Author: Rae Tennent

Invasive species and indigenous activism in Chile

Rae Tennent on

Background
Concepción, a city in the south of Chile, is covered in Pine trees. These trees are not native to Chile and their presence in the country has been harmful on many levels. The story starts in the 1930s when chileans, seeking new exports and hoping to control   erosion, begin cultivating a species of North American pine tree. These early plots were similar in structure to the “haciendas” or plantation style estates that covered much of the country, and were equally damaging to rural populations.

Pine Trees lining the highway outside of Concepción in Southern Chile. (1)
Haciendas were instituted in central Chile in the 1870s and moved into southern Chile in the decades that followed. These estates allowed rich foreign investors to purchase large swaths or chilean land and convert indigenous and creole people already living on the land into tenant laborers. This created a oppressive system where “hacienda workers were not capable of breaking through paternalistic domination to organise themselves and challenge landowners,” (2). In the early years of colonization, the hacienda system grew unchecked in Chile, because land was abundant and “unclaimed.” In this way, large amounts of chilean land was put into production for the export economy, though very little of this land was modernized in any significant way. This pattern is in keeping with the idea of “extractive colonialism,” wherein the goal of colonialism is not to develop a new world, but to support the wealth of the old world. Colonialism of this type generally goes hand in hand with settler colonialism (the formation of a new state in the settled lands), as can be seen in the hacienda system.
Political Unrest
The hacienda system continued into the mid 1900s, though as the country modernized, so too did the haciendas. Tenet laborers (often called campesinos) began to take notice of the unjust system in place. The stirrings of revolution began in the countryside in the 60s and 70s, culminating in the election of Salvador Allende in 1970. His socialist government attempted to fix the situation in a way that would benefit tenet laborers (often termed campesinos), and the growing forestry industry. Campesinos were largely opposed to these changes, as they rightly predicted that pine plantations would come with steep ecological costs and make subsistence agriculture more difficult. However, Allende’s government was on the verge of reaching an accord when it was toppled in 1973.
Pinochet took power by force in 1973, and immediately began instituting neoliberal reforms to capitalize off of the forests planted by Allende and predecessors. Pinochet, however, was less empathetic to the plight of the rural campesinos than Allende had been, and began doubling down on forestry. Pinochet’s government seized potentially forestable lands, expelled campesinos, and auctioned the land off to corporations. This created a cheap labor force of ex-campesinos who no longer had access to land (for subsistence agriculture) or a steady income. At the same time, Pinochet began criminalizing all types of political organizing. During his regime, union leaders were detained, tortured, and often killed.

A view of Magdalena Island, where detainees were housed and tortured under Pinochet’s regime. Native Kaweskar people were also housed on this island during an era of forced assimilation.
Pinochet also instituted “counter terrorism” laws which persist in the country to this day and have had lasting effects on political movements. Meanwhile, forestry zones quickly became the poorest areas in the country, while the industry made Chile’s wealthy elite more and more money. The land and its people were being outrageously mistreated. The introduction of pine as a monoculture forced native fauna to flee, leaving rural people without a major food source. Pine needles dropping onto forest floors have acidified the soils. Plantations were also fenced off, so that people could not harvest firewood. This disconnection to the land was especially troubling for Mapuche people, who are native to the central region of Chile.
During the growth of the forestry industry, native forests of Pehuen trees (also known as Monkey Puzzle trees or Araucaria araucana) were replaced with invasive pine trees.

The strange and beautiful Pehuen Tree, native to central and southern Chile (3).
Because of their hardiness, Pehuen trees are considered sacred by Mapuche peoples and the destruction of Pehuen forests, along with seizure of native lands and consistent human rights abuses, have driven Mapuche people into action. In the 80s, in the midst of Pinochet’s violent regime, Mapuche organizers united with the catholic church, allowing a resurgence of the labor movement. Progress was made throughout the 80s and 90s, despite the dictatorship, and some land has been returned to Mapuche peoples.
 
Activism in the wake of dictatorship
The dictatorship has left lasting effects on the community and its ability to organize. As previously mentioned, pine acidifies soil, meaning that native forests cannot regain a foothold. For this reason, land returned to Mapuche peoples requires constant maintenance and ecological restoration.
Meanwhile, Mapuche activists are still attempting to reclaim land and remove pine plantations. Protesters have blockaded roads and purportedly set fire to plantations to halt production. However, the vestiges of dictatorial government still haunt the justice system in Chile. The counter terrorism laws, passed during the Pinochet, are still on the books. Many protesters, especially those of Mapuche origin, have been prosecuted under these laws. Extrajudicial killings have also been reported throughout the country side, sparking further protests.

Questions to consider from this case study:
How can cultural contexts inform activism?

The Ayllu and Indigeneity in Bolivia

Rae Tennent on

Background
Bolivia has been ravaged by the early effects of climate change, as have many countries in the global south. In the Amazonian region, record flooding has threatened lives, while in the lowlands severe drought has taken hold. Meanwhile, the glaciers of the highland region are shrinking, drastically reducing the countries sources of clean water.

The retreat of Chacaltaya Glacier, in the mountains outside of La Paz, as documented by Researchers from NASA GISS (1) shows the alarming effects of climate change in the country. In response to these catastrophes, Bolivian people have begun organizing. In the 1990s, a group of indigenous activists and environmental activist banded together to fight against ecological destruction. They argued that resource rights were directly tied to the public good. Rights and use of resources is directly tied to a wide variety of issues, from indigenous rights to national sovereignty.
Indigenous culture and cultural Shifts in response to climate change:

Counter Climate Change Organization
Though the original movement in the 1990s has changed forms over the past decades, in response to our changing knowledge of ecological destruction and climate change, organization around these issues has persisted in the country. One of the interesting forms of this activism is CONAMAQ (National Council for Ayllus and Markas of Qullasuyu). CONAMAQ is mobilizing as an alternative to capitalism and hinging its argument on an idealized vision of indigeneity. This group argues that the best way to fight climate change is to return to a collective, idealistic style that they term the Ayllu (2). The argument is not baseless. CONAMAQ argues that returning to a “commons” ideal surrounding resource management will help the country make more responsible decisions regarding resources. Given that the country is still dealing with a neoliberal and largely privatized resource economy, it is likely that shifting to a more collective, public understanding of resource management will mitigate some ecological problems. In the 1990s and 2000s, this was exactly the goal of the movement, to “reclaim ‘the commons’ from private hands,” (2).  However, many activists are now arguing for the return to the Ayllu. 
The Ayllu
The imagined Ayllu, as illustrated in a political poster in Bolivia (3)

The Ayllu structure defined the ancient Incan civilization, and persists to some extent in Quechua and Aymara communities in rural Bolivia. Ayllus are self sustaining family units with a single leader and often associated minor god. They have also been widely hailed as the way to solve climate struggles in Bolivia. CONAMAQ “conceptualizes the ayllu as an egalitarian and Pre-columbian kin-based and collectively owned territorial space: the key to their political work is claiming autonomy and self-sufficiency,” (2) and advocate for the development of communities of this type in Bolivia.
However, many indigenous people within Bolivia do not agree with this solution. Every year, Bolivia grows more urban as indigenous people leave the country side, where they can no longer survive on subsistence agriculture methods. Most do not want to return, and feel tied to the city. Furthermore, the return to ayllu argument does not provide a solution for the climate change issue that affect urban centers. The city of El Alto in Bolivia is experiencing a water crisis from a combination of climate issues and poor infrastructure, but abandoning the city to return to the countryside will not solve this problem.
Within indigenous communities, climatic changes have forced a reconging about culture and the future survival of community and eco-movements within Bolivia continue to exacerbate these struggles. Rather than take into account a modern version of indigeneity, CONAMAQ romanticizes collective living and Ayllu life style.
Questions to consider from this case study:
What strategies can international organizations use to engage indigenous activists without over romanticizing a past version of indigeneity?
Is CONAMAQ correct that there is no version of capitalism which solve climate change and create climate justice?
What place do non-indigenous people have in preserving indigeneity?