José M. Umpierre
The memory of the Tlatelolco massacre is still strong, along with a sensitivity to inequality that still impacts me.
Violence has become the topic of the moment, not that it is a new matter; its shadow is as pervasive as the Bible and the wind. Aggression is part of the history of humanity, as is its inevitable link with anger and courage.
I don’t think I’m violent, my memory of fist fighting ended in an embarrassing defeat at the age of 14 when I discovered it wasn’t my particular aptitude. In my training I have mediated ideas, experiences and encounters with authority that have chiselling my convictions and character. Of course. My early essay El Puertorriqueño Dócil (the Docile Puertorican) was a cornerstone, as were two years of study in Mexico at the beginning of the 1970s, when the memory of the Tlatelolco massacre was still strong, along with a sensitivity to inequality that still impacts me.
I had my time as an aspiring radical. I went through the disenchantment of a being exclusive intolerant that led me to my inalienable condition of neurotic intransigence. Severely critical, self-critical, lonely and disaffiliated, virtues that I have to deal with; I do not brag about it and although I know that we mellow with age, it is difficult to get rid of character traits.
I defend without shyness that in an ideal world, the only courage that is justified is indignation, the feeling caused by witnessing abuse. I reiterate that, despite almost 8 decades, I have not renounced idealism and, despite so much evidence, I continue to encourage dreams and illusions that the future can be better. I feel peaceful with the defeated virtue of dialogue, but I recognize that there are conditions of abuse that deserve confrontations. I also think that war is the denial of reason and that its consequences are disastrous. But I cannot deny that there are conditions and situations that deserve energetic actions.
I don’t like weapons, the ones I have are all culinary and I use them for cooking. And as for weapons, the Second Amendment of the North American Constitution, maybe it made some sense in 1776, today is intimately associated with the regularity of routine shootings here and there. However, there are exceptions: the UN proposes that States should refrain from resorting to the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other way incompatible with the purposes of the UN.
According to Article 51 of the Charter, States have the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against them.
According to Article 51 of the Charter, States have the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against them.
International law and the UN do not recognize an explicit “right” of insurgent groups or liberation movements to use armed struggle, although there are specific contexts (such as the self-determination of colonized peoples). However, armed struggle must respect international humanitarian law and human rights.
The self-determination of peoples is a fundamental principle of international law that recognizes the right to freely decide their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development. This principle is enshrined in several international instruments, including the United Nations Charter (Articles 1.2 and 55) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2625 (1970) (Declaration on the Principles of International Law) recognizes that peoples subjected to colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes have the legitimate right to fight for their independence. The international community and the UN generally promote the peaceful resolution of conflicts and political dialogue as a preferred way to exercise the right to self-determination.
In Puerto Rico, the exercise of self-determination manifests itself in a series of consultations that have been totally inconsequential and the results have been a progressive distancing from colonialist formulas and the loss of support from the state. Another of the reasons that contributes to the swamp of immobility, along with the indifference of Congress to take some decisive action.
On a personal basis, I do not see possibilities for armed struggle. First, because of the inequality of forces, second because any clandestine conditions are impossible when we are technologically intervened and third, because we remain divided as to the magnitude of abuse that is granted to us as an unincorporated territory, where many see the invader as a benefactor. But, things change and the course of a history that goes far back are drops that continue to fill the jug.
It is clear that under the presidency of Donald Trump the United States has taken a turn to authoritarianism, with a galloping militarization and the return to imperialism.
It is clear that the United States under the presidency of Donald Trump has taken a turn to authoritarianism, with a galloping militarization, the abuse of human rights, the republican form of government and the return to imperialism. The present case with the situation of Venezuela makes it clear, with the direct and immediate consequences that the Island of Puerto Rico has been occupied again as a military bastion and strategic bridge for the campaign against the Bolivarian Republic.
In Puerto Rico, the Secretary of War Hegseth just flew in to be received with applause by the island’s governor. War planes and the occupation of military bases that were previously abandoned are now beginning to be seen. With the evident repudiation of civil society, which at one time put on long pants to achieve the eviction of Culebra and then Vieques.
The new invasion, without any kind of consultation or with the will of the citizens of this homeland, constitutes another crude affirmation of metropolitan power and evidence of the impotence of our ethnic group before the plenary powers of Congress. Another portrait of the treatment we are given. Given this, some argue that the Yankees are no better than the Chinese or the Russians, who are also wandering around.
It is a sad situation that again points to the least of evils. Even when we have to live embracing what is possible instead of what is desirable. I repeat, the conditions in my opinion do not make an uprising viable, but that we are subjected to colonial domination, foreign occupation and regimes that control our island as it suits them, that is also an objective fact.
__________________________________________________________________
Copyright 2025 by José M. Umpierre. All photos in this blog are in the public domain.