In September of 1971 300,000 people culminated in a small town in southern Mexico in anticipation of what would come to be known as Mexican Woodstock or Festival de Rock y Ruedas Avandaro. What had started off as a one-day motorcycle show with a 2 band set list, eventually spiraled into a 2 day, 18 act concert with motorcycles left by the wayside. This festival was unlike anything the citizens of Mexico had seen before and ultimately changed the musical landscape across the country.
Towards the end of the 60s, Mexico faced political and civil unrest. The turbulence culminated in the Massacre of Tlaltelolco in 1968 and the Corpus Christi Massacre in 1971, where the government brutally killed over 400 civilian protesters and wounded over 1,300 others. In the wake of these events, a new movement was created called La Onda Chicano.
La Onda was a “multidisciplinary artistic movement created in Mexico by artists and intellectuals as part of the worldwide waves of the counterculture of the 1960s and the avant-garde.” The goal of this movement was to address social issues at the time, given the tight ruling and oppression from the current administration – the PRI party.
One of the strong oppositional tools La Onda used was music. With the insurgence of British and American influences, the rock scene slowly began to emerge in pockets throughout Mexico. Bands such as El Ritual, Los Dug Dugs, and El Tri helped spread the messages of La Onda into the minds of the dissatisfied youth, thereby spreading the countercultural movement.
This social revolt reached a crescendo at the event which formally came to be known as Avandaro – a two day long rock festival held in southern Mexico. While many dispute the actual number, organizers and social investigators alike claim that over 300,000 people were in attendance. In this way, the festival escaped its original purpose as a way for local motorcyclists to show off their bikes, and became a full-fledged Mexican Woodstock.
Filled with open drug use, nudity, arts, and the distribution of radical new social ideology, the oppressive government feared for their control over Mexican society and after the first few hours of the festival, ordered for the termination of any live feeds of the concert. Moreover, the government banned concerts, radio broadcasts and recording of rock music, and went so far as to order the media to disparage the culture surrounding rock and roll as “incorrect, grotesque, and immoral”.
This tactic of suppression was met with much success, as the sounds of rock music quickly faded under the much less inflammatory tones of rancheras, polka, and other traditional Mexican music. Nonetheless, rock continued on, albeit underground in locations dubbed “hoyos funky” or Funky Holes.
Abandoned factories, farmlands, and even some homes were used to subvert the governments censorship and host rock concerts. These shows featured prominent acts from the time including Toncho Pilatos, La Revolución de Emiliano Zapata, and Javier Batiz and could host up to 20,000 people. Like Avandaro, these venues typically served alcoholic beverages, were open to drug use and informally charged entry.
While some bands continued to play their sound in these Hoyos Funky, the damage had been dealt and many acts at the time moved on to play more commercial and less repressed music or quit outright. The few surviving rock recordings of the counterculture movement in Mexico have gone on to critical acclaim, with many of these records being sought after by collectors.
It is certain that the governments oppression at this pivotal time in Mexican history lead to many other social injustices down the road, but thankfully, variation in Mexican music has been making a recovery and is in full bloom today.
Thank you for reading.
A compilation of some of the artists mentioned in this article can be found here:
For more information about Avandaro, La Onda Chicano, and other historical Mexican events, visit these resources:
Credit for the photos used here-in:
Amid aggressive uproar from Democrats and Republicans alike, President Trump has signed an executive order to end the controversial practice of separating families who enter the US illegally. The “zero-tolerance” policy issued by Attorney General Jeff Sessions is still in place, though this provision aims to “maintain family unity by detaining alien families together where appropriate and consistent with law and available resources.”
While the order may temporarily calm the objections of the new policy’s opponents, the US is still begging for a larger resolve, with calls from both parties to the Administration to end the zero-tolerance policy all-together.
The Administration, though, used the executive order to shift responsibility for the current immigration dilemma into the hands of Congress:
“It is unfortunate that Congress’s failure to act and court orders have put the Administration in the position of separating alien families to effectively enforce the law.”
In response, aides in both the House and the Senate have confirmed that they had not reached a suitable judicial compromise. With the House vote on two immigration bills – which was scheduled for yesterday – pushed back to next week, the issue will quite possibly remain in legislative limbo.
As the issue and search for a solution continue, the new executive order could encounter legal challenges. Although the order states that Sessions request a US district court to amend the agreement, advocates could still argue that keeping children in detention centers is in direct violation of the 1997 decision known as the Flores Settlement.
As Flores v Sessions takes place, the 9th Circuit will most likely find a case to side against Trump in favor of a catch and release policy, similar to the one under the Obama Administration. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, Trump may have a battle ahead of him, with Minority Leader Charles Schumer leading the charge.
Though the outcome of the Administrations executive order is yet to be seen, one thing remains certain, asylum seekers have one less thing to worry about as they sleep tonight.
Immigration reform has been a long-standing issue for the United States. Recently, measures to counteract the climactic wave of immigrants from Central America have come under bipartisan fire for their flagrant mistreatment of those immigrating. A zero-tolerance policy which was issued by the current administration last April has led to the separation of over 2000 children from their parents, most of which are being kept in makeshift shelters under poor conditions.
Though the separation of illegally-crossing families has been a historical practice in the United States, the injustice lies in the substandard treatment of these individuals since the enactment of the latest policy.
In the past, if a family was caught illegally crossing the border and refused to voluntarily return, they would be in obstruction of the law and sent to separate detention centers – one for the minors and one for the adults. Typically, this was done for the safety of the children as most detention centers are general-purpose jails. Another reason, and one that prompts the current policy, is that separating families encourages people to voluntarily deport, which ends up saving the US government a lot of resources and expedites the immigration process for those they believe are actually in need of asylum.
This practice has not changed but due to referendums in immigration policy made by the Obama Administration, immigrants are approaching their entry differently. Whereas before, most Central American immigrants turned back after being denied entry, the Obama administration began to allow most anyone who made an asylum claim entry into the US as long as they had a friend or family to stay with. This resulted in a rise in asylum claims from immigrants caught at the border, though the validity of these claims remains to be verified.
To counteract the influx of asylum claims, the new policy by the Trump Administration has granted border patrol officers the discretion to verify or deny these claims right at the border. If the claims are verified, the immigrants can proceed under the same policies as enacted by the Obama Administration, if not, and if they crossed illegally, they are placed in a detention center while they await the verification of their asylum claim through the legal system.
Those denied a claim can abandon their journey to entry and not be put in detention centers. They are either housed in a cell until transportation back to their home country can be arranged or are allowed to turn and walk or drive back of their own accord.
Herein lies the problem. While border patrol agents are following protocol, they are doing so haphazardly. They are obstructing investigation into the living conditions of those housed in these makeshift facilities, keeping detainees indefinitely, and threatening and following through with violence, thereby dehumanizing and stripping these immigrants of their civil liberties.
Initially separating children from the adults they came with is valid – border patrol officers should determine if these children are being abused by their company, or worse yet, smuggled into the sex trade – but indefinite separation is cruel and unjust. Using this as a scare tactic to reduce illegal immigration is counterproductive and doesn’t tackle the real issue at hand – as one US senator aptly stated “this bad new policy is a reaction against a bad, old policy.” What needs to change is not how we reduce and try to control immigration (as most of the latest band of immigrants have shown they are willing to take appropriate measures to legally cross into the US), but how we tackle immigration policy.