The Virgin of Guadalupe story again joins the Christmas season as her coming initially to the indigenous people of Mexico and later to the rest of the world is celebrated on the 12th of December. The story actually begins on December 9, 1531 when she first appeared to Juan Diego on a hill called Tepeyac in northern Mexico City.

The words in the exchange between the Virgin and Juan Diego and his uncle Juan Bernardino were in Nahuatl which was the national language of the Aztec Empire. The use of that language put into motion a world view that manifests an important element of Mexican identity and culture as well as colors its belief system.

Associated with this world view is the fact that the Marian apparitions occurred on and around Mount Tepeyac, a hill on which the original chapel to the Virgin was con- structed and a place that sits next to the two Basilicas erected in her honor over the years.

Mount Tepeyac was also the location of a temple to Coatlicue, the Aztec Mother goddess.

Coatlicue, the ancient Mother “is represented as a woman wearing a skirt of writhing snakes and necklace made of human hearts, hands, and skulls. Her feet and hands are adorned with claws and her breasts are depicted as hanging flaccid from pregnancy. Her face is formed by two facing serpents, which represents blood spurting from her neck after decapitation.”

Another version of the pre-Colombian mother figure is Tonantzin who also forms part of the Guadalupe story. A Mexican believer would say that “Tonantzin, in the Nahuatl language, means Our Mother, and it is the name we give to the loving archetype of Mother Earth, who gives us every- thing, who supports our steps, and who receivers tribute and veneration from our ancestors through agriculture and fertility rituals.”

Why the two radically opposed representations of the pre-Colombian mother figure? Eric Neumann the author of The Great Mother (1955) explains that the mother archetype is both Good and Terrible. She plays both roles in the lives of individuals and the history of a people depending on the location in their personal or historical life cycles.

The time of the Terrible Mother is one of division, decadence and violence. The time of the Good Mother involves growth, development and reaching for new heights.

The Aztec Empire came together through war, violence and rituals of blood sacrifice. That ugliness is portrayed by the appearance of Coatlicue.

Tonantzin dates to a more classical era of building new communities and physical structures as well as searching for inspiration in what was possible. It is that role that the Virgin of Guadalupe came to occupy.

The miracle at Tepeyac provided the opportunity for a new beginning for the people of New Spain. The fact that the appearance of the Virgin of Guadalupe was soon associated with Tonantzin confirms the positive outlook the people had in their belief system and religious future.

The fact is that the Spanish continued the dislocation and decadence associated with the Aztecs. Yet, the seeds of the new covenant in time gave fruit as the standard of the Virgin of Guadalupe had the most prominent place in the march to independence.

The story of the Virgin of Guadalupe is one that gave hope and expectations of a better life for a colonized people. It continues to do so as a symbol of great progress for those that seek to construct a better life without losing their identity with their origins.

The views expressed by David Conde are not necessarily the views of laVozColorado. Comments and responses may be directed to news@lavozcolorado.com.

The October 7th Palestinian hostage-taking under the leadership of Hamas was preceded by a massacre of over 1200 Israelis and other foreign guests during holiday events. In this case of terrorism, both were political acts, and yet, there has to be a difference between the mass killing of innocent men, women and children and the taking of prisoners for some sort of exchange.

Many countries addressed these terrorist acts in national and international laws. The United States has legislation on kidnapping, hostage-taking and the Patriot Act to deal with these kind of criminals. Hostage-taking goes back a long way in the history of the world. Hostages were part of wars and conquests as those that lost and became vassals to the winners, many times, had to provide important members of their families to be taken away as a guarantee of good faith and loyalty. The Romans were prominent in these kind of acts as they took elite members of newly conquered people and countries back to Rome as an assurance against future rebellion. The Romans especially liked to take royal children in order to educate them in the ways of the Empire and “know how to rule” when their time came.

The Chinese Han and Tang dynasties did much of the same thing to achieve their goals of conquests and reign. The practice continued in earnest through the Middle Ages and became a less important part of war as time went on.

The 20th Century saw the hostage issue become a key subject in regard to international rules of war. The Hague Convention on Land Warfare in 1907, followed later by the Geneva Convention and the United Nations developed laws that consider hostage-taking a crime and an act of terrorism.

The circumstances surrounding the acts of violence and hostage-taking by terrorists has brought Israel to declare war on the Gaza Hamas government. This, in turn, has triggered an overwhelming military response against Gaza that appears to be destroying everything in its path.

Israel seems to see Gaza as a “separate nation” whose government is an existential threat to its existence and therefore, needs to be eliminated. World opinion however, sees the perpetrators of the massacre and hostage-taking as either heroes fighting Israeli oppression or as a bunch of organized criminals doing terrible things but that, nevertheless, remain separate and apart from the rest of the Gaza citizens.

Ironically, the United States is undergoing a similar division of opinion with regard to violence and insurrection seen by some as patriotic acts and by others as treason or gross criminal behavior. What most agree on is that this form of violence amounts to terrorism.

The question for Israel and the world is not that Hamas did or did not commit grievous crimes against a people and a nation, because they did. The question involves the remedy and its consequences.

Normally, the investigation and prosecution of crimes by civilians are the preview of judicial systems and crimes by soldiers are the responsibility of the military. What happens however, when crimes are committed by militias, paramilitary groups or civilians acting in a military role?

This is the dilemma faced by those seeking to apply a just remedy to the criminals that perpetrated the massacre and hostage-taking on October 7th in southern Israel.

The solution offered by the Israeli Defense Force is to kill and destroy the enemy and its infrastructure with overwhelming power. But there is also a large body of opinion that wants justice with less lethality.

The views expressed by David Conde are not necessarily the views of laVozColorado. Comments and responses may be directed to news@lavozcolorado.com.