Between 1946 and 1966a surge of violence in Colombia left 200,000 dead in one of the worst conflicts the western hemisphere has ever experienced. the first seven years of this little-studied period of terror, known as la Violencia , is the subject of Blood and Fire. Scholars have traditionally assumed that partisan politics drove La Violencia , but Mary Roldán challenges earlier assessments by providing a nuanced account of the political and cultural motives behind the fratricide. Although the author acknowledges that partisan animosities played an important role in the disintegration of peaceful discourse into violence, she argues that conventional political conflicts were intensified by other concerns. Through an analysis of the evolution of violence in Antioquia, which at the time was the wealthiest and most economically diverse region of Colombia, Roldán demonstrates how tensions between regional politicians and the weak central state, diverse forms of social prejudice, and processes of economic development combined to make violence a preferred mode of political action. Privatization of state violence into paramilitary units and the emergence of armed resistance movements exacted a horrible cost on Colombian civic life, and these processes continue to plague the country. Roldan’s reading of the historical events suggests that Antioquia’s experience of la Violencia was the culmination of a brand of internal colonialism in which regional identity formation based on assumptions of cultural superiority was used to justify violence against racial or ethnic "others" and as a pretext to seize land and natural resources. Blood and Fire demonstrates that, far from being a peculiarity of the Colombians, la Violencia was a logical product of capitalist development and state formation in the modern world. This is the first study to analyze intersections of ethnicity, geography, and class to explore the genesis of Colombian violence, and it has implications for the study of repression in many other nations.
I've long been fascinated by the period of La Violencia. However, it's virtually unknown outside Colombia. Aside from the fact that most people outside Colombia only pay attention to the history of the country if it involves a certain paisa, part of this can be explained by the same thing that makes the conflict interesting- its complexity. It seems every historian or sociologist has a different opinion on what caused the conflict. Was it a failed social revolution? An example of dangerous partisanship? An excuse for widespread land seizures? You'll hear all of these theories. The issue is complicated by the regional variety in violence. Why did some areas remain so peaceful and we did others see such different forms of violence?
This book addressed Antioquia, a region whose role in the conflict was largely unknown to me. I greatly appreciated the breakdown of the different areas of the department, as well as how they interacted with other parts of the country. I also liked the parallels drawn with later violence in the more recent conflict.
The big gap in my knowledge of La Violencia is the fighting in los llanos, and I must read something about that soon.