When, on October 2, The Plaza de las Tres Culturas in Tlatelolco was silenced by the massacre of hundreds of students, the majority thought that it was an isolated event, mainly because the day after the blood was cleaned from the streets and the Olympic Games were celebrated fifteen days later. However, the student movement was highly relevant both for the world and for the own Mexicans. Mark Kurlansky denominated the global event “The year the world awoke”, and there are also other expressions like “The year that rocked the world,” and “The year of the barricades.” However, while many youth historians believe that it is a myth or a symbol expanded by young activists, others like De Groot doubt that the narrations of 68 were completely true. This is the essential problem of the movement:  historization (objective) versus memorialization (subjective). It is obvious that scholars show their concern about both concepts and think about how to solve a story told by testimonies, voices, political appropriations, incongruities…because the event becomes controversial. For that reason, whenever there is a collective trauma, a collective memory is required, but also “imaginary spaces” in which to leave all that which cannot be proven with exactitude, so that the information is exhaustive and arrives and a truthful historicity.

It is precisely those myths that form a transatlantic position/reading. There were more events that year in Europe. In France, for example, the official history has been reduced to a cruel riot, and in Germany, the student rebellion was oversimplified. Despite of the inaccuracies and difficulties of knowing what happened, it is essential to take them into account because the memory of ‘68 is the reflection of the postwar change and of modernization. It is also the mirror of the intellectual and political concerns of a culture and localizes the threats of a common national identity. The events that took place that year are deeply international because they interact with other movements around the world.  Warburg says that all of these movements transcend national borders in their attempt to create an order in the world.  1968 was also “a magical year” because it “collects” the previous events-after the war- and provides followers of the movement or prophets,- like Marjane who “wanted  justice, love and the wrath of God all in one.” Many countries took social constructions from México to create their (transnational) framework because of the spirit of revolution. This spirit crossed borders through the ‘68 commercialization, which is why icons like James Dean, Rock ´n Roll, or The Beatles came out. The commercialization of youth culture is part of the articulation of the 60s and it is also the representation of dissent: Nike used The Beatle´s song “Revolution” to promote their sneakers. Therefore, we have to establish a truly global perspective to create a comparative framework and get the great transnational dimension of ‘68 in our collective memories.

Regarding the national framework, Pierre Nora advocates the “lieu de memoires” to reconstruct history through fragments of the past like monuments, physical objects, costumes, etc, to construct identity. In Mexico, there is only a mural that commemorates that day, however many writers write about the Plaza de las Tres Culturas, describing the Mexican streets and places that provoke a nostalgic feeling. The chronicler Carlos Monsiváis states in his article “The Passion of the History” that: “We have History because it is our Nation and the proof that we have a Nation is that History is already ours.”

Mexico shapes its analysis through commemorations, protesters- “October 2 is not forgotten”- and literature. Fernando del Paso, María Luisa Mendoza, González de Alba, Elena Poniatowska or Bolaño are some of the writers that tell about Mexico, 1968 and support Nora´s notion about the event; “literature about the student movement, especially because of the specific conditions in which it emerged, eventalised 1968.” Last year, Poniatowska received the Nobel Prize for her work, La noche de Tlatelolco–a crude testimony of the repression against the students. The interviewer asked her about the literary references and she confirmed that the chronicler Monsiváis and their followers were the best narrators because “they mix their own life with the chronicle” and added that “that´s why journalists have opportunities of writing everything they see beyond themselves.” Although González de Alba, former student leader and one of Poniatowska’s sources, said that his words were distorted (imaginary spaces?) by Poniatowska, others supported her. Literature is sometimes controversial, however. Mexico shows its national framework with the recent 132 movement or the earthquake in 1985, that Poniatowska confirmed as the moment that moved her the most because of the citizen mobilization: “One of the few moments in which Mexico was able to look at itself and more over, overcome the tragedy.”

Mexico is in the trilogy–identity, memory and heritage–which are the most important concepts to be framed in both national and transnational contexts.