Tag: Indigenous Rights

Cosmovision and Justice

Emma Ferrer on

For Bolivia, the 1990s neoliberal reforms brought privatization of resources such as water, electricity and transportation.  As neoliberalism caused growing inequality and exploitation of those resources and the people who used them, tensions surrounding privatization grew.  This culminated in two large movements: the Water Wars of 2000, and the Gas Wars of 2003. The motivation behind the movements was the indigenous people who were losing their land and cultural practices due to the extraction of resources.  In the article “Good living for whom? Bolivia’s climate justice movement and the limitations of indigenous cosmovisions,” Fabricant explains that this brought up the important question of how indigenous ways of life were supposed to be protected.
As a result of the surge in indigenous activism, Evo Morales rose to popular eye and was elected president on the platforms of revitalising Bolivia through social movements.  The election of Morales made the Bolivian left very hopeful that his indigenous perspective was going to be the ideology that saved Bolivia from a climate crisis and be an example for the world.  In practice, Morales ended up ignoring the consulta previa Fabricant argues that independent of the fact that Morales lost sight of the indigenous activism he promised, it is not possible to apply indigenous cosmovisions or societal structures to national or global platforms.  Speaking specifically of the Aymara organization of labor, the ayllu, Fabricant points out that these systems were developed in the Andes, for the Andes. The ayllu system works to keep stability within communities, ensures that no one group suffers more in a drought year or in a bad livestock year, and upholds respect for nature.  While this is a great model, it is not up to indigenous groups to educate about, and implement solutions for problems that colonialism, neoliberalism, and globalization caused.
Fabricant describes the economic and social structure of the ayllu in relationship to the exploitative extraction policies of the Bolivian government that indigenous communities throughout Bolivia were opposing in order to preserve their relationship with the land.  This structure brings up the larger theme of the indigenous cosmovisions, or worldviews, that define indigenous cultures separate from western ideology. Cosmovision is extremely important concept for the indigenous activists as they take on the burden of educating the elite and general public to further their cultural needs.  This concept is the justification for all political demands because their worldview impacts the way they move through spaces and interact with structures of power. Indigenous language, values, upbringing, and beliefs all shape a person differently than western culture.
Different communities, experiencing different cultural and political contexts, advocate for different demands based on their specific needs. During Bolivia’s climate wars, multiple groups had conflicting demands based on the differences in their communities position within the economic and social structures.  The systems of power, when negotiating with indigenous groups, are quick to try and generalize the demands of indigenous people but their cosmovisions are not the same. Decolonization can not begin without the acknowledgement that each indigenous group has a unique cosmovision that must be respected and taken into account when dismantling hegemonic institutions.

Indigeneity and Land

hernandezo on

One of the things that came to mind when reading the readings this week was what it means to be indigenous. The reason that this is something that I thought about frequently was because of what we read in Now Peru Is Mine by Manuel Mitma Llamojha and Jaymie Patricia Heilman. Llamojha explains on pages 11-12 about how he prefers to describe himself as a campesino versus calling himself Indian, Quechua, Aymara, or even indigenous. Although, the author does say, “His understanding of what it means to be a campesino is one that melds ethnic, class, and historical identities, and he is both passionate and explicit about his indigeneity.”1 It’s interesting that he chooses to use a social-economic label to describe himself. Although, it’s worth noting that he denounces the word “indian”, Llamojha says:
“Discrimination began when the Spanish took America. They categorized all the natives of the continent as ‘Indians,’ as people of another country, another world. I always felt proud when they called ‘Indian.’ When Christopher Columbus came to America, he thought that all the inhabitants of America from India. So I was proud when they said ‘Indian’ to me, because that meant I was from India.”2
This reminded me of conversations with my father who spoke to me of the remnants of indigenous lifestyle in his home pueblo of Pomoca, Michoacán. While he also shared the same sentiments about the use of the word “indio” or “indian” to describe himself as someone who comes from indigenous descent, he preferred to call himself a “campesino”, but used the two terms fairly interchangeably. His rationale for this was that as a Mexican with indigenous roots, he also resonated with the idea that being called “indian” further carried on a legacy of colonialism. While my father never explicitly said this, he felt it was wrong to call his fellow indigenous Mexican people with the incorrect name because they indeed weren’t from India, and therein lies a form of belittling and taking away from the strength and pride there is in indigeneity, and having colonizers rename and stick a name onto a people.
On a different note, the reason he strongly resonated with the word campesino was the fact that he felt that as a farmer, he saw the agricultural component, the physical labor that came with the lifestyle, and the spiritual connection to the land, as a means to fulfill the needs of his people were far more important than what demarcated him as indigenous, or “indio”, in geographic and racial terms. Just because he was darker skinned than other people in his pueblo and just because he didn’t live in the urbanized parts of Michoacan wasn’t what deemed him indigenous or being of indigenous descent. I think this proves to be a very valuable insight as to what it means to be indigenous. There’s merit in the work of cultivating land and creating a lifestyle and whole community based around that labor. It weaves together societies, fortifies relationships, gives these communities capital and a means of creating and contributing to national commerce. While most of the customs, language, and religions of that my dad said were forgotten and lost over the years, the land they owned and cultivated over generations were their claim to a past that is out of reach.
I think the thoughts that my dad had about indigeneity also find themselves expressed in the thoughts that Llamojha’s words and beliefs as well. As a result of his upbringing on an hacienda and being of indigenous descent, he also lived a life of extraneous labor and knew that the land was an integral part of indigenous people’s lives and identities. A lot of the denunciations he made were always tied to land. Whether it was unfair treatment and unjust labor conditions/hours for campesinos or the acquisition and claiming of lands that belonged to campesinos; all these are rooted in the lands that were owned by the people.
Hence, why the preservation of land, and moreover, the owning of these lands by the people that have been there for centuries, is arguably the most important component to indigenous rights. While my father himself didn’t unfairly lose lands at any point, he often points to the injustices American settlers imposed upon the Mexican people through the taking of lands above the current U.S border. So, he used that often times to describe a more universal struggle of the indigenous people we have been reading about that often had their lands unjustly taken, by coercion or by force. It brings us time and time again to the discourse over land and the claims that indigenous people have to them outside of the jurisdiction of the law that is often created thereafter only to tear indigenous people from the lands.
Works Cited
1. Mitma, Manuel Llamojha, and Jaymie Patricia Heilman. Now Peru Is Mine: The Life and times of a Campesino Activist. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016. 11-12.
2. Mitma, Manuel Llamojha, and Jaymie Patricia Heilman. Now Peru Is Mine: The Life and times of a Campesino Activist. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2016. 11-12.

Who is Indigenous? A Question of Indigeneity Throughout Latin America

jfrancoportfolio on

The term that has been the hardest for me to understand throughout the term is indigenous. At the beginning of this course, I heavily attributed this term to the word native, meaning originating from, as I mostly commonly associate this term to plants and herbs. However, as the term has gone on I have noticed that the meaning of indigenous varies within different countries and peoples, especially in the case studies of Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, and Chile we have focused on.
The piece by Andrew Canessa, “Who Is Indigenous? Self-Identification, Indigeneity, And Claims to Justice in Contemporary Bolivia”, further explores the meaning of indigenous by analyzing the complexity of indigeneity in Bolivia in terms of identification of self and entire communities.  Canessa describes how the term indigenous is heavily associated to the ideas of hunter-gatherers and nomads. Most notably the word indigenous is thought closely to stand for “primitive” in relation to the ancestors of humankind. Although this is the initial thought when discussing the term indigenous, Canessa acknowledges that who is indigenous and what it means to be indigenous throughout Latin America is complex and variable among different individuals and time.
An aspect of indigeneity could include language, specifically the language of Quechua in the case of Bolivia, but many indigenous languages throughout Latin America also contribute to this. Although language is an important factor to indigeneity, it is not a binding requirement since there are many individuals who do not speak Quechua, such as the president Evo Morales, and still identify as indigenous.  Indigeneity can also be identified through jobs worked, such as that of farming and agriculture, that also reflect social class. Plus, geographical setting was a key role to some individuals who identify as indigenous through their ties to land pre- and post-colonialism. However, it is not always the case or required as seen through the cases of migrants who have been forced off their land. One of the biggest challenges that comes with self-identification when it comes to indigeneity is the relevant political issues that rise up, since many take the identity of indigenous as a political position. As Canessa points out in this article, this brings up the question of who gets a say when discussing indigenous needs and rights if those who identify as indigenous do it in varying ways.
Defining this term is also a bit subjective in many cases, as one may wonder if the term indigenous is meant to be an inclusive or vastly exclusive term. In some areas, this word is very exclusionary since it requires the individual to be, look, live, work, and identify a certain way in order to be able to identify or be accepted as indigenous. This may leave those who do not fit these standards exactly, or at all, to be unacknowledged.
The piece “Transnational Settler Colonial Formations and Global Capital: A Consideration of Indigenous Mexican Migrants” by Lourdes Gutiérrez Nájera and Korinta Maldonado attempts to describe and understand the relationship between the migration of indigenous communities into spaces influenced by settler-colonialism. The authors discuss the underlying question of how settler-colonialism influences indigeneity in terms of social order and relations to the land. The article mentions how the migration led to a sort of “Indigenous Resurgence” among the Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Mixes people from the state of Oaxaca, Mexico into the surrounding area of Los Angeles. Specifically, the Zapotec people have been noted to have left a big impact in the city of LA, in a space that has become known as “Oaxacalifornia”, through the formation of enclaves, restaurants, and stores. Also, they even formed local organizations such as bands, basketball teams, dance groups, and festivals or parades of cultural celebration. This specifically reflects how the indigenous communities of migrants from Oaxaca, Mexico were able to develop their indigeneity even in this transnational space they found themselves in. The article analyzes the question of indigeneity through migrants who are no longer in the land their culture and way of life contributes to. But despite this, the indigenous communities of the Mixtecs, Zapotecs, and Mixes people show how their indigeneity can be lived, practiced, embraced, and supported despite the distance and space they live in today.
Also, this term can serve to be inclusive in other areas, as there is no exact definition of the word, leaving it to be more general including everyone who wishes to identify this way. However, there are even some homologous terms in other countries, such as our current case study of Peru where the people prefer the term campesino, which in a sense implies indigenous descent but more importantly acknowledges a socioeconomic status. Although, there is no straightforward or single definition for the term indigenous, the themes and complexities that its understanding entails is important in order to begin, or continue understanding indigeneity as a whole.

Performative Identity: The Effects of Spanish Colonization on Indigenous Women and Society

jfrancoportfolio on

The theme of performative identity, an exploration of the effects of Spanish colonization on the social hierarchy of indigenous communities, can be seen in the change of family structure, rights of women, and the representation of culture. The pre-colonial indigenous social structure, in terms of family, was heavily reliant on marriage. Marriage was important to the way individuals lived in relation to their community, since the wife and husband functioned as a “unit” where they worked together and were seen as one. A great example of this structure is seen between Titiruku, an Aymara activist, and his wife Rosa Ramos where they helped each other network and find resources. However, with colonization from the Spanish, these structures and practices have shifted greatly and had the most impact on indigenous women. Post-colonialism, the Western Colonial Ideology led to “the denial of the very notion of ‘human rights’ to the female sex” in indigenous communities. As their rights began to decrease and their role grew inferior, women became a focus for reproductive use and childcare, meanwhile the role of men increased in society and in the cities, leaving women in the background.
The representation of culture through language, clothes, and jobs reflect another change in the identity of indigenous communities through the shift in the social hierarchy due to Spanish colonization. The most notable shift was the assimilating behavior by indigenous men who worked in the city since they would change both their appearance and behavior. These indigenous men would trade out their traditional clothing and for more European-styled clothes all the while speaking Spanish throughout their time in La Paz, Bolivia.  The fact that some indigenous men did change their clothes and language, or simply the fact that they were able to do that not only reflected their privilege and power in their communities, but also impacted the way indigenous women were viewed in society and their accessibility to certain jobs.
Indigenous women would wear more traditional clothing which included skirts, or polleras, that made them stand out more and, in a sense, stay stagnant in their roles. These clothing pieces were traditional and stood out as a significant factor of their indigeneity and culture, therefore it was hard for them to blend in or assimilate they way the indigenous men did. Notably, the ideas that “To the man, the profession, and to the woman, the hacienda” led indigenous women to more often than not work as artisans, in domestic service, and in commerce. Due to this ideology, indigenous women were pushed towards these jobs with a newbound society setup to keep it that way. The fact that Spanish colonialism impacted so many aspects of the performative identity of indigenous individuals is important to note and must be further discussed in order to achieve a greater understanding and appreciation of indigenous peoples and their work.
These points reflect the direct impact that Spanish colonialism had on the indigenous communities, a drastic change from what it once was. It is important to discuss this topic and bring it to light because the change in their social hierarchy also affects the way indigenous communities interact among themselves and with the rest of the country. This also includes their participation and decisions in other aspects, such as the way they assemble, their involvement in politics, and the leaders they choose or follow. By analyzing their social structure, we are able to further understand indigenous communities but also, we have the opportunity to examine how this structure has evolved within indigenous communities and whether or not it has retained the changes. Also, by gaining this new understanding, we can compare the impact on indigenous social hierarchies in other Latin American countries, not just Bolivia, that were also conquered by the Spanish empire, in order to evaluate how much the impact was and for how long it has remained.
There are various key terms that are essential to understanding, or at least beginning to understand, the impacts on indigenous communities from Spanish colonialism. The most important term to begin this analysis is discussing what colonialism is and who it has impacted in society. By recognizing the term, we can fully dive into the discussion of its impacts. Also, Indigenous feminism, on the other hand, is crucial for the realization of the roles indigenous women faced in their society through time. Due to Western Ideology, the role of indigenous women changed not only in their society but in also the one of Bolivia as a whole, and therefore it is important to acknowledge the need to support of these women, not necessarily all since other women were relieved of certain jobs that they pressed upon indigenous women instead. The term ayllu remains significant as well because the idea of community has adapted and been modified throughout time, both pre and post colonialism reaching even towards the way it is viewed today.

Theme: "Lettered Society"

walls on

[et_pb_section admin_label=”section”]
[et_pb_row admin_label=”row”]
[et_pb_column type=”4_4″][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text”]Key Theme: “Lettered Society”

This concept is mentioned in Brooke Larson’s article “Forging the Unlettered Indian”, in Joan Rappaport’s book “Politics of Memory,” and in Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui’s article “The Notion of Rights and the Paradoxes of Postcolonial Modernity.” Through these texts, the written word and literacy are conveyed as powerful tools for colonization, which are used as an exclusionary tool kept away from Indigenous communities and used to control, oppress, and set them apart. Because literacy played such an important role throughout colonization and subsequent law and land reforms, it is important to understand how literacy operated in this historical context and how it was used as a tool to oppress Indigenous communities and later as a tool by Indigenous people to empower themselves and stand up against their colonization.

In Larson’s article, she discusses how “lettered elites” were in control of the government and made Bolivian legal, political, and economic decisions. Because literacy was seen as such a powerful tool in this society, it was kept from many indigenous people. Larson describes an education reform in which a “dissident group of intellectuals hijacked the liberal idea of universal literacy and schooling to push forward a model of Indian schooling that subordinated universal literacy to specialized labor.” This supports that literacy was used as an exclusionary tool to maintain that those in power remain in power. Cusicanqui’s article discusses how it was the literate apoderados in Bolivia who were empowered to voice complaints and demands for their communities. She discusses how it was the literate who were able to contribute to political discourse and decision making and it was through this discourse that a “literate public opinion” and “literate culture” developed. Exclusion from literacy perpetuated indigenous exclusion from these spheres as well. Finally, Rappaport discusses the weight put on literacy in her book Politics of Memory. She uses the term “fetishization of the written word” to emphasize the priority and power placed within the ability to read and write. She also discusses Quintin Lame’s use of the written word to gain a voice in the society and to gain legitimacy for the history he writes down about his people. He is able to find power for himself and his community through his literacy.[/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column]
[/et_pb_row]
[/et_pb_section]

Contextualizing the Progress of Indigenous’ Struggles in the 21st century

parraa on

In the course that set the foundation for this collective project to be made, we critically analyzed contemporary issues unfolding today with real consequences on the lives of many peoples. As a class, we aimed to engage with the literature in a critical way while being conscious of our subjectivity and positionality to these issues. We apply this understanding of our own work to our critical analysis of the literature we have engaged with in this course as their personal temporality and own biases influenced the works they created and the conclusions they reached. In the first week of our course, we explored three texts that contextualize the hopes, successes, and failures of indigenous struggles in Latin America. In 1998, Deborah J. Yashar was hopeful about the radical changes that could be achieved through the new indigenous mobilizations in the last two decades of the twentieth century. She understood these new waves of increasing political organization by indigenous communities as the radical continuation of previous mobilizations to achieve material survival. In her narrative, these new indigenous mobilizations would fulfill the incomplete political liberalization and state reforms that previous mobilizations began but were unable to complete. Specifically, Yashar understood these mobilizations as new phenomena of contestation for the practice and terms of citizenship in Latin American democracies. Yashar is representative of an optimistic group of scholars in the late 20th century encouraged by the emerging democracies throughout Latin America, and the radical social organization that sought to define these different democracies. However, this optimism would be stifled by the rise of neoliberalism in the region.
In the 21st century, the consequences of the indigenous movements of the late 20th century were beginning to unfold and their successes as well as failures had lessons for new radical groups continuing the struggle against systems of oppression for marginalized groups in Latin America. To clarify the struggle these groups were engaged in, Nancy Grey Postero and Leon Zamosc’s essay label what Yashar understood as an indigenous contestation over citizenship as the Indian question. Postero and Zamoc ask through the Indian question “what kinds of rights indigenous people should be granted as citizens of democratic nation-states” (Postero, 2006: 5). While Yashar was mostly hopeful about the change that indigenous organization could achieve, the authors of this paper hold the opinion that the effect of these movements is dependent on the context of the state in which they form and they highlight the importance of plurality, history, and state relations in the claims and goals of indigenous movements. The diversity of conditions across Latin America makes it impossible to draw universal conclusions on the success and failures of the wave of indigenous social movements in the late twentieth century throughout the region.
Charles R. Hale’s article offers a more a critical assessment of the impact of the indigenous mobilizations of the late 20th century. In his article, he reassesses the effect of these mobilizations nine years later as incomplete. He argues that the new indigenous mobilizations at the end of the 20th century did not create a new citizenship, as Yashar predicted, but rather ended up opening spaces for some forms of indigeneity but continuing to exclude the majority. He critiques Yashar’s work for not accounting for neoliberalism’s cultural project and its violent relations with indigenous culture. While Portero and Zamosc’s article recognizes neoliberalism as a factor to take into account in the Indian question, they concentrate more on the political and economic dimensions of neoliberalism and similarly fail to fully recognize the importance of the cultural dimension of the neoliberal project. Hale uses the term “Indio permitido” to describe the way indigenous movements are being domesticated and divided by the granting of cultural rights by state’s with neoliberal projects. These articles summarize how the recent organization of indigenous groups around their indigeneity has opened promising conversations and some amount of progress in the granting of rights, but there are still questions about the progress that can be achieved when working through the colonizing states whose neoliberal projects demand the cultural erasure of indigenous culture and peoples or assimilated versions of who they are.
References
Hale, Charles. “Rethinking indigenous politics in the era of the “indio permitido”.” NACLA Report on the Americas 38.2 (2004): 16-21.
Postero, Nancy Grey, and Leon Zamosc. “The struggle for indigenous rights in Latin America.” Journal of Latin American Anthropology 11.1 (2006): 208-210.
Yashar, Deborah J. “Contesting citizenship: Indigenous movements and democracy in Latin America.” Comparative politics (1998): 23-42.