that Martin Luis Guzman gave shape to his feelings and ideas to awaken a national . published entitled El aguila y la serpiente by Aguilar. Editores of Madrid. Martín Luis Guzmán Franco (October 6, – December 22, ) was a Mexican novelist His novels La sombra del caudillo () and El águila y la serpiente () depict the Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version. said Molina In Martin Luis Guzman's autobiographical story of the Mexican Revolution, El Aguila y la serpiente, a revolutionary general says to two men.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Portuguese|
|Genre:||Health & Fitness|
|ePub File Size:||25.68 MB|
|PDF File Size:||9.48 MB|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Register to download]|
El águila y la serpiente. by: Guzmán, Martín Luis, urn:acs6: isbn_pdf:afdeba El Águila y La Serpiente book. Read 8 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. A medio camino entre el libro de memorias, la novela y el d. Martín Luis Guzmán. Entre el águila y la serpiente: Entre el águila y la serpiente ( Spanish Edition) – Kindle edition by Tanya Huntington. Download it once and.
Del Ma. Fabula de Polifema y Gala tea," by R. John McCaw San Juan de la Cmz and Fray treatment - becomes a clue to broader questions about the intelligibility of the Luis de lenn: A Commrmorative fnternational Symposirtm. While in Las de ahaja the par- Mary. Matthcw D. Vanguardia y renovaciOn en la narratfra lntinoamericana.
Mexican workers, sometimes with arms in hand fought not only for union recognition and labor union contracts, but also often for workers' control in the factory, including the right to exclude particular bosses. Workers sometimes physically drove the bosses out of the factories. In the Textile mills of Orizaba in the s, for example, workers demanded the right to remove abusive supervisors and foremen, and frequently exercised the right.
Most of the employers that the workers wanted deported out of the 30 cases being considered here--appear to have been citizens of the United States, the dominant power in the Mexican economy from the s to today. The Spaniards were the second largest group, six of them. Other bosses were English, Greek, Italian, German, and several were of unidentified nationality.
Surprisingly, perhaps, while the workers make their complaints against foreign employers, they seldom use racial epithets or derogatory ethnic terms. They sometimes refer to United States citizens with the mildly offensive term "gringos" and they occasionally use the more derogatory racial epithet "gachupines" in referring to Spaniards. Nearly always, however, their references to the foreigners are political, not racial, arguing against their bosses' anti-labor or anti-government political activities, not criticizing their nationality, race or religion.
Case 20 In their letter they mentioned their union members' complaints about "the 22 despotism and the injuries that they receive daily from the Yankee" and they write that "said Imperialist already has established many bad precedents of his despotism in dealing with the Mexican worker in our country. The workers hate Warden and want him expelled because he is an "Imperialist" Yanqui, not simply because he is a Yanqui. A Case Study: The Boss Disrespects the People's Customs Most cases, as we have seen, involved standard union issues- -wages, working conditions, union recognition, contracts and strikes.
But sometimes the matter was more complicated than it appeared at first glance, as demonstrated in a case involving oil workers in Tampico and a British manager of a British company. Novelo, secretary of relations, both of the Workers Federation of Tampico, Tamaulipas sent a telegram to the Minister of the Interior, Adalberto Tejeda, the left-wing, pro-labor, former governor of Veracruz. The union leaders wrote: The Workers Federation of Tampico in the name of the organized worker of the oil region protest in the most forceful manner the violations against our Laws by the 1 Tampico is a city of the state of Tamaulipas, but lies on the border of the state of Veracruz and at the time formed part of the petroleum region centered in Veracruz, which is why this case sometimes involves officials of that state.
Davidson who treats workers of the Transcontinental Company worse than [they were treated] in the times of the dictatorship [of Porfirio Diaz].
Davidson of "an unjust attitude" and of "ignoring the laws of our country. Repeating that Davidson treated the workers "as if they were slaves," they explained that he was "making them work Sundays for straight time. They repeat that Davidson was a pernicious foreigner and ask for his expulsion under Article These two letters, however, did not satisfy the officials of the Minister of the Interior who asked for more specifics regarding the case of Davidson.
Therefore on March 2, , the officials of the Workers Federation of Tampico replied with a long and detailed charge against Davidson, sent to both Minister 24 of the Interior Adalberto Tejeda and to Mexican president Plutarco Elias Calles. This document refers to "H. Davidson, a pernicious foreigner who is carrying out a labor of disorganization among the working people in the southern part of our state, and laughing at our laws Davidson had only been working at this Terminal for eight days when he suspended the service of the corn mill [Molino de Nixtamal], which the company had established many years before, which, as you can well understand, negatively affected our workers.
This camp is very isolated, and the workers could not get corneal in a timely fashion and the workers had to go hungry, something which was only intended to harass us. This same account reiterates the earlier charge that Davidson had declined to pay the workers double time for Sunday, as has been the practice before he arrived.
The union officials explained that they had taken the matter to the Board of Conciliation and Arbitration. This account, however, also raises yet other issues, not previously mentioned. Davidson, the union claimed, had also demanded that the teamsters [fogoneros] take responsibility for the ice plant, and had also cut the drivers' pay, contrary to the contract [convenio] and to the State Labor Law.
The company had also without any justification laid off the only automobile chauffeur, Felipe Zentencalt, and another man, Aurelio Velazquez. Then the local union officials turn to another issue which may after all have been the real crux of the matter. In an 25 underlined paragraph the officials explain that before Davidson arrived the company had always provided for the burial of the workers' dead, providing a casket, a boat to take the dead to the cemetery, and laborers to dig the grave in the Pantheon de Villa Cuauhtemoc.
They go on Davidson refuses to provide the indispensable services in these cases, which has resulted in the case of a body in complete decomposition which could not be buried because the company would not provide the boat, and another- -the body of a little girl--whose family could not bury her because the company did not provide the boat on time, disillusioning the family about the Company's attitude, they had to rent a boat and pay for it themselves.
Finally, the union officials claim that Davidson had attempted to break the Union of Barco and Cacalilao, whose workers "work with us," and that he is "looking toward the destruction of our union organization. In this same file of the Ministry of the Interior there is a note from the Minister of Foreign Relations indicating that the British Legation had informed the Mexican government that Mr.
Richard Ludlow would be entering Mexico by way of Laredo and within 15 days. Apparently the matter of Davidson's behavior would be taken up with the British diplomats.
However, there is no further record of the discussions. With that the matter apparently ended, for no further documents are found in the dossier. What does the case of the oil workers versus Davidson tell 26 us about workers in Mexico in the s?
The Constitutional, legal and contractual matters in the case of the oil workers versus Davidson were plain enough: the failure to pay double time on Sunday, violating the contract by asking men to work outside their craft, and laying men off without cause.
More serious was the charge that Davidson had already broken one labor union and was planning to break theirs. These labor union matters were quite serious. But perhaps there were deeper matters at issue, matters of culture and custom. What appeared to be a simply labor union matter, a simple matter of work and hours, turned out to be a much more complicated matter.
Davidson, in taking command of the Transcontinental Terminal at Tampico, apparently disrupted all sorts of contractual and customary relations not only at the terminal but also in the community. Whether his acts were unconscious or intentional we have no idea, but he disrupted customs and practices which formed the basis of everyday life among the workers of the Terminal and the communities around Villa Cuauhtemoc. In closing the corn mill, Davidson had created antagonism in the same way a manager in Britain would have done had he changed the workers' customary tea-time.
Leaving to arrive at work at five a. With the corn mill closed, the wives of the workers did not have time to grind the corn to make fresh corn meal for tortillas before the men left for work. So the men went to work hungry--and angry.
But perhaps there was something deeper at work here as well. In closing the molino de nixtamal, the corn mill, Davidson had, 27 no doubt unconsciously and inadvertently, touched the very basis of Mexican society.
The people of Mexico and Central American are often referred to as the "people of corn. While they had left the corn fields to go to work in the oil fields, corn still remained the basis of the workers' diet in the form of tamales and tortillas, and corn was still tied to the core of the culture.
Perhaps Davidson had touched not only the men's stomach's but also a deeper cultural nerve. No doubt the most shocking charge made by the union, however, was Davidson's refusal to provide a boat to carry cadavers to the cemetery, causing a decomposing corpse to be left laying in one of the workers' communities.
Tampico sits on the Gulf of Mexico, one of the hottest and most humid places in Mexico, a place where dead bodies decompose quickly. On the lowlands and islands around Tampico lying at or below sea level, burial is impossible, that is why the bodies had to be taken to the higher ground of the cemetery of Villa Cuauhtemoc. But it was not simply a practical matter of getting the body in the ground.
As any student of Mexican culture or even the most casual tourist knows, death and burial are profoundly important matters in Mexico, both because of the need for a Christian burial in hallowed ground in a Catholic Country, and because of older Indian traditions preserved in customs such as the Day of the Dead. The unburied, rotting body must have been a painful reminder of the new boss with his high-handed manner and his lack 28 of concern for the workers or their traditions.
Legally Davidson may have been a "pernicious foreigner" because he violated Article and thus mixed in Mexican politics. But the oil workers demand for Davidson's expulsion may not have been simply because he had broken the labor union contract, the state labor laws, or the Mexican Constitution.
They may have been driven to seek his expulsion as an undesirable alien because he had no respect for the Mexican people, their culture and customs. These workers may have turned to Article 33 because of what they saw as the gross assault on their community and its values.
This is the only case which contains such an example of what appears to be a conflict between a foreign employer and local customs, but it is possible that such tensions and antagonisms may have existed behind other cases as well.
Leach, manager of the Tampico Electric Company first became a local, then a regional, and finally a national issue, and led to Leach's expulsion from the country under Article Mexico City's daily newspapers reported President Obregon's denunciation of Leach as a man who failed to abide by the country's laws, and his ejection of Leach from the country. The Leach case grew out of a series of electrical workers' and streetcar workers' strikes in against the light and power company of Tampico, Tamaulipas of which Leach was the chief 29 executive.
Harvey Leach had a long history as a boss and as a chief executive in Mexico. Leach first came to Mexico in as an employee of Weetman Dickson Pearson later Lord Cowdray , the British construction contractor, railroad builder, and later oil magnate.
To begin work with Pearson's was to begin at the top, for Pearson had established a close relationship to President Porfirio Diaz who gave the British engineer the most important Mexican construction contracts.
In the English parliament Pearson was known as "the member for Mexico" because he had so much influence there. Leach worked for Pearson from to , a period in which the Pearson company built the canals that drained Mexico City, constructed the harbor and docks of Veracruz, and finally laid the tracks of the Inter-Ocean Railroad across the Isthmus of Tehuantepec.
In Leach left the Pearson company and went to work as a consulting engineer for the Guanajuato Power Company from to Leach took another job in , this time as consulting engineer for the Guanajuato Development Company, and then from to Leach worked as a general construction contractor in Mexico City. Finally in Leach went to work for the Tampico Electric Company as a civil engineer, rising to become general manager of the company by By when his problems with the electrical workers began, Leach had been living and working in Mexico for 32 years.
The Mexican Revolution, the new Constitutional Article , the influence of the radical League of Agrarian Communities, and the presence in the port cities of the Industrial Workers of the World, Spanish anarchists, and later pro-Soviet Communists had combined with fights over working conditions and wages, and over housing and rents, to create a radical, militant, and politically sophisticated work force. The principal instigator of the struggle between Leach and the electrical workers, however, seems to have been Leach himself.
During the previous couple of years, Leach had made himself quite an unpopular man. First, Leach angered the public by raising the fares for service to the suburbs of Arbol Grande, Cecilia, Miramar and other areas. Leach also had some bitter differences with the city government over the installation of the city's water pumping system and over his request to extend streetcar service to El Aguila.
Then in Leach ordered a general reduction of the wages of all of the employees of the company. Surprisingly, given the broad radicalization of the labor movement, employees accepted the wage cut at that time without protest. However, when Leach returned a year later and on July 27, announced another 15 percent wage cut, this time just for the electrical workers, the workers reacted collectively.
In 31 response to the wage cut, the electrical workers organized a union, apparently a local of the Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas SME headquartered in Mexico City.
Leach in turn then began to fire the electrical workers--not for union activities, he said, but because the completion of the company's newly constructed buildings meant that the company no longer needed so many employees. The union and government investigators later pointed out, however, that Leach had not laid off the unneeded construction workers but rather the plant's newly organized electrical workers.
As the state government would later assert, Leach's claims about the end of construction justifying the layoffs was "an absolutely unfounded pretext. What was it the workers wanted of Leach? The workers' demands included the restitution of their lost wages, the rehiring of the fired employees, improvements in working conditions, particularly improved health and safety conditions, and wage equality with the light and power companies of Puebla, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosi, Morelos and Hidalgo.
Moreover, the workers wanted the recognition of their unions, and a respectful treatment from Leach.
In addition, Leach refused to meet and deal with the new union's representatives, which was also a violation of the labor Article. Through his actions Leach made it clear that he did not feel bound by Mexico's Constitutional labor law, and that he would do everything in his power to break the back of the Electrical Workers Union. Faced with the boss's intransigence, the workers took the matter to the Junta de Conciliacion y Arbitraje de Tampico the local labor board.
The President of the Junta required Leach to come to the labor board to discuss matters with the workers. Leach agreed to negotiate some issues, but refused to reconsider the wage cut or to rehire the fired workers. The Electrical Workers Union then began to consider calling a strike. A strike by the electrical workers would have stopped all electrical light and power in Tampico, not only darkening the city streets and many homes, but also halting the city and suburban street car system, then the principal form of transportation, and stopping the pumps for the city's water system.
An electrical workers' strike would have paralyzed the entire metropolitan area of one of Mexico's most important ports, moreover the port which served the Mexican oil industry at that time when oil was Mexico's biggest export and a major source of federal revenue. At that point the Governor of the State of Tamaulipas, Cesar Lopez de Lara, decided to intervene in the matter in an attempt 33 to avoid a strike.
Governor Lopez de Lara convened a meeting in Ciudad Victoria, the state capital, between the union representing the workers and Leach representing the Electric Company. The governor first met with the workers, then with Leach, and then with both together. The workers were conciliatory, and willing to accept a five percent wage cut, but Leach refused to consider any of the workers' demands.
With Leach and the union unable to reach an agreement, on September 1, the workers walked out on strike leaving Tampico and the suburbs of Dona Cecilia, Arbol Grande and Llanos del Golfo without light, transportation or water.
The governor and the city fire department made arrangements for emergency water supplies. On September 2, shortly after the strike broke out, Leach sent a telegram and letters to President Obregon, demanding that the Federal government send troops to protect the electric company because the workers had robbed and damaged property and buildings.
Leach justified the President's intervention because the Electric Company plant was located in the Cerro de Andonegui which was federal property. In his telegram Leach wrote that at midnight on September 1, some men had invaded the electric plant and used guns and clubs to drive out the workers, and then removed oil and water valves, shutting down the plant.
There had also been substantial damage to the property, the exact extent of which could not be determined, he asserted.
Leach claimed that the company's workers wanted to return to work but had been stopped by the violence of the outsiders. In a subsequent telegram on September 4, Leach claimed that the strikers 34 represented only workers who were stopping some from returning to work. President Obregon responded at once, ordering an investigation. The Governor and the local authorities immediately investigated, but, contrary's to Leach's claims, found that the strike had been completely peaceful and that there had been no damage to the plant whatsoever.
Leach's biggest mistake may have been lying to the president about the workers' alleged violence. It is one thing to disrepect a country's laws, and another to insult the intelligence of the president. The latter is a more serious matter in Mexico, and perhaps in most countries.
As soon as the strike broke out, the Electrical Workers Union began a campaign calling for the expulsion of Harvey S. Leach under Article The campaign begun in September of would continue into December, and eventually involved more than a score of labor unions and other organizations which sent telegrams to the President or the Minister of the Interior. Most of the telegrams came from unions, though others came from small business groups, political clubs and women's organizations.
They generally follow the same pattern, describing Leach as a "pernicious foreigner" who disrepected Mexican laws and asking the President therefore to expel him. The many telegrams to the President illustrate the dense web of connections amongst the unions and popular organizations in Tampico. As the unions sent off their telegrams, the strike meanwhile continued. Because of the strike's impact on the port and the population of the city, the National Chamber of Commerce of 35 Tampico called for the Governor's intervention.
The Governor was supposedly sick, but sent two representatives who on September 7 succeeded in negotiating the end of the strike. The key aspect of the settlement was that the issue of wages would be sent to a "mixed commission. The board was to reach a decision within fifteen days, during which time the Chamber of Commerce agreed to pay to the workers the difference between their former wages and their reduced wages.
It was decided that those points on which the parties could not agree would be referred to the Junta de Conciliacion y Arbitraje de Tampico, and then to the President of Mexico who would make the final award. Finally, general manager Leach agreed that there would be no reprisals against workers who had taken part in the strike.
The mixed commission rendered its decision on September 19, a decision not only favorable to the union, but praising the workers for their behavior throughout the strike, and chastising the company's general manager Harvey S. Leach and his assistant Alberto Aragon for taking advantage of every opportunity to create further difficulties.
The other matters, as indicated, had been referred to the Junta de Conciliacion y Arbitraje which also rendered its decision. Leach disagreed with the decision of the Junta, and appealed to President Obregon, but Obregon claimed he was sick and unable to take up the matter. Later Leach would 36 argue that because the state of Tamaulipas had never passed legislation implementing the Constitution's Article , and had never created a genuine Junta de Conciliacion y Arbitraje, therefore the decision was not binding.
In any case, Leach soon violated the decision of the mixed commission, and began to fire workers who had been involved in the strike: on September 15, he fired the first forty; on September 22, he fired another 36; on September 29, he fired yet another Meanwhile other workers had begun to organize, apparently in response to Leach's heavy-handed approach to labor relations.
On September 28, the tranviarios or streetcar workers formed a local union also affiliated with the Sindicato Mexicano de Electricistas SME. In response Leach began to fire streetcar workers as well as electricians. Eventually Leach fired a total of workers, refusing to pay the required indemnity to any of them. The result was to be expected: on October 8 the electrical workers went on strike again, now joined by the streetcar workers.
On October 10 Luis de la Tejera a leader of the streetcar workers union sent a telegram to Obregon reporting that one of their members had been murdered in the course of the strike. Obregon who still claimed to be sick, refused to intercede in the strike, but Governor Lopez de Lara did intervene, and at his request the workers once again called off the strike.
Leach under Article 33 "for his attitude of open hostility towards the Institutions of the Republic and the complete lack of respect for the authorities of the Nation. He added, "In addition to these many reasons there has also come to the official attention of this office [Secretary of the Interior of the State] a great popular demonstration asking for the expulsion of Mr.
Leach, which demonstrates how the people's passions have been excited against his intransigent attitude and open hostility to the Institutions of the Republic and his lack of respect for the authorities of the nation However, ambiguity in the contract language dealing with 38 seniority and indemnity for fired employees was interpreted by the company in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the workers.
As a result on November 28, the third strike in three months broke out. Once again, on December 4, , Governor Lopez de Lara invited both parties to meet in the state capital. Only this time, on the second day of negotiations, December 5th, Lopez de Lara read Harvey Leach an expulsion order from President Obregon.
Intransigent as ever, Leach told the newspapers that he would only leave the country with the force of arms. So it seemed that after several months of struggle by the end of December the workers had won an enormous victory, successfully pressuring the government to expel an egregious employer. But the workers victory was not all it appeared to be.
Only three days after Leach was ordered to leave the country, on December 7, , Adolfo de la Huerta issued a manifesto in the nearby Gulf Coast port of Veracruz and then rose in armed rebellion against the government of President Obregon. At one level all of this made the Leach case insignificant in comparison, but on another level, the treatment of Leach might become a factor affecting the government's attempt to deal with the rebellion. Obregon found himself facing a case which embodied the central contradiction of his regime, and the genius of his administration.
He could not afford to offend the electrical workers union for fear of driving it into the arms of de la Huerta, who had already garnered the support of many radical labor unions. But even more important, Obregon, who depended on 39 U. Leach must have recognized Obregon's dilemma when he put himself in touch with the U. The U. On December 26, Saenz informed Summerlin that President Obregon would permit Leach to return secretly to Mexico with the understanding that he could live anywhere he wanted, except in the city of Tampico.
The de la Huerta rebellion turned Tamaulipas and Tampico upside down. Some sources say that Ernesto Velasco, the leader of the Tampico electrical workers, also supported the de la Huerta rebellion. However, Obregon's General Lorenzo Munoz succeeded in keeping the electrical workers from going over to the rebel cause en masse.
The electrical workers took advantage of the situation to the extent possible and for a while managed the plant themselves. Later the government imposed first a civilian and then a military trusteeship on the company.
The electrical workers organized and struggled against both until February 20, when General Lorenzo Munoz brought the company and the workers to reach an agreement. In that agreement the workers won all of their demands, including the right of the union to be involved in hiring and firing employees, joint labor-management committees to 40 deal with all issues, and full pay for the workers for the pay lost during the strike.
Morones of the Regional Confederation of Mexican Workers CROM succeeded in taking control of the labor movement, and gradually defeated the wave of union militancy.
Unlike the other cases discussed here, the Leach case really became a national issue. In part this was due to Leach's intransigent attitude, but this was not just a psychological matter or a flaw of character. Leach had spent 33 years in Mexico apparently without any significant incident, and for nine years had managed the Tampico electrical company without a single strike. What happened in the s was that workers' demands for union recognition, and improved wages and conditions, accompanied by more radical calls for workers' control and even anarchist, syndicalist and Communist calls for workers' revolution came into direct conflict with foreign capital and foreign managers.
Some employers and bosses decided they had to draw the line and take a stand for capital, which is precisely what Leach did. Moreover Leach did so in an industry and a location which was both geographically and strategically central to the Mexican economy and Mexican politics. Tampico stood at the center of the oil industry, and oil was the crux of years of conflict between Mexico and the United States and England.
Veracruz and more recently Tampico were Mexico's major Gulf Coast ports, and therefore the inevitable scene of foreign invasions and troop 41 landings. Tampico was also a center of the radical labor movement, particularly among oil workers, stevedores and electrical workers. All of these factors made Tampico a strategic location. Had Leach been the manager of the light and power company of, say, Guanajuato, these matters would likely never have become so controversial.
In Tampico, because of its importance for the oil industry, the conflict between Leach and the union tended to drive the union and the state into alliance. Both Leach and the union tended to look toward the president to resolve the problems, which in this case at least were not only local problems but also national problems, since they revolved around the strategic oil port.
Driven by the logic of events, the President finally overcame all of his reluctance and expelled Leach. But precisely because of the strategic importance of Tampico and of oil and of the United States, once the de la Huerta uprising occurred, the President had to maintain good relations with the United States and permitted Leach to return secretly.
The Prelude to the Nationalization of the Oil Industry The Mexican workers of the s and early s who brought the Article 33 cases against their bosses not only played a role in the struggles of their unions against the employers, but also helped to shape the Mexican nationalist state, and influenced foreign policy, particularly U.
The workers Article 33 cases tended to strengthen the state and the presidency in its dealing with foreign capital and other 42 governments. These struggles of Mexican workers against their employers, mediated by the Mexican state, while interesting and important in their own right, take on additional significance when seen as forerunners of the President Lazaro Cardenas' expropriation and subsequent nationalization of the petroleum industry.
The famous expropriation of the oil industry obeyed a logic quite similar to that of the Article 33 case. When foreign employers refused to meet the workers' demands, the union turned to the national executive, in this case not only to expel the boss, but to eliminate the corporate employer by expropriating and nationalizing his property.
The story, of course, is well known. Since the outbreak of the Mexican Revolution in there had been a struggle between the Mexican revolutionary governments and the British and American oil companies. Presidents Carranza and Obregon had attempted to strengthen the control of the Mexican government over the oil industry at the expense of foreign-owned oil companies. The oil workers and their unions provided both a pretext and a real motive for the nationalization of the industry.
The oil workers' unions also became a driving force demanding the nationalization of the industry. The unions then made demands for wages increases from the oil companies before the Junta Federal de Conciliacion y Arbitraje labor board. The oil workers conflict thus became "the determining factor in the new confrontation" between the state and the oil companies.
The labor board decision then went to the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice which ruled that the labor board decision was constitutional and should be obeyed.
At that point President Lazaro Cardenas intervened and on March 18, expropriated and nationalized the foreign-owned oil companies, arguing that it was necessary to do so to protect Mexico's national sovereignty. I kept wanting the story to take flight, but it seemed like specific timelines and details held it down. So how far do you bend your own values to lead them in the best possible direction? I would assume reading the novel in Spanish is a different experience entirely.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:. It is magtin story of a young, educated, talented member of the upper classes in revolutionary Mexico, his adventures and involvement and interaction with important historical figures.
It is historical fiction wr I read this a while ago and thought that I had put in a fast review. Guzman held many different posts before and after the Revolution, he was a politian and a bureaucrat. Mariana rated sefpiente liked it Feb 07, Nick rated it liked it Oct 20, Natalia rated it really liked it Oct 28, Martin Luis Guzman was there as a civilian. Paloma Adriano rated it it was amazing Nov 11, Marfin Melmoth rated it really liked it Aug 13, Mexican journalists Male journalists Mexican novelists Male novelists People of the Mexican Revolution People from Chihuahua City births deaths 20th-century novelists mzrtin Mexican male writers Mexican writer stubs Journalist stubs Mexican media stubs.
Susana Quintanilla spoke about her love of books — both their literary content and the physical entities, the paper, the typography and all they entail.