(13:58):
, and despite efforts to savehim, gaitan succumbed to his
injuries shortly after theshooting.
His death was confirmed withinhours to his injuries shortly
after the shooting.
His death was confirmed withinhours, 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
(14:18):
police could intervene.
Some theories suggest thatGaitán's assassination might
have involved externalinfluences, including foreign
entities concerned about thespread of leftist politics in
Latin America during the earlyCold War period.
Caytan's policies and rhetoricaligned more with social
democracy and reform which,although not explicitly
(14:41):
communist, were seen assympathetic to socialist ideals.
This raised concerns amongthose who were keen to curve any
left-leaning politicalmovements in the region.
Later examples of Nicaragua, elSalvador and Chile showed the
lengths to which the UnitedStates would be willing to go to
influence political outcomes inLatin America.
So the conspiracies were notcompletely far-fetched.
(15:04):
Gaitán's murder remainsshrouded in mystery and numerous
conspiracy theories haveemerged over the years.
The identity and motives of theassassin, juan Roa Sierra,
remain debated, with somearguing that Roa was a mentally
disturbed lone gunman, whileothers contend he was part of a
broader conspiracy involvingpowerful interests.
(15:27):
The lack of clear andconvincing explanation for the
assassination has only fueledspeculation and controversy,
suggesting that Gaitan's deathwas not just the result of a
personal vendetta, but rather apolitically motivated act aimed
at derailing his reformistagenda.
Following the shockingassassination of Jorge Eliezer
(15:48):
Gaitán on April 9, 1948, whichwe just covered in some detail,
colombia was plunged into chaos.
The profound sense of loss andbetrayal felt by Gaitan's
supporters ignited a massive andviolent response, marking the
beginning of what would becomeone of the most tumultuous days
in Bogotá's history, indeed,colombia's history known as El
(16:11):
Bogotazo.
The day Colombia burned as newsof Gaitan's death spread
throughout the city.
Burn as news of Gaitan's deathspread throughout the city,
thousands of his supporterspoured into the streets.
The initial outpouring of griefquickly transformed into rage.
Within hours, bogota descendedinto anarchy.
Rioters, driven by anger anddesperation, began looting
(16:32):
stores, setting buildings ablazeand attacking symbols of the
conservative government, whothey blamed for Gaitan's
assassination.
The heart of the violence wasin downtown Bogotá, where the
destruction was most intense.
Government buildings,businesses and homes were
engulfed in flames.
The once bustling streetsturned into war zones, littered
(16:54):
with debris and echoing with thesounds of gunfire and
shattering glass.
The chaos was unprecedented.
Entire blocks were reduced torubble as rioters sought to vent
their fury against theestablishment.
The Bogotazo represented thelargest and most concrete
popular insurrection against anational government in Latin
(17:14):
America ever since independenceand was the stuff of nightmares
for many Latin Americanpoliticians.
The government's response wasswift and brutal.
In a desperate attempt toregain control, president
Mariano Espina Pérez declaredmartial law and deployed the
military to the streets.
Soldiers armed with rifles andbayonets confronted the rioters.
Soldiers armed with rifles andbayonets confronted the rioters,
(17:37):
leading to violent clashes.
The air was thick with tear gasand smoke from burning
buildings.
The army fired into the crowdsthroughout Bogota, leading to
numerous casualties and furtherinflaming the rioters' anger.
It is also important to notethat the violence was not
(17:57):
confined to Bogota alone.
News of El Bogotazo spreadrapidly across Colombia,
inciting similar uprisings inother cities and towns.
The entire nation was grippedby a wave of violence as
long-standing political andsocial tensions erupted into
open conflict.
The death toll from El Bogotazowas staggering, with estimates
ranging from several hundred toover 2,000 people killed in just
(18:22):
a few days.
Before I forget, just a fewblocks away from where Gaitan
was murdered, there was awitness to the murder of his
killer by the enraged mob ofBogota.
This witness was one of themost prodigious Colombians to
have ever lived.
We mentioned him before brieflywas one of the most prodigious
Colombians to have ever lived.
We mentioned him before briefly.
His writing would always serveas a salve, a soothing medicine
(18:42):
of sorts to the ailments of hiscountry.
His name was Gabriel GarciaMarquez.
He wrote in detail about thisday in his memoirs called Living
.
To Tell a Tale, he mentions adark figure, a well-dressed man,
who was egging the crowd on asthey beat Roa Sierra to death
before being led away in a fancyvehicle.
(19:04):
For those of you looking forconspiracy fuel, make of that
what you will.
Moving on, the impact of ElBogotazo was profound and
far-reaching, marking a pivotalmoment in Colombian history.
It illuminated the deepdivisions within the country and
the explosive potential of itspolitical and social tensions.
(19:25):
These tensions, which hadremained largely dormant since
the War of a Thousand Days,resurfaced with a vengeance.
This resurgence of conflict canbe likened to the ancient Roman
tradition of the Temple ofJanus, the double-faced god of
war.
In Rome, the temple doors wereopen to signify the time of war
and closed to indicate peace.
(19:46):
With El Bogotazo, it was asthough the doors of Janus'
temple were thrown open inColombia, heralding a new era of
strife.
Since then, those doors havenot yet closed.
Colombia has been trying eversince.
Nonetheless, the violence anddestruction left terrible marks
on Bogota, with scars of thatday visible in the burnt-out
(20:09):
shells of buildings and thegrieving families who had lost
loved ones.
El Bogotazo, then, was thelaunchpad for the decade-long
period of intense civil conflictbetween liberals and
conservatives.
We know that decade by a singlename La Violencia.
The scale of the violence andthe government's harsh response
(20:29):
deepened the existing dividesand fueled a cycle of
retaliation and brutality.
The events of that fateful daydemonstrated the fragility of
Colombian society and thevolatile nature of its political
landscape.
From 1948 to 1958, colombia wasengulfed in a brutal civil war
between the liberal andconservative factions, resulting
(20:52):
in profound and lastingconsequences.
For the nation, this period isthe precursor to the modern
conflict.
For the nation, this period isthe precursor to the modern
conflict.
La violencia was characterizedby widespread violence and
lawlessness, as factions battledfor control of the nation.
The conflict was primarilyfought by armed civilian groups
and paramilitaries aligned witheither the liberals or the
(21:13):
conservatives.
These groups terrorized thecountryside, committing heinous
acts of violence against thosethey deemed enemies.
Rural populations bore thebrunt of a fight that was as
much about political power as itwas about land control and land
rights.
The fighting often took theform of guerrilla warfare, with
(21:34):
small mobile units attackingisolated villages, ambushing
convoys and engaging in brutalskirmishes.
Both sides employedscorched-earth tactics, burning
homes and crops to denyresources to their enemy.
The lack of a centralizedcommand structure led to a
chaotic and fragmented conflict,with atrocities committed by
(21:56):
both sides.
I told you before that therewere no good guys in the
Colombian civil struggle, and LaViolencia, with its revival of
the top hits of the ThousandDays War, would prove that to be
the case, and more.
As La Violencia unfolded, theroles of partisan militias
became central to the escalationof the conflict.
(22:16):
The key armed gangs were thepájaros, aligned with the
conservative party, and thechusma, associated with liberals
.
Each evolved into formidableforces wreaking havoc across
Colombia.
These groups not onlysymbolized the deep political
divide, but also embodied thebrutality that characterized
(22:36):
this dark chapter in Colombianhistory.
The pájaros a term thattranslates to birds in English
which belied their deadly nature, were notorious for their
ruthless tactics.
Armed and often wearingcivilian clothes to blend in,
they targeted anyone suspectedof supporting the liberal cause.
Historian Robert Dix notes inhis analyses that these squads
(23:00):
had more in common with hitmen,and then later sicarios, than
with soldiers.
They were executioners knownfor their ambushes on rural
roads, where they often leftbodies as a grim warning to
others.
And yes, that is anotherthrowback to the Thousand Days
War.
Similarly, the chusma, roughlytranslated as the rabble,
(23:21):
initially formed as areactionary force to protect
liberal communities, quicklygained a reputation for
reciprocal brutality.
Their raids on conservativetowns were marked by arson and
indiscriminate killings.
Historian Gonzalo Sanchez, inhis detailed account of the
period, describes scenes wherethe chusma would storm into a
village at night, set fire tothe houses and execute anyone
(23:45):
affiliated with the conservativeparty.
Both groups employed terrortactics that escalated the
violence to staggering levels.
The pájaros were particularlyfeared for their methods of
picar, which was a savagepractice where victims were
hacked with machetes beforebeing left in public spaces.
This gruesome method wasintended to kill and also to
(24:09):
instill fear among the populace.
The chusma were no less brutal.
Often their attacks would endwith the public display of their
victims, sometimes hangingtheir bodies from lampposts in
town squares, to send a clearmessage of defiance and strength
.
This tit-for-tat violencebetween the pájaros and the
chusma created a cycle ofretaliation that seemed endless,
(24:32):
with each atrocity promptinganother one in kind.
The cycle of indiscriminate anddesensitized killing only
escalated from there.
That is why they called itlabulencia.
What made labulencia labulenciawas the extreme sadism of the
acts which occurred during thatterrible decade.
Historians and socialscientists are not sure why this
(24:56):
sadism exploded in such ways,but I want to warn you now some
of the descriptions of what wenton are going to be very tough
to hear, so please proceed withcaution.
The purpose of me conveyingthese atrocities, which is
something I will do for all theconflicts we cover this season,
is not to be gratuitous, but toconvey to you what it was like
(25:19):
for Colombians and for otherhumans who had to live through
these kinds of events.
Certain death and torturetechniques became so commonplace
during La Violencia that theywere given specific names and
euphemisms Picar para tamal,which is to cut for tamals,
involves slowly dismembering aliving person's body, cutting
(25:41):
small pieces to prolong thedeath and the suffering, while
pocachiquear entailed makinghundreds of small punctures
until the victim bled to death,similar to the process used to
bleed a fish out as part of alocal delicacy.
Norman A Bailey, a formersenior director of international
economic affairs for the UnitedStates National Security
(26:04):
Council and the currentpresident of the Institute of
Global Economic Growth,describes the atrocities
succinctly.
Ingenious forms of quarteringand beheading were invented and
given such names as the Corte deMica, corte de Corbata, also
known as the Colombian necktie,and so on.
Crucifixions and hangings werecommonplace.
(26:27):
Political prisoners were thrownfrom airplanes in flight.
Infants were bayoneted andraped.
Schoolgirls, some as young aseight years old, were raped en
masse.
Unborn infants were removed bycrude cesarean sections and
replaced by roosters.
Ears were cut off, scalpsremoved and so on.
(26:48):
The Colombian necktie, which isslashing someone below the
throat and pulling their tongueout through the cut, and other
horrible mutilations like theflower vase cut, tongue out
through the cut, and otherhorrible mutilations like the
flower vase cut, where theperson was dismembered and the
limbs were then reinserted intothe cavities carved on the body,
were both gruesome and yetcommon.
There was also the t-shirt cut,where the limbs and the head
(27:10):
would be cut off, leaving onlythe torso.
A favorite of the chusmas andpájaros was to mutilate the dead
bodies of their opponents andcut off their genitals and stuff
them in the mouth of their deadrivals.
All of these methods becamepopular during La Violencia and
have since been attributederroneously to Pablo Escobar as
(27:31):
the inventor.
Most of the euphemisticallynamed methods first saw light
during La Violencia.
Sadly, the level of dehumanizingtorture mostly originated there
.
The creative and horrificmethods of torture and killing
reflected a society deeplyfractured and consumed by hatred
, where human life was oftendisregarded and violence became
(27:54):
a routine instrument of powerand retribution.
This period of unparalleledviolence left deep scars in the
Colombian psyche and laid thegroundwork for the subsequent
decades of conflict.
Out of the period of laviolencia came the guerrillas
and the paramilitaries.
The next stage of the Colombianconflict was being set up.
Families were torn apart notonly by the loss of loved ones,
(28:18):
but also by the pervasive fearthat settled over towns and
villages caught between theseviolent forces.
The countryside, once the heartof Colombia's agrarian culture,
turned into a battlefield whereno one was safe, as described
by journalist Arturo Alape inhis first-hand accounts.
The Colombian countryside wastransformed into a checkerboard
(28:41):
of horror, with each squarecontrolled by either the pájaros
or the chusma, eachperpetuating a cycle of murder
and retribution.
The atrocities committed duringLa Violencia were horrific and
widespread.
Civilians bore the brunt of theviolence, with countless
massacres, rapes and acts oftorture perpetrated by both
(29:02):
liberal and conservative forces.
Villages were often targetedbased on the political
affiliations of theirinhabitants, leading to
indiscriminate slaughter anddestruction.
One particularly gruesomeexample was the massacre in the
town of Villarrica in 1954,where government forces, in
their attempt to quell liberalresistance, killed hundreds of
(29:24):
villagers and burned the town tothe ground.
The brutality of such acts leftdeep scars on the national
psyche and fueled further cyclesof revenge and retribution.
As La Violencia wore on, thedistinctions between the pájaros
and the chusma were oftenblurred, with both sides
committing atrocities that wouldhaunt Colombian society for
generations.
(29:44):
The scars left by these bandscontributed significantly to the
mistrust and division thatwould later fuel further
conflict and the rise ofguerrilla movements seeking to
challenge the status quo.
The countryside became a primarybattleground, as historian
David Bushnell details, ruralguerrilla bands, initially
(30:05):
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 rebellionagainst the increasingly
authoritarian andanti-democratic conservative
government forces of Colombia inthe 1950s.
This rule factions, one ofthose led by figures such as
(30:29):
Manuel Marulanda, alias TitoFijo, would eventually coalesce
into formal guerrilla movementslike the FARC.
We will certainly have a lotmore to say about Manuel
Marulanda as our story of theColombian conflict develops, but
keep the name in your backpocket.
We will come back to it.
It was also during this timeperiod that a young Argentinian
(30:51):
revolutionary by the name ofErnesto Che Guevara you know him
from t-shirts probably shows upin Colombia and gets embroiled
in its internal conflict,aligning with the many left-wing
guerrillas that sprung on theeastern plains of the country.
The human toll of La Violenciawas staggering.
Estimates suggest that between200,000 and 300,000 people were
(31:15):
killed during the conflict, withcountless others injured or
left psychologically scarred.
Roughly 1 in 50 Colombians werekilled by La Violencia.
The decade left no one in thenation untouched.
The economic impact was equallysevere, with widespread
destruction of property andinfrastructure contributing to a
(31:36):
prolonged period of instabilityand poverty.
La Violencia fundamentallyreshaped the Colombian political
and social landscape.
The conflict deepened thedivide between liberals and
conservatives, embedding alegacy of mistrust and animosity
even further.
During La Violencia, thegovernment struggled to project
authority beyond the urbancenters, where rural areas often
(31:59):
left to fend for themselvesamidst the growing power of
partisan militias.
Historian Daniel Picotdescribes how the Colombian
state, weakened by partisandivisions, failed to enforce
laws uniformly or protect thecitizens from violence.
Local governments, which shouldhave been the first line of
defense against the escalationof violence, were themselves
(32:21):
often compromised.
Many local officials wereeither aligned with conservative
or liberal parties and thus,part of the problem, they
frequently used their positionsto persecute political opponents
rather than maintain order and,as a result, the state's
legitimacy eroded and publictrust in government institutions
plummeted.
(32:42):
Law enforcement agencies werenot only underfunded and
understaffed, but also deeplydivided along partisan lines.
Many police units were co-optedby local political leaders and
used as private militias ratherthan neutral peacekeepers.
There were instances where thepolice actively participated in
attacks against villages knownto support the opposition
(33:04):
faction.
The Chulavitas, a police unitwhich later became part of the
Murderos Pajaros, is an exampleof this conversion from law
enforcement into paramilitarythuggery.
The judiciary, too, wasincapacitated by the pervasive
influence of political patronageand corruption was
incapacitated by the pervasiveinfluence of political patronage
and corruption.
Courts were reluctant toprosecute crimes associated with
(33:26):
la violencia, especially thosecommitted by individuals
connected to the ruling party.
This lack of judicialperpetuated impunity and also
discouraged citizens fromseeking legal redress, forcing
many to turn to armed groups forprotection and for revenge.
The military, which could haveplayed a stabilizing role, was
(33:46):
often hesitant to engage fullyin internal security operations,
partly due to a lack of cleardirectives from the central
government and partly due tofears of sparking a full-blown
civil war.
Historians note that the armywas stretched thin across a
rugged and vast terrain,struggling to contend with both
liberal guerrillas andconservative militias.
(34:07):
This is not to say that theywere innocent bystanders during
La Violencia.
As we've discussed, they oftenplayed a role in the partisan
violence itself.
When the military did intervene, their actions often
exacerbated the situation.
Their efforts were marked by aheavy-handed approach that
included bombing of rural areassuspected of harboring
(34:28):
guerrillas, which alienated thelocal population and pushed more
people towards armed resistance.
Finally, in an effort to endthe bloodshed, a power-sharing
agreement known as the NationalFront was established in 1958.
This agreement mandated thatthe presidency would alternate
(34:50):
between liberals andconservatives every four years
and aim to stabilize thepolitical situation by ensuring
that both parties had a stake ingovernance.
While the National Frontsucceeded in ending the open
conflict of La Violencia, italso institutionalized the
exclusion of other politicalmovements and ideologies, sowing
deceits for future unrest.
The conflict also highlightedthe profound inequalities and
(35:13):
injustices within the Colombiansociety, particularly in rural
areas.
The failure to address theseunderlying issues during and
after La Violencia meant thatthe grievances that had fueled
the conflict remained unresolved, paving the way for the
emergence of new forms ofresistance and rebellion.
La Violencia left Colombiafurther divided, desensitized
(35:36):
and angry.
Those marks contributed to thevehemence of the Colombian
conflict we know today.
It also set the stage for theemergence of guerrillas and
paramilitary groups, which arenow the hallmark of the current
Colombian conflict.
La Violencia fundamentallyaltered the dynamics of rural
and urban communities alike.
The indiscriminate violence andthe widespread atrocities
(35:59):
disrupted traditional ways oflife, displacing hundreds of
thousands of people from theirhomes and lands.
This mass displacementcontributed to the rapid
urbanization of Colombia, asrural inhabitants fled to cities
in search for safety andeconomic opportunity.
However, these cities wereill-prepared to handle the
influx leading to the expansionof urban slums, or later,
(36:22):
barrios, and heightenedsocioeconomic disparities.
Historian Marie Roldan arguedthat this period also
intensified class divisions andhardened social hierarchies, as
communities became more insularand suspicious of outsiders
fearing betrayal or violence.
This vacuum of power andlegitimacy paved the way for the
(36:44):
emergence of guerrillamovements, which positioned
themselves as alternativesources of authority and
protection against the backdropof a failing state.
These movements exploited thegrievances left by La Violencia
to gain support and expand theirinfluence, particularly in
rural areas where the state'sinfluence was minimal.
(37:04):
The impact of La Violenciaextended into the cultural realm
as well.
The collective trauma of thisperiod influenced Colombian
literature, art and film, whichoften reflects themes of loss,
memory and resilience.
Nobel laureate Gabriel GarcíaMárquez, for example,
incorporated elements of LaViolencia into his magical
(37:26):
realist novels, most notably in100 Years of Solitude, where the
fictional town of Macondobecomes a mirror reflecting the
nation's cyclical violence anddespair.
In the wake of La Violencia,there were attempts to reform
Colombia's legal andinstitutional frameworks to
prevent the recurrence of suchwidespread violence.
These reforms included measuresto strengthen the judiciary,
(37:50):
reform the police and militaryforces and promote land and
agricultural reforms.
However, these reforms wereoften limited in scope and, as
we said before, poorlyimplemented.
What many of the deeperstructural issues remaining
unaddressed?
Now you would think that adecade of untold violence, as
we've just described, wouldleave Colombians exhausted, but
(38:13):
you would be wrong for thinkingthat, if anything, the roots of
grievance only became morepronounced.
And I should say Colombianswere probably, and are probably
still, exhausted of violence.
But the underlying issues thathave fueled violence in the
country have remained largelyunaddressed.
The first of the multifacetedsides of the current Colombian
(38:36):
conflict emerging from theturbulent decade of la violencia
are the left-wing guerrillas.
From the turbulent decade of LaViolencia are the left-wing
guerrillas.
These groups, primarily rootedin the rural areas, but not
confined to them, form asignificant part of the
country's ongoing struggle.
The two main factions, whichyou will become familiar with
throughout the series by theirSpanish acronyms, are FARC, the
(38:59):
Revolutionary Armed Forces ofColombia, and the ELN, the
National Liberation Army.
In this episode, we will diveinto their origins and the lives
of their respective founders.
Manuel Marulanda and CamiloTorres was not a founder but the
key, influential figure inlaunching the ELN to national
prominence within Colombia.
(39:20):
Following a decade of unabatedviolence, murder and factional
fighting that we just describeda violencia in the 1960s, the
situation escalated further dueto targeted anti-communist
repression in many rural areasof Colombia, which predominantly
affected peasant communities.
This crackdown pushed bothliberal and communist militants
(39:42):
to unify their efforts againstperceived injustices,
culminating in the establishmentof the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia.
The FARC, along with otherguerrilla groups like the ELN,
framed the struggle as a fightfor the rights of the oppressed,
aiming to protect the ruralpoor from government oppression
(40:05):
and to achieve social justicethrough the implementation of
communist principles.
Manuel Marulanda, born PedroAntonio Marín in 1930 in Quindio
, colombia, was a figure ofimmense influence within FARC.
Of immense influence withinFARC, often known by his war
name during the years of LaViolencia, alias Tito Fijo or
(40:31):
Sure Shot.
Manolanda's early life as apeasant farmer was marked by the
pervasive violence and socialinjustice of the Colombian
countryside.
Manolanda's political awakeningbegan in the late 1940s, during
the beginning of La Violencia.
Initially, he was a member ofthe Liberal Party's youth wing
and he was radicalized by thebrutal suppression of liberal
and peasant communities, whichhe witnessed firsthand by groups
(40:52):
like the Pajaros and theChulavitas, also known as
government-sponsoredparamilitaries.
This experience galvanized hiscommitment to armed struggle as
a means to defend peasant rightsand ultimately reshape
Colombian society.
In the early 1960s, amid growingrural unrest, marulanda was
instrumental in organizingself-defense groups in response
(41:15):
to state and paramilitaryviolence.
These groups laid thegroundwork for what would become
the FARC in 1964.
Under Marulanda's leadership,the FARC adopted a
Marxist-Leninist frameworkaiming to overthrow the
oligarchic government andimplement communist agrarian
reforms.
Historian Dario Villamizar, inhis work, highlights how
(41:39):
Marulanda's leadership wascharacterized by his deep
understanding of rural dynamicsand guerrilla warfare.
His strategy involved militaryactions and also building a
parallel state structure withinareas under FARC control, where
the group provided socialservices and enforced its own
form of justice.
Marulanda envisioned a Colombiawhere land was redistributed
(42:02):
fairly among peasants and wherethe rural poor had a significant
voice in national affairs.
His commitment to theseprinciples made him both a
revered and controversial figure.
Critics argue that, while hechampioned the rights of
peasants, his methods,particularly the use of violence
and kidnapping, oftenundermined the very democratic
(42:24):
ideals he sought to promote.
Parallel to the rise of FARC,the ELN was established, also in
1964, drawing inspiration fromthe Cuban revolutions and
figures like Che Guevara who, asyou may remember, had gotten
his early taste of revolution,fighting with left-wing
guerrillas in the rural areas ofColombia in the early days of
(42:45):
La Violencia.
The ELN's founder, fabioVázquez Castano, along with
other intellectuals and students, including the influential
priest Camilo Torres, aimed toignite a broader social
revolution, encompassing bothurban intellectuals and rural
peasants.
Unlike FARC, which focusedprimarily on rural peasant
(43:06):
mobilization, the ELN sought tointegrate urban resistance and
education into its strategy.
This included staging dramaticacts of sabotage and kidnapping
to fund their operations andraise awareness of their cause.
The ELN's approach was markedby a strong emphasis on ethical
and cultural dimensions ofrevolution, viewing moral
(43:27):
leadership as essential tosocietal transformation.
Camilo Torres was born in 1929in Bogota, colombia.
He was trained as a sociologistand a priest.
Torres was deeply influenced bythe profound poverty and
inequality he witnessed inColombia.
His dual role as a clergymanand an academic allowed him a
(43:48):
unique perspective on the socialinjustices faced by his
countrymen, which drove himtowards radicalism.
Before his engagement in directrevolutionary activities,
torres was a respected lecturerat the National University of
Colombia, where he was involvedin the sociology department.
His academic work focused onthe structural causes of poverty
(44:10):
and inequality, and he was anearly proponent of liberation
theology, which advocated forthe church's active involvement
in the fight against socialinjustice.
Torres's transition from aclergyman to a revolutionary was
marked by his growingconviction that the existing
social order could not bechanged through peaceful means
(44:31):
alone.
His famous declaration that itwas better to be a guerrilla
than a priest marked his fullcommitment to armed struggle.
In 1965, torres formally joinedthe ELN, bringing with him a
charisma and a moral authoritythat significantly boosted the
movement's appeal, particularlyamong young intellectuals and
(44:51):
students.
Camilo Torres believed thattrue Christian practice
necessitated direct actionagainst oppression.
This belief led him to advocatefor a synthesis of Christian
values and Marxist principles,arguing that the liberation of
the poor was both a spiritualand a material struggle.
His involvement in the ELNhelped shape the group's
(45:14):
ideological stance, emphasizingthe role of education, ethics
and community engagement inguerrilla warfare.
Role of education, ethics andcommunity engagement in
guerrilla warfare.
Historian Aldo Cívico notesthat Torres' approach to
revolution was holistic.
He saw cultural and educationalactivities as crucial to the
success of the guerrillamovement.
Torres was instrumental indeveloping the ELN strategy of
(45:37):
combination of all forms ofstruggle, which integrated armed
resistance with politicaleducation and alliances with
other progressive sectors ofsociety.
Camilo Torres's commitment tohis cause was total.
He died in his first combatencounter in 1966, becoming a
martyr and a symbol.
(45:57):
His death galvanized existingsupporters of the ELN and
attracted new adherents, drawnby his example of sacrifice and
dedication to the liberation ofthe oppressed people.
As he saw it, the contrastingyet complementary paths of FARC
and ELN, under leaders likeManuel Marulanda and Camilo
(46:18):
Torres, represented diverseresponses to Colombia's
deep-seated issues of inequalityand exclusion.
As these movements grew, theysignificantly shaped the
political and social dialogue inColombia, pushing the country
into a prolonged and complexconflict that we will continue
to explore in our series.
We're going to pause our storyhere.
(46:38):
It's the mid-1960s in Colombia,and the most notorious
guerrilla movements of theconflict have been founded.
The battle lines of the modernColombian conflict have been
drawn.
After a decade of untoldviolence, the country moves into
the next phase of its internalstruggle.
New players emerge on the scene, namely the United States and
(46:59):
the Soviet Union, as the vortexof the Cold War consumes all in
its path, turning thislong-standing fight into a
battleground for globalideological supremacy.
Next time on Double Helix, joinus for part three of our series
on the Colombian conflict,guerrilla warfare and the Iron
Fist.
Until next time, we will seeyou soon.
Before we begin the episode, I want to caution you
that some of the accounts thatwe are going to hear about the
period of La Violencia may bedisturbing to some of the
audience, so please exercisecaution.
I will also provide a warningduring the episode before I get
into those trickier parts of thenarrative.
Okay, thank you.
(00:21):
And thank you for joining mefor part two of the Colombian
conflict story, la Violencia andthe Rise of the Guerrillas.
Welcome to Double Helix.
Blueprint of Nations, season 2,episode 1.2, la Violencia and
(00:45):
the Rise of the Guerrilla.
Last time on Double Helix, weexplored the roots of the
rebellion simmering withinColombia from the very start of
the nation.
We examined the two competingpolitical parties, the
(01:05):
conservatives and the liberals,and how their all-encompassing
conflict consumed and dividedColombian society, leading to
several civil wars in the 19thcentury and culminating in the
clashes over land distributionby the late 1920s.
We also hinted at theappearance of a singular
character in our narrative JorgeEliezer Gaitán, leader of the
(01:29):
Liberal Party and a leadingpresidential candidate in the
run-up to the 1950 elections.
His assassination in 1948unleashed a profound
transformation in Colombia, withan outbreak of violence and
political hatred similar to theone that was seen during the
Thousand Days War some 50 yearsearlier.
(01:49):
Gaitan's murder was ademarcation line in Colombian
history and triggered a periodof 10 years known as La
Violencia, a decade of untoldviolence and cruelty that almost
tore the Colombian state apart.
In our last episode, we lookedat the trigger points throughout
Colombian history that led tothe conflict we know today.
(02:12):
We talked about the poisonpills of Colombian society, as
well as how they worked againstany future national unity and
continue to do so.
But there are some otherspecific grievances that not
only fuel the political andregional divides in Colombia,
but continue to drive flux ofColombians into the arms of the
(02:34):
groups and individuals thatoffer quick solutions to these
seemingly impossible problems.
And remember what I said beforeabout simple solutions to
complex problems.
Well, colombia is no different.
The notion has proven asdangerous there as it has
everywhere else it has beenemployed.
(02:54):
Complex problems like the onesin Colombia, often embedded into
the foundational markers, theblueprint of a nation, usually
require complex solutions, butmore on that later.
Anyway, before we dive into LaViolencia, we need to ask why
(03:16):
here?
Why Colombia?
Despite its rich naturalresources, fertile land and
significant population naturalresources, fertile land and
significant population Colombiabecame a hotbed for intense
conflict, as you saw in our lastepisode, even by the standards
of Latin American nations,colombia's foundation and
subsequent settlement into anation was particularly violent.
(03:39):
To understand how a society canreach such levels of division
and fracture, we must outlinethe specific grievances that
built up and led to La Violenciaand its aftermath, the armed
conflict that we know today.
As I've already warned you, theanswer is complex and
multifaceted.
(04:00):
One of the key issues inColombia is land distribution.
Colombia has long had a highlyunequal distribution of land,
with a small elite owning vastestates, while the majority of
the population, particularlyrural farmers, held little or no
land.
As historian Frank Safferexplains, land has always been a
(04:22):
critical issue in Colombia, andits unequal distribution has
often fueled social tensions.
We saw this during the peasantrevolts in the 1920s and we will
continue to see it as our storyevolves.
The inequitable distribution ofland in Colombia dates back to
the colonial era, when Spanishconquerors established large
(04:43):
haciendas or estates by grantingvast tracts of land to a small
number of elites.
This system entrenched afeudal-like structure, with the
majority of the rural populationworking as laborers or tenant
farmers on lands they did notown.
Following independence fromSpain in 1819, the new Colombian
(05:05):
Republic, part of Gran Colombiaat the time, continued to
perpetuate land concentration inthe hands of a few.
Various governments grantedlarge parcels of land to
military officers and politicalallies, further solidifying the
power of the land-owning elite.
Efforts at land reform wereminimal and largely ineffective,
(05:27):
leading to growingdisenchantment among the rural
poor.
By the mid-20th century, landownership remained highly
concentrated.
The 1960s saw the introductionof the National Agrarian Reform,
which aimed to redistributeland to peasants.
However, resistance frompowerful landowners and a lack
(05:50):
of political will resulted inlimited implementation.
According to politicalscientist James Robinson, the
agrarian reform efforts were toolimited and met with stiff
opposition, undermining theireffectiveness and leaving many
peasants' grievances unaddressed.
The failure of land reformpolicies exacerbated rural
(06:12):
poverty and inequality, creatingfertile ground for rebellion.
Many rural inhabitants, facedwith limited opportunities and
systemic exploitation, weredrawn to the promises of
guerrilla movements thatadvocated for radical agrarian
reform and social justice.
Another major factor was ruralpoverty.
(06:33):
Poverty was widespread amongthe rural populations, who faced
harsh living conditions andlimited access to resources.
The average Colombian lived inabject poverty throughout most
of the history of the nation,with little material improvement
following the coffee boom ofthe early 20th century.
Historian Marco Palaciosdescribes how many peasants
(06:58):
lived in makeshift homes,struggled with malnutrition and
lacked basic services such as ashealthcare, education, sewage
and the like.
This poverty exacerbatedfeelings of disenfranchisement
and neglect, further motivatingthe desire for change and
aligning many rural inhabitantswith emerging guerrilla
(07:18):
movements.
The desperation generated bysystemic and unending poverty
worked as a force that drovethousands into the arms of
radical leaders promising toright historical wrongs.
In addition to socioeconomicinequalities, political
exclusion also played a key rolein setting the stage for
conflict.
(07:38):
The political landscape inColombia was dominated, as we've
said before, by theconservative and the liberal
parties, which often excludedrural communities completely
from meaningful participation.
This political exclusion meantthat the concerns and needs of
rural populations wereoverlooked or ignored time and
(07:59):
again, deepening their sense ofalienation.
Deepening their sense ofalienation, the lack of
political representation andavenues for redress led to the
emergence of movementsadvocating for agrarian reform
and greater political inclusion.
As historian James D Hendersonnotes in his books about
Colombia, peasant movements weredriven by a desire for land and
(08:23):
a voice in politics, but theyfaced strong opposition from
powerful landowners and agovernment reluctant to
challenge the status quo theirlivelihoods.
Movements such as the NationalAssociation of Peasant Users, or
(08:45):
ANUC, emerged, advocating forland redistribution and the
protection of peasant interest.
Finally, the broader context ofthe Cold War also played a
significant role in shaping themodern Colombian conflict, and
this is a factor we should notignore.
I want to be clear here the ColdWar was like rocket fuel to the
(09:07):
already existing problems ofColombia, because they began to
be looked at, like everythingelse during the Cold War,
through the context of the ColdWar.
Oh, what's that?
You don't know what the ColdWar is?
No worries, I've got acompanion for you.
So go back and listen andyou'll get all the information
you need to be ready to go andunderstand what the Cold War was
(09:30):
.
But anyway, the ideologicalbattle between the United States
and the Soviet Union influencedlocal politics, with each side
supporting factions aligned withtheir respective interests.
Historian Eduardo Pizarro LeónGómez highlights that the Cold
War heightened polarization, asleft-wing guerrilla groups
(09:51):
received support from communiststates, while the Colombian
government aligned with theUnited States and its
anti-communist agenda, be itgovernmental or otherwise.
This external involvementintensified the internal
struggles in Colombia, making itharder to resolve and
increasing the scale of theconflict.
In fact, the involvement ofexternal powers provided the
(10:14):
resources and training that madethe conflict much more
protracted and destructive.
The period of la violencia wasignited by the assassination of
Jorge Eliezer Gaitán, a popularliberal leader, on April 9, 1948
.
According to Paul Oquist,gaitán's assassination was not
(10:36):
just a loss of a leader, but aspark that ignited an existing
powder keg of social andpolitical tensions.
Powder keg of social andpolitical tensions.
Some historians offer theelection of 1946, when
conservatives came back intopower, as an alternative date
for the start of La Violencia,because from that point forward,
government and conservativerepression against rural areas
(10:58):
had really begun.
However, most agree that thecatalyst that pushed Colombia
over the abyss was the murder ofGaitan.
At any rate, jorge EliezerGaitan was a champion of the
marginalized, advocating forsweeping social and economic
reforms.
His assassination unleashed aprofound sense of loss and
(11:21):
betrayal among the populace,sparking widespread violence
between liberals andconservative factions.
Gaitan's movement, known asGaitanismo, aimed to lead
Colombia down a path of radicalsocietal and economic change.
As was typical of the era,gaitan was often labeled as a
communist.
(11:42):
Gaitan first rose to prominencein Colombia as a lawyer
defending the rights of strikingfarmers in the aftermath of the
1928 Banana Massacre.
His advocacy for these workershighlighted the deep
inequalities in Colombiansociety and positioned him as a
voice for the oppressed.
Later, as Minister of Educationin the early 1940s, he
(12:05):
introduced cultural reformswhile continuing to promote his
platform of radical change,painting himself as a man of the
people.
His impressive oratory andpublic speaking made him a
powerful conduit for thefrustrations of Colombia's
masses.
Gaitán fueled long-standingdivides by contrasting the
(12:26):
quote-unquote admirable peoplewith the quote-unquote
blood-sucking oligarchs.
He also criticized the emergingalliance between wealthy,
well-connected liberals andconservatives, who had
historically been adversaries.
Gaitan divided the country intowhat he termed the political
country and the national country, the latter representing the
(12:50):
common people.
His promises of aggressive landreform threatened the
foundations of Colombian powerlike nothing else had before,
challenging the entrenchedinterest of the elite and
advocating for a more equitabledistribution of resources.
On the morning of April 9, 1948,jorge Eliezer Gaitán was
(13:11):
attending to his legal practiceand political meetings in his
office located in the CentralBusiness 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 forlunch with a group of colleagues
.
As he stepped onto the sidewalkof Carrera Septima, one of
Bogota's busiest streets, he wasapproached by Juan Roa Sierra,
(13:34):
a young man with unknown motives.
Roa Sierra fired three shots atclose range, striking Gaitan in
the head and chest.
Gaitan collapsed to the ground,mortally wounded.
The assassination occurred inbroad daylight in a crowded area
.
Witnesses immediately reactedwith shock and horror.
Bystanders quickly subduedRoacierra, preventing his escape
(13:58):
, and despite efforts to savehim, gaitan succumbed to his
injuries shortly after theshooting.
His death was confirmed withinhours to his injuries shortly
after the shooting.
His death was confirmed withinhours, 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
(14:18):
police could intervene.
Some theories suggest thatGaitán's assassination might
have involved externalinfluences, including foreign
entities concerned about thespread of leftist politics in
Latin America during the earlyCold War period.
Caytan's policies and rhetoricaligned more with social
democracy and reform which,although not explicitly
(14:41):
communist, were seen assympathetic to socialist ideals.
This raised concerns amongthose who were keen to curve any
left-leaning politicalmovements in the region.
Later examples of Nicaragua, elSalvador and Chile showed the
lengths to which the UnitedStates would be willing to go to
influence political outcomes inLatin America.
So the conspiracies were notcompletely far-fetched.
(15:04):
Gaitán's murder remainsshrouded in mystery and numerous
conspiracy theories haveemerged over the years.
The identity and motives of theassassin, juan Roa Sierra,
remain debated, with somearguing that Roa was a mentally
disturbed lone gunman, whileothers contend he was part of a
broader conspiracy involvingpowerful interests.
(15:27):
The lack of clear andconvincing explanation for the
assassination has only fueledspeculation and controversy,
suggesting that Gaitan's deathwas not just the result of a
personal vendetta, but rather apolitically motivated act aimed
at derailing his reformistagenda.
Following the shockingassassination of Jorge Eliezer
(15:48):
Gaitán on April 9, 1948, whichwe just covered in some detail,
colombia was plunged into chaos.
The profound sense of loss andbetrayal felt by Gaitan's
supporters ignited a massive andviolent response, marking the
beginning of what would becomeone of the most tumultuous days
in Bogotá's history, indeed,colombia's history known as El
(16:11):
Bogotazo.
The day Colombia burned as newsof Gaitan's death spread
throughout the city.
Burn as news of Gaitan's deathspread throughout the city,
thousands of his supporterspoured into the streets.
The initial outpouring of griefquickly transformed into rage.
Within hours, bogota descendedinto anarchy.
Rioters, driven by anger anddesperation, began looting
(16:32):
stores, setting buildings ablazeand attacking symbols of the
conservative government, whothey blamed for Gaitan's
assassination.
The heart of the violence wasin downtown Bogotá, where the
destruction was most intense.
Government buildings,businesses and homes were
engulfed in flames.
The once bustling streetsturned into war zones, littered
(16:54):
with debris and echoing with thesounds of gunfire and
shattering glass.
The chaos was unprecedented.
Entire blocks were reduced torubble as rioters sought to vent
their fury against theestablishment.
The Bogotazo represented thelargest and most concrete
popular insurrection against anational government in Latin
(17:14):
America ever since independenceand was the stuff of nightmares
for many Latin Americanpoliticians.
The government's response wasswift and brutal.
In a desperate attempt toregain control, president
Mariano Espina Pérez declaredmartial law and deployed the
military to the streets.
Soldiers armed with rifles andbayonets confronted the rioters.
Soldiers armed with rifles andbayonets confronted the rioters,
(17:37):
leading to violent clashes.
The air was thick with tear gasand smoke from burning
buildings.
The army fired into the crowdsthroughout Bogota, leading to
numerous casualties and furtherinflaming the rioters' anger.
It is also important to notethat the violence was not
(17:57):
confined to Bogota alone.
News of El Bogotazo spreadrapidly across Colombia,
inciting similar uprisings inother cities and towns.
The entire nation was grippedby a wave of violence as
long-standing political andsocial tensions erupted into
open conflict.
The death toll from El Bogotazowas staggering, with estimates
ranging from several hundred toover 2,000 people killed in just
(18:22):
a few days.
Before I forget, just a fewblocks away from where Gaitan
was murdered, there was awitness to the murder of his
killer by the enraged mob ofBogota.
This witness was one of themost prodigious Colombians to
have ever lived.
We mentioned him before brieflywas one of the most prodigious
Colombians to have ever lived.
We mentioned him before briefly.
His writing would always serveas a salve, a soothing medicine
(18:42):
of sorts to the ailments of hiscountry.
His name was Gabriel GarciaMarquez.
He wrote in detail about thisday in his memoirs called Living
.
To Tell a Tale, he mentions adark figure, a well-dressed man,
who was egging the crowd on asthey beat Roa Sierra to death
before being led away in a fancyvehicle.
(19:04):
For those of you looking forconspiracy fuel, make of that
what you will.
Moving on, the impact of ElBogotazo was profound and
far-reaching, marking a pivotalmoment in Colombian history.
It illuminated the deepdivisions within the country and
the explosive potential of itspolitical and social tensions.
(19:25):
These tensions, which hadremained largely dormant since
the War of a Thousand Days,resurfaced with a vengeance.
This resurgence of conflict canbe likened to the ancient Roman
tradition of the Temple ofJanus, the double-faced god of
war.
In Rome, the temple doors wereopen to signify the time of war
and closed to indicate peace.
(19:46):
With El Bogotazo, it was asthough the doors of Janus'
temple were thrown open inColombia, heralding a new era of
strife.
Since then, those doors havenot yet closed.
Colombia has been trying eversince.
Nonetheless, the violence anddestruction left terrible marks
on Bogota, with scars of thatday visible in the burnt-out
(20:09):
shells of buildings and thegrieving families who had lost
loved ones.
El Bogotazo, then, was thelaunchpad for the decade-long
period of intense civil conflictbetween liberals and
conservatives.
We know that decade by a singlename La Violencia.
The scale of the violence andthe government's harsh response
(20:29):
deepened the existing dividesand fueled a cycle of
retaliation and brutality.
The events of that fateful daydemonstrated the fragility of
Colombian society and thevolatile nature of its political
landscape.
From 1948 to 1958, colombia wasengulfed in a brutal civil war
between the liberal andconservative factions, resulting
(20:52):
in profound and lastingconsequences.
For the nation, this period isthe precursor to the modern
conflict.
For the nation, this period isthe precursor to the modern
conflict.
La violencia was characterizedby widespread violence and
lawlessness, as factions battledfor control of the nation.
The conflict was primarilyfought by armed civilian groups
and paramilitaries aligned witheither the liberals or the
(21:13):
conservatives.
These groups terrorized thecountryside, committing heinous
acts of violence against thosethey deemed enemies.
Rural populations bore thebrunt of a fight that was as
much about political power as itwas about land control and land
rights.
The fighting often took theform of guerrilla warfare, with
(21:34):
small mobile units attackingisolated villages, ambushing
convoys and engaging in brutalskirmishes.
Both sides employedscorched-earth tactics, burning
homes and crops to denyresources to their enemy.
The lack of a centralizedcommand structure led to a
chaotic and fragmented conflict,with atrocities committed by
(21:56):
both sides.
I told you before that therewere no good guys in the
Colombian civil struggle, and LaViolencia, with its revival of
the top hits of the ThousandDays War, would prove that to be
the case, and more.
As La Violencia unfolded, theroles of partisan militias
became central to the escalationof the conflict.
(22:16):
The key armed gangs were thepájaros, aligned with the
conservative party, and thechusma, associated with liberals
.
Each evolved into formidableforces wreaking havoc across
Colombia.
These groups not onlysymbolized the deep political
divide, but also embodied thebrutality that characterized
(22:36):
this dark chapter in Colombianhistory.
The pájaros a term thattranslates to birds in English
which belied their deadly nature, were notorious for their
ruthless tactics.
Armed and often wearingcivilian clothes to blend in,
they targeted anyone suspectedof supporting the liberal cause.
Historian Robert Dix notes inhis analyses that these squads
(23:00):
had more in common with hitmen,and then later sicarios, than
with soldiers.
They were executioners knownfor their ambushes on rural
roads, where they often leftbodies as a grim warning to
others.
And yes, that is anotherthrowback to the Thousand Days
War.
Similarly, the chusma, roughlytranslated as the rabble,
(23:21):
initially formed as areactionary force to protect
liberal communities, quicklygained a reputation for
reciprocal brutality.
Their raids on conservativetowns were marked by arson and
indiscriminate killings.
Historian Gonzalo Sanchez, inhis detailed account of the
period, describes scenes wherethe chusma would storm into a
village at night, set fire tothe houses and execute anyone
(23:45):
affiliated with the conservativeparty.
Both groups employed terrortactics that escalated the
violence to staggering levels.
The pájaros were particularlyfeared for their methods of
picar, which was a savagepractice where victims were
hacked with machetes beforebeing left in public spaces.
This gruesome method wasintended to kill and also to
(24:09):
instill fear among the populace.
The chusma were no less brutal.
Often their attacks would endwith the public display of their
victims, sometimes hangingtheir bodies from lampposts in
town squares, to send a clearmessage of defiance and strength
.
This tit-for-tat violencebetween the pájaros and the
chusma created a cycle ofretaliation that seemed endless,
(24:32):
with each atrocity promptinganother one in kind.
The cycle of indiscriminate anddesensitized killing only
escalated from there.
That is why they called itlabulencia.
What made labulencia labulenciawas the extreme sadism of the
acts which occurred during thatterrible decade.
Historians and socialscientists are not sure why this
(24:56):
sadism exploded in such ways,but I want to warn you now some
of the descriptions of what wenton are going to be very tough
to hear, so please proceed withcaution.
The purpose of me conveyingthese atrocities, which is
something I will do for all theconflicts we cover this season,
is not to be gratuitous, but toconvey to you what it was like
(25:19):
for Colombians and for otherhumans who had to live through
these kinds of events.
Certain death and torturetechniques became so commonplace
during La Violencia that theywere given specific names and
euphemisms Picar para tamal,which is to cut for tamals,
involves slowly dismembering aliving person's body, cutting
(25:41):
small pieces to prolong thedeath and the suffering, while
pocachiquear entailed makinghundreds of small punctures
until the victim bled to death,similar to the process used to
bleed a fish out as part of alocal delicacy.
Norman A Bailey, a formersenior director of international
economic affairs for the UnitedStates National Security
(26:04):
Council and the currentpresident of the Institute of
Global Economic Growth,describes the atrocities
succinctly.
Ingenious forms of quarteringand beheading were invented and
given such names as the Corte deMica, corte de Corbata, also
known as the Colombian necktie,and so on.
Crucifixions and hangings werecommonplace.
(26:27):
Political prisoners were thrownfrom airplanes in flight.
Infants were bayoneted andraped.
Schoolgirls, some as young aseight years old, were raped en
masse.
Unborn infants were removed bycrude cesarean sections and
replaced by roosters.
Ears were cut off, scalpsremoved and so on.
(26:48):
The Colombian necktie, which isslashing someone below the
throat and pulling their tongueout through the cut, and other
horrible mutilations like theflower vase cut, tongue out
through the cut, and otherhorrible mutilations like the
flower vase cut, where theperson was dismembered and the
limbs were then reinserted intothe cavities carved on the body,
were both gruesome and yetcommon.
There was also the t-shirt cut,where the limbs and the head
(27:10):
would be cut off, leaving onlythe torso.
A favorite of the chusmas andpájaros was to mutilate the dead
bodies of their opponents andcut off their genitals and stuff
them in the mouth of their deadrivals.
All of these methods becamepopular during La Violencia and
have since been attributederroneously to Pablo Escobar as
(27:31):
the inventor.
Most of the euphemisticallynamed methods first saw light
during La Violencia.
Sadly, the level of dehumanizingtorture mostly originated there
.
The creative and horrificmethods of torture and killing
reflected a society deeplyfractured and consumed by hatred
, where human life was oftendisregarded and violence became
(27:54):
a routine instrument of powerand retribution.
This period of unparalleledviolence left deep scars in the
Colombian psyche and laid thegroundwork for the subsequent
decades of conflict.
Out of the period of laviolencia came the guerrillas
and the paramilitaries.
The next stage of the Colombianconflict was being set up.
Families were torn apart notonly by the loss of loved ones,
(28:18):
but also by the pervasive fearthat settled over towns and
villages caught between theseviolent forces.
The countryside, once the heartof Colombia's agrarian culture,
turned into a battlefield whereno one was safe, as described
by journalist Arturo Alape inhis first-hand accounts.
The Colombian countryside wastransformed into a checkerboard
(28:41):
of horror, with each squarecontrolled by either the pájaros
or the chusma, eachperpetuating a cycle of murder
and retribution.
The atrocities committed duringLa Violencia were horrific and
widespread.
Civilians bore the brunt of theviolence, with countless
massacres, rapes and acts oftorture perpetrated by both
(29:02):
liberal and conservative forces.
Villages were often targetedbased on the political
affiliations of theirinhabitants, leading to
indiscriminate slaughter anddestruction.
One particularly gruesomeexample was the massacre in the
town of Villarrica in 1954,where government forces, in
their attempt to quell liberalresistance, killed hundreds of
(29:24):
villagers and burned the town tothe ground.
The brutality of such acts leftdeep scars on the national
psyche and fueled further cyclesof revenge and retribution.
As La Violencia wore on, thedistinctions between the pájaros
and the chusma were oftenblurred, with both sides
committing atrocities that wouldhaunt Colombian society for
generations.
(29:44):
The scars left by these bandscontributed significantly to the
mistrust and division thatwould later fuel further
conflict and the rise ofguerrilla movements seeking to
challenge the status quo.
The countryside became a primarybattleground, as historian
David Bushnell details, ruralguerrilla bands, initially
(30:05):
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 rebellionagainst the increasingly
authoritarian andanti-democratic conservative
government forces of Colombia inthe 1950s.
This rule factions, one ofthose led by figures such as
(30:29):
Manuel Marulanda, alias TitoFijo, would eventually coalesce
into formal guerrilla movementslike the FARC.
We will certainly have a lotmore to say about Manuel
Marulanda as our story of theColombian conflict develops, but
keep the name in your backpocket.
We will come back to it.
It was also during this timeperiod that a young Argentinian
(30:51):
revolutionary by the name ofErnesto Che Guevara you know him
from t-shirts probably shows upin Colombia and gets embroiled
in its internal conflict,aligning with the many left-wing
guerrillas that sprung on theeastern plains of the country.
The human toll of La Violenciawas staggering.
Estimates suggest that between200,000 and 300,000 people were
(31:15):
killed during the conflict, withcountless others injured or
left psychologically scarred.
Roughly 1 in 50 Colombians werekilled by La Violencia.
The decade left no one in thenation untouched.
The economic impact was equallysevere, with widespread
destruction of property andinfrastructure contributing to a
(31:36):
prolonged period of instabilityand poverty.
La Violencia fundamentallyreshaped the Colombian political
and social landscape.
The conflict deepened thedivide between liberals and
conservatives, embedding alegacy of mistrust and animosity
even further.
During La Violencia, thegovernment struggled to project
authority beyond the urbancenters, where rural areas often
(31:59):
left to fend for themselvesamidst the growing power of
partisan militias.
Historian Daniel Picotdescribes how the Colombian
state, weakened by partisandivisions, failed to enforce
laws uniformly or protect thecitizens from violence.
Local governments, which shouldhave been the first line of
defense against the escalationof violence, were themselves
(32:21):
often compromised.
Many local officials wereeither aligned with conservative
or liberal parties and thus,part of the problem, they
frequently used their positionsto persecute political opponents
rather than maintain order and,as a result, the state's
legitimacy eroded and publictrust in government institutions
plummeted.
(32:42):
Law enforcement agencies werenot only underfunded and
understaffed, but also deeplydivided along partisan lines.
Many police units were co-optedby local political leaders and
used as private militias ratherthan neutral peacekeepers.
There were instances where thepolice actively participated in
attacks against villages knownto support the opposition
(33:04):
faction.
The Chulavitas, a police unitwhich later became part of the
Murderos Pajaros, is an exampleof this conversion from law
enforcement into paramilitarythuggery.
The judiciary, too, wasincapacitated by the pervasive
influence of political patronageand corruption was
incapacitated by the pervasiveinfluence of political patronage
and corruption.
Courts were reluctant toprosecute crimes associated with
(33:26):
la violencia, especially thosecommitted by individuals
connected to the ruling party.
This lack of judicialperpetuated impunity and also
discouraged citizens fromseeking legal redress, forcing
many to turn to armed groups forprotection and for revenge.
The military, which could haveplayed a stabilizing role, was
(33:46):
often hesitant to engage fullyin internal security operations,
partly due to a lack of cleardirectives from the central
government and partly due tofears of sparking a full-blown
civil war.
Historians note that the armywas stretched thin across a
rugged and vast terrain,struggling to contend with both
liberal guerrillas andconservative militias.
(34:07):
This is not to say that theywere innocent bystanders during
La Violencia.
As we've discussed, they oftenplayed a role in the partisan
violence itself.
When the military did intervene, their actions often
exacerbated the situation.
Their efforts were marked by aheavy-handed approach that
included bombing of rural areassuspected of harboring
(34:28):
guerrillas, which alienated thelocal population and pushed more
people towards armed resistance.
Finally, in an effort to endthe bloodshed, a power-sharing
agreement known as the NationalFront was established in 1958.
This agreement mandated thatthe presidency would alternate
(34:50):
between liberals andconservatives every four years
and aim to stabilize thepolitical situation by ensuring
that both parties had a stake ingovernance.
While the National Frontsucceeded in ending the open
conflict of La Violencia, italso institutionalized the
exclusion of other politicalmovements and ideologies, sowing
deceits for future unrest.
The conflict also highlightedthe profound inequalities and
(35:13):
injustices within the Colombiansociety, particularly in rural
areas.
The failure to address theseunderlying issues during and
after La Violencia meant thatthe grievances that had fueled
the conflict remained unresolved, paving the way for the
emergence of new forms ofresistance and rebellion.
La Violencia left Colombiafurther divided, desensitized
(35:36):
and angry.
Those marks contributed to thevehemence of the Colombian
conflict we know today.
It also set the stage for theemergence of guerrillas and
paramilitary groups, which arenow the hallmark of the current
Colombian conflict.
La Violencia fundamentallyaltered the dynamics of rural
and urban communities alike.
The indiscriminate violence andthe widespread atrocities
(35:59):
disrupted traditional ways oflife, displacing hundreds of
thousands of people from theirhomes and lands.
This mass displacementcontributed to the rapid
urbanization of Colombia, asrural inhabitants fled to cities
in search for safety andeconomic opportunity.
However, these cities wereill-prepared to handle the
influx leading to the expansionof urban slums, or later,
(36:22):
barrios, and heightenedsocioeconomic disparities.
Historian Marie Roldan arguedthat this period also
intensified class divisions andhardened social hierarchies, as
communities became more insularand suspicious of outsiders
fearing betrayal or violence.
This vacuum of power andlegitimacy paved the way for the
(36:44):
emergence of guerrillamovements, which positioned
themselves as alternativesources of authority and
protection against the backdropof a failing state.
These movements exploited thegrievances left by La Violencia
to gain support and expand theirinfluence, particularly in
rural areas where the state'sinfluence was minimal.
(37:04):
The impact of La Violenciaextended into the cultural realm
as well.
The collective trauma of thisperiod influenced Colombian
literature, art and film, whichoften reflects themes of loss,
memory and resilience.
Nobel laureate Gabriel GarcíaMárquez, for example,
incorporated elements of LaViolencia into his magical
(37:26):
realist novels, most notably in100 Years of Solitude, where the
fictional town of Macondobecomes a mirror reflecting the
nation's cyclical violence anddespair.
In the wake of La Violencia,there were attempts to reform
Colombia's legal andinstitutional frameworks to
prevent the recurrence of suchwidespread violence.
These reforms included measuresto strengthen the judiciary,
(37:50):
reform the police and militaryforces and promote land and
agricultural reforms.
However, these reforms wereoften limited in scope and, as
we said before, poorlyimplemented.
What many of the deeperstructural issues remaining
unaddressed?
Now you would think that adecade of untold violence, as
we've just described, wouldleave Colombians exhausted, but
(38:13):
you would be wrong for thinkingthat, if anything, the roots of
grievance only became morepronounced.
And I should say Colombianswere probably, and are probably
still, exhausted of violence.
But the underlying issues thathave fueled violence in the
country have remained largelyunaddressed.
The first of the multifacetedsides of the current Colombian
(38:36):
conflict emerging from theturbulent decade of la violencia
are the left-wing guerrillas.
From the turbulent decade of LaViolencia are the left-wing
guerrillas.
These groups, primarily rootedin the rural areas, but not
confined to them, form asignificant part of the
country's ongoing struggle.
The two main factions, whichyou will become familiar with
throughout the series by theirSpanish acronyms, are FARC, the
(38:59):
Revolutionary Armed Forces ofColombia, and the ELN, the
National Liberation Army.
In this episode, we will diveinto their origins and the lives
of their respective founders.
Manuel Marulanda and CamiloTorres was not a founder but the
key, influential figure inlaunching the ELN to national
prominence within Colombia.
(39:20):
Following a decade of unabatedviolence, murder and factional
fighting that we just describeda violencia in the 1960s, the
situation escalated further dueto targeted anti-communist
repression in many rural areasof Colombia, which predominantly
affected peasant communities.
This crackdown pushed bothliberal and communist militants
(39:42):
to unify their efforts againstperceived injustices,
culminating in the establishmentof the Revolutionary Armed
Forces of Colombia.
The FARC, along with otherguerrilla groups like the ELN,
framed the struggle as a fightfor the rights of the oppressed,
aiming to protect the ruralpoor from government oppression
(40:05):
and to achieve social justicethrough the implementation of
communist principles.
Manuel Marulanda, born PedroAntonio Marín in 1930 in Quindio
, colombia, was a figure ofimmense influence within FARC.
Of immense influence withinFARC, often known by his war
name during the years of LaViolencia, alias Tito Fijo or
(40:31):
Sure Shot.
Manolanda's early life as apeasant farmer was marked by the
pervasive violence and socialinjustice of the Colombian
countryside.
Manolanda's political awakeningbegan in the late 1940s, during
the beginning of La Violencia.
Initially, he was a member ofthe Liberal Party's youth wing
and he was radicalized by thebrutal suppression of liberal
and peasant communities, whichhe witnessed firsthand by groups
(40:52):
like the Pajaros and theChulavitas, also known as
government-sponsoredparamilitaries.
This experience galvanized hiscommitment to armed struggle as
a means to defend peasant rightsand ultimately reshape
Colombian society.
In the early 1960s, amid growingrural unrest, marulanda was
instrumental in organizingself-defense groups in response
(41:15):
to state and paramilitaryviolence.
These groups laid thegroundwork for what would become
the FARC in 1964.
Under Marulanda's leadership,the FARC adopted a
Marxist-Leninist frameworkaiming to overthrow the
oligarchic government andimplement communist agrarian
reforms.
Historian Dario Villamizar, inhis work, highlights how
(41:39):
Marulanda's leadership wascharacterized by his deep
understanding of rural dynamicsand guerrilla warfare.
His strategy involved militaryactions and also building a
parallel state structure withinareas under FARC control, where
the group provided socialservices and enforced its own
form of justice.
Marulanda envisioned a Colombiawhere land was redistributed
(42:02):
fairly among peasants and wherethe rural poor had a significant
voice in national affairs.
His commitment to theseprinciples made him both a
revered and controversial figure.
Critics argue that, while hechampioned the rights of
peasants, his methods,particularly the use of violence
and kidnapping, oftenundermined the very democratic
(42:24):
ideals he sought to promote.
Parallel to the rise of FARC,the ELN was established, also in
1964, drawing inspiration fromthe Cuban revolutions and
figures like Che Guevara who, asyou may remember, had gotten
his early taste of revolution,fighting with left-wing
guerrillas in the rural areas ofColombia in the early days of
(42:45):
La Violencia.
The ELN's founder, fabioVázquez Castano, along with
other intellectuals and students, including the influential
priest Camilo Torres, aimed toignite a broader social
revolution, encompassing bothurban intellectuals and rural
peasants.
Unlike FARC, which focusedprimarily on rural peasant
(43:06):
mobilization, the ELN sought tointegrate urban resistance and
education into its strategy.
This included staging dramaticacts of sabotage and kidnapping
to fund their operations andraise awareness of their cause.
The ELN's approach was markedby a strong emphasis on ethical
and cultural dimensions ofrevolution, viewing moral
(43:27):
leadership as essential tosocietal transformation.
Camilo Torres was born in 1929in Bogota, colombia.
He was trained as a sociologistand a priest.
Torres was deeply influenced bythe profound poverty and
inequality he witnessed inColombia.
His dual role as a clergymanand an academic allowed him a
(43:48):
unique perspective on the socialinjustices faced by his
countrymen, which drove himtowards radicalism.
Before his engagement in directrevolutionary activities,
torres was a respected lecturerat the National University of
Colombia, where he was involvedin the sociology department.
His academic work focused onthe structural causes of poverty
(44:10):
and inequality, and he was anearly proponent of liberation
theology, which advocated forthe church's active involvement
in the fight against socialinjustice.
Torres's transition from aclergyman to a revolutionary was
marked by his growingconviction that the existing
social order could not bechanged through peaceful means
(44:31):
alone.
His famous declaration that itwas better to be a guerrilla
than a priest marked his fullcommitment to armed struggle.
In 1965, torres formally joinedthe ELN, bringing with him a
charisma and a moral authoritythat significantly boosted the
movement's appeal, particularlyamong young intellectuals and
(44:51):
students.
Camilo Torres believed thattrue Christian practice
necessitated direct actionagainst oppression.
This belief led him to advocatefor a synthesis of Christian
values and Marxist principles,arguing that the liberation of
the poor was both a spiritualand a material struggle.
His involvement in the ELNhelped shape the group's
(45:14):
ideological stance, emphasizingthe role of education, ethics
and community engagement inguerrilla warfare.
Role of education, ethics andcommunity engagement in
guerrilla warfare.
Historian Aldo Cívico notesthat Torres' approach to
revolution was holistic.
He saw cultural and educationalactivities as crucial to the
success of the guerrillamovement.
Torres was instrumental indeveloping the ELN strategy of
(45:37):
combination of all forms ofstruggle, which integrated armed
resistance with politicaleducation and alliances with
other progressive sectors ofsociety.
Camilo Torres's commitment tohis cause was total.
He died in his first combatencounter in 1966, becoming a
martyr and a symbol.
(45:57):
His death galvanized existingsupporters of the ELN and
attracted new adherents, drawnby his example of sacrifice and
dedication to the liberation ofthe oppressed people.
As he saw it, the contrastingyet complementary paths of FARC
and ELN, under leaders likeManuel Marulanda and Camilo
(46:18):
Torres, represented diverseresponses to Colombia's
deep-seated issues of inequalityand exclusion.
As these movements grew, theysignificantly shaped the
political and social dialogue inColombia, pushing the country
into a prolonged and complexconflict that we will continue
to explore in our series.
We're going to pause our storyhere.
(46:38):
It's the mid-1960s in Colombia,and the most notorious
guerrilla movements of theconflict have been founded.
The battle lines of the modernColombian conflict have been
drawn.
After a decade of untoldviolence, the country moves into
the next phase of its internalstruggle.
New players emerge on the scene, namely the United States and
(46:59):
the Soviet Union, as the vortexof the Cold War consumes all in
its path, turning thislong-standing fight into a
battleground for globalideological supremacy.
Next time on Double Helix, joinus for part three of our series
on the Colombian conflict,guerrilla warfare and the Iron
Fist.
Until next time, we will seeyou soon.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.