Alfonso Borrego is the great-grandson of Geronimo, a prominent leader and medicine man from the Bedonkohe band of the Apache people. Geronimo was known for his fearlessness – he resisted both the Mexican and American militaries when they attempted to remove his people from their tribal lands in the late-1800s.
Borrego, 66, has spent years researching what happened to his people and his great-grandfather. While speaking with EL PAÍS, he discusses the various conflicting narratives that have been pushed over the past century. Some say that the Spanish drove the Indigenous to near-extinction in the United States, while others suggest that the Anglo colonizers were far more cruel against civilian populations.
Born in El Paso, Texas, Borrego generally rejects the “official history” about the conquest that has been constructed by the United States.
“At school, they didn’t let us speak Spanish. They told us that the Spaniards were ‘the worst of the worst.’ But that doesn’t match my research.”
Borrego has also delved into the difficult final years of Geronimo, who surrendered to the American army in 1886 and, until his death in 1909, was “exhibited at fairs and parades by the gringos” in a humiliating fashion.
An engineer and historian by profession, Borrego has become a highly sought-after figure at history conferences in America and Europe.
“I’ve visited [Indigenous] reservations, I’ve met with the tribal chiefs, with Indigenous people, students… I’ve offered a contrast to what the textbooks say. There certainly was an Indigenous genocide, but while the Spaniards committed atrocities, the Anglos were the ones who carried it out,” he affirms in a conversation with EL PAÍS during his brief visit to Madrid.
“Indian chiefs on reservations don’t want to talk about this, because they fear reprisals from the government and losing the casinos that they’ve been given as compensation.”
Borrego – who serves as president of the Cultural Heritage Society of the Royal Road of the Interior Lands – thinks that it’s crucial to uncover “the truth about what happened.”
As an example, he mentions the story of Juan de Oñate (1550-1626), the first Spanish conquistador to go up the Rio Grande, into New Mexico. Oñate is accused of cutting the right foot off of 8,000 Indigenous people.
“That’s what it says in the history books, at least…”
For nine years, Borrego travelled all over New Mexico to identify “the tremendous atrocities that allegedly took place.” He came across a document drafted by a Spanish sergeant on May 1, 1598, which described how Oñate, upon encountering two Indigenous people, gave them clothes and gifts. Subsequently, more Indigenous showed up, also to receive gifts.
“I thought, ‘How strange!’ Weren’t the Spanish supposed to kill them and cut off their heads?”
Borrego kept looking for proof about the 8,000 Indians who lost their feet to the Spaniards. However, again and again, the heads of the tribes couldn’t offer up details, graves or human remains. They merely assured him that it had happened.
The historian notes that Oñate’s entourage was made up of 539 people – 120 were soldiers, nine were priests and the rest were women and children.
“How is it possible that 120 soldiers managed to cut off the feet of 8,000 of our brave people?”
Tribal elders told him that the Spaniards had rifles.
“Rifles? The old ones that took several minutes to load, where the bullets went all over the place? Our people are warriors – it’s not like them to simply not fight. One hundred and twenty soldiers against 8,000 Indigenous people? I told the chiefs, ‘It’s better that you don’t tell anyone that story, it’s shameful.’ They looked at me with resentment and walked away.”
Borrego is a promoter of the recovery of the Royal Road, the Camino Real – the 1,500-mile south-north road that the conquistadors used to reach present-day New Mexico. Only the Mexican part is declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO.
“And why not the US side?” he wonders. “I asked the United States National Park Service about this… they just say that the Spanish carried out tremendous atrocities. They tell me to leave it alone.”
The reservations where the Indians were sent “are all in States with Hispanic names: Montana, Colorado, California, New Mexico… in the north, there are none, except one for Indians who fled Canada. Why aren’t there reserves in Ohio, Tennessee, Kentucky, Georgia, Virginia, or New York? Why?”
The answer, according to him, lies in the arrival of the English in Massachusetts, years after Oñate showed up.
“They were dying of cold, they were all going to perish. The Wampanoag Indians felt sorry for them – they taught [the British] how to plant corn, fish and hunt to survive. But where are the Wampanoag today? Not one left! Why? Because the English killed them all. People say no, it was smallpox. Smallpox? Then why were the Indigenous under Spanish rule not affected?”
“The truth is that the Anglos wiped them out in the north. That’s what really happened.”
Regarding Geronimo, his great-grandfather, Borrego recalls that he was a shaman, not a chief.
“He was a very dignified man, a representative of the tribes. And the gringos hunted him down, crushed him, took away his dignity, took him to prison in Florida to separate him from his people… they started touring him all over the country, like a Hollywood show. He died without dignity. The US presidency did that.”
The Danish shipping giant Maersk held meetings with Denmark’s tax and maritime authorities to advise them on how best to shield the shipping industry from the OECD’s global minimum tax deal, according to a Danish media report.
Published: 8 February 2023 16:21 CET
The revelations, reported by broadcaster DR, come as the company on Wednesday reported record profits of 203 billion kroner, on which it paid just 3 percent in tax.
They are particularly damaging to the company because of the claim last year from Maersk’s then CEO Søren Skou that his company was open to paying more tax, so long as it was through a global agreement via the OECD, precisely the sort of agreement the company was behind the scenes trying to exclude itself from.
“It seems as if Maersk is playing a double game,” Lars Koch from the poverty charity Oxfam, told DR after he was presented with the evidence.
“We can see from the access to documents the number of meetings and close and confidential dialogue”, he added. “Here they agree and inform each other about what Denmark should argue in these international negotiations on a tax agreement and they work actively to safeguard Maersk’s interests by exempting the shipping companies.”
The broadcaster report was based on internal documents obtained from the Ministry of Taxation and the Danish Maritime Authority.
The documents show that in June 2020, representatives of the company held a meeting with the Ministry of Taxation in which they they discussed strategies on excluding shipping from the OECD agreement on minimum tax.
Soon afterwards, the industry lobby group Danish Shipping (Danske Rederier), where Maersk plays a leading role, wrote to the Ministry of Taxation and the Danish Maritime Authority warning that the OECD proposal “creates considerable uncertainty in our hinterland”.
Then in June 2021, a representative from the Danish Maritime Authority thanked Danish Shipping for supplying it with arguments it could use to push for shipping to be excluded, saying, “it was extremely well done. A thousand thanks for your efforts.”
Finally, when shipping was exempted from the OECD agreement in July 2021, a representative from Danish Shipping thanked the Danish Maritime Authority for “the orientation and for being aware of the special challenges of shipping”.
Mette Mellemgaard Jakobsen, Maersk’s head of tax, admitted that her company had tried to influence the process.
“We were specifically concerned about how these rules would be implemented, and we had a concrete concern that it would create an increased distortion of competition,” she told DR.
“For us, it is absolutely crucial that we are not put at a disadvantage compared to other shipping companies around the world. That is why global agreements are the most important thing for us.”
Rasmus Corlin Christensen, a researcher in international tax at Copenhagen Business School, said that Maersk’s double game was quite “striking”.
“On the one hand, you support and work for global solutions, the shipping industry included. But at the same time you can see that, at least when it comes to the global reforms that have been discussed in recent years, they did not want the shipping industry to be covered.”
Contemporary TV fiction does not shy away from polarizing topics. From the capitalist nightmare of Severance (2022) to the mental health issues of Euphoria(2019,) shows increasingly incorporate social debates into their plot lines in response to a growing interest. Gone are the years of the 1990s escapism of Friends and The Office’s controversial canned laughter. Now, for a show to succeed, it must actively participate in the cultural conversation.
This trend is particularly reflected in awards like the Golden Globes, which recently recognized socially engaged productions such as Abbott Elementary or The Bear. Despite this progress, most of these shows haven’t yet broken one of the last taboos in fiction: the lack of body diversity and representation of fat characters.
Anti-fatness is an accepted, widespread discrimination – tiny airplane seats, body-related comments – and fat people remain culturally marginalized. Society “doesn’t like talking to fat people, looking at fat people, believing fat people [and] listening to fat people,” says Lyla Byers, a researcher at Virginia Tech. “We would really prefer for fat people not to exist in public.”
As a result, obese people can suffer serious health consequences. “When I was a child, I suffered medical violence; I was very thin but a pediatrician put me on 18,000 diets,” says Spanish actress Laura Galán Montijano, who starred in the award-winning Piggy (2022). “She was obsessed with my weight, she used to weigh me every week.”
Even some medical terms like “obesity” or “overweight” are problematic, based on a non-inclusive metric: the body mass index (BMI). “BMI was never meant to be used to measure individual health,“ says Byers. “It’s way too simple a measurement for way too complex an issue,” adds Jennifer Graves, author of Framing Fat, a book that challenges the dominant weight discourses. “There are still significant civil rights issues that fat people face in terms of lack of protection against discrimination in the medical system.”
Laziness, stupidity, gluttony or having low sexual capital are some of the concepts associated with fat people, according to Jeanine Gailey, a sociology professor at Texas Christian University. “The cultural messaging is that fat is the worst thing one can be,” Gailey says. These stigmas are internalized by producers, who fail to include diverse perspectives. “When [women] are not desirable according to beauty standards, we’re not featured on screen,” says Montijano.
And, when fiction does introduce fat characters, they are often reduced to old-school stereotypes, from the bullied girl of Debby Ryan’s Insatiable (2018) to the idiotic, slothful Homer Simpson. “Many people in society watch these shows or these movies, internalize these portrayals and believe these things about fat people,” says Ariane Prohaska, a researcher at the University of Alabama. “It leads us to treat fat people differently and to treat ourselves differently, in a way that makes us believe that we have to constantly be improving our bodies.”
Reducing obese people to caricatures especially affects traditionally marginalized minority groups, such as women, people of color and the LGBTQI+ community. “Body size intersects with other dimensions of oppression,” says Prohaska. “So, women of color, particularly Black women, face a lot of stigma.” Big Shirley, a recurring character on the television show Martin, is a classic example of a problematic portrayal of fat Black women on TV, as is America Ferrera’s character on Ugly Betty.
Fat white women have managed to diversify their roles in American fiction thanks to the work of actresses like Melissa McCarthy or Lena Dunham. But “Hollywood Fatness” is not representative of the US a whole. Chrissy Metz, for example, said in 2016 that as part of her This is Us contract, where she played a woman struggling with eating habits, she had to lose weight. Later, however, she retracted her comments. “Gatekeepers, the people who are behind the scenes deciding what stories Americans are going to buy, tend to be white, wealthy and male,” says Virgie Tovar, a writer and expert on body discrimination. “This creates a cycle of the same kinds of stories being told over and over again.”
When it comes to queer men, fiction narrowly focuses on the body cult that characterizes part of the community through masculine, beefy characters such as those in Élite (2018,) Smiley (2022) or in the last season of American Horror Story. “It really is paradoxical that the diversity the LGBTQI+ community demands is not practiced within it,” says Roberto Enríquez, critic and creator of Queer You Are (2021.)
In the show, Enríquez self-fictionalizes his own youth through Gabriel Sánchez and Carlos González, who embody the double discrimination the director has suffered because of his sexual orientation and his body. “I was clear that, if I was going to do the show, I was going to do it my own way,” says Enríquez. “They had to be fat characters because that was the story I was telling, how they face life with those bodies, how they face rejection and desire.” In an interview for ICON, Sánchez spoke of the danger of stereotyping fat people. “If you’re fat, they make you do fat things. ‘I fall down and break the chair because I’m fat; I’m fat and I eat four pastries in 10 minutes.’ The fat guy always has scenes where he is binge-eating.”
If LGBTQI+ stories are still disruptive, triggering far-right censure, those that incorporate artists with non-normative bodies, away from the imposed canon and with plots beyond those of physical obsession, have an even greater subversive impact. “Queer bodies and fat bodies are seen as excessive, so when you have queer fat bodies, they are doubly destabilizing,” says Jason Whitesel, a sociologist at Illinois State University and author of Fat Gay Men, which examines fat stigma within gay male communities. “Most of our shows are put together by people who think the queer community is best represented by thin or muscular people.”
Even though fat suits are still employed by the entertainment industry, fiction has progressed from the rather cringeworthy “Fat Monica” episode of Friends. In The Girls at the Back (2022,) Mariona Terés plays Leo, a millennial woman who plans a trip with her friends after one is diagnosed with cancer. Terés, with a leading, cliché-free role, believes that many things have changed in recent years, albeit slowly. “We are seeing different bodies on screen, but we have to keep changing the clichés,” she says. “The next step is a fat woman playing a sexy character, in a romantic relationship with someone, and normalizing that her body is beautiful, that she can eat whatever she wants and fuck whoever she wants.”
Besides expanding the narrative complexity of fat characters, fiction must increase their range of roles away from one-dimensional supporting characters haunted by their physical appearance.
“What I hope is that diversity is broadened in all senses,” says Carlota Pereda, director of Piggy. Without financial support from production companies, projects with leading fat characters will struggle to be developed. “When you’re looking for funding, some people won’t support you because they consider it a personal project just because you’ve put a non-normative character in the leading role.”
Although fiction lags behind a society that is largely critical of negative representations of fat characters in productions like The Whale, the industry will eventually accept that non-Hollywood bodies exist and deserve to be represented, with complex storylines and free from humiliating fat suits. “I do think we’re going to see more and more diverse people on screen,” says Terés. “It’s a slow road, but we’ll get to the other side.”
The brinksmanship has won plaudits from some who argue that by holding out, the German leader managed to get the United States to reverse its stance and send Abrams tanks — bringing about a bigger win for Ukraine.
But other analysts warn the weeks of delay may have left a deeper mark on Scholz’s international reputation, while also hurting Kyiv’s chances against Russian troops on the battlefield.
“The SPD chancellor has achieved one of his biggest aims: delivering battle tanks only in step with the Americans,” wrote Die Zeit weekly.
Rather, he repeatedly underlined that it was and is “right that we did not let ourselves be pushed into this but that we rely on and also continue on close cooperation”.
It was perhaps not a coincidence that Scholz’s announcement came after public opinion shifted slightl in favour of sending tanks, with 46 percent for and 41 percent against on January 19.
Directly addressing fears of Germans, who have favoured treading lightly around conflict zones since World War II, Scholz pointedly said he would ensure that any support for Ukraine would be provided “without the risks for our country growing in the wrong direction”.
Asked later on ZDF public television whether his hesitation had led to a “loss of trust” among allies, Scholz rejected the criticism.
“Everyone knows we are making a big contribution, also compared to other countries, in terms of support for Ukraine — not only financially and with humanitarian aid but also with weapons.”
But some analysts said his concern for domestic politics may have cost Ukraine on the frontlines.
In the meantime, “several months” had been lost in the defence of Ukraine, while Scholz was “more concerned with domestic politics” and an issue he did not see as a “big vote winner”, Chatham House analyst John Lough told AFP.
Fears that moving too rashly would lead to an escalation in the war were exaggerated, too. Even without tank deliveries, “the Russians have escalated anyway”, for example by targeting critical infrastructure in Ukraine, Lough said.
Amid the ruckus, particularly with neighbouring Poland accusing Scholz of dithering, analysts point to the damage done to Germany’s reputation.
Bild daily piled on the pressure at home, accusing Scholz of cowardice. But a day later, a high-profile defence ministers’ meeting of Ukraine allies last Friday still failed to break the deadlock on tanks.
The delay was “embarrassing for the German government”, said Lough.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) comments on the Russian attack on Ukraine during a press conference at the Chancellery on February 24th, 2022. Photo: picture alliance/dpa | Michael Kappeler
Sudha David-Wilp, director of the German Marshall Fund’s Berlin office, said moving in lock-step with the United States gave Scholz the “political cover he needed” to say “yes” to German tank deliveries.
But his short-term win was not “necessarily good for Germany because it has lost a lot of trust” with key partners, David-Wilp said.
The way the tank drama played out “clearly shows that the US needs to play a leadership role in Europe” and its security, while German leadership remained “elusive”, she said.
Yet, for all the apparent damage to Scholz, there might be a winner.
The unexpected US tank commitment means that officials in Ukraine have “all kinds of different kit now”, David-Wilp added.