Indigenismo, indianismo and ‘ethnic citizenship’ in Chiapas

Abstract

For many Zapatista supporters and others with an interest in the armed conflict, the struggle by Mexican Indians for autonomy is indistinguishable from that waged by the EZLN. Although this peasant organization has played a central part in the conflict in Chiapas, to understand this role it is necessary to contextualize it historically. To this end, the analysis examines three areas of that history. First, it highlights some aspects of the relationship between struggles for autonomy, indigenismo, and indianismo. Second, it looks at the role played by indianista leaders in the construction of the socio-political networks that maintained and encouraged Zapatismo at the local, national, and international level. And third, it scrutinizes the relationship between the struggles for autonomy, indigenismo and the politics of identity. The object is to show how and why present-day indigenous struggles for autonomy and self-determination are rooted in ‘old’ quests for ethnic citizenship, which were led initially by earlier indianista organizations and leaders.

Notes

1 Because the PRI government ignored many essential aspects of the Accords, the EZLN suspended dialogue with the Mexican State until the Concord and Pacification Commission (COCOPA) intervened. The latter consisted of legislators from all political parties represented in the Mexican Congress. The COCOPA drew up a proposal that preserved the spirit of the San Andrés Accords that was acceptable to the EZLN and its supporters throughout the nation. It also met with the approval of Vicente Fox of the PAN who, only days after taking office as president of Mexico, resumed negotiations with the EZLN.

2 In the section of the San Andrés Accords [Ce Acatl, 1996 entitled ‘Commitments made by the federal government to indigenous peoples’, the Mexican government undertook to establish a ‘new relationship [between] indigenous peoples and the state’.

3 See the San Andrés Accords, cited in Ce Acatl 1996: 35].

4 The law classified indigenous people and territory in a number of different ways: as ‘indigenous peoples’, as ‘indigenous communities’, as ‘indigenous municipalities’, and as ‘indigenous zones’. For the details, see the ‘Report on Indigenous Matters’, published in the Gaceta Parlamentaria 2001.

5 See also Rosaldo 1985; 1994; 1997, Jelin 1993; 1996, de la Peña 1995; 1999b, Jelin and Hershberg 1996, Torres Rivas 1997, Flores and Benmayor 1997, Dagnino 1998, Harvey 1998’ Assies et al. 1999, Gros 2000, Zárate 2001, and Leyva 2001.

6 In 1987 the concept ‘ethnic citizenship’ was adopted by the interdisciplinary project ‘Latino Cultural Studies Working Group of the Inter-University Programme for Latino Research’. A good overview of debates within and research conducted by this group is found in Flores and Benmayor 1997. The Peruvian historian Rodrigo Montoya 1996 also speaks of ‘ethnic citizenship’, with reference to the right that indigenous peoples should have to use their own language and culture in the context of a wider society.

7 See, for example, Flores and Benmayor 1997: 1, 6], and also Leyva, Burguete Cal y Mayor, and Speed 2003: 8]. The latter make the the following comparison ‘It is here that the situation of Latinos and Mexican indigenous people show parallels, notwithstanding important differences in the continent, such as the fact that the claims of some indigenous groups – for example Canadian Indians – are made from a materially secure position, which allows them to locate their demands more within the moral and ethical field. By contrast, in Latin American countries, such material security is often not only absent, but constitutes the basis of the claims that are made.’

8 For an extended discussion of the neo-zapatista network, see Leyva 2001.

9 The types of indigenous organizations that participated in the CNI are grouped in Figure 2.

10 See, for example, Sarmiento 1998, Sánchez 1999, Gros 2000, Bengoa 2000, Hernández Castillo 2001, Díaz Polanco and Sánchez 2002, and Ruiz Hernández and Burguete Cal y Mayor 2003.

11 See Velasco 2003: 123–4].

12 See de la Peña 1995, Sarmiento 1996, Leyva 2001, Velasco 2003 and Bizberg 2003.

13 See Rubio 1985, Tello 1995, Leyva and Ascencio 1996, Harvey 1998 and this volume], De Vos 2002 and Bizberg 2003.

14 See Velasco 2003: 136].

15 The term ‘dialogic’ is used in a Bakhtinian sense. According to Bakhtin 1981 every act of speech or writing is part of a dialogic process – that is, a response to others (who may or may not be present). Any discourse therefore exists only as part of and in dialogue with a previous or an alternative discourse. As Tedlock and Mannheim 1995 point out, all cultural systems and practices are not only continuously produced, reproduced and revised by members of a group, but also in dialogue with other cultures and cultural expressions.

16 As de la Peña 1995: 6] has observed, ‘ethnic citizenship’ refers to a process for which the formation of indigenous intellectuals is fundamental. These are conceived as cultural and political intermediaries who, in late twentieth century Mexico, contributed to the ‘problematization of indigenous culture and identity – including their own – as a negative or positive component of public participation’.

17 On this, see de la Peña 1995: 18, 26].

18 See Rus 1998: 259–61].

19 On this, see Rubin Bamaca 2000.

20 The concept Samuelismo refers to the Catholic catechism as taught by Bishop Samuel Ruiz. Between 1960 and 2000, the Bishop preached a catechism based on a Theology of the Preferential Option for the Poor and for Indians.

21 See the 1988 FIPI Statutes, cited in Chirino and Flores [n.d].

22 The term ladino refers to non-indigenous people. The concept is polysemic and complex, but for the purpose of this article it is defined simply as the ‘other’ of an indigenous subject.

23 For the details about this, see Bengoa 2000: 86–117].

24 These changes were published by the government in the Diario Oficial of 28 January 1992.

25 The politics of difference specifies the recognition of ethnicity, an identity that has generally been ignored or assimilated within a dominant one [Taylor, 1994: 38].

26 The San Andrés Accords are cited in Ce Acatl 1996: 36–9]. Indigenous rights include the capacity to use and exploit their territories as they wish, to self-government, and to manage and implement their own development projects [Ce Acatl, 1996: 38–9].

27 For example, entering alliances with the Zapotecas of the COCEI and with the Nahuas of the Guerrero Mountains.

28 The source for this and the following points are the 1988 FIPI Statutes [Chirino and Flores, n.d.].

29 Although this was not noted by those who studied FIPI, other problems were. The latter included the lack of continuity between old and new leaders, the unwillingness to enter political alliances, and a tendency to build a personality cult around leaders [Chirino and Flores, n.d.].

30 Explicitly incorporating mestiza ethnicity.

31 See Anzaldo 1998: 11], emphasis supplied.

32 On this, see Flores and Benmayor 1997: 1].

33 This is the view of de la Peña 1995 and Zárate 2001.

34 A detailed study of alliances and disagreements within the National Indigenous Congress can be found in Espeland 2000, Pérez Ruiz 2000 and Leyva 2001.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Xochitl Leyva Solano

Xochitl Leyva Solano, who received her PhD in Social Anthropology from the University of Manchester, is currently professor at CIESAS del Sur, Mexico. E-mail: [email protected]. Translated from Spanish by Jelke Boesten and Sarah Washbrook.