Research Details
Click here to learn more about my research question.
|
Click here to learn more about the two programs I worked with.
|
Click here for a list of works cited and additional reading.
|
Indigenous Rights:
The Challenges of Deciding Whose Definition of Justice to Abide By
Last
Spring, as I prepared to write a grant proposal for this project, and was
trying to narrow down the scope of my research, the idea of researching the
Guatemalan Peace Accords and their application on quotidian life seemed like a
feasible option for a senior thesis. Upon arriving home, however, I quickly
learnt that the “justice” offered by these documents (and other governmental
institutions that I uncovered) was extremely limited and played a very small
role in not just daily life but political discourse. Although it would be easy
to blame this sad state of affairs on the inefficiency and ambivalence of the
government, this would be a simplistic answer. The truth is that there are
numerous other factors at play in this struggle for equality and justice.
The first of these being, how do we define justice? It is well known that indigenous peoples have been oppressed and discriminated against since colonial times, and that their socioeconomic marginalization continues today. The question now is how to redress thousands of years of mistreatment, especially considering that not everyone is in agreement; some disagree on how this should be done, while others disagree over if this should be done at all. Those who object invoke neoliberal justifications and argue that it is the governments role to assure the freedoms and rights of all persons. As such, indigenous peoples should “have the same universal human rights as everybody else” (Stavenhagen 2002: 37) instead of a special set of collective laws protecting them. In such considerations, “individual liberty is portrayed as one of the great moral achievements of capitalism” (Castles and Miller 2009). Those who support collective indigenous rights bring to light the degree of discrimination, exclusion and racism that continue to prevent indigenous populations from enjoying such universal rights. Additionally, the argument contends that given the history of genocide and discrimination, indigenous populations should be entitled to laws that favor them specifically.
Interestingly enough, debates such as these were not contained to high-level political debates in ladino contexts. One of my informants, Andrea[1], an indigenous woman working in an organization which promotes indigenous’ women's rights complained in an interview with a newspaper that
“actualmente está en el Congreso de la República la iniciativa de Ley de Desarrollo Rural e Integral y no pasa, pero otras leyes que tienen que ver con la globalización económica, esas pasan inmediatamente[2]”
She told me later during one of our meetings that her biggest concern was that the government had almost “put the questions of indigenous rights into a drawer and shut it tight” and that this was going to continue placing indigenous peoples (especially women) in marginalized and impoverished situations. She was also extremely aware that internationally, indigenous rights and activists have become increasingly prominent and acclaimed[3]. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Jorge[4], an indigenous graduate of one of the scholarship programs I worked with, argued vehemently against the government providing special rights for minorities:
“yo no quiero que a mi, por ser indígena me puedan regalar un trabajo, o que me puedan regalar una casa, o que me puedan regalar un pedazo de tierra pues, ósea si por indígena me estas queriendo dar eso solo porque yo soy de esa parte, me estas cortando los pies y las manos pues!Yo quiero que me reconzcás por mi talento por mi capacidad y por lo que yo soy.’”
Thus, if ideas of the right path towards “justice” vary even within the indigenous communities themselves and the government has been shifting it’s attention to other national issues[5] (such as security, drug trafficking etc.), how is the issue of equal rights for indigenous people to remain high on the national agenda?
Furthermore, the notion of justice and indigenous rights can come to have a completely different connotation. A few months ago, one of Guatemala’s newspapers had an article titled: “Justicia Maya”. The letters spelling out Justicia were all bolded and colored in with different Mayan cloth patterns. Contrary to what I had originally expected, the article was not in fact concerned with indigenous activism or paths towards rectifying the wrongs committed against the Mayan people. Instead, the article detailed how “los pueblos indígenas resuelven sus conflictos mediante reglas similares a las que utilizaban sus ancestros.” Although the article spoke about a certain type of indigenous rights—the right to exercise certain judicial measures considered “traditional” so long as they do not violate the national judicial system—it was very much an “othering” of indigenous communities. The pictures accompanying the piece depict various types of punishment that may be carried out by some indigenous communities are quite strange, not because the punishments are unusual, but rather because it is apparent they were chosen for their “shock” value. In one such image, a young woman is screaming in pain as she is being whipped by an older woman. The caption reads: “a woman receives twenty lashes for having stolen Q150” or approximately $18.75. It is through representations like these that indigenous comes to associated with poverty, “backwardness” and inferiority, particularly for those coming from rural areas of the country—which has similar connotations of “underdevelopment” and “traditional”.
Immediately following this article is one called “Millonarios del mundo” and it details the richest men and women around the world. The contrast between both is striking, it reminds us that Guatemalans are behind in this neoliberal race for economic strength and technological advancement. This constant comparison between “us” the third-world nation and “them” the advanced Western countries often leads to comparisons and explanations as to why Guatemala is not as “developed”. This same comparison was something that the students at the scholarship programs from the two universities I was working with during the summer constantly experienced, especially in terms of material wealth and physical appearance. As the last essay detailed this material disparity between scholarship students and their counterparts, here I can speak of the appearance comparison. This is in part related to the rise in consumption of Western products in Guatemala, including television shows and pop music. It can also be related, however, to the association of white skin and light hair with “modern”, “superior” and generally more advanced (the opposite of the connotations associated with being indigenous). It is not uncommon to drive around Guatemala City and see advertisements both in English and depicting blonde, blue eyed characters. In one interview with an informant he admitted,
“Si yo soy una persona que me considero menos que las demás, porque soy chaparrito, morenito, de repente no soy colocho, etcétera etcétera, eso me afecta.”
He emphasized how he (and all the students coming in to the Universities) had to overcome these feelings of inferiority in order to succeed in school and integrate into the social lives there.
The constant comparisons with the “first world” and the desire to be more “Western” (and thus more successful) often impacts the way people regard neoliberal ideals, as these are associated with the West. In one occasion, an informant, Franz, compared the current situation of racism in Guatemala, “exactly the way the situation was in the United States in the sixties, aunque la segregación racial acá no es tan ordenada como lo fue allá.” Many of the questions that arise from ideas such as these concern the ways in which the current state of affairs must be changed. Although the answer is far from clear, it is possible that we will have to decide on an approach that resembles either Andrea or Jorge’s situation, as a reconciliation of both of these seems nearly impossible. Furthermore, taking into account both the history of the country and of cultural rights, how should Guatemala address the issue of multiculturalism and the indigenous “question”? After all, Guatemala, and Latin America in general “is still a long way from establishing true legal pluralism within its borders” (Stavenhagen 2002: 38).
[1] Pseudonym
[2] From: http://www.dw.de/colombia-y-guatemala-nadie-anhela-m%C3%A1s-la-paz-que-quien-ha-vivido-la-guerra/a-15699764
[3] Some scholars even go as far as to suggest that the “peace talks and agreements were more or less imposed upon Guatemalan society by the international community” (Rettberg 2007), and as such there is a lack of interest by a majority of the national community to follow through on the peace accords.
[4] Pseudonym
[5] The lack of security has especially played a significant role in changing the context in which multiculturalism is played out by shifting the main focus of political campaigns and discourse away from ‘indigenous issues,’ towards public policies designed to reduce violence, corruption and criminality. This can be evidenced by the current president, the retired civil war general Otto Perez Molina’s electoral campaign of a “mano dura” (literally, firm hand) approach, dedicated to the reduction of violence and the legalization of drugs across Latin America.
The first of these being, how do we define justice? It is well known that indigenous peoples have been oppressed and discriminated against since colonial times, and that their socioeconomic marginalization continues today. The question now is how to redress thousands of years of mistreatment, especially considering that not everyone is in agreement; some disagree on how this should be done, while others disagree over if this should be done at all. Those who object invoke neoliberal justifications and argue that it is the governments role to assure the freedoms and rights of all persons. As such, indigenous peoples should “have the same universal human rights as everybody else” (Stavenhagen 2002: 37) instead of a special set of collective laws protecting them. In such considerations, “individual liberty is portrayed as one of the great moral achievements of capitalism” (Castles and Miller 2009). Those who support collective indigenous rights bring to light the degree of discrimination, exclusion and racism that continue to prevent indigenous populations from enjoying such universal rights. Additionally, the argument contends that given the history of genocide and discrimination, indigenous populations should be entitled to laws that favor them specifically.
Interestingly enough, debates such as these were not contained to high-level political debates in ladino contexts. One of my informants, Andrea[1], an indigenous woman working in an organization which promotes indigenous’ women's rights complained in an interview with a newspaper that
“actualmente está en el Congreso de la República la iniciativa de Ley de Desarrollo Rural e Integral y no pasa, pero otras leyes que tienen que ver con la globalización económica, esas pasan inmediatamente[2]”
She told me later during one of our meetings that her biggest concern was that the government had almost “put the questions of indigenous rights into a drawer and shut it tight” and that this was going to continue placing indigenous peoples (especially women) in marginalized and impoverished situations. She was also extremely aware that internationally, indigenous rights and activists have become increasingly prominent and acclaimed[3]. On the opposite side of the spectrum, Jorge[4], an indigenous graduate of one of the scholarship programs I worked with, argued vehemently against the government providing special rights for minorities:
“yo no quiero que a mi, por ser indígena me puedan regalar un trabajo, o que me puedan regalar una casa, o que me puedan regalar un pedazo de tierra pues, ósea si por indígena me estas queriendo dar eso solo porque yo soy de esa parte, me estas cortando los pies y las manos pues!Yo quiero que me reconzcás por mi talento por mi capacidad y por lo que yo soy.’”
Thus, if ideas of the right path towards “justice” vary even within the indigenous communities themselves and the government has been shifting it’s attention to other national issues[5] (such as security, drug trafficking etc.), how is the issue of equal rights for indigenous people to remain high on the national agenda?
Furthermore, the notion of justice and indigenous rights can come to have a completely different connotation. A few months ago, one of Guatemala’s newspapers had an article titled: “Justicia Maya”. The letters spelling out Justicia were all bolded and colored in with different Mayan cloth patterns. Contrary to what I had originally expected, the article was not in fact concerned with indigenous activism or paths towards rectifying the wrongs committed against the Mayan people. Instead, the article detailed how “los pueblos indígenas resuelven sus conflictos mediante reglas similares a las que utilizaban sus ancestros.” Although the article spoke about a certain type of indigenous rights—the right to exercise certain judicial measures considered “traditional” so long as they do not violate the national judicial system—it was very much an “othering” of indigenous communities. The pictures accompanying the piece depict various types of punishment that may be carried out by some indigenous communities are quite strange, not because the punishments are unusual, but rather because it is apparent they were chosen for their “shock” value. In one such image, a young woman is screaming in pain as she is being whipped by an older woman. The caption reads: “a woman receives twenty lashes for having stolen Q150” or approximately $18.75. It is through representations like these that indigenous comes to associated with poverty, “backwardness” and inferiority, particularly for those coming from rural areas of the country—which has similar connotations of “underdevelopment” and “traditional”.
Immediately following this article is one called “Millonarios del mundo” and it details the richest men and women around the world. The contrast between both is striking, it reminds us that Guatemalans are behind in this neoliberal race for economic strength and technological advancement. This constant comparison between “us” the third-world nation and “them” the advanced Western countries often leads to comparisons and explanations as to why Guatemala is not as “developed”. This same comparison was something that the students at the scholarship programs from the two universities I was working with during the summer constantly experienced, especially in terms of material wealth and physical appearance. As the last essay detailed this material disparity between scholarship students and their counterparts, here I can speak of the appearance comparison. This is in part related to the rise in consumption of Western products in Guatemala, including television shows and pop music. It can also be related, however, to the association of white skin and light hair with “modern”, “superior” and generally more advanced (the opposite of the connotations associated with being indigenous). It is not uncommon to drive around Guatemala City and see advertisements both in English and depicting blonde, blue eyed characters. In one interview with an informant he admitted,
“Si yo soy una persona que me considero menos que las demás, porque soy chaparrito, morenito, de repente no soy colocho, etcétera etcétera, eso me afecta.”
He emphasized how he (and all the students coming in to the Universities) had to overcome these feelings of inferiority in order to succeed in school and integrate into the social lives there.
The constant comparisons with the “first world” and the desire to be more “Western” (and thus more successful) often impacts the way people regard neoliberal ideals, as these are associated with the West. In one occasion, an informant, Franz, compared the current situation of racism in Guatemala, “exactly the way the situation was in the United States in the sixties, aunque la segregación racial acá no es tan ordenada como lo fue allá.” Many of the questions that arise from ideas such as these concern the ways in which the current state of affairs must be changed. Although the answer is far from clear, it is possible that we will have to decide on an approach that resembles either Andrea or Jorge’s situation, as a reconciliation of both of these seems nearly impossible. Furthermore, taking into account both the history of the country and of cultural rights, how should Guatemala address the issue of multiculturalism and the indigenous “question”? After all, Guatemala, and Latin America in general “is still a long way from establishing true legal pluralism within its borders” (Stavenhagen 2002: 38).
[1] Pseudonym
[2] From: http://www.dw.de/colombia-y-guatemala-nadie-anhela-m%C3%A1s-la-paz-que-quien-ha-vivido-la-guerra/a-15699764
[3] Some scholars even go as far as to suggest that the “peace talks and agreements were more or less imposed upon Guatemalan society by the international community” (Rettberg 2007), and as such there is a lack of interest by a majority of the national community to follow through on the peace accords.
[4] Pseudonym
[5] The lack of security has especially played a significant role in changing the context in which multiculturalism is played out by shifting the main focus of political campaigns and discourse away from ‘indigenous issues,’ towards public policies designed to reduce violence, corruption and criminality. This can be evidenced by the current president, the retired civil war general Otto Perez Molina’s electoral campaign of a “mano dura” (literally, firm hand) approach, dedicated to the reduction of violence and the legalization of drugs across Latin America.