THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH

 The 1968 Olympics and Its Future Areas
              of Research

The XIX Olympiad is an important period in Mexico’s recent history as
well as in the development of sports mega-events. The 1968 Olympic
Games, as well as the 1970 and 1986 Football World Cups have not
received enough scholarly attention. Sport and its related activities tend to
be overlooked and labelled as mundane or not worthy of attention beyond
the sportsgrounds. Sports can even be considered as a distraction.
Nonetheless, in this book I argue that the everyday engagement related to
sports, whether participating/supporting or rejecting these practices, is
extremely political and has diverse ramifications, not only in what is known
as formal politics or representative democracy, but also in the way the
people live and experience their community and the way they move and
inhabit the city.
    The Mexican government used the 1968 Olympic Games as an ambi-
tious state-craft and cultural diplomacy strategy. The IOC used Mexico
1968 to expand Olympism to developing countries, among them, the
newly formed ones. The election of Mexico was part of the Cold War
struggles. Nevertheless, the importance of the XIX Olympiad transcended
the institutional and international objectives. From 1963 to 1968, and
even beyond, the XIX Olympic Games were central in the discussions of
citizenship, modernity, security, surveillance, representation, ethnic diver-
sity and the management of emotions, among others.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature              239
Switzerland AG 2021
A. Elías, Mexico City’s Olympic Games, Palgrave Studies in Sport
and Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74111-2

240   THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH

    The projects to host the XIX Olympic Games in Mexico City began
thanks to the shared goals between the IOC and the Mexican govern-
ment. The former was the safe keeper of the Olympic Games since the end
of the XIX century and used the Olympic Charter to ensure that the Games
continued their ‘tradition.’ During the sixties, the Cold War struggles and
the emergence of new countries were some of the biggest challenges for
the IOC. The Mexican government sought to use the Olympic Games as
a watershed moment in their state formation exercises to show the world
that the country was modern and ready to be included among the devel-
oped countries. As such, the Mexican government created a bid tailored
to the IOC interests at the time and promoted an image of progress to
show the world. The Olympic bid showed compliance with the Olympic
standards developed by the members of the IOC, but also portrayed the
uniqueness as a developing, Spanish-speaking country with a rich indige-
nous heritage.
    The data I collected for this book suggests that IOC members chose
Mexico City as the host destination, instead of Detroit, Lyon or Buenos
Aires, not so much because of the economic growth and political stability
that the Mexican government officials promoted, but mostly because the
IOC members associated Mexico as a small-scale country. The IOC mem-
bers thought that if a developing country organised the Games, it would
benefit the IOC in their organisation of international sport. Although it
must be said that without economic growth and certain political stability,
Mexico would probably not have been considered at all.
    The Olympic Games were not given as a prize to Mexico City. The vote
seemed to be based on the role Mexico would play as a ‘small-scale nation’
that would inspire others in accepting and advancing Olympism. The deci-
sion had geopolitical repercussions in the Cold War struggles. Mexico was
not explicitly aligned with the soviet nor the capitalist block, and this posi-
tion benefitted the Mexican bid in the 1963 IOC elections. Choosing
Mexico City was a way to balance the struggles between the soviet and
capitalist bloc, while it also served as a mechanism to fight the threat that
GANEFO represented for IOC’s monopoly of sport.
    Mexico City’s citizenry did not have a say in the discussions during the
bidding or the election process (December 1962–October 1963).
Nevertheless, once Mexico City was elected host of the XIX Olympic
Games and the IOC and government started to implement their plans, the
citizenry engaged with the institutional projects. The citizenry’s day-to-­
day life was altered significantly and individuals took a broad range of

THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH      241

positionings regarding the changes brought with the Olympics. At first,
there was no great mobilisation to resist how the government prepared
the capital and the country for the Games, or even against how the gov-
ernment represented Mexico during the Olympiad.
    The Mexican government represented Mexico as a culturally rich mes-
tizo country that was delivering economic and social advances to its popu-
lation in peace. Nonetheless, the student protests that began in July 1968
evidenced that a sector of Mexico City’s citizenry contended these proj-
ects and ideas. The XIX Olympiad was a centralist project for the Mexican
capital, but the government saw it as a project that benefitted the whole
country. Even though I did not cover this question in this book, further
research would really benefit from the analyses of how power groups from
Monterrey, Guadalajara, Puebla and other major cities perceived Mexico
City being elected as a host destination of the 1968 Olympic Games.
    The student protests were significant in the analysis of the XIX Olympiad
because they challenged how the IOC envisioned the Games and how the
Mexican government wanted to represent the country. The student pro-
tests did not begin as an opposition to the Olympics. The students
demanded the end of governmental repression and showed a desire to
change government-citizenry relations. Nonetheless, the students engaged
with the Olympics and its associated values.
    The artwork, the chants and the banners that the students produced all
engaged with the government’s state formation projects regarding the
Olympiad, and questioned IOC’s interference in Mexico City’s political
issues. For the protesting students and their sympathisers, the Olympics
were a façade. The protesters criticised the government for presenting a
false image of Mexico to the world and for not addressing the socio-­
political issues and the urgent changes. The students did not agree with
how the government branded the country during the Olympiad because
the representation did not match the reality, especially in securing peace.
    Another line of future research might entail looking closer at the stu-
dents’ flyers and the government’s speeches and declarations as corpora. A
comparison could show how each of them referred to themselves and to
their conflicting counterpart. The material could also be analysed to look
at the references they made to the Olympics. With my review of the
sources, it is possible to advance the hypothesis that the self-identification
as nationalist discredited the actions from the opposing political side.
Furthermore, the artwork of the students can be historicised. It would be
important to analyse how the organising committee’s artwork was

242   THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH

appropriated, replicated and used for the advancement of the student
demands. This analysis would also benefit by including other artistic
expressions such as songs, stage plays and urban performances.
   The IOC and the government had the common interest of silencing
protests during the Olympic Games because the protests questioned their
projects and brought ‘negative’ attention to the country that hosted the
Games. The IOC and government did not want resistance and defiance to
take the leading role during the Olympics. For the IOC, the Olympic
Games were meant to be peaceful sportive competitions that fostered the
advancement of humankind, while the Mexican government was inter-
ested in showing that Mexico was a peaceful and modernised, and was
ready to undertake large-scale projects as a developed country. The IOC
exercised pressure to secure the Games free of political demonstrations
and the government used repression to put an end to these. Both the
repression and IOC’s constant call to end the protests for the sake of
advancing Olympism were significant in reducing the large-scale protests.
Nonetheless, the nationalism of students and of Mexico City’s citizenry in
general also contributed to find other forms of political expressions.
   On 12 October, the opening ceremony took place according to plan
despite the fears that the students would use the opening ceremony or the
sportive competitions to take a stand. The lack of protests as the govern-
ment expected (taking to the streets and distributing contentious material
in the city) was a result of fear and nationalism, as well as of the reiteration
that the Olympics were an ‘oasis,’ a festive period where one had to
embrace the sportive competitions and forget about the issues in the world.
   Those that supported the government and the way the IOC managed
the Olympic Games seemed to accept the festive side of the event and
participated in the event as planned by the government. These groups did
not explicitly acknowledge the violent repression that the government
implemented with the army and the police. In contrast, the students and
their sympathisers challenged these settings promoted by the government
and the IOC in alternative forms. Instead of taking to the streets or print-
ing material, they remained silent to communicate their dissatisfaction and
resistance to how the IOC and government tried to craft Mexico and the
Olympics. Remaining silent and not participating in the event was a result
of fear of repression, but also to show the government that they did not
consider the Olympics as a festive period that all Mexicans had to cele-
brate. The engagement with the Olympics highlighted different political
positionings by the citizenry.

THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH      243

    The government’s national branding was part of a discursive continuity
of progresses in the path to modernisation which had the goal of being
included in the list of developed countries, but it was also a discourse that
showed uniqueness on a global scale. Those who supported the govern-
ment and embraced the Olympic Games seemed to mirror the govern-
ment and IOC because they knew that Mexico was in the spotlight and if
they provided a good image, they thought that Mexico would benefit in
socioeconomic terms. The supporters adopted a hospitable and friendly
attitude because they too considered that these were features that the
developing countries were lacking. Accepting the Olympic Games was an
attempt to show that the country was as modern as the countries they
aspired to be, but also a form of showing that Mexico held a unique place
in the world. The actions taken to transmit this were part of a perfor-
mance, but also of performativity. For many, tradition and hospitality were
part of a long cultural tradition in Mexico.
    The Olympic Games did not see any large-scale protests, but this did
not mean that they were free of political demonstrations. Many attendees
jeered and whistled at the president during the Olympic Games, while a
few people painted messages of resistance on some of the main avenues in
Mexico City. The actions of Tommie Smith, John Carlos and Peter
Norman showed that it was possible to challenge the ideal behaviour of
joy and festivity during the Games. Their demonstration was heavily criti-
cised by the IOC, but the Mexican government did not condemn it as
harshly because it did not represent a threat to Mexico’s image.
    The prohibition of political demonstrations during the Olympics was a
result of individual and collective efforts to discredit and even penalise
them, but some athletes challenged these settings. The ‘black power
salute’ showed that the IOC and government had different interests and
ways of implementing them despite their apparent homogenous alliance
held beforehand. The ‘black power salute’ also gathered the groups that
did not agree with the ideal setting that the IOC and government had
tried to create. The unsatisfied groups celebrated the athletes’ protest,
despite the own objectives of the black athletes.
    The XIX Olympiad came to an end on 27 October 1968, reshaping the
everyday life of the Mexican government, the IOC and Mexico City’s citi-
zenry. After the closing ceremony, the IOC tried to avoid domestic politi-
cal demonstrations in subsequent Olympic Games and altered the charter
to reduce the chances of these taking place. The Mexican government
kept trying to display Mexico as modern and show that it was ready to

244   THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH

become a developed country. Concerning the citizenry, some groups
engaged more actively in the representative and corporative structure of
the country, while others discredited these forms and joined guerrilla
movements in Guerrero and Mexico City, among others. The events dur-
ing the XIX Olympiad were not disconnected from social, economic and
cultural struggles. The Olympiad formed part of the continuum of the
government to promote the country as developed, while they also reflected
the political issues of the host destination in a local and global scale.
    The Olympic Games appeared as an orchestrated and homogeneous
project to develop certain goals. Nonetheless, these were far from being
so. Even though the IOC and the Mexican government possessed most of
the channels to control interpretations and the latter even implemented
violence to ensure their interests, the citizenry’s everyday actions had a
repercussion on how the broad-scale projects were implemented. The
breaking down of the Olympiad in everyday experiences shows that the
citizenry engaged politically in different ways and showed it through
mediums such as taking to the streets to show opposition, but also through
collective emotions such as joy and festivity to show allegiance with the
state formation exercises and the idea that the Olympics were a positive
force for improving the conditions around the world.
    The study of the XIX Olympiad is relevant, among other reasons,
because it gives insights into analysing recent mega-events such as those
that have taken place in Brazil, China, Russia and South Africa, among
others. The similarities that can be traced among these countries come in
terms of how each of the governments intended to use the mega-events to
promote their country’s economic growth and display ‘national’ positive
values to the world.
    When Rio was elected host of the 2016 Olympic Games, Luiz Inácio
Lula da Silva, the Brazilian president at the time, declared that the election
of Brazil proved that Brazil was not ‘a second-rate country’, but part of
the ‘first.’ For Lula da Silva, the election of Rio de Janeiro was a victory,
especially because the IOC members chose it instead of Chicago, which
had a strong backup from Barrack Obama. The Brazilian case was even
more interesting, because, like Mexico, Brazil organised the Olympic
Games and the World Cup within a two-year period. The Brazilian gov-
ernment repeated a similar strategy to what the Mexican government had
done for 1968 and 1970. The Brazilian mega-events were meant to prove
that Brazil was a developed, inclusive and modern country.

THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH     245

   The Mexican and Brazilian mega-events had many similarities. One of
the most relevant ones was the governmental discourse that the mega-­
events brought ‘visibility’ to the countries and they were a chance to show
the progresses to the world. For instance, when Rio de Janeiro was
announced as the host destination for the 2016 Games, Lula da Silva
declared that the IOC was ‘expanding the Games to new continents,’ and
it was a chance to show the world that the Brazilian governments had the
ability to govern the country. This comment was a response to the stereo-
types of Latin American countries as having unstable governments and
economies. Interestingly, the Brazilian government did not label the event
as a Latin American destination, and thus relating themselves with Mexico
68. Instead, the Brazilian organising committee labelled the Olympics as
the first in South America.
   The Brazilian government tried to communicate an idea of Brazil to the
world. In their campaigns, they showed that Brazil was a melting pot of
positive values where anything was possible. Nevertheless, many support-
ers of the government, as well as the opposition, criticised this attempt to
brand Brazil as a prosperous and problem-free country. The raise in trans-
port fares made many people to take to the streets in 2013 just a few weeks
before the Confederations Cup. Hundreds of thousands of people dem-
onstrated against the rise in transport fees, while they also engaged with
the mega-events and criticised the government’s investment and the way
they were branding the country, among other topics. As it happened with
Mexico, the Brazilian government did not want the protests to continue
while the events took place and used co-optation and coercion to stop the
protests. Nevertheless, the government also negotiated with some protest-
ers to reduce the magnitude of the demonstrations. The repression did
not reach the levels of Tlatelolco, but it was still brutal. Furthermore, the
policing and surveillance mechanisms of the mega-events had escalated,
and for these mega-events of the twenty-first century, it was even more
drastic.
   Brazil and Mexico, however, have not been the only ones to promote a
universalist interpretation of the Games. The Brazilian and Mexican
Organising Committees appealed to the citizenry to display embracing
attitudes towards different cultures just like many host destinations that
preceded. In the website of the International Olympic Committee, the
Organising Committee of Rio 2016 claimed that their organisation of the
Olympics was a project of ‘All Brazilians uniting to deliver the greatest
festival on earth and proudly advancing our national promise of progress.’

246   THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH

The message was not different from that expressed in Mexico in 1968 or
China in 2008. The ‘everything is possible in peace’ of Mexico 1968 was
not so distant from the slogan: ‘one world’ promoted by the Rio 2016
Organising Committee, ‘One World, One Dream’ for Beijing 2008 or
even the ‘All in one rhythm’ of the 2014 World Cup.
   Although the message of unity promoted by the Olympic Games
appears as a positive one, it is problematic given how the governments,
IOC and international partners apply these ideas to each of the mega-­
events. The latter have created a simplified unification. These groups have
also streamlined the business model of their events, making it a very profit-
able business for them; however, since the host destinations are not con-
sidered in most of the decision making, different groups have been
marginalised or excluded from their cities and have also felt their sense of
belonging threatened.
   Citizens have criticised and demonstrated against how the money for
the mega-events is spent, how the investments are made and how the
country is represented, among other reasons. Given these conditions, it is
common to observe similar negative reactions to mega-events in develop-
ing countries such as Brazil, Russia and China. In these countries, differ-
ent groups engage in contentious politics because their everyday lives are
transformed during the mega-event, and experience changes before and
after the Games.
   It is important to highlight that the problematics of mega-events is not
exclusive to developing countries. It is not only a matter of detecting the
similarities between Mexico and Brazil, or other developing countries, but
recognising that the actors behind the mega-event projects, the ways in
which they implement them and the struggles behind the attempt to inte-
grate different groups as a ‘unified’ whole for the sake of one event are
deeply problematic regardless of the socioeconomic conditions of a
country.
   There is a need to look at mega-events beyond economic variables
because beyond these measures, it is fundamental to analyse the everyday
political engagement of the population. This does not mean that eco-
nomic costs are irrelevant or secondary; what I argue is that the nation-­
building projects that are implemented during mega-events have an
immediate political repercussion on the actors involved and specifically on
the host destination. Organising Committees in developed countries such
as the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and the United States, among
others, have also appealed to nationalism, affecting culture and politics.

THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH         247

   Mega-events can exclude, displace and have a negative repercussion on
certain groups in the host destinations. The Olympic Games and the
World Cups appeal to a ‘virtuous’ form of nationalism that local govern-
ments feel obliged to defend. The local governments and associated part-
ners tend to implement these enhanced collective identities through
co-optation and coercion. These dynamics tend to exclude certain groups
in the state formation exercises, and it is necessary to understand the
groups that are reacting when their everyday lives are threatened, espe-
cially those groups that are underrepresented, silenced or repressed.
   It is important to not only look at flaws and unmet expectations of
mega-events in developing countries, but also to analyse the lack of pro-
tests, the apparent silences, and the discussions on the organisation of all
these events regardless of the economic development. Mega-events com-
prise a whole range of projects that are implemented over several years and
should not be overlooked. The projects associated with the mega-events
involve a broad range of actors with diverse interests which are not always
in accordance with other individuals or groups. The conflicts and alliances
among the involved actors extend for several years and change everyday
lives and perceptions. Diverse groups within the citizenry experience the
outcomes of these discussions beyond the mega-event period but can also
be significant actors in the implementation of mega-events.
   The simplification of cultural activities as distractions or activities exter-
nal to socio-political and economic struggles is not useful. When analysing
these expressions, it is necessary to look at the interested groups behind
the project, how they implemented it and how the target population
engaged with the changes. In this sense, the historiography of contempo-
rary Mexico is lacking an analysis of the two World Cups organised in
Mexico City and large-scale musical festivals such as Cumbre Tajín or Vive
Latino, among others. The same applies to Latin America and the
Caribbean.
   The myriad campaigns implemented in large-scale events provide an
opportunity to go beyond the determinist cultural interpretations about
what the government and the citizenry say about themselves in a given
time and assess the internal and external struggles the actors engaged with
these events respond to. In addition, these studies require us go beyond
large mediatised events and look at smaller ones where the media is not as
active and where we can observe different levels of political engagement
through music, sport and artistic expressions, among others.

248      THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH

    Another area for future research is the competitiveness of sport and
how it appeals to the formation and conformation of collective identities.
Sport is not an autonomous force, individuals in sport organisations decide
on an everyday basis the competitive aspects of the activity and this has a
repercussion on the success of athletes and the way national governments
use their achievements to fulfil myriad objectives. More than one IOC
member has tried to put forward the initiative that athletes compete indi-
vidually and not as part of a nation, or that the Olympic Games are always
organised in the same city. Nonetheless, this has not received enough sup-
porters because it would imply a transformation of Olympism as it has
been implemented so far. The mobility of Olympic destinations united
with the competitiveness of the practices provide interesting characteristics
in how the countries bid for the event, and brand the country once their
bid is chosen. The political itineraries of IOC or FIFA members and their
networks within their sport organisations can be traced in order to assess
which groups have a repercussion on the development of sport competi-
tion, and how this has an impact on international politics.
    Sport organisations are not monolithic and there is more than one
interest in the election of mega-event destinations. The election turnout
was and is still secret; the casted votes are destroyed, and there is no way
of knowing what each member voted for; however, tracing the political
trajectories of the members of international sport organisations can be a
good way to observe the economic and national interests of the members,
as well as the conformation of other networks.
    Concerning development and sport, there are many other interesting
points to continue researching. For instance, when looking at the way the
Canadian government and the IOC managed the Olympic Games in
Canada, Christine M. O’Bonsawin claimed that through educational
forums, Olympism advanced cultural dependency and promoted ‘nation-
alism, sexism, racism and xenophobia.’1 O’Bonsawin labelled Olympism as
a form of cultural imperialism. Although I agree that the Olympics and
most organised sports have imperialist origins, and reiterate some colo-
nialist approaches, I also consider that sport has been given a different use,
and it is important to study the ways that it has been understood and
implemented.
    Since ‘modern sports’ began and developed during the nineteenth cen-
tury they were managed by international sport organisations led by people

  1
      O’Bonsawin, 152.

THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH       249

from developed countries. It does not seem surprising that the countries
that claim to have modernised sport (France, the United Kingdom and
even the United States) have been where most of the sport directives have
come from. These actors have created the regulatory and disciplinary way
of practising sport, and have reinforced their ideas over time. In this sense,
the ideas of amateurism and nobility were reinforced during the last
decades of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth, and
it was the heirs of Pierre de Coubertin and Jules Rimet, for instance, who
opened to the commercialism of sport and regulated the accepted emo-
tional responses, among other actions.
    The reiteration of ideas of the Nation-State, as well as the regulatory
practices of allowed and forbidden responses during sports, the fair game,
for instance, seem to reflect a certain imperialist ideology. We can chal-
lenge these assumptions and begin to argue, as Lenskyj and O’Bonsawin
have done, that sport should not push basic human needs aside in favour
of the ideology they try to promote, regardless of how beneficial it may
seem. Sport is not an innocuous practice. Sport is driven by individuals
and should not only be understood under the lens of international organ-
isations such as the IOC or FIFA. The studies that go beyond the interna-
tional organised sport are relevant to understand how some actors have
tried to challenge the prevailing understating of sport and have used these
activities to try to integrate unprivileged sectors or challenge gender roles
in society, among other goals. The historiography of sport would really
benefit from studying these local practices and challenges to the organised
structures of sport.
    The last area of future research that I would like to cover is the organ-
isation of sport within the country, in this case, Mexico. The Olympic
Games are not driven by static forces or solely by homogeneous alliances
of power groups. The Olympic Games are steered by individuals and net-
works with specific interests. The involved actors coincide in some cases,
but differ in others. This study feeds into the interpretations that argue
that sport is part of the political, social, cultural and economic realm and
it reflects the changes of its actors and those who are affected. Based on
this train of thought, I consider that it is important to answer if the
Olympics helped to foster popular support for the PRI.
    Eric Zolov also spoke about the importance of answering this question
in his work on Mexico 1968, but did not give an answer. The question is
relevant, but the answer is not simple. Although, Joseph Arbena, Kevin
Witherspoon, Ariel Rodríguez Kuri, Claire and Keith Brewster have

250    THE 1968 OLYMPICS AND ITS FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH

contributed greatly to our understanding of the international aspirations
of the government concerning the Olympic Games in Mexico, more work
is necessary to assess the degree in which sport fostered political support
and engagement at a national and regional level.2
   There is an important area of opportunity in historicising how political
parties and elected governments have used sport to advance their agendas,
whether it is organising a mega-event or advertising their party in box or
football matches, among others. Mexico is a country that is not associated
with excelling at international competitive sport; however, it is important
to analyse how individuals, political parties and the government have
appealed to the wellbeing of sport practices and the triumph of the ath-
letes as markers to foster support to develop their objectives. This field is
deeply related with different types of abuse in sport (violence and com-
modification, among others). Sport is a significant area that requires more
cultural and political analyses.

  2
    Arbena; Brewster and Brewster; Rodríguez Kuri, “Ganar la sede. La política internacional
de los juegos olímpicos de 1968.”; Witherspoon.

References

                                  Archives
AAM: Archivo de Arquitectos Mexicanos (Archive of Mexican Architects)
ABC: Avery Brundage Collection
ADM: Archivo Diplomático Mexicano (Archive of the Secretariat of Foreign
  Affairs)
ADP: Archivo de la Palabra (Archive of the Spoken Word)
AGN: Archivo General de la Nación (National Archives, Mexico)
AHCM: Archivo Histórico de la ciudad de México (Mexico City’s Historical
  Archive)
AHUN: Archivo Histórico de la Universidad Nacional (Historical Archive of the
  National University, Mexico)
APPRV: Archivo Privado de Pedro Ramírez Vázquez (Private Archive of Pedro
  Ramírez Vázquez)
IOCA: International Olympic Committee Archive

                                Periodicals
Algarabía
Artes de México
Crónica
Daily Telegraph

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature              251
Switzerland AG 2021
A. Elías, Mexico City’s Olympic Games, Palgrave Studies in Sport
and Politics, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-74111-2

252   REFERENCES

Daily Mail
El Día
El Heraldo de México
El Nacional
El Sol de México
El Universal
Excélsior
Eye
Gaceta Ilustrada
Gazette de Lausanne
La Tribune de Genève
L’Equipe
L’Express
Le Figaro
London Evening News
Miroir print
National Press Club
Ovaciones
Olympic Review
Pace
Prensa Latina
San Antonio News
Sports Illustrated
The Christian Science Monitor
The Daily Telegraph
The Guardian
The Herald Examiner
The Houston Post
The New York Times
The News
The Observer
The Sunday Times
The Times

                    Published Primary Sources
Carrasco, Lorenzo (Ed.). México solicita. XIX juegos olímpicos. Mexico City:
   Departamento del Distrito Federal, Litográfica Machado, 1962a
Diario Oficial. Órgano del gobierno constitucional de los Estados Unidos
   Mexicanos.
Díaz Ordaz, Gustavo. “IV informe de gobierno.” Diario de Debates,
   México, 1968a.

REFERENCES     253

International Olympic Committee, IOC Sessions (1952–1980).
International Olympic Committee, Newsletter (1963–1969).
International Olympic Committee, The Olympic Games Charter (1894–1980).
Organising Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad, Official Olympic
   Report (Mexico, 1969).
Organising Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad, Olympic Bulletin
   (1964–1969).
Organising Committee of the Games of the XIX Olympiad, Olympic Newsletter
   (1964–1969).

                                Bibliography
Adair, Jennifer. “Democratic Utopias: The Argentine Transition to Democracy
    Through Letters, 1983–1989.” The Americas: A Quarterly Review of Latin
    American History 72, no. 02 (2015): 221–247.
Adelman, Melvin L. “Academicians and American Athletics: A Decade of
    Progress.” Journal of Sport History 10, no. 1 (1983): 80–106.
Ai Camp, Roderic. “The Revolution’s Second Generation: The Miracle,
    1946–1982 and Collapse of the PRI, 1982–2000.” In A Companion to Mexican
    History and Culture, edited by W.H. Beezley. Wiley, 2011.
Allier Montaño, Eugenia. “Los lieux de mémoire: Una propuesta historiográfica
    para el análisis de la memoria.” Historia y Grafia 31 (2008): 165–192.
Allier Montaño, Eugenia. “Presentes-pasados del 68 mexicano: una historización
    de las memorias públicas del movimiento estudiantil, 1968–2007.” Revista
    mexicana de sociología 71, no. 2 (2009): 287–317.
Anderson, Benedict. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread
    of Nationalism. London: Verso, 2016.
Arbena, Joseph L. “Hosting the Summer Olympic Games: Mexico City, 1968.” In
    Sport in Latin America and the Caribbean, 133–144. Scholarly Resources, 2002.
Arnaud, Pierre, and Teresa González Aja. Sport y autoritarismos: La utilización del
    deporte por el comunismo y el fascismo. Anaya-Spain, 2002.
Bailey, David C. “Revisionism and the Recent Historiography of the Mexican
    Revolution.” The Hispanic American Historical Review 58, no. 1 (1978): 62–79.
Bajc, Vida. Surveilling and Securing the Olympics: From Tokyo 1964 to London 2012
    and Beyond. Springer, 2015.
Balbier, Uta Andrea. “‘A Game, a Competition, an Instrument?’: High
    Performance, Cultural Diplomacy and German Sport from 1950 to 1972.” The
    International Journal of the History of Sport 26, no. 4 (2009): 539–555.
Bale, John, and Mike Cronin. Sport and Postcolonialism. Oxford: Berg, 2003.
Barron, Hester, and Claire Langhamer. “Feeling Through Practice: Subjectivity
    and Emotion in Children’s Writing.” Journal of Social History 51 (2016): 1–23.

254    REFERENCES

Barthold, Lauren Swayne. “True Identities: From Performativity to Festival.”
    Hypatia 29, no. 4 (2014): 808–823.
Bayona, Cecilia Imaz. “El apoyo popular al movimiento estudiantil de 1968.”
    Revista Mexicana de Sociología 37, no. 2 (1975): 363–392.
Beacom, Aaron. International Diplomacy and the Olympic Movement. The New
    Mediators, Milton Keynes: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.
Beezley, William H. A Companion to Mexican History and Culture. Cornwall:
    Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Beezley, William H. Judas at the Jockey Club and Other Episodes of Porfirian Mexico.
    Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1987.
Beezley, William H., Cheryl E. Martin, and William E. French. Rituals of Rule,
    Rituals of Resistance: Public Celebrations and Popular Culture in Mexico.
    Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1994.
Bellos, Alex. Futebol: The Brazilian Way of Life-Updated Edition. Bloomsbury
    Publishing, 2014.
Billig, Michael. Banal Nationalism. London: Sage, 1995.
Bolsmann, Chris. “Mexico 1968 and South Africa 2010: Sombreros and Vuvuzelas
    and the Legitimisation of Global Sporting Events.” Bulletin of Latin American
    Research 29, no. s1 (2010): 93–106.
Booth, Douglas. “Olympic City Bidding: An Exegesis of Power.” International
    Review for the Sociology of Sport 4 (2011): 367–386.
Boykoff, Jules. Celebration Capitalism and the Olympic Games. Routledge, 2013.
Braathen, Einar, Gilmar Mascarenhas, and Celina Myrann Sørbøe. “A ‘City of
    Exception’? Rio De Janeiro and the Disputed Social Legacy of the 2014 and
    2016 Sports Mega-Events.” In Mega-Event Cities: Urban Legacies of Global
    Sports Events, edited by Valerie Viehoff and Gavin Poynter, 261. Routledge, 2016.
Brainard, Lael, and Leonardo Martinez-Diaz. Brazil as an Economic Superpower?
    Understanding Brazil’s Changing Role in the Global Economy. Brookings
    Institution Press, 2009.
Braun, Herbert. “Protests of Engagement: Dignity, False Love, and Self-Love in
    Mexico During 1968.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 39, no. 03
    (1997): 511–549.
Brewster, Claire. Responding to Crisis in Contemporary Mexico: The Political
    Writings of Paz, Fuentes, Monsivais, and Poniatowska. University of Arizona
    Press, 2005.
Brewster, Claire, and Keith Brewster. Representing the Nation: Sport and Spectacle
    in Post-Revolutionary Mexico. Routledge, 2013.
Brewster, Keith. “Redeeming the ‘Indian’: Sport and Ethnicity in Post-­
    Revolutionary Mexico.” Patterns of Prejudice 38, no. 3 (2004): 213–231.
Brewster, Keith. Reflections on Mexico ‘68. Bulletin of Latin American Research.
    Edited by David Howard, Jasmine Gideon, Geoffrey Kantaris, Tony Kapcia,
    and Lucy Taylor. Oxford: Blackwell, 2010.

REFERENCES     255

Brewster, Keith, and Claire Brewster. “The Mexican Student Movement of 1968:
   An Olympic Perspective.” The International Journal of the History of Sport 26,
   no. 6 (2009): 814–839.
Brown, Timothy S. “AHR Forum “1968” East and West: Divided Germany as a
   Case Study in Transnational History.’ The American Historical Review 114, no.
   1 (2009): 69–96.
Bulley, Dan, and Debbie Lisle. “How London Welcomed the World to the 2012
   Olympic and Paralympic Games.” In Handbook of the London 2012 Olympic
   and Paralympic Games: Volume Two: Celebrating the Games, 36.
   Routledge, 2013.
Burbank, Matthew J., Gregory D. Andranovich, and Charles H. Heying. Olympic
   Dreams. The Impact of Mega-events on Local Politics. Boulder: Lynne Rienner
   Publishers, 2001.
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.
   Routledge, 2011.
Campos Pérez, Lara. “Seducción de nación: conmemoraciones y publicidad en la
   prensa mexicana (1910, 1921, 1935, 1960).” Secuencia 88 (2014): 151–190.
Canclini, Néstor García. Transforming Modernity: Popular Culture in Mexico.
   University of Texas Press, 1993.
Cano, Gabriela, Mary Kay Vaughan and Jocelyn Olcott (Eds.). Género, Poder y
   Política en el México Posrevolucionario. Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura
   Económica – Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Iztapalapa, 2009.
Cano Andaluz, Aurora. 1968 antología periodística. Universidad Nacional
   Autónoma de México/Instituto de Investigaciones Bibliográficas/Biblioteca
   Nacional/Hemeroteca Nacional, 1993.
Carey, Elaine. “Los dueños de México: Power and Masculinity in ’68.” In Gender
   and Sexuality in 1968: Transformative Politics in the Cultural Imagination,
   edited by Lessie Io Frazier and Deborah Cohen. New York: Palgrave
   Macmillan, 2009.
Carey, Elaine. “Mexico’s 1968 Olympic Dream.” In Protests in the Streets, 1968
   Across the Globe, edited by Elaine Carey, 91–119. Indianapolis, IN:
   Hackett, 2016a.
Carey, Elaine. Plaza of Sacrifices, Gender, Power, and Terror in 1968 Mexico.
   Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005.
Carey, Elaine. Protests in the Streets, 1968 Across the Globe. Indianapolis: Hackett
   Publishing Company, 2016b.
Carrasco, Lorenzo (Ed.). México solicita, XIX Juegos Olímpicos. Edited by
   Departamento del Distrito Federal. Mexico City: Litográfica Machado, 1962b.
Casanova, Pablo González. La democracia en México. Ediciones Era, 2003.
Castañeda, Luis. “Beyond Tlatelolco: Design, Media, and Politics at Mexico’ 68.”
   Grey Room 40 (2010): 100–126.

256    REFERENCES

Cha, Victor. “Role of Sport in International Relations: National Rebirth and
   Renewal.” Asian Economic Policy Review 11, no. 1 (2016): 139–155.
Cho, Sumi, Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, and Leslie McCall. “Toward a Field of
   Intersectionality Studies: Theory, Applications, and Praxis.” Signs: Journal of
   Women in Culture and Society 38, no. 4 (2013): 785–810.
Clastres, Patrick. “La refondation des jeux olympiques au congrès de Paris (1894):
   Initiative privée, transnationalisme sportif, diplomatie des états.” Relations
   internationales 111 (2002): 327–345.
Clay Large, David. Munich 1972, Tragedy, Terror, and Triumph at the Olympic
   Games. Plymouth: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012.
Collins, Tony. Sport in a Capitalist Society: A Short History. Routledge, 2013.
Committee, International Olympic. Minutes of the 60th Session. Baden-Baden:
   International Olympic Committee, 1963.
Compeán, Miguel González, Leonardo Lomelí Vanegas, and Pedro Salmerón
   Sanginés. El partido de la revolución: institución y conflicto (1928-1999). Fondo
   de Cultura Económica, 2000.
Corey, Robin. Fear, The History of a Political Idea. Oxford: Oxford University
   Press, 2004.
da Matta, Roberto. A bola corre mais que os homens: Duas copas, treze Crônicas e três
   Ensaios Sobre Futebol. Rocco, 2006.
Davis, Diane. Urban Leviathan: Mexico City in the Twentieth Century. Temple
   University Press, 2010.
de Certeau, Michel. The Practice of Everyday Life. Berkeley: University of California
   Press, 1984.
de Garay, Graciela. Arquitecto Pedro Ramírez V. Archivo de la Palabra. Mexico:
   Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. José María Luis Mora, 1994.
de Garay Arellano, Graciela. La historia con micrófono: textos introductorios a la
   historia oral. Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. José Ma. Luis Mora, 1994.
De los Reyes, Aurelio. “Hacia la industria cinematográfica en México: 1896–1920.”
   Vivomatografías. Revista de estudios sobre precine y cine silente en Latinoamérica
   2 (2016): 124–151.
Del Pozo, José. Historia de América Latina y del Caribe 1825-2001 2 Edición.
   Lom Ediciones, 2009.
Díaz Ordaz, Gustavo. “IV informe de gobierno.” Diario de Debates,
   México, 1968b.
Díaz Ordaz, Gustavo. “Press Conference as Appointed Ambassador to Spain.”
   News Release, 12 April 1977, 1977.
Dowbor, Monika, and José Szwako, “Respeitável público…: Performance e orga-
   nização dos movimentos antes dos protestos de 2013.” Novos Estudos -
   CEBRAP 97 (2013): 43–55.

REFERENCES      257

Dyreson, Mark. “Globalizing the Nation-Making Process: Modern Sport in World
   History.” The International Journal of the History of Sport 20, no. 1
   (2003): 91–106.
Economy, Elizabeth C, and Adam Segal. “China’s Olympic Nightmare: What the
   Games Mean for Beijing’s Future.” Foreign Affairs 87 (2008): 47–56.
Elias, Axel. Arquitectos y espacio urbano en la XIX Olimpiada. Universidad
   Nacional Autonoma de Mexico, 2008.
Elias, Axel. México 68. La reinvención de la ciudad capital vista a través de dos
   instalaciones deportivas: El palacio de los deportes y la alberca olímpica. Instituto
   de Investigaciones Dr. José María Luis Mora, 2012.
Elías Jiménez, Axel Germán. “Mexico 1970: Football and Multiple Forms of
   Modern Nation-Building During the 1970 World Cup.” Soccer & Society 21
   (2020): 1–13.
Entwistle, Joanne, and Agnès Rocamora. “The Field of Fashion Materialized: A
   Study of London Fashion Week.” Sociology 40, no. 4 (2006): 735–751.
Escala Rabadan, Luis, and Guillermo Alonso Meneses. Offside/Fuera de lugar:
   futbol y migraciones en el mundo contemporáneo. Tijuana: El Colegio de la
   Frontera Norte, 2012.
Fein, Seth. “Culture Across Borders in the Americas.” History Compass 1, no. 1
   (2003): 1–6.
Fein, Seth. Hollywood and United States-Mexico Relations in the Golden Age of
   Mexican Cinema. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 1996.
Fein, Seth. “New Empire into Old: Making Mexican Newsreels the Cold War
   Way.” Diplomatic History 28, no. 5 (2004): 703–748.
Fernández Contreras, Raymundo Ángel. La ruta de la amistad en la olimpiada
   cultural, Mexico’ 68. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 2005.
Fernández Contreras, Raymundo Ángel. Los concursos de arquitectura en el marco
   de los juegos olímpicos de México ‘68. Sus aciertos y sus desaciertos. Universidad
   Nacional Autónoma de México, 2009.
Ferris, Kate. Everyday Life in Fascist Venice, 1929–1940. Hampshire: Palgrave
   Macmillan, 2012.
Field, Russell. “Who Invited You? Party Crashers or Unwelcome Guests the
   Legacy of Social Protest at the 2010 Winter Olympics.” Paper presented at the
   Proceedings: International Symposium for Olympic Research, 2010.
Filmoteca UNAM. “Promociones de la Olimpiada.” YouTube. https://www.you-
   tube.com/watch?v=f1_IFVnuSVE&ab_channel=FilmotecaUNAM. Accessed
   2 October 1968.
Fiztpatrick, Sheila. Everyday Stalinism, Ordinary Life in Extraordinary Times:
   Soviet Russia in the 1930s. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Flaherty, George F. Hotel Mexico: Dwelling on the ‘68 Movement. University of
   California Press, 2016.

258    REFERENCES

Foucault, Michel, Frédéric Gros, François Ewald, and Alessandro Fontana. The
   Hermeneutics of the Subject: Lectures at the Collège De France 1981–1982. Vol.
   6. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005.
Fox, Jon E. “Consuming the Nation: Holidays, Sports, and the Production of
   Collective Belonging.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 29, no. 2 (2006): 217–236.
Frazier, Lessie Jo, and Deborah Cohen. “Mexico’68: Defining the Space of the
   Movement, Heroic Masculinity in the Prison, and “Women” in the Streets.”
   Hispanic American Historical Review 83, no. 4 (2003): 617–660.
Frazier, Lessie Jo and Deborah Cohen (Eds.). Gender and Sexuality in 1968,
   Transformative Politics in the Cultural Imagination. New York: Palgrave
   Macmillan, 2009.
Gaffney, Christopher. “Mega-Events and Socio-Spatial Dynamics in Rio De
   Janeiro, 1919–2016.” Journal of Latin American Geography 9, no. 1
   (2010): 7–29.
Galeano, Eduardo. El fútbol a sol y sombra (2010). Siglo XXI de España
   Editores, 2010.
Gienow-Heather, Jessica C. E. Emotions in American History: An International
   Assessment. New York: Berghahm, 2010.
Gillingham, Paul, and Benjamin T. Smith (Eds.). Dictablanda, Politics, Work, and
   Culture in Mexico, 1938–1968. Durham: Duke University Press, 2014.
Girginov, Vassil. “Governance of London 2012 Olympic Games Legacy.”
   International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47 (2011): 543–558.
Gold, John R, and Margaret M. Gold. Olympic Cities: City Agendas, Planning,
   and the World’s Games, 1896–2016. Routledge, 2010.
Gómez, Marte R. Vida política contemporánea: cartas de Marte R. Gómez. 2 vols.
   Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1978.
Gramsci, Antonio. “The Philosophy of Praxis.” In Selections from the Prison
   Notebooks, edited by Antonio Gramsci. International Publishers, 1971.
Grix, Jonathan, and Barrie Houlihan. “Sports Mega-Events as Part of a Nation’s
   Soft Power Strategy: The Cases of Germany (2006) and the UK (2012).” The
   British Journal of Politics & International Relations 16, no. 4 (2014): 572–596.
Guerra, François-Xavier. México: Del antiguo régimen a la revolución. Vol. 2.
   Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1988.
Gutmann, Matthew C. The Meanings of Macho: Being a Man in Mexico City. Vol.
   3. University of California Press, 2006.
Guttmann, Allen. The Games Must Go On: Avery Brundage and the Olympic
   Movement. Columbia University Press, 1984.
Haber, Stephen. “Anything Goes: Mexico’s “New” Cultural History.” The
   Hispanic American Historical Review 79, no. 2 (1999): 309.
Hamnett, Brian. Historia de México. Ediciones AKAL, 2001.
Hamnett, Brian. A Concise History of Mexico. Cambridge University Press, 2006.

REFERENCES      259

Hartmann, Douglas. Race, Culture and the Revolt of the Black Athlete, the 1968
   Olympic Protests and Their Aftermath. Chicago: The University of Chicago
   Press, 2003.
Harvey, David. The Conditions of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of
   Cultural Change. Nueva York, NY: Blackwell, 1989.
Hiller, Harry H. “Assessing the Impact of Mega-Events: A Linkage Model.”
   Current Issues in Tourism 1, no. 1 (1998): 47–57.
Hobsbawm, Eric J. Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914–1991.
   Michael Joseph, 1994.
Hobsbawm, Eric J., Marc Weitzmann, and Magnum Photos. Magnum Throughout
   the World. Edited by Stéphanie Grégoire. Paris: Editions Hazan, 1998.
Hoffer, Richard. Something in the Air: American Passion and Defiance in the 1968
   Mexico City Olympics. Simon and Schuster, 2009.
Horne, John, and Wolfram Manzenreiter. “Sports Mega-Events: Social Scientific
   Analyses of a Global Phenomenon.” Sociological Review 54, no. Suppl. 2
   (2006): 1–187.
Huarcaya, Sergio Miguel. “Performativity, Performance, and Indigenous Activism
   in Ecuador and the Andes.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 57, no.
   03 (2015): 806–837.
Hughes-Freeland, Felicia. Ritual, Performance, Media. Routledge, 2003.
Isaac, Alberto. The Olympics in Mexico. Edited by Alberto Isaac, 105. Mexico:
   Sección de Cinematografía del Comité Organizador de los Juegos de la XIX
   Olimpiada, 1969.
Jackson, Steven J., and Stephen Haigh. “Between and Beyond Politics: Sport and
   Foreign Policy in a Globalizing World.” Cultures, Commerce, Media, Politics 11
   (2008): 349–358.
James, Daniel. Doña María’s Story: Life History, Memory, and Political Identity.
   Duke University Press, 2000.
Jasper, James M. “Constructing Indignation: Anger Dynamics in Protest
   Movements.” Emotion Review 6, no. 3 (2014): 208–213.
Jasper, James M.. “The Emotions of Protest: Affective and Reactive Emotions in
   and around Social Movements.” Paper presented at the Sociological
   Fórum, 1998.
Joseph, Gilbert M. “Close Encounters, Towards a New Cultural History of U.S.-
   Latin American Relations.” In Close Encounters of Empire, 3–46. Durham, NC:
   Duke University Press, 1998.
Joseph, Gilbert M., and Jürgen Buchenau. Mexico’s Once and Future Revolution:
   Social Upheaval and the Challenge of Rule since the Late Nineteenth Century.
   Duke University Press, 2013.
Joseph, Gilbert M., and Timothy J. Henderson. The Mexico Reader: History,
   Culture, Politics. Duke University Press, 2002.

260    REFERENCES

Joseph, Gilbert M., Catherine C. LeGrand, and Ricardo D. Salvatore (Eds.). Close
   Encounters of Empire, Writing the Cultural History of U.S.-Latin American
   Relations. Durham: Duke University Press, 1998.
Joseph, Gilbert M., and Daniel Nugent. Everyday Forms of State Formation:
   Revolution and the Negotiation of Rule in Modern Mexico. Duke University
   Press, 1994.
Joseph, Gilbert M., Emily S. Rosenberg, Dina Berger, and Andrew Grant Wood.
   Holiday in Mexico: Critical Reflections on Tourism and Tourist Encounters.
   Duke University Press, 2009.
Joseph, Gilbert M., Anne Rubenstein, and Eric Zolov. Fragments of a Golden Age:
   The Politics of Culture in Mexico since 1940. Duke University Press, 2001.
Judt, Tony. Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945. Random House, 2011.
Kassens-Noor, Eva. Planning Olympic Legacies: Transport Dreams and Urban
   Realities. Routledge, 2012.
Katz, Friedrich, and Loren Goldner. The Secret War in Mexico: Europe, the United
   States and the Mexican Revolution. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981.
Keller, Renata. “Building “Nuestra América:” National Sovereignty and Regional
   Integration in the Americas.” Contexto Internacional 35, no. 2 (2013):
   537–564.
Keys, Barbara. “Senses and Emotions in the History of Sport.” Journal of Sport
   History 40, no. 1 (2013): 21–38.
Kiddle, Amelia M., and María L.O. Muñoz. “Cabaretistas and Indias Bonitas:
   Gender and Representations of Mexico in the Americas during the Cárdenas
   Era.” Journal of Latin American Studies 42 (2010a): 263–291.
Kiddle, Amelia M., and María L.O. Muñoz. Populism in Twentieth Century Mexico,
   The Presidencies of Lázaro Cárdenas and Luis Echeverría. University of Arizona
   Press, 2010b.
Knight, Alan. “Cardenas and Echeverría, Two “Populist” Presidents Compared.”
   In Populism in Twentieth Century Mexico, The Presidencies of Lázaro Cárdenas
   and Luis Echeverría. University of Arizona Press, 2010.
Knight, Alan. “Subalterns, Signifiers, and Statistics: Perspectives on Mexican
   Historiography.” Latin American Research Review 37 (2002): 136–158.
Knight, Alan, Emilio Rabasa, Andreas Schedler, and Laurence Whitehead. La con-
   flictiva y nunca acabada construcción de la democracia deseada: México en per-
   spectiva histórica y comparada. Editorial Porrúa, 2008.
Koch, Natalie. “Sport and Soft Authoritarian Nation-Building.” Political
   Geography 32 (2013): 42–51.
Koonings, Kees. “New Violence, Insecurity, and the State, Comparative Reflections
   on Latin America and Mexico.” In The Other Half of the Centaur, edited by Wil
   G. Pansters. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2012.

REFERENCES      261

Kuper, Simon, and Stefan Szymanski. Soccernomics, Why Transfers Fail, Why Spain
   Rule the World and Other Curious Football Phenomena Explained. HarperCollins
   UK, 2012.
Langhamer, Claire. “Love and Courtship in Mid-Twentieth-Century England.”
   The Historical Journal 50, no. 01 (2007): 173–196.
Lantz, Andrew. “The Performativity of Violence: Abducting Agency in Mexico’s
   Drug War.” Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies 25, no. 2 (2016):
   253–269.
Laredo, Buendíay. Encuesta Nacional De Opinión Pública, “Movimiento Del 68”.
   Mexico: Buendía y Laredo, 2008.
Latour, Bruno. We Have Never Been Modern. Harvard University Press, 2012.
Lemke, Thomas. “‘The Birth of Bio-Politics’: Michel Foucault’s Lecture at the
   Collège De France on Neo-Liberal Governmentality.” Economy and Society 30,
   no. 2 (2001): 190–207.
Lemke, Thomas. “Foucault, Governmentality, and Critique.” Rethinking Marxism
   14, no. 3 (2002): 49–64.
Lemon, Alaina. Between Two Fires: Gypsy Performance and Romani Memory from
   Pushkin to Post-Socialism. Duke University Press, 2000.
Lenskyj, Helen Jefferson. Inside the Olympic Industry: Power, Politics, and Activism.
   SUNY Press, 2000.
Lenskyj, Helen Jefferson. Olympic Industry Resistance: Challenging Olympic Power
   and Propaganda. SUNY Press, 2008.
León-Portilla, Miguel. Visión de los vencidos: relaciones indígenas de la conquista.
   Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, 1959.
Leopkey, Becca, and Milena M. Parent. “The (Neo) Institutionalization of Legacy
   and Its Sustainable Governance Within the Olympic Movement.” European
   Sport Management Quarterly 12, no. 5 (2012): 437–455.
Loaeza, Soledad. “Gustavo Díaz Ordaz y el colapso del milagro mexicano.” In
   Una Historia Contemporánea de México. Vol. 2, edited by Lorenzo e Ilán
   Bizberg Meyer (coords.). México: Editorial Oceáno, 2005).
Lomnitz, Claudio. Deep Mexico, Silent Mexico: An Anthropology of Nationalism.
   Vol. 9. University of Minnesota Press, 2001.
Lomnitz, Claudio. “Final Reflections: What Was Mexico’s Cultural Revolution?”
   In The Eagle and the Virgin, Nation and Cultural Revolution in Mexico,
   1920–1940, edited by Marky Kay Vaughan and Stephen E. Lewis. Durham:
   Duke University Press, 2006.
López Mateos, Adolfo. “Nationalisation of the Electric Industry.” News Release,
   27 September 1960, 1960. http://www.inep.org/index.php/biblioteca-­del-­
   politico/63-­la-­nacionalizacion-­de-­la-­industria-­electrica-­doralicia-­carmona,
   Accessed 12 February 2017.