Right. So what is inaccurate in the piece? I don't see anything that contradicts this.
What is actually inaccurate? The CIA was doing the things the piece mentions from its inception onward.
The author makes specific claims about the exact ways that the CIA tried to suppress the novel and author. Do you dispute any of them?
It's pretty rich to talk about "easily fact checked" when you don't engage at all with the factual basis for the claims your are disputing.
Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being.
The fact that the group specifically identified as the actual vehicle of suppression was “later” (date unspecified, but presumably after the CIA existed) revealed to have been operating as a CIA front doesn't mean that what they did before the CIA existed was on behalf of time travellers from the future when there was a CIA. If it was always a US intelligence front (which claim is not made or supported), then it would be accurate to blame it on the US or the US intelligence apparatus, but not the CIA. If the CIA infiltrated and took over the organization later, it wouldn't be accurate to blame the US at all. But what we do know with as kucb certainty as we know that effects do not precede their causes is that the CIA did not direct the suppression, as the article claims is “specifically” the case.
The CIA did not exist prior to its establishment in 1947, to use your nomenclature. So what is false? Everything it says the CIA did from 1947 to the 1960s is true.
The claim specifically made in the article that the delay in publication from 1936 to 1946 was due to CIA action through a front group.
It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. You've created a conditional in your head that is found nowhere in the article.
I see claims there is an inaccuracy there.
I see people doing paraphrases and inventing conditionals and saying they are inaccurate. Which they are. But they're not the original text.
It's pretty simple, quote some text and say why it is inaccurate.
As there are no inaccuracies of the type mentioned, this does not happen because it cannot happen.
It's in the first paragraph. Emphasis mine. How could the CIA have aided foreign dictators prior to its existence?
The text never days the CIA delayed the novel, it says the CIA aided in suppressing the novel. The CCF didn't even exist until the 1950s.
> But its 1946 debut reflected a delay of more than a decade by the country’s real dictators, who disrupted the novel’s genesis and sent its author into exile. And in this act of suppression, Asturias’s censors and exilers were aided by the US, specifically the CIA.
I think it's clumsily worded. There was suppression of the novel and the author was exiled (the novel was self-published in Mexico in 1946, out of the author's own pockets). Guatemala's dictatorship was behind this and the US helped them. But the international discrediting of the author was orchestrated by the CIA through a front, and this took place many years after.
So "this" suppression that the CIA aided is not just 1946 -- that's poorly worded -- but in the ensuing years, after the CIA was already formed.
It would have been easy to say that those actions were part of a broader suppression, or even just aiding in suppression with no qualifier, but specifying "this" makes it unambiguous that they are still talking about the same thing.
This is false. The CIA didn't exist when the book was written, but its suppression activities of the author and its book by the CIA and its front started after the CIA was funded, and the article gives dates.
It's not clear that you mean by "the group" but CCF, Cuaderno, PEN and Mondo Nuevo were all founded after the CIA.
> Since the CIA did not, in fact, exist, any claims of what the CIA tried to do are self-evidently false, and need no more rebuttal than the date the CIA came into being.
This is a farcical argument. You seem to struggle with the concept that an organization can work to suppress something that already existed when the organization was formed.
There are specific claims that are made about the steps that groups led by CIA operatives took to suppress the book and author. All of these events happened AFTER the CIA was founded.
You either lack basic reading comprehension / logic or are trolling.
Bitter Fruit: The Untold Story of the American Coup in Guatemala - Stephen Schlesinger and Stephen Kinzer
Las venas abiertas de América Latina - Eduardo Galeano
The English translation is titled, Open Veins of Latin America
(Isabel Allende said she carried a copy of Galeano's book with her as she fled the 1973 US backed coup that overthrew the democratic government in Chile and installed the brutal far-right murderous dictator Pinochet)
That the CIA was not created till 1947, as already pointed out by serallak, will, not stop me from adding the novel to my reading list.
What saddens is the willingness of the community to defend inaccuracy when they agree with the underlying point the inaccuracy is supporting. The author of the article could have said US Intelligence Assets, and forgone the clickbait of CIA. Putting SEO requirements ahead of factual accuracy, particularly when the fact is so easily fact checked, is not how the world gets changed for the better.