View
234
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/10/2019 Hale. Indio Permitido
1/7
NACLA REPORT
O N
THE AMER
REPORT ON RACE PART 1
harles
R
Hale
is
associate professor
o f
anthropology at the
L/nivf rsifyof Texas.
Austtn; autho r o f
Resistance and
Contradiction:
Miskitu Indians and
the Nicaraguan
Slate. 1894-1987
(1994),a ndMis que
un indio: Racial
Ambivalence and
the Paradox of
Rethinking Indigenous
Politics in the Era of the
Indio Permitido
b y C h a r le s R H a l e
Ethnicity can be a powerful tool in the creation of human and social capital, but. if politici
ethnicity can destroy capital. .. . E thnic diversity is dysfunctional when it generates conflict. ...
World Bank Web site on "Social Capital and Ethnici
D
LIRING THE 1990S, DR. DEMETRIO COJTt
Cuxil gained a well-eamed reputation as
"Dean" of Maya studies in Guatemala.^ A
prolific scholar and public intellectual, Cojti
deeply influenced the debate on Maya cultural
and political rights. Many dominant culture
ladinos associated him with the most assertive
of Maya demands that directly challenge their
long-standing racial pn viiege. To express their
anxieties about these challenges, they often
distinguished between principles they
endorsed, like the idea of cultural equality, and
"extreme" Maya demands that they associated
with violence and conflict. When asked to
elaborate, they would often turn personal:"Ah,
Demetrio Cojtl, for examplehe is 100%
radical."^
In 1998, 1talked with Cojtl abo ut the con-
tradictory mix of opportunity and refusal in
the policies of the Arzu administration (1996-
2000) toward Maya, which he summarized
succinctly: "Before, they just told us 'no.' Now,
their response is 'si, pero' [ yes, but']." When
Cojti later accepted the post of Vice Minister of
Education in the newly elected Portillo gov-
ernment, speculation reigned. Had he "sold
out"? Was he out to test the limits of s i , pero"?
Gaining experience for a time when Mayas
wo uld control the state? Three years into the
Portillo administration (2000-2004), lunched
with some ladino schoolteachersparticipants
in the teachers' strike of 2003 against neoliber-
LIKE
GuATEMAtA,
NEARLY EVERY OTHER COUN
in Latin America has recently been transfor
by the rise of collective indigenous voice
national politics and by shifts in state ideo
toward "multiculturalism.'"* The latter, comb
with aggressive neoliberal policies, forms pa
an emergent mode of governance in ihe reg
Far from opening spaces for generalized emp
erment of indigenous peoples, these reforms
to empow er some while marginalizing the m
ity Ear from eliminating racial inequity, as
rhetoric of m ulticultural ism seems to prom
these reforms reconstitute racial hierarchie
more entrenched forms. While indigen
movem ents have made great strides over the
two decades, it is now time to pause and
stock of
t h e
limits and the political men ace in
ent in these very achievements.
in its mid- to late-20th century heyday,
state ideology of mestizaje had the same
quality of today's multiculturalism: in s
respects egalitarian and in others regres
There were variations, but the overall pat
remainsclear, Latin American states develo
mode of governance based on a unitary pack
of citizenship rights and a tendentious prem
that people could enjoy these rights only by
forming to a homogeneous mestizo cult
ideal. This ideal appropriated important asp
of Indian cultureand of black culture in B
and the Ca ribbeanto give it "authenticity"
roots,
but European stock provided the gua
8/10/2019 Hale. Indio Permitido
2/7
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 2004
REPORT O N RACE PART 1
all; its progressive glimmer, m tum , gave the political
proj-
ectto assimilate Indians and marginalize those who
refusedits hegemonic appeal.
Although seeking assimilation, state ideologies of mesti-
zaje also drew strength from the continued existence of the
Indian O the r Sometimes temporal distance separated this
Other from the ideal mestizo citizen, as with the celebrat-
ed Aztec past in Mexico.^ Elsewhere, this distance was spa-
tial, as with the people of the Amazonian jungle lowlands,
portrayed as inhab iting a world apart. Most often, these
two dimensions merged, creating a powerful composite
image of the racialized Other against which the mestizo
ideal was defined. This image deeply influenced mestizo
political imaginaries. Darker-skinned mestizos were lower
on the hierarchy, a disadvantage invariably attributed to
A mother
ndher
toddler In
5anta
Eulalia
Guatemala.
proximity to to indio ("Indianness"). The more "indio"
you looked, the more this proximity explained your fail-
ings. Or, in colloquial terms; "fesalid elindio (you let ihe
Indian in you come out).
While tbis mestizo project remains strong, its power as
an ideology of governance is slipping. For good reason, it
has been tbe first object of indigenous resistance across the
region. Policies of assimilation threaten elhnocide. Unitary
citizenship precludes culturally specific collective rights.
And the racism embedded in mestizo societies delivers a
double blow, denigrating the unassimilated while inciting
the assimilated to wage an endless struggle against the
"Indian within,"
Yet the decline of the mestizo ideology of governance
results from other forces as well. Neoliberal democratiza-
tion contradicts key precepts of the mestizo ideal.
tions space for maneuver. Even aggressive economic
reforms, which favor the interests of capital and sanctify
the market, are compatible with some facets of indigenous
cultural rights. The core of neoliberalism's cultural project
is not radical individualism, but the creation of subjects
who govern themselves in accordance with the logic of
globalized capitalism.'^ The pluralism implicit in this prin-
ciplesubjects can be individuals, comm unities or ethnic
groupscuts against the grain of mestizo nationalism, and
defuses the once-powerful distinction between the for-
ward-looking mestizo and the backward Indian.
Governance now takes place instead through the distinc-
tionto echo a World Bank dictumbetween good eth-
nicity, which builds social capital, and "dysfunctional" eth-
nicity, which incites conflict.
Explanations for the shift toward a "multicultural" pub-
lic sphere in Latin America take two principal tacks. The
first highlights the creative and audac ious political agency
of indigenous peoples. The second , exemplified by the
work of political scientist Deborah Yashar, emphasizes
structural or institutional dimensions. She explains the
upsurge of indigenous politics as an unintended conse-
quence of two broader developments: the wave of demo c-
ratization, which open ed new spaces of participation, and
neoliberal reform, which eliminated corporatist con-
straints on indigenous autonomy and accentuated eco-
nomic woes.^ Although both explanatory tacks are valid.
they m iss the way neoliberalism also entails a culturalproj
ect,which contributes both to the rising prominence of
indigenous voices and to the frustrating limits on their
transformative aspirations. The essence of this cultural
project, the desired outcome of the government's "si pero,"
is captured in the figure of what Rosamel Millam^n and I
have called the "indioperm itido ("authorized Indian").^
The phrase "indio permitido" names a sociopolitical cat-
egory not the characteristics of anyone in particular. We
borrow the phrase from Bolivian sociologist Silvia Rivera
Cusicanqui, w ho uttered it spontaneously, in exasperation,
during a worksho p on cultural rights and democratization
in Latin America. We need a way, Rivera noted, to talk
about how g overnments are using cultural rights to divide
and domesticate indigenous movements. Our use of the
word "indio" is meant to suggest that the aggregate effect
of these measuresquite apart from the sensibilities of
individual reformershas been to perpetuate the subordi-
nation the term traditionally connotes. Multicultural
8/10/2019 Hale. Indio Permitido
3/7
REPORT O N RACE PA RT I
NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERI
mined limits; benefits to a few indigenous actors are pred-
icated on the exclusion of the rest; certain rights are to be
enjoyed on the implicit condition that others will not be
raised. Actual indigenous activist-intellectuals who occupy
the space of the indio permitido rarely submit fully to
these constraints. Still, it would be a mistake to equate the
increasing indigenous presence
m
the corridors of power
with indigenous empowerment.
A REASONABLE STARTING POINT FOR EXPLORING THIS NEW
form of governance is the distinction between cultural
rights and political-economic empowerment. Throughout
Latin Am erica, first round concessions of newly ch ristened
"multicultural" states cluster in the area of cultural rights,
the further removed from the core concerns of neoliberal
capitalism the better. In Guatemala, governmen t endorse-
men t of the Academy of Maya Languages signaled the
beginning of the multicultural era. Soon thereafter, the
Minister of Culture and Spons has become known as the
"Indian" cabinet post, filled by a Maya in the last two
administrations. The Ministry of Education also showcas-
es the multicultural ethic with its programs in bilingual
education and
intercuhuralidad
(intercuUural dialogue).
The preposterous idea that an Indian would become
Minister of Finance is another matter altogether.
At times, the contrast between cultural and political-
economic opportunity turns blatant and brutal. Newly
inaugurated Guatemalan President Oscar Berger held a
ceremony upon naming Rigoberta Menchii "Goodwill
Ambassador," and turning over the Casa Crema (a build-
ing formerly assigned to the Ministry of Defense) to the
Academy of Maya Languages, He ann oun ced that the Casa
Crema would also house a new television show, "... to
carry programs on Maya culture, interculturalidad, and
sprituality," Simultaneously, Berger stood by as the Armed
Forces began the violent eviction of landless indigenous
campesinos that had occupied over 100 farms in the prior
three years,
^
It would be wrong, however, to let this stark dichotomy
between "cultural" and "political-economic" rights stand.
The crude Marxist distinction between superstructure and
base does injustice to the holistic political visions of
indigenous movem ents. Cultural resistance forges politi-
cal unity and builds the trenches from which effective
political challenge can later occur. Moreover, even if the
dichotomy had residual validity on its own terms, it would
not withstand close scrutiny. The most important current
tions have responded to the indigenous clamor for la
with a resounding"si,pero," Througho ut Central Amer
for example, the World Bank is funding land demarcat
projects, mtended to assure black and indigenous comm
nities rights to lands of traditional occupation.
Neoliberal multiculturalism is more inclined to dr
conflicting parties into dialogue and negotiation than
preemptively slam the door. Civil society organizati
have gained a seat at the table, and if well-connected a
well-behaved, they are invited to an endless flow of wo
shops,
spaces of political participation, and training s
sions on conflict resolution. In Guatemala, the great w
of such government initiatives came just after the sign
of the Peace Accords in December 1996, The country w
soon awash in international aid, with Maya civil society
the privileged recipient. This example helps explain w
the pattern is so widespread: indigenous rights are,
bureaucratic jargon, a "donor driven" priority Web site
the World Bank and Inter-Amencan Development Ba
are awash with glowing articles about indigenous a
Afro-descendent em pow erme nt. At issue, then , is not
struggle between individual and collective rights, nor
dichotomy between the cultural and the material, b
rather the built-in limits to these spaces of indigen
empowerment.
Once the cultural project of neoliberalism is specifi
these limits become more evident. As a first princip
indigenous rights cannot violate the integrity of the p
ductive regime, especially those sectors m ost closely link
to the globalized economy If an indigenous commun
gains land rights and pulls these lands out of producti
this poses no such threat, especially given the likelihood
the community's return to the fold through a newly ne
tiated relationship with the market. All the contrary if,
example, indigenous movements were to challenge
free trade zones that shelter maquila-type producti
declare a moratorium on international tourism or cre
their own banks to serve as the "first stop" for remittan
from indigenous peoples working abroad. These la
demands would be sure to evoke the wrath of the neol
eral state. More generally, this pnnciple dictates a sh
distinction between policies focused on "poverty red
tion," which are ubiquitous and heavily supported, a
those intended to reduce socloeconomic inequality, c
spicuous for their absence. This first principle has
increasingly globalized character, driven less by the in
ests of national economic elites than by the constraints a
8/10/2019 Hale. Indio Permitido
4/7
EMBER OCTOBER 2004
REPORTON RACE PART
power Neoiiberal multiculturalism permits indigenous
organization, as long as it does no t am ass enough power to
call basic state prerogatives into question . These preroga-
tives are not about the stateas the primary locusofsocial
and economic policies, which now generally derive from
the global arena.
Nor do
they revolve around
the
state's
role
as
legitimate representative
of
the people,
a
dubious
propo sition for man y Rather, at issue is the inviolability of
the staleas the last stop guarantor of political orderThe
Central American countries offer an especially dramatic
case
in
point.
If
the current massive flow
of
international
aid, loans
and
developm ent funding were
cut off,
these
tiny dependent states would collapse. Without
the
state,
however, neoliberal economic development would lack
the coercive means
and
minimal legitimacy
to
proceed.
Cultural rights,
up to and
including many forms
of
local
autonomy, do not threaten to contravene this principle,
especially as neoliberal elites gain
the
wisdom
to
respond
to their indigenous critics not
by
suppressing dissent,
but
by offering tbem a job.
Although these two principles have a repressive side,it
is striking how infrequently itappears. Land rights, again,
are illustrative. Indigenou s dem ands
for
territorial sover-
eignty could present
a
radical challenge
to
neoliberal
regimes, if they were extensive enough to support an alter-
native system
of
productive relations
or
sufficiently
potent pohtically to undermine state authority Yet such a
challenge blurs fairly easily into less expansive positions
with which the statecan readily negotiate. Crucially this
Campeslnos
awali news
from
auttiorilies
after tak ing
over swalhof
farmland in the
province
of
Quetzatlenanjo
Guatemala.
more reasonable proposition of nudging "radical"
demands back inside
the
line dividing
the
authorized
from the prohibited.
THE CRITIQUE THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS ACCOUNT DOES NOT
focus primarily
on the
limited character
of the
spaces
opened
by
neoliberal multiculturalism,
but
rather
on the
prospect that these limits would define what
is
politically
possible. As long as neoliberal princi-
ples
are
critically scrutinized
as
opportunities
to be
exploited,
the
spaces they open could be produc-
tively occupied, fighting
the
good
fight
to
circumvent their
pre-
inscribed limits. 1 have engaged
in
precisely such
an
effort, with results
that were mixed
but
positive enough
to keep
ontrying.
^ Although some-
times viable and necessary, this strate-
gy
is
risky, especially when
the
full
ideological repercussions
of
neoliber-
ai multiculturalism
are
taken into
account.
With
the
indio permitido comes,
inevitably,
the
construction
of its
undeserving, dysfunctional. Other
two very different ways tobe Indian. The indio permitido
has passed the test of modernity, substituted "protest" with
"proposal," and learned to be both authentic and fully con-
versant with the dominant m ilieu. Its Other is unru ly vin-
dictive
and
conflict prone. These latter traits trouble elites
who have pledged allegiance
to
cultural equality, seeding
fears about what empowerment of these Other Indians
would portend. Governance proactively creates and
rewards
the
indio permilido, while condemning its Other
to
the
racialized spaces
of
poverty
and
social exclusion.
Those
who
occupy
the
category
of the
indio permitido
must prove they have risen above
the
racialized traits
of
their brethren by en dorsing and reinforcing the divide.
One potentially deceptive image that flows from this
analysis depicts
a
small indigenous elite benefiting as rep-
resentatives
of
a majority from whom they are structurally
alienated. Topo rtray the divide strictly in class terms miss-
es
the
point,
and
could reinforce
the
assertion that "real"
Indians are poor, rural
and
backward, while middle class
Indians are "inauthentic."^^ Rather, thedichotomy iscul-
tural-political: moderate versus radical, proper versus
8/10/2019 Hale. Indio Permitido
5/7
REPORT O N RACE PART 1
NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERI
these negative traits gives way to the ultitnate term of
opp robriu m, the indige nou s "terrorist."^^ Even those who
occupy the category of the indio permitido are contami-
nated by proximity to the radicals, and must constantly
prove they belong in the sanctioned space.
The point is not to lionize radicals or to place them
beyond critique, but to challenge the dichotomy altogeth-
er, and thereby redefine the terms of indigenous struggle.
A crucial facet of resistance, then, is rearticulation, which
creates bridges between authorized and condemned ways
of being Indian. Political initiatives that link indigenous
peoples who occupy varyitig spaces in relation to the cen-
ters of political-economic power are especially promising.
The same goes for efforts to conne ct d iverse experiences of
neoliberal racial formation, especially among indigenous
and Afro-descendant peoples. Blacks are more apt to be
skeptical of the "good ethnics" trope, cutting through to its
underlying racist premises. Indigenous people are better
positioned to work the newly opened spaces of cultural
rights, putting assumptions about Indians as inherently
pre-modem to good use. By placing both experiences
under the same analytic lens, we see more clearly how
neoliberal multiculturalism constructs bounded, discon-
tinuous cultural groups, each with distinct rights, that are
discouraged from mutual interaction,^"^
As globalized economic change continues, strategies of
rearticulation can only become more difficult to achieve.
Growing num bers of indigenous peoples are leaving rural
communities for urban areas, where education, jobs and
some hope of upward mobility can be found. Many con-
tinue northward to the United States. With few excep-
tions, the locus of economic dynam ism has shifted from
agriculture to activities such as maquila production, remit-
tance-driven financial services, tourism and commerce.
Rural Indian households are most likely to remain stuck m
a cycle of critical poverty. Despite these rapidly ch anging
demographic and economic conditions, indigenous lead-
ersincreasingly urban and urbanestill draw heavily on
the Utopian discourse of indigenous autonomy exercised
in quintessentially rural, culturally bounded spaces. This
discourse can reinforce the ideology of the indio permiti-
do, creating authorized spokespeople, increasingly out of
touch with those whose interests they evoke,
Rearticulation, in contrast, would build bndges among
indigenous peoples in diverse structural locations: from
rural dwellers, to workers in the new economies, to those
who struggle from within the neotiberal establishmen t. To
Rearticulation may also require shifting strategy from
focus on keeping the state out, to exerting control over
terms under which the state, and the neoliberal establi
ment more generally, stay in. Indee d, this shift already
begun. The short and unfortunate experience of
Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecua
(CONAIE) with "co-govemment" in Ecuador demonst
ed how unprep ared it was to take advantage of the fan
tic success of ousting one government and being elected
help run its successor. The Bolivian indigenous uprising
October 200 3 has given rise to a similar predicam ent. T
dramatic political achievement revealed the profound v
nerability of the indio permitido and the explosive pot
tial of rearticulation as resistance. Ahead lies the task
imagining the kind of reconstituted state and alternat
productive regime that would stay true to that momen
ily unified, but now highly fragmentary, indigenous maj
ity
The decade-old Zapatista uprising in Chiapas raises
same basic question, from the opposite point of departu
To survive a decade of state-orchestrated hostility wh
staying the course of defiant political innovation is
impressive feat. As the experiment enters its seco
decade, however, the prospects for rearticulation gr
increasingly remote. Radical refusal of any engagem
with the neoliberal state gains transformative traction
the extent that it simultaneously articulates, symbolica
and in daily political practice, with those who strug
from other sociopolitical locations. As the potential
forging such articulation diminishes, this space of refu
starts to look like the indio perm itidos O ther unruly a
conflict prone, but otherwise readily isolated and d
missed.
PERHAPS, THEN, DR. COJTI'S STRATEGY REQUIRES A SECO
look and a more subtle reading. During the same visi
Guatemala in which I spoke with my teacher frie
about their strike, asked Cojti about the inner work
of the Ministry of Education, He divided the overwhe
ingly ladino bureaucracy into three groups: hard-c
racists and race progressives, both minorities; and
ambivalent majority that implemented the new "mu
cultural" mandate without conviction, as the path of le
resistance. With ironic humor and charactenstic cogen
he offered his own explanation for having taken the j
to carry out a critical ethnography of the "ladino" stat
8/10/2019 Hale. Indio Permitido
6/7
EMBER OCTOBER 2004
These consequences will remain unclear, in turn, until
ihe process of Maya rearticulation beg ins. Given the
genocidal brutality of Guatemala's ruling elite, amply
demonstrated in recent histor)', this process is sure to
tu rn ugly. It wo uld be fatalistic to aba ndon hope s for
rearticulation in anticipation of this ugliness, but irre-
sponsible to advocate Maya ascendancy without imagin-
mg some m eans to assuage the fears and lessen the polar-
ization. To occupy the space of the indio permitido may
REPORT O N RACE PART 1
well be the m ost reasonable mean s at hand . If so, it will
be especially crucial to name that space, to highlight the
menace it entails, and to subject its occupants to strin-
gent demands for accountability to an indigenous con-
stituency with an alternative political vision. Otherwise,
It will be safe to assume that those who occupy this
space have acquiesced, if only by default, to the regres-
sive neoliberal project that the indio permitido is meant
to serve.
Land Rights and Garifuna
Identity
byEvaT. Thorne
E H I S T O R Y O F T H E G A R l F U N A P E O P L E H A S
long been tied to land. The Garifuna
originate from the 17th century when,
on the windward Caribbean island of St.
Vincent, the island's indigenous Arawak-
Caribs integrated runaway and shipwrecked
African slaves into their communities,
European colonists first referred to their prog-
The undeveloped beachfronl
of
Tela
Honduras an increas-
ingly popular tourist destina-
t ion.
tered fierce resistance from the Garifuna. The
conflict erupted into a yearlong war in 1772,
endin g in a treaty considered by most accou nts
to be the first signed between the British and
an indigenous Caribbean population.
A second war broke out over the failure of
the British to honor the terms of the treaty, but
this time the overpowered Garifuna surren-
Ev a I Thome is
Meyer and Waller
Jafje assistant
professor of politico
8/10/2019 Hale. Indio Permitido
7/7
Recommended