antunezy – Indigenous Rights in Latin America

Although colonialism has historically targeted Latin America, such effects on the Latin American people have not been enough to stop their own imperialist efforts. Issues of land and sovereignty: the uneasy relationship between Chile and Rapa Nui details the case of Chile, where the state’s imperialist efforts were inspired through their conquering of Peruvian and Bolivian land. The resolution of the War of the Pacific granted Chile land from the beaten countries, making Chile somewhat of an imperialist state over those newly gained territories. Here, they gained the Mapuche land, which allowed them to garner exploitive methods that would expand to the newly gained territory of Rapa Nui. Through merchant trade, Chile saw a possibility in Polynesian territory and annexed Rapa Nui.
The relationship between the Rapa Nui and Chile is complicated and has remained ambiguous across Chile’s changing government regimes. When Chile annexed Rapa Nui, it was due to a misunderstanding between the Chilean representative and the island’s chief who gave them the blessing to use the land for agricultural purposes but without ownership. Chile took this ritual as acceptance to their land ownership, which came back full circle when the Chilean Navy practiced gifting land to newly married Rapa Nui couples. In their terms, this gifted land could be used for agricultural purposes, but it was to be understood that the owners were still the state. The Rapa Nui also understood this as holding property ownership, which attests to the confusing nature of these two group’s relationship, as well as its legitimacy.
The Rapa Nui have used this confusing relationship to circumvent Chile’s rule as the laws passed such as the Inscription of 1933, La Ley Indigena of of 1933, and La Ley Pascua, which subjected the Indigenous people of Chile to regulations. These laws have created unforeseen consequences that have been to the advantage of the Rapa Nuis’ autonomy. The Inscription of 1933 made it so no foreigners could invest or own the land on the island, which benefited the Rapa Nui peoples as they didn’t have to worry about the threat of foreign land ownership. Unlike other Latin American Indigenous groups who have and are subject to foreign attractive forces, the Rapa Nui were guaranteed against that. La Ley Indigena of 1933 made it so land redistribution became a norm amongst Indigenous groups of Chile, which was a polarizing issue amongst the island.
Since Rapa Nui culture was founded on the practice of the Kainga, ancestral lands pertaining to each klan, land redistribution would force Rapa Nui to go against the Kainga and take ownership of a specific land not spiritually given to them. The Kainga made it so land could be used communally and without specific ownership because each group claimed their own land spiritually or through historical patterns. Then La Ley de Pascua was passed in which the Rapa Nui peoples were recognized as Chilean citizens and given the right to vote, which created greater pressures on the island to distribute land in a way that would create individual land ownership. Throughout the regime transitions of Chile, the factor that has remained the same is the pressure to instill land privatization that is a characteristic of the neoliberalist policy, but such pressures to enhance this practice undermine the cultural importance of the Kainga to the Rapa Nui, which indicates an instilled sense of the state that the Rapa Nui have not assimilated to Chilean culture and are therefore undeserving of practicing that culture.
The issue of Chile to recognize the cultural importance of land to the Rapa Nui and instead pressure them into privatizing their land is indicative of their lack of understanding of indigeneity that is described in the chapter “The Problem of the Indian” in Seven Interpretative Essays on Peruvian Reality. In this essay Jose Carlos Mariategui discusses how others attribute the “Indian problem,” in terms of it being an educational, religious, or administrative issue. The problem is not purely socio-economic, but it is also not purely a problem of the administrative policies or the education of some. It is also not just a land tenure problem, although that area is highly focused on as it is the most visible discrepancy of Indigenous peoples from state civilians. The complexity of what the “Indian problem” entails is similar and a relation to explaining why Chile has lacked in being able to police the Rapa Nui in the way that they have over the Mapuche. Instead of policing their land, their cultural habits, and the way they present themselves to outsiders as they have with the Mapuche, Chile has forgoed much intervention with the Rapa Nui, although they do, technically, own their land. By testifying that the problem of Indigenous assimilation or prosperity under the state is not merely due to a department of the state, but all combined, which makes the “issue” one almost impossible to define or fix.
https://muse-jhu-edu.ezproxy.carleton.edu/chapter/515052
https://www.marxists.org/archive/mariateg/works/7-interpretive-essays/index.htm

Colorism is an issue prevalent within Latin American society that affects many darker-skinned folk living in the region. Specifically, colorism is a prevalent issue within Indigenous communities. In efforts to deconstruct and solidify the definition or requirements of indigeneity, we must first define the impact of colonialism on anti-blackness in Indigenous communities. Societal systems in the Americas have been forced with anti-blackness mindsets since the implementation of extractive and settler colonialism types. As a group that had to give up their autonomy in order to exist, Indigenous peoples were also subject to such mindsets. To subject indigeneity as an exclusive group is to erase that identity to non-standard groups such as Black people. However, this raises the question about how indigeneity should be measured in order to remain authentic and legitimate.
In the chapter titled “Dangerous Decolonizing: Indians and Blacks and the Legacy of Jim Crow,” Brian Klopotek discusses the main points of reshaping the Indian methodologies that present indigeneity as a heterogenous group rather than an entity whose boundaries are blurred. Also, they argue that race must be included more broadly in Indian studies, as one legacy of white supremacy within the Indigenous premise is anti blackness and need to seperate themselves from other minorities, but especially any blackness.
The focus groups of this chapter was based on the Tunica-Biloxi group, the Choctaw Indians, and especially the Clifton-Choctaw who are the only group among the three that are not federally-recognized. In terms of the Clifton-Choctaw, the anti blackness is especially prevalent when discussing their modes of strategy for trying to get federal approval of their group legitimacy. This case is especially concerning when taking into account their geographical location, Louisiana, which is known to have a large Black population. Given that Indigenous groups had to constantly advocate for themselves to garner rights and some autonomy apart from being a minority, in context, it is not surprising that they tried to distance themselves as having any relationship to Black people.
As the Jim Crow Era made it so people had to abide by the clear and set distinction of Black and white people, it left other minorities, like the Indigenous communities, to adopt both silent and loud anti-blackness in order to be seperated from Black people and survive within white superiority. In order to send their children to better schools, be eligible for better jobs, and be taken seriously among their decolonization efforts, Indigenous people denied any blackness within their communities. Although a survival tactic, Indigenous people were complicit in the oppression of Black people, as they maintained the belief that being Black was being at the bottom.
In bringing forth the issue to the public, the writer hopes to decolonize the indian methodologies that try to seperate themselves from blackness. It is an attribute of indigeneity to be able to encompass multiple ethnicities, meaning Indigenous people may be light or dark and still identify through that native label. Therefore, indigeneity, although broad, is one step closer to defining itself once measuring their inclusion of Black people, or Black ancestry.
Written by the Government of Bolivia in 1900, “The Slow and Gradual Disappearance of the Indigenous Race” classifies four races and their attributes. The Bolivian government distinguishes the races as white, mestizo, black, and Indian. The white race is seen as the superior race, which the government includes Bolivians as part of this group. Therefore, true Bolivians are apparently white, while mestizos include those like cholos. The government states that cholos are still superior to Indigenous people, but below Bolivians due to their respectability. The Black race is then formed by former ancestral slaves or people from countries like Brazil who make up a very “insignificant” amount of the population and are in competition with mulattos. The system places mulattos above Black people, although both groups are on the bottom of the privilege scale. These chapter excerpts detail the labeling of race that Indigenous peoples were subject to and therefore had to navigate in order to obtain rights and better means of life. As the white race, or the civilians of that nation, compared Black people with Indigenous people, it was dangerous to them to accept such relationship because it would mean a permanent bottom order in society, which is what Black people have historically suffered. Although white supremacy and racism made it hard for Indigenous groups to navigate their way through a better societal order, one cannot deny their role in practicing and helping cement the belief that Black people are the bottom of society and therefore one must distinguish themselves from them and any blackness among them.
Similar because it shows a perspective of the elitist group trying to change the requirements to be labeled as Indigenous in order to erase their legitimacy, This threat has possibly made it so indians are more likely to hold their methodology of race consolidation more firmly to legitimize their group
https://www.dukeupress.edu/the-bolivia-reader
https://muse-jhu-edu.ezproxy.carleton.edu/book/16159/

Author: antunezy

Chile: "The Indian Problem"

The Legacy of White Supremacy on Indigeneity