Hale. Indio Permitido

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


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


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


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


5/7


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


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


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


7/7

Documents

Hale. Indio Permitido