Search

In this article I note that one important result of the last several decades of social upheaval in Nicaragua has been the emergence of active feminist and antifeminist movements. Since there has been significant analysis of feminist organizing, and very little on antifeminist organizing, the focus of this paper is antifeminism. I argue that the emergence of this backlash movement can be explained in terms of both domestic and global politics. From a domestic perspective, the movement can be seen as a reaction against the Sandinista revolution and its aftermath. From a global perspective, it is a response to what antifeminists see as the challenges of globalization such as feminist successes in international development agencies and the loss of sovereignty due to neoliberalism. It is also a response to the opportunities provided by globalization such as the emergence of a global antifeminist movement with strong links to like-minded organizations in other countries. This article analyzes the historical roots of the movement and then considers the worldviews of the participants in the movement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the politics of naming Sandinistas in Nicaragua during two periods of intense political and military struggle: the era of the Sandinista Revolution and Contra War (1979 - 90) and the era of the Sandino rebellion against the US Marines and Nicaraguan National Guard (1927 - 36). Focusing principally on the rhetorical and narrative strategies used by the USA and its Nicaraguan allies, the article explores the delegitimising master narratives concocted by these dominant groups and the efforts of two generations of Sandinistas and their allies to challenge these narratives. It argues that the politics of naming was embedded within a larger politics of storytelling, and that effective challenges to dominant groups' epithets must be grounded in historically informed challenges to the larger narratives from which they spring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article chronicles the state of politics in Nicaragua from 1996 to 2001. According to the author, Nicaragua began to receive international attention once again when Daniel Ortega announced his intention to run for the presidency in the 2001 election. He indicates that the return of a man with links to terrorists prompted a high level of diplomatic intervention. He also finds that the Liberals had to overcome their own track record during the campaign. Moreover, the author discusses the ability of the Sandinista Front for National Liberation to remain a power broker.

Focuses on the economic and counterrevolutionary activities in Nicaragua and the effects of the U.S. intervention for local politics. Absence of a well-organized alternative source of political power; Consolidation of political power by the reigning Sandinista National Liberation Front (FSLN); Development of FSLN-sponsored organizations and their influence on politics; Effects of the counterrevolution for politics and the economy; Political relations between Nicaragua and the U.S.

The article discusses the implications of the elections and U.S. intervention in Nicaragua. According to the author, the elections show the extent to which important sectors of the bourgeoisie have opposed the Sandinista regime and attempted to avoid the realization of the revolutionary project of the Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional (FSLN). The article also demonstrates how this internal opposition to the revolutionary process is linked to the external forces of armed counterrevolution and the interventionist project of the U.S.

An interview with Sergio Ramirez Mercado, one of the members of the governing junta of the revolutionary government of Nicaragua, is presented. When asked why the Nicaraguan revolution is called a Sandinista revolution, he states that one of the simplest ways to understand Sandinismo is to connect it with the historical confrontation that has existed between the U.S. and Nicaragua. He adds that there is no alternative for them but to maintain relations with the U.S.

The article offers information on the resolution against U. S. intervention in Nicaragua which was proposed at the Tenth National Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) held in Washington, D. C. on March 4 to 6, 1982. The resolution maintained that the U. S. government, acting in contradiction to the provisions of the Neutrality Act, has allowed military training camps of Nicaraguan exiles in Florida and California. Relative to this, the association asks that the U. S. government should respect the sovereignty of the Nicaraguan people and nation, and the U. S. should close the training camps of Nicaraguan exiles within the U. S. pursuant to the provisions of the Neutrality Act.