What I am trying to say is the last few months have been one fantastically bizarre event (where free liquor is never conspicuously absent) after the next; one coincidence too many; one degree of separation too close such that the indie film your friend made half-a-decade-ago features your boss's daughter, who you have always been told you would quite like, wearing a fedora in a dark car-seat, as well as the only mother in Texcoco to ever make you dinner, which you ate even though you had just come from a restaurant, as you listened to her rules for cutting avocados while embarrassing her son in a surprisingly similar fashion to that of the film; one too many baptisms with Yacht at a car release party in a warehouse where no one else danced and no one seemed to realize the band on stage played not two months prior to a sold-out crowd; just too much for me to not stop and think what the hell is happening? and I mean that in the best possible way.
So what the hell is happening here? Maybe I partially know. I will, at least, pretend to partially know. This city is huge but she is not a new megalopolis. In 1975, according to National Geographic, there were just three of them - New York, Tokyo, and Darling Mexico City. She has, thus, had time to develop and embrace her established territory while feeding an insatiable appetite with satellites. Today, she sits somewhere around the world's 3rd largest city (depending on how you measure) and purportedly holds the title of the 8th richest city in the world. Now, no city gets that big or that rich by being egalitarian. So I posit that the craziness I have and continue to witness is, in part, related to the extremes of wealth distribution.
On the one hand, you have the nearly impenetrable cliques of the upper class, whose structure survives in part via nepotism but also through the free will of emerging generations and their propensity to socialize with others of similar upbringing and status until they partner off and perhaps spawn more bourgeoisie babies. I should note that this is neither a judgment nor a criticism. It is simply an observation and in all likelihood the same observation I would make in many cities and countries if given the chance to immerse myself as I have in Mexico. But how do these people affect me and the beautiful chaos? They throw parties because they have the money and connections and friends and spaces. And they all know each other by a degree of separation so the coincidences grow and ripen the deeper you dig into the crowd.
On the other hand, you also have the have-nots. People who moved from other states or pueblos or who simply were born into a less glamorous class within the boundaries of the Federal District. The general periphery, physically and monetarily. These people have a much harder time getting ahead in a city where who-you-know dictates how far you can rise and what doors will open when you show up most likely uninvited. This is harder to define because it can range from the wanna-be fresas to the guy selling self-help books on the metro. Regardless of which flavor, there is a desperation sometimes associated with working hard and getting no returns and having little hope of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps to make a better life, the national ethos inculcated in Americans as not only possible but a right. The so called "American Dream." So for those who do not leave Mexico to chase the same dream my Granpapi stalked through hitchhiking, train hopping and urban scavenging, there is a chance they may feel anything from a pinch to a gash of hopelessness. This hopelessness can, in turn, breed anarchy, leading to some pretty fucked up events, from unprovoked violence on dark avenues to incredible squatter parties in abandoned buildings overlooking highways that would daunt even Philip K. Dick.
The real truth of the matter is that I am, at best, hypothesizing and if so, guess that someone else has captured similar ideas before but probably with more eloquence and definitely with more support. At worst, I am making crude generalizations. But neither is of consequence because the point is that the city has the "it factor" and one only describes someone or something in such a way because "it" is inherently inexplicable, unquantifiable, inimitable.
So whatever the hell "it" is, keep on coming.
