Talk:Tomás Garrido Canabal

Untitled

Adding this page in theCategory:Religious persecutionis superflous, it is already in theCategory:Anti-Catholicismwhich is in itself a subcat of religious persecution, so therefore it already is in religious persecution. Adding this page to both anti-Catholicism and religious persecution is like adding it to bothcategory:Mexican state governorsandcategory:Mexican politicians.Mixcoatl02:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

• Anti-Catholisim is not a subcategory of religious persecution. Do I have to bust out the Venn diagrams for you. For example, the religious tracts of Jack Chick are plainly anti-Catholic biogotry but they are not religious persecution. The rule of Garrido Canabal was both.Mamalujo17:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

"Fascist" Red Shirts?

Is it really correct to call the Red Shirts fascist? In what way did the Red Shirt resemble the fascist movement in ideology and practice? I'm not saying that they weren't horrible, but throwing around the epithet "fascist" is a widespread (and very unscientific) habit...

"Fascist" is not an epithet, at least when properly used, but a term of art among political scientists. The source for describing the red shirts as fascist is reliable.Mamalujo21:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's also a term of much dispute even among political scientists. And, for instance, the article by Stan Ridgeway (also cited in this article) puts it rather more cautiously, as follows (excuse the long quotation, but it's necessary to show the subtleties involves):

"Tomas Garrido has typically been depicted as a self-serving regional caudillo who became wealthy from the banana trade while repressing the people of his state. This flawed portrait is in part due to scholars basing their works on the allegations of Garrido's principal enemy, Rodulfo Brito Foucher. Perhaps even more importantly, scholars have failed to understand Garrido because they have tended to focus on the internal aspects of his regime while neglecting the external dimension- the crucial connection with Standard Fruit. Thus, some authors have emphasized Garrido's use of nepotism; others, pointing to his domination of workers and campesinos, have deemed him a dictator; still others, noting that he created a" shirt "movement (during an era of Black Shirts in Italy, Brown Shirts in Germany, and Gold Shirts in Mexico), have labeled him a fascist. Most commonly, he has been portrayed as an eccentric strongman who conducted an obsessive crusade against religion." (167)

Given the above, I propose to alter the article accordingly. --jbmurray(talk|contribs)21:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I note that the source given is the Columbia Encylopedia. If, for instance,this linkis to be believed, we also have a rather obvious case of plagiarism from that encyclopedia. --jbmurray(talk|contribs)22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, it's obvious that the claim that Garrido Canabal was a "fascist" is disputed in scholarly circles, and this article should reflect that fact. --jbmurray(talk|contribs)22:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

They were not fascists. Garrido named his sonLeninwhich a fascist would never do. They do not seem to be truly communist, however, they are clearly leftist based on their leader. As the sources say, some consider themfascist,however that doesn't mean they should be added to a list of fascists without any real proof that they are fascist. The fact that Garrido named his sonLeninquite clearly proves that he was not a fascist, and thus his group is not fascist either. _ The Mummy— Precedingunsignedcomment added by86.131.245.46(talk)14:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

What about him was "fascist"?Josh(talk)04:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Antitheist or Atheist?

Clearly anticlericalist and fascist but was this guy also an Atheist or have people confusedAntitheist withAtheist?. The problem I have is that he is quoted as saying that he was a "personal enemy of God". How can an atheist say that given that god is an improbability so to be an enemy of 'x' you would have to presume 'x' existed in the first place (or at least had the mental delusion that 'x' existed). That makes no sense. Do we have reliable sources that say that this person was an atheist i.e. has no belief in or does not believe that god or gods exists rather thanantitheistwhich is against god or against the belief in god/gods and in the case of specific god or gods can be a view of eithertheistsoratheists.These are so very much different philosophical positions but to some easily confused.Ttiotsw16:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, he was an atheist. Godman, Peter GrahamGreene's Vatican Dossier - Documents from the Archives of the Holy See Reveal the Deliberations among Papal Censors over How to Deal with the Power and the Glory-And Wise Counsel from an Unexpected SourceThe Atlantic Monthly, Vol. 288, July 2001.Mamalujo17:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• ...in context it says "An atheist and a puritan, Canabal detested organized religion and alcohol." and it was from a reference that was discussing Graham Greenes work,The Power and the Glory.I feel this has beenquoteminedto pluck out "atheist" rather than the description of "...detested organized religion and alcohol" which is more relevant given the protagonists. I have added the puritan bit and haven't mentioned the dislike for alcohol yet though I feel that the source for the claim of Atheism is dubious at this time. Can you find a more reliable source which is less partisan?. I have no problems with him being "atheist" it's just that simply tagged that there on it's own loses the nuance of what were the drivers of this person; that is encyclopaedic.Ttiotsw08:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal enemy of God?

According toAlan Knight,"Popular Culture and the Revolutionary State in Mexico, 1910-1940."The Hispanic American Historical Review74.3 (August 1994): 395, note 6, it's not Garrido Canabal who had this business card, but Arnulfo Perez H. He cites Carlos Martinez Assad,El laboratorio de la revolucion(Mexico: Siglo XXI, 1979), pp. 85, 198. As such, I've removed the claim about Garrido from this article. --jbmurray(talk|contribs)23:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

NB in general, the more I look into this the more the claims in this article don't match with the sources. Which is why I've now asked for reputable sources for the claim that priests were killed, as well as for this business with the farm animals. --jbmurray(talk|contribs)23:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

dates?

The lead now suggests, following Ridgeway's article, that Garrido was governor between 1920 and 1935. But this contradicts the following sentence later: "During the Mexican Revolution he was drawn into politics. Garrido Canabal was elected governor of Tabasco in 1921, served a three year term and was elected a second time in 1931, making use of the constitutional amendment that allowed re-election for non-successive terms." So which is it? Meanwhile, we're not much helped byGovernor of Tabasco,which seems to suggest many simultaneous governorships or something. --jbmurray(talk|contribs)10:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He was governor from 1920 to 1924 and again from 1931 to 1934, the time inbetween he also was the strongman of Tabasqueño politics, but not the governor. His rule was briefly interrupted a few times, and he also served as interim-governor briefly several times, but that doesn't seem relevant enough to me to mention in the introduction.Mixcoatl03:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Is Category:Atheist_thinkers_and_activists relevant?

Was he this? or is just the existing Atheist politician the better category? Usually thinkers and activists are fighting the system but as a politician and governor he was the system i.e. it would be others who would fight against him.Ttiotsw07:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

There are politicians who just happen to be atheist, but Garrido was an activist in advancing atheism. Activist doesn't mean one is fighting the system, though sometimes they do. It means they are active in advancing their cause.Mamalujo(talk)21:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Mamalujo's weasling and personal editorship.

Case against him:

1. He almost never consults the talk page before making major edits...this is in contrast to me and others, who have made sections here about the Fascist-Socialist debate with no real response from Mamalugo, only his continual edit warring.

2. Most of his beliefs are merely based around his own biases. He is a studying catholic and aclassical liberaland thus wants to paint an anti-catholic as a fascist and paint fascism and socialism as the same ideology. The latter point is particularly dismissed by most scholars who clearly see Fascism as Right-Wing and Socialism (Marxisnm, Left Libertarianism, Anarchism, Libertarian Socialism etc.) as Left-Wing.

3. He claims that people merely indicate that Garrido considered himself a Bolshevik (Marxist). This makes no real sense, either he did or he didn't. We have very notable sources that prove that he considered himself a Marxist, not least the Oxford history of Mexico. Garrido named one of his sonsLenin,had his Camisas Rojas singThe International,the Left-Wing anthem, and, regardless of Mamlujo's political spinning, no Fascist would do this because (even if Mamalujo's claim that Fascism and Socialism are the same) both ideologies are antagonistic towards eachother, just as Marxist-Leninists and Trotskyists (two Communist groups) are.

4. He keeps trying to add both Tomas Garrido Canabal and his Camisas Rojas under the categoryFascismand keeps trying to add the Fascism infobox onto both pages. This is not at encyclopedic as he is not officially fascist and thus shouldn't be put under that category. Mamalujo has been asked to provided evidence that Garrido was inspired by Italian Fascism and he has offered no such evidence. On the other hand, people have give a lot of sources concerning Garrido's socialist policies in Mexico and even his home life, in which we found that one of his sons was named Lenin, further indicating that he considered himself a Marxist.

In short, he has no place editing this wiki and I hope that the moderators deal with his spam editing swiftly.The Mummy(talk)11:39, 31 May 2012 (UTC)