From the readings this week, I thought the discussion surrounding the Mayan movement was particularly interesting. Earlier in the semester when Manuel came to talk to the class, I got the impression that there was very little political effort to preserve the Mayan community and its culture in Guatemala. Consequently, it was nice to see this Maya political effort discussed at length in this reading.
Initially, I would think to myself: "Why is there not a grassroots effort for the Maya people to rise up and assert their control? They need to come together as a group to ensure that they are more included in the politics of Guatemala so that their voice is also heard...so that their influence is really felt." In this reading, it becomes even more evident just how complicated that can be. In fact, the discussion of the Mayan community reminded me of a history talk that I attended last week concerning the current state of America in terms of race and the African American community. The speaker attempted to find enough similarities within the African American community, so that he could make generalizations about the African American community as a whole. Some history professors in the audience were dissatisfied with these generalizations because they felt as if these generalizations ignored the uniqueness within the African American communities that asserts that African American people are not all the same.
This seems to be a similar issue among the Maya community when trying to organize this grassroots movement. Perhaps their situation may be even more complicated due to the amount of different languages that exist among different Maya communities. Although all African Americans are not the same, they still managed to find enough similarity to organize a grassroots effort to obtain civil rights. So the question is, is there too much difference within the Maya communities to organize a similar grassroots effort. So often we label the groups of Guatemala as simply ladino or Maya that it is easy to forget the diversity of culture within the Maya community alone. For example, if two people from different Mayan communities cannot speak the common Spanish language of the country but can only speak in their respective Maya languages, they won't even be able to communicate with each other. Is it possible to have a successful grassroots effort under these conditions? Or will there simply be a similar continuation of the current Maya vs. ladino system in which the Maya groups with the most "power" assert their culture as the face of the entire Maya community while others are left out? Perhaps the Maya community will be forced to decide what is more important. Is it more important for the Maya community as a whole to have more of a voice in Guatemala than what already exists or will the Maya community be so caught up in emphasizing the differences between different Maya communities that not enough commonality is achieved for the greater good of the entire Maya community in Guatemala?
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Defining Development
It was clear to tell from this weeks readings that land means everything to the people of Guatemala. In America, being able to own your own home is a staple of success and pride. In Guatemala however, land is livelihood. Land is treated as something to be honored and cared for, almost like a pet or elderly family member. I found it endearing how much pride is taken in farming their land. However, I found myself questioning what development really means, once again. Although it is much accepted now and typical for the farmers to stop growing maize and beans to farm for profitable "cash crops" such as cauliflower and broccoli, which are currently in high demand in the states, I am not sure the change of crops counts as development. I understand the thought process behind growing crops that produce a high retail value and are in more demand, but when I think of economic development I think of a higher level of development, with more increased currency flow.
One point that I felt overwhelming clear this week in the Pan-Mayan Movement article was the endless cycle of oppression that can be sensed in Guatemala's history. I believe a large reason for this problem is the endless yearning for labels of identity and acceptance. No one in Guatemala seems to have a clear understanding of who they are and who they represent. Mayans, Spanish, Second and Third generation Guatemalans, they all just seem lost, and as if they are still searching for who they are as a people. I think that if everyone felt a pride in their country, rather then the pain of the past it would be a lot easier to effect change and find a common goal of what is best for the people.
One point that I felt overwhelming clear this week in the Pan-Mayan Movement article was the endless cycle of oppression that can be sensed in Guatemala's history. I believe a large reason for this problem is the endless yearning for labels of identity and acceptance. No one in Guatemala seems to have a clear understanding of who they are and who they represent. Mayans, Spanish, Second and Third generation Guatemalans, they all just seem lost, and as if they are still searching for who they are as a people. I think that if everyone felt a pride in their country, rather then the pain of the past it would be a lot easier to effect change and find a common goal of what is best for the people.
Speech Therapy
So many of our readings have dealt with the idea of identity. There have been a number of ideas and opinions tossed around when it comes to Indianess or Mayaness in Guatemala. The constant question is how and in what areas of life can the indigenous people maintain their traditional ways of life? Where can new concepts and ideas fit in Maya communities? Or can they? The ideas of transnationalism and syncretism are ubiquitous themes in many of the selections. A Dialogue of Indianess is no different. The historical-structural approach is a wonderful summation of the fact that ideas past, present, and future play a role in shaping one's identity. Depending on the context, certain aspects of a people are bound to change. I completely agree with the argument that Hall makes that "identity is always a matter of 'becoming' as well as of 'being' (159). Very few living things are static. There is always some type of movement or adjustment that makes life a time of 'becoming'. The idea of change can be related to transnationalism and syncretism. New ideas may not always be welcomed with open arms, but some ideas certainly have the potential to provide a means for development while not tampering with the established identity too much.
One thing that really struck me about the Indianess reading was the argument concerning the knowledge of the Spanish language. One opinion that I can certainly relate to is that of mindset. The speaker, a former member of PLANTAS, makes that case that language isn't the only thing that displays one's identity. The mindset and the heart are also very important aspects to one's identity. I certainly agree with this statement as it similar to my situation. In my everyday life, I speak the language that allows me to best communicate with my peers and others. However, my mindset is always Jamaican. If I were to constantly try to express my identity, specifically through language, it would be very difficult to communicate with others in my environment. My parents understood the importance of speaking the "language of power" in our context, English, and forced me to master it. The "language of power" for the Guatemala people, and many others, is obviously Spanish. The idea of preservation in terms of language is a really interesting one. "Spanish competence is seen as a more powerful tool for preserving indigenous identity (that is, for surviving) that the Mayanist focus on promoting indigenous language... (165).
As we have discussed a few times, the are so many different factions of the indigenous groups each with their own language. Spanish has the ability to connect the many different languages of of the various regions of Guatemala. Although, the indigenous people have feared 'forgetting' their language as a result of learning Spanish, there is still a very positive light to be shone on Spanish. The spanish language could ultimately be used as a unifying tool for the many different communities (166). Imagine if everyone committed to mastering the Spanish language. There would be barriers between peoples that could be removed in order to conduct business and spurn all types of development. All the while, I believe that the fear of 'loosing one's identity' is still very real. Is it really possible for the different communities to increase their interactions with various groups with varying traditions, yet still remain true to their own? How much of one's identity can be maintained by cultivating the right mindframe? Can Spanish or the acquisition of any 'language of power' really be a peoples' key to preserving one's identity? I am quite curious to see how area such as economic development would be effected as a result of a majority of indigenous people mastering Spanish. Perhaps, speech therapy could be a step in the right direction.
One thing that really struck me about the Indianess reading was the argument concerning the knowledge of the Spanish language. One opinion that I can certainly relate to is that of mindset. The speaker, a former member of PLANTAS, makes that case that language isn't the only thing that displays one's identity. The mindset and the heart are also very important aspects to one's identity. I certainly agree with this statement as it similar to my situation. In my everyday life, I speak the language that allows me to best communicate with my peers and others. However, my mindset is always Jamaican. If I were to constantly try to express my identity, specifically through language, it would be very difficult to communicate with others in my environment. My parents understood the importance of speaking the "language of power" in our context, English, and forced me to master it. The "language of power" for the Guatemala people, and many others, is obviously Spanish. The idea of preservation in terms of language is a really interesting one. "Spanish competence is seen as a more powerful tool for preserving indigenous identity (that is, for surviving) that the Mayanist focus on promoting indigenous language... (165).
As we have discussed a few times, the are so many different factions of the indigenous groups each with their own language. Spanish has the ability to connect the many different languages of of the various regions of Guatemala. Although, the indigenous people have feared 'forgetting' their language as a result of learning Spanish, there is still a very positive light to be shone on Spanish. The spanish language could ultimately be used as a unifying tool for the many different communities (166). Imagine if everyone committed to mastering the Spanish language. There would be barriers between peoples that could be removed in order to conduct business and spurn all types of development. All the while, I believe that the fear of 'loosing one's identity' is still very real. Is it really possible for the different communities to increase their interactions with various groups with varying traditions, yet still remain true to their own? How much of one's identity can be maintained by cultivating the right mindframe? Can Spanish or the acquisition of any 'language of power' really be a peoples' key to preserving one's identity? I am quite curious to see how area such as economic development would be effected as a result of a majority of indigenous people mastering Spanish. Perhaps, speech therapy could be a step in the right direction.
Love of Land = Life
This weeks reading finally gave me an idea of what it is like to love land. After reading over and over that Guatemalans cherish the earth and soil that they farm and inhabit a broader and fuller picture has been cast in my mind about why and how this can possibly be so. Furthermore, I think the chapter from Tecpán Guatemala was so interesting because it presented a historical outlook on the love and land and how today – just like other aspects of indigenous life and culture – land may not be seen by youth as important as it once was.
A few phrases that I think captured the essence of this relationship with the land really caught my attention. Among some of my favorite are the following: “cultural wealth, is seen ultimately to derive from the land” (125) and maize is thought as through its “symbolic value as sacred and life-giving product” (129) and finally “land is more than an investment, more than an asset…Instead it represents a particular relationship between people and place, an intimate knowledge that even an increasingly hyper-mobile Guatemalan society has not erased” (132). I think these quotes represent the reason why land is more than property to Guatemalans. And ultimately, I think it sheds a new light on the severity Mayans and Ladinos have faced over loosing their land in the past.
While I always knew that the Arbenz overthrow, being forced to work on plantations, and having to share rotten land throughout the last 60 years must have been awful and horrifying, it was not before reading this chapter that I fully appreciated why. I think the care that the Guatemalans take in making sure to collect every last piece of maize and putting in the effort to pay someone to farm rather than just sell their land goes to show that land is their life. It is what feeds them but it is also what gives them pride and fuels their hearts. Especially in relation to ancestors, having land passed down from generation to generation was not only a privilege, but also a way to stay connected to lost loved ones. I can’t really imagine something this special and sacred in American culture but in all honesty I wish I could experience it.
Because I was so enthralled by the deep relationships Guatemalans have with their land, the end of this chapter was very saddening. The image of broccoli growing in a field in rural Guatemala seems so strange to me that I almost laughed when reading about it. However, U.S. consumer demand now dominants Guatemalan agriculture and it seems that in order to survive, the people must adapt. I hope that this shift in agricultural production is not a representation of the developmental path Guatemala is on. Although there are clearly positive aspects to the faster growing, more money yielding crops, I fear that by producing for another country Guatemala may become dependant on the market in the United States. I do not know much about economics so I may be over analyzing this issue, but I do think that Guatemalan’s had a special relationship with maize that will soon be forgotten along with their indigenous languages and other things if careful preservation methods are not implemented soon.
A pan-Mayan Nation
When I read "A Dialogue on Indianness," I first thought: How is it possible to accomplish pan-Mayanism? There are so many small Mayan communities, each with their own culture, traditions, and languages. How can we unify so many different communities? This sounds like an extremely difficult task to me, but I think the main goal of the pan-Mayan movement is “reversing the historical oppression and silencing of the Indian communities” and changing the image of the Mayan people (154).
But I wonder, if pan-Mayanism is more of a new religion than anything else. Especially the PLANTAS community. As first they were focused on health and illness, as opposed to the “more contentious issues of language, rights, or justice” (161). However, under the lead of Gasper, who possess a very ironic appearance, the community promoted a return to the roots of Mayan culture by participating in ceremonies and rituals. In one way, this religious approach to life seems to provide comfort for the suffering Mayans and give them hope. It also provides them with understanding, a sense of identity, and a revival of what was once lost. The concepts presented by PLANTAS indicate that in order to be Mayan, one must speak the language, practice the rituals, and also wear traditional clothing. PLANTAS gives the Mayans freedom to express their culture, whereas before, the Ladinos labeled the Mayan culture as inferior.
On the other hand, I found it interesting that Virgilio took a more modern approach to the pan-Mayan movement. His way of reversing the oppression dealt more with creating opportunities for the Mayan population. He really believes that Spanish is the language of power and that it is necessary for moving forward in life. Spanish equals education in his mind, and education equals opportunity, which leads to power in a Ladino controlled state.
The clash of these two drastically different views really make achieving a pan-Mayan nation difficult, but I think the important thing to consider is the effort being made to establish a Mayan identity. One day perhaps, when we hear the word Mayan we will not associate oppression with it.
But I wonder, if pan-Mayanism is more of a new religion than anything else. Especially the PLANTAS community. As first they were focused on health and illness, as opposed to the “more contentious issues of language, rights, or justice” (161). However, under the lead of Gasper, who possess a very ironic appearance, the community promoted a return to the roots of Mayan culture by participating in ceremonies and rituals. In one way, this religious approach to life seems to provide comfort for the suffering Mayans and give them hope. It also provides them with understanding, a sense of identity, and a revival of what was once lost. The concepts presented by PLANTAS indicate that in order to be Mayan, one must speak the language, practice the rituals, and also wear traditional clothing. PLANTAS gives the Mayans freedom to express their culture, whereas before, the Ladinos labeled the Mayan culture as inferior.
On the other hand, I found it interesting that Virgilio took a more modern approach to the pan-Mayan movement. His way of reversing the oppression dealt more with creating opportunities for the Mayan population. He really believes that Spanish is the language of power and that it is necessary for moving forward in life. Spanish equals education in his mind, and education equals opportunity, which leads to power in a Ladino controlled state.
The clash of these two drastically different views really make achieving a pan-Mayan nation difficult, but I think the important thing to consider is the effort being made to establish a Mayan identity. One day perhaps, when we hear the word Mayan we will not associate oppression with it.
Agriculture in Guatemala: The Old and New
This weeks reading discussing the transformation, distribution, and relationship between the conflicting forces of history, tradition, and modernization in the Guatemala once again reminded me of the relevance of Sen’s development ideas. However, before I talk about development, I wanted to discuss the description of Mayan subsistence agriculture. I thought the explanation of the planting methods that the indigenous groups use in Chapter 7 yielded significant insights into the relationships between the land and the people. We all already know the close ties that the Mayan have with their homeland. What I didn’t know was how balanced and natural of an interaction this was. For example, the book talks about how maize and beans are perfectly suited to grow together, and that each plant replenishes the other and keeps the soil stable (123). Further, it turns out that maize and beans together are “protein complimentary…where the completed whole of the combined proteins is greater than the sum of the individual parts”(126). These two crops together represent the basis of the Mayan diet and symbolize a healthy and accessible food source for all age groups. The harvesting of crops also provides the structure for growing seasons, which organizes all other aspects of Mayan life including ritual, tradition, and celebration. I also found it very interesting how farmers often spread ashes of old crops in a symbolic “feeding of the land” (136). The interdependency between the people and the land thus exists as a reciprocal cycle both natural and innate; an equal process of giving, receiving, and restoring.
As others have mentioned before me, there has been a recent trend in Guatemala to stop the growth of customary maize and beans in favor of producing nontraditional export crops, such as cauliflower, snow beans, and broccoli (137). When I was reading about the change to nontraditional crops, I kept wondering, “Is this development?” While many would maybe equate exporting production with low wages and abuse of local populations, many Mayans attest that they would rather work for these companies, not only for better salary but also “…to avoid the financial, emotional, and health costs associated with traveling away from their home communities” (141). These companies have further created a demand for local labor. As we heard from the testimony of Marta, some employees even find satisfaction in their jobs, one aspect of Sen’s development idea. However, I couldn’t help but thinking during my reading that this latest plantation trend would eventually have long term negative consequences for the Mayan people. For example, nontraditional agriculture has “… included a drastic redistribution of land, wealth, and the work people do”(141). After observing the traditional mutually beneficial relationship between Mayans and the land, I feel new agricultural companies in Guatemala are displacing a system that ensures stability and value. However, this old ways of agriculture has setbacks too, including perpetuating the lack of education and poverty. Is there anyway the two systems coexists? Could syncretism play a role in finding a harmonious balance between the past and the future? Ultimately, both aspects of agriculture in Guatemala have positive benefits that ideally could be fused for the benefit of the Mayan people.
indian identity
As I read the article "A Dialogue on Indianness" I found myself asking the same question Rachel did, what is identity? As I continued reading I realized this is a question that the Guatemalan population is struggling to answer as well. Is identity solely defined by what language you speak, what clothing you wear, or your religion. Or does identity in fact have to do with something much more than your actions, can identity be defined by your own feelings. This struggle to understand identity seems to be one of the biggest problems in the pan-mayan movement. I found one of the best answers to this question of the last page of the chapter when Virgilio stated, " For me there is not one way of being indigenous, there are so many way to be indigenous." (200) I think this quote really describes the whole mission behind the pan-mayan movement as indians struggled to define what it actually meant to be indian in Guatemala and how they could adapt their lives to still represent their "indianness" in the changing world.
One thing I found very interesting was the efforts made by PLANTAS, an organization that was established mainly to help teach older and more traditional herbal medicine. From this it seemed to become a simply for the push to more traditional Mayan lifestyle. As explained later, this organization was somewhat paradoxical as it was a new Western organization pushing for a return to older beliefs. This led me to wonder if this was necessarily a good thing. Is it really beneficial for younger generations to revert back to old way of life when in fact it may be better for them to embrace modernization. This is not to say that it isn't important to embrace their culture, but it seems that by completely revert to more traditional values, younger generations will be at quite a disadvantage to the rest of the Guatemalan youth who have accepted Western modernization. I began to wonder if all Mayans really felt this strongly about keeping traditional values, as one indian spoke about herbal remedies, "I don't really like medicinal plants, I prefer to buy a pill!" So is this pan-mayan movement really something the majority of people want or is it something that member's of an older generation are trying to push as a way to try a old onto a culture that might be becoming outdated. I agree with Sarah that is very sad to hear about cultures dying out, but its also hard for me to understand how a country like Guatemala would not want to accept modernization as a way of helping development.
Another interesting aspect of this article was the section about the youth not wanting to accept traditional Mayan culture because of what it means to them. For many of these younger Mayans, no accepting their culture is a way of escaping the past and the horrors that they associate with it. Reading a story like Antonio's (183) it makes sense that someone who dealt with so much pain and loss growing up would not want to be associated with any part of this culture if they had the choice. As Antonio stated," I am not going to follow my father... I looked for a way to distance myself and find things that were better, to have something in this world, something for me. (185). Seeing the rejection of Mayan culture from this perspective puts a whole new spin on identity, where the youth are looking to change their identity as a way of redefining their lives and leaving the past in the past.
Choices
A lot of the time, when I read about modernization anywhere, but particularly in Guatemala, I tend to automatically think about how sad it is that the ‘culture’ is disappearing or becoming less apparent. We have been learning in class that culture is not something static or easily definable, but rather something complicated and always shifting, and I completely agree. However, it is still difficult not to be a little sad when I hear about languages, ceremonies and ways of life going out of regular use.
However, after reading chapter 7 of Tecpan, Guatemala, I thought a lot about Sen in relation to these changes in Guatemala. Today, Tecpan may be very different than it was before, however a large part of that difference is that people have more options today. Mayans in the region have the capability now to take economic risks and the choice of which crops to grow. They can also work in factories and other jobs while potentially continuing to do a small amount of milpa agriculture. While we may not consider these options to be good ones, they represent the largest array of choices that the Mayans have ever had. Also, there is more geographic mobility; although it might sometimes undermine the importance of small communities and family relations, it represents a much larger array of choices and opportunities for many Mayans. In a way, the rapid changes in lifestyle represent the direction that the Mayans themselves choose to take. Each person considers his individual good and the good of his/her family, and each individual decision adds to the whole.
Yet, at the same time, we need to consider why the Mayans are making these different choices regarding where they live and what their occupations are. The primary motive is certainly to improve their lives and the lives of their families. Yet beneath the obvious, we need to consider some of the historic topics that Foxen discusses as well. For example, she refers to the ways in which during the 80’s the military warped collective and community-centered mentalities in Mayan villages in order to instill fear and prevent backlash. The undermining of the family and community systems could certainly be a factor in recent trends in export-crop farming and migration. So in the end, nothing is simple.
However, after reading chapter 7 of Tecpan, Guatemala, I thought a lot about Sen in relation to these changes in Guatemala. Today, Tecpan may be very different than it was before, however a large part of that difference is that people have more options today. Mayans in the region have the capability now to take economic risks and the choice of which crops to grow. They can also work in factories and other jobs while potentially continuing to do a small amount of milpa agriculture. While we may not consider these options to be good ones, they represent the largest array of choices that the Mayans have ever had. Also, there is more geographic mobility; although it might sometimes undermine the importance of small communities and family relations, it represents a much larger array of choices and opportunities for many Mayans. In a way, the rapid changes in lifestyle represent the direction that the Mayans themselves choose to take. Each person considers his individual good and the good of his/her family, and each individual decision adds to the whole.
Yet, at the same time, we need to consider why the Mayans are making these different choices regarding where they live and what their occupations are. The primary motive is certainly to improve their lives and the lives of their families. Yet beneath the obvious, we need to consider some of the historic topics that Foxen discusses as well. For example, she refers to the ways in which during the 80’s the military warped collective and community-centered mentalities in Mayan villages in order to instill fear and prevent backlash. The undermining of the family and community systems could certainly be a factor in recent trends in export-crop farming and migration. So in the end, nothing is simple.
Land and Development
Chapter 7 of Tecpán Guatemala discussed the importance of land to the Maya people, a theme that has been reiterated in many of our readings. It seems to me that the nontraditional crop boom in the 1970’s would mark a change in Maya perspective of land and its value. To change to nontraditional crops, which were immediately exported, demonstrated an economically motivated change. The Maya were only receiving money for their produce now instead of growing produce that they could sell and eat. With the advent of nontraditional crops, Maya land no longer directly provided nourishment. Whether the Maya realized this or not, I think it signifies an important change in their viewpoint of their land. The produce of their land is feeding people in the US instead of the people in their community. The introduction of nontraditional crops has benefited and improved life in many ways, but it has also furthered change in how land is viewed.
The reading about Xinxuc reminded me of our discussion last week. I think it reflects well the question that we asked: Where does one start in developing a community?
In Xinxuc there are severe health problems, a lack of primary education, and economic hardships. All of these issues are interconnected. For example, it is difficult for children to attend school because their parents can’t afford the materials and also can’t spare the labor time that the children perform. In Xinxuc there doesn’t seem to be a clear answer of where to start. But I think it should begin with trying to better the health of the community. Alcohol-related disease is very prevalent in Xinxuc. This signifies to me that the community not only has health problems, but also depressed about their situation. Alcohol-related illnesses are different from problems like malnutrition because they can easily be avoided. Maybe by improving people’s health they will be less likely to abuse alcohol because they feel better about their situation and prospects.
The prolific amount of churches in Xinxuc and the idea of fate seemed like a coping strategy that was developed to make facing dire conditions a little more bearable. Maybe if the health of the community began to improve they would be more open to building schools instead of churches. When one has such a hard and impoverished life it must be impossible to look beyond the day-to-day survival. Investing in schools and education only comes with the ability to look ahead into the future. Giving the people back their health would allow them to have this foresight. I think only then would they realize that with education comes increasing economic benefits and the opportunity to escape the vicious cycle of oppression.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Active and Capable?
Immediately in the Tepan, Guatemala reading an interesting point of view jumped out at me onpage 124. It describes the transformation of the town every Wednesay afternoon with the growth of the large regional market at the center of town. "It is a massive mobilization, all the more incredilbe for its weekly regulariy. THe municipal governmnet collects a modest fee from each vendor..., and an aarmy of buses brings bendors and buyers from outlying aldeas and towns throughout the region (123)." This phenomenon calls into question the way the rest of the world see the Mayan people. Thus far in the semester, I personally have become so bogged down with all of the terror and discrimination that is apart of their lives and indigenous people that I handicapped myself from seeing them objectively as a people. Along with the general concensus, when I see, think, or meet a Mayan person I immediately think about "...long-suffering victims of the world market, from the injustices of the Conqust and colonial rule, to the institutionalization of discrimination in various forms, to the enduring inequality of landownership, to the violence of the 1980s, and to the current vagaries of the world market." This is a contribution that is too often overlooked by people who come from more "developed countries." This mind-set labels Mayans as victims and denies the active ways inwhich they control their own lives and culture. Global market forces provide major agency to how poeple live their lives in the Kaqchikel region. Some prosper and some are not so fortunate, however, this is evidence of the way Mayan people actively participate, pursue, and control their means of economic production and thus their lives.
What is Identity?
The transition to nontraditional crops comes with both its advantages and disadvantages. The production of crops such as snow peas, broccoli, Brussels sprouts, strawberries, raspberries, etc. provided a Guatemala with a new export crop and more money flowing into the country. This new market is “enriching a sector of petty agricultural capitalists who happen to be mostly Indians” (p. 137) Since nontraditional crops proved to provide farmers with a large profit, they began to take advantage of unpaid labor from family members. Although this seems profitable from an economic standpoint, “it also sometimes pressures farmers to discourage their children from attending school.” From a developmental standpoint, does the economical profit outweigh the long-term profit gain from education? I think that Sen would advocate for the pursuance of education. Although these crops have the potential for a large profit, there is a greater percentage of crop failure. Additionally, the more farmers who begin to produce nontraditional crops, the less they will profit. One other fact regarding Broccoli that I found particularly interesting is the fact that Guatemala is one of the United States’ main suppliers, exporting over 60 million pounds per year, but this is “a tiny percentage of the enormous U.S market, but it is big pickings for Guatemala.” I think statement helps to depict the enormity of the U.S market, and how a little portion of our market is large relative to Guatemala’s market. One other thing I noticed in this section was that the intensity of labor was mentioned twice, but it did not go into detail. After listening from the students at Belmont who experienced the labor required for coffee production, I can only image the labor intensity required to produce these nontraditional crops.
After reading the Pan-Mayan Movement article, I’m almost more confused than when I started, but feel like the article helped put certain things into perspective. We tend to generalize groups of people as either “Ladino” or “Mayan,” but there is clearly more to it.
The Pan-Mayan movement works to unite Mayans by “bringing together vastly different indigenous groups” and seeks to “define a global discourse on indigenous identity, culture, and rights including “cultural practices, traditions, languages, land, legal systems, education, and political representation.” Although it is a unified movement, there are contrasting ideas between the Culturalists and Populares, but “these groups work together on concrete projects that integrate both cultural issues and material concerns.” The four Pan-Maya revitalization efforts touch upon almost everything Manuel spoke to us about: literacy in Mayan languages, revitalizing Mayan sacred texts, promoting intercultural school programs, and support for Maya leadership. I wonder if Manual would consider himself a Culturalist or a Populares?
One major question I was left with after reading this article is, what is identity? The reference to Ebañez on page 158 defines identity “as something that is never fixed or whole but rather situates people’s practices and models of life within collective narratives of the past, present, and future, which themselves are constantly revised within new contexts.” There are so many ways for a person to identify themselves, whether it be religion, homeland, ethnicity, culture, political affiliation, gender, etc., that its impossible for identity to be a standardized measure. People will tend to identify themselves by the aspect that they feel most strongly about.
One last question I had was, what portion of the population is involved in or supports the Pan-Maya movement? Is involvement decreasing with new generations? While it reasonable why the Pan-Maya movement is attractive, past readings have emphasized the distinct differences between different indigenous groups, and the pride they take in these differences. The Mayanist motto, “unity within diversity,” distinguishes between the “twenty-two Mayan language groups,” but how is it possible for so many difference groups with these distinctive language barriers truly unite? Although one goal of the Pan-Mayan movement is to “discourage any form of overt ethnic markings of Indianness,” I felt that its somewhat ironic that by uniting under the Pan-Maya movement to rid themselves of their indianess, they are somewhat creating this distinction.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Is Peace Possible?
As I was reading Lovell's stories I had the same reaction as many others have previously stated, I was stuck wondering if things would ever get better. Reading accounts of these people that Lovell had known and many others that were violently murdered for no real reason. I found it hard to understand that being a school teacher is a reason to be killed. Whether or not this is "subversive" it still is so hard for me to grasp that someone could be killed for this reason or any of the other numerous murders that had no real precedence. Reading all of these gruesome stories of bodies being found and families not even being able to claim the bodies of their loved ones because of fear of association, I really started to wonder why nothing was done about this. Why was there no prosecution for all these killings. But as it is explained later, "having the will to prosecute means taking enormous risk"(89), and with this I see a viscous cycle beginning as there is not way to stop the murders because any attempt at this will only get someone else murdered.
As I read about the search for peace something that really caught my attention was a point made by Lovell on pg. 95, that although everyone is searching for peace and freedom from the military, "also difficult to imagine politics in Guatemala without some kind of military involvement." This really is an interesting way of looking at the search for peace. Even if by some miracle someone comes to power that may bring about some good for the country, there will still always be a struggle of taking away power from the military that they have been given for so many years. Thinking about this just makes the search for peace seem that much harder. As I read about president after president like Rios Montt who brought on " the bloodiest time Maya have known" (59). I began to lose hope that there would ever be a way to bring peace to the people in Guatemala. Like Grace, I began to wonder about the whole idea of war, however I had to come to the conclusion that there will never be a world without it. It's human nature to seek power and this is a quality that leads some down a path of total destruction where they will do anything and everything, like killing millions of people, to attain this power. It's horrible to realize this is true but it seems that war is an inevitable downfall to human nature.
Peace in Guatemala--Will it ever be possible?
In reading through several of the posts for this week, I think the title of my post can be seen as a guiding question that I kept pondering as I read through the reading for this week. The reading for this week seems like a large collection of different accounts of never-ending violence in Guatemala that leads me to believe that peace in this country is far from attainable.
I can agree with the post beneath me concerning violence against education. This is an interesting concept to cope with especially coming from the Western perspective. Living in the United States as a product of immigrant parents, I am well aware of the concept of education and the importance that is placed on it. Everyone wants to achieve the American dream, and in America it seems as if education is the surest way of making this dream come true. I have always felt a sense of protection in education because I was taught that it is the key to success. In Guatemala, this appears to be the exact opposite. From Lovell's accounts, it seems as if education signifies danger. While in the United States education is a priority, in Guatemala, it is almost as if one is better off without education so that he or she is not targeted by the government. In the United States, education is the foundation for making progress, but in Guatemala if there is no freedom to pursue an education and acquire knowledge without having to worry about risking one's life, then where does the country even begin to make progress? In fact, under the conditions described, I can see these unfortunate circumstances in Guatemala continuing for several more years. The security of education is being stripped away as kids are being introduced to violence at a very young age. For example, the young boys who became orphans after their parents were killed. The young boys were probably not able to comprehend completely what had occurred, but by exposing them to such violence at an early age, the government is only producing violent individuals to continue the dangerous cycle of violence in Guatemala for many years to come.
In addition to the problems with education are the problems with the government. Indeed the government in the United States is by no means perfect; however for the most part, the country still depends on government officials and authorities to instill order in the country by enforcing rules and regulations. This establishes some line of order in the country and thus facilitates the process of moving forward as a country. According to Lovell's accounts, when the atrocious murders occur, there are often no trials and no one is punished for the crime. This is often the case because the government officials are often the perpetrators. Again, how can there even be a possibility for peace in Guatemala under these circumstances? How can the country move forward as a whole in the post war period if the government that is supposed to promote order in the country is the one promoting the disorder and violence?
I can agree with the post beneath me concerning violence against education. This is an interesting concept to cope with especially coming from the Western perspective. Living in the United States as a product of immigrant parents, I am well aware of the concept of education and the importance that is placed on it. Everyone wants to achieve the American dream, and in America it seems as if education is the surest way of making this dream come true. I have always felt a sense of protection in education because I was taught that it is the key to success. In Guatemala, this appears to be the exact opposite. From Lovell's accounts, it seems as if education signifies danger. While in the United States education is a priority, in Guatemala, it is almost as if one is better off without education so that he or she is not targeted by the government. In the United States, education is the foundation for making progress, but in Guatemala if there is no freedom to pursue an education and acquire knowledge without having to worry about risking one's life, then where does the country even begin to make progress? In fact, under the conditions described, I can see these unfortunate circumstances in Guatemala continuing for several more years. The security of education is being stripped away as kids are being introduced to violence at a very young age. For example, the young boys who became orphans after their parents were killed. The young boys were probably not able to comprehend completely what had occurred, but by exposing them to such violence at an early age, the government is only producing violent individuals to continue the dangerous cycle of violence in Guatemala for many years to come.
In addition to the problems with education are the problems with the government. Indeed the government in the United States is by no means perfect; however for the most part, the country still depends on government officials and authorities to instill order in the country by enforcing rules and regulations. This establishes some line of order in the country and thus facilitates the process of moving forward as a country. According to Lovell's accounts, when the atrocious murders occur, there are often no trials and no one is punished for the crime. This is often the case because the government officials are often the perpetrators. Again, how can there even be a possibility for peace in Guatemala under these circumstances? How can the country move forward as a whole in the post war period if the government that is supposed to promote order in the country is the one promoting the disorder and violence?
Post War?
One of my favorite movies says that "there is always a war to be fought." I didn't really believe that to be true, but when you stop for a moment and really analyze what it means to be a war, I find lots of truth in that statement, especially after reading about post war Guatemala.
This weeks readings were disheartening at best. I have trouble understanding the kidnapping and slaying of teachers in the country. I have read a lot about Northern Uganda and there they abduct the children, brainwash them, and insert them into the Gorilla army. But, abducting and killing teachers, puts me at a loss. The only logical explanation I can imagine for this, is that knowledge is power and power is what is constantly being fought for in Guatemala. Teachers have the power of influencing and empowering the youth, the future, but by taking away teachers you take away the youth's power. The ability to guide the future is a power that cannot be controlled, and I an sure the last thing the rebels want is for the youth to side with the current government and therefore empower them more. I think it also, send a very powerful message by killing those who spend their life giving to others. It's as you are selflessly killing selfless people.
Peace only seemed to last for a moment in Guatemala, post election, two pages to be exact. It seems that for every two steps forward, Guatemala will then take five steps back. There is no perfect way to go about recovering after a long war, but what Guatemala is doing just doesn't seem right. The peace set forth by De Lion Caprio was a band-aid on the issues at the core of the country, which he continues to evade (pg 97). Even though the war in Guatemala is "over" there still seems to be many more battles to be fought in order to make it into the country it could be. The four foundations outlined on page 97 are things that could put the country back into war against itself one day. Without a firm foundation Guatemala will never prosper.
This weeks readings were disheartening at best. I have trouble understanding the kidnapping and slaying of teachers in the country. I have read a lot about Northern Uganda and there they abduct the children, brainwash them, and insert them into the Gorilla army. But, abducting and killing teachers, puts me at a loss. The only logical explanation I can imagine for this, is that knowledge is power and power is what is constantly being fought for in Guatemala. Teachers have the power of influencing and empowering the youth, the future, but by taking away teachers you take away the youth's power. The ability to guide the future is a power that cannot be controlled, and I an sure the last thing the rebels want is for the youth to side with the current government and therefore empower them more. I think it also, send a very powerful message by killing those who spend their life giving to others. It's as you are selflessly killing selfless people.
Peace only seemed to last for a moment in Guatemala, post election, two pages to be exact. It seems that for every two steps forward, Guatemala will then take five steps back. There is no perfect way to go about recovering after a long war, but what Guatemala is doing just doesn't seem right. The peace set forth by De Lion Caprio was a band-aid on the issues at the core of the country, which he continues to evade (pg 97). Even though the war in Guatemala is "over" there still seems to be many more battles to be fought in order to make it into the country it could be. The four foundations outlined on page 97 are things that could put the country back into war against itself one day. Without a firm foundation Guatemala will never prosper.
Paradoxes
Even after all of the reading we have done about the militarization of Guatemala, the numerous decades of state repression, it is still shocking to witness the outstanding paradoxes that exsist between life and death in Guatemalan society despite all of the change that occurs over the years. This section of the reading opens with artifacts from the newspapers delivered by the suavemente, gold-tooth gleaming, charismatic, Joselino whose daily "!Buenos dias!" are a farcry from the headings on the papers: "Teacher Gunned Down in Front of 40 School Children" "Journalist Was Disfigured""Bodies of Other Persons Found Butchered"...the list goes on. It is these paradoxes that are made unbelieveable because of the ingredients that constitute them; one part is joy and one part is terror. As the timeline continues, I understand why this reading is labeled Change for with the years there is an obvious movement of the people to attempt to upend the norms of death and destruction that have settled in their lives. The titles change from the ones previously states to "The Violence Has to End" and "The Kidnappings Must Cease". The media, representing the people, is finally reaching a breaking point fter the twenty-seven thousand killings under Garcia, the ten-thousand under Rios Montt, and even more thousands under Victores (64). How does this change occur? According to Lovell, presidential elections and aid from neighboring countries like the United States. Thus the July 1 vote "...turns out to be Guatemala's first major electoral event since the abortive presidential campaign f march 7, 1982." According to Lovell, the United States owes an integral part in the changing of these norms because the people in Guatemala are struggle for the same cause Americans struggled for two centuries ago. America is clearly a much more developed country and as a global leader should assume part of the responsiblity and aid in this transaction. However, it is impossible for the process of democratization in Guatemala to mirror other Latin American countries (70) because of economic aid and the repayment of the national debt. Obvious as daylight, Lovell travels to the country and discovers that the army still has total control of Guatemala--even with the mask of a civilian president. By 1990 the newspaper titles are still reading "Guatemala: 6.4 Million Impovershed People" and in 1999 most families are still torn apart from all of those who fled to other countries such as Genaro's. While "Guatemala is rich in resources, natural and human...Guatemala has been made a poor and backward country because of the allotment of its resources, especially its land resources, is deformed by crippling structures of inequalty" (172) and even though change is slowly occuring to reform and upend the norms of the past four decades, the paradox between life and death, joy and terror, is undeniable and it will take many more years to level.
Human Rights
In response to Rachel’s question as to why teachers were often targets of kidnappings and murder, I believe it had to do with the potential “’subversive’” nature of their jobs (49). Teachers had the ability to implant ideas in the heads of others, especially into the younger generation who are likely to accept innovative ideas. What surprises me is the bravery of people who decided to be teachers and journalists, both careers that are “practiced under censure of death” (49). The disfiguration of bodies always gets me, and I wonder how Guatemalans dealt with this every day. “These acts of bestiality only serve to sink the nation deeper into the most degenerate immorality” Lovell states in Chapter 9: “Peace of the Dead.” (57). Through this statement he provides an explanation for why Guatemala has sunk so low, and why it is difficult for her to stand up again. The effects of severe oppression seem to never fade, which seems to be a repeated theme throughout many of our readings. Those who have come to power before the 1980’s and claimed to have Guatemala’s best interests at mind, only left behind death and corruption, as was the case with Rios Montt. However, even when an honest man such as Cerezo became president, the army still had control over the civilians.
What really caught my attention was the report filed by the U.S Department of State that detailed the acts of violence in Guatemala, almost berating the Guatemalan government for not dealing justice to those guilty of kidnapping and murder. I was even more surprised by Cerezo’s dismissal of the report, although perhaps I shouldn’t be after everything we have read about Guatemala. “There is no small, tragic irony in this exchange of words, for the architects of U.S. foreign policy in the 1990s only have their colleagues of forty years ago to thank for cultivating a military caste that has brought so much grief to the people of Guatemala,” Lovell declares at the end of Chapter 12: “A Militarized Society” (77). What I wonder is, what did Cerezo do with the $800 million that the U.S. gave in aid? I am especially curious after discovering in the next chapter that the “Cerezo regime has been unable to distinguish itself in anyway, or to leave behind a human rights record different from that of military dictatorships” (80). What will it take for a human rights organization to be established in Guatemala and is it possible for it to not become corrupted, as was the case with CDRO? The first step appears to be acknowledging the violence in Guatemala and drawing attention to it, as did Ramiro de Leon Carpio. The second step however, is even more risky: prosecuting the guilty. It’s a risky business for the same reason that being a teacher or journalist was risky earlier. Anyone who strives against the army is threatened with death.
On a side note, I just wanted to say that my favorite quote in this week’s reading is, “It has become, for me, a peculiar habit of mind, a metaphor of life and death” (102). In less than a month, I hope to experience what Lovell is trying to express in this statement.
What really caught my attention was the report filed by the U.S Department of State that detailed the acts of violence in Guatemala, almost berating the Guatemalan government for not dealing justice to those guilty of kidnapping and murder. I was even more surprised by Cerezo’s dismissal of the report, although perhaps I shouldn’t be after everything we have read about Guatemala. “There is no small, tragic irony in this exchange of words, for the architects of U.S. foreign policy in the 1990s only have their colleagues of forty years ago to thank for cultivating a military caste that has brought so much grief to the people of Guatemala,” Lovell declares at the end of Chapter 12: “A Militarized Society” (77). What I wonder is, what did Cerezo do with the $800 million that the U.S. gave in aid? I am especially curious after discovering in the next chapter that the “Cerezo regime has been unable to distinguish itself in anyway, or to leave behind a human rights record different from that of military dictatorships” (80). What will it take for a human rights organization to be established in Guatemala and is it possible for it to not become corrupted, as was the case with CDRO? The first step appears to be acknowledging the violence in Guatemala and drawing attention to it, as did Ramiro de Leon Carpio. The second step however, is even more risky: prosecuting the guilty. It’s a risky business for the same reason that being a teacher or journalist was risky earlier. Anyone who strives against the army is threatened with death.
On a side note, I just wanted to say that my favorite quote in this week’s reading is, “It has become, for me, a peculiar habit of mind, a metaphor of life and death” (102). In less than a month, I hope to experience what Lovell is trying to express in this statement.
Beauty and the Beast
It's so hard to imagine a place where the army and their guns are ever present. In our society where we have so many outspoken personalities and organizations, the fate of "subversive" individuals in Guatemala is outrageous (49). There has never been a period in American history where the president has managed to fulfill all promises and completely satisfy the people, but Guatemala appears to know the case of unsatisfactory leadership all too well. In a place where rich and fertile lands abound, it's mind-boggling that the majority of the population is poor and hungry (84). All of the problems mentioned and many more contribute to the defacing the beautiful country of Guatemala.
The fact that the army sees itself as a means of peace is rather ironic when they are the same individuals that caused much of the oppression during the 80's and even now. Under General Efrain Rios Montt the amount of Guatemalan blood shed was unreal. He allowed his troops to completely annihilate entire villages. Further more the idea of civil defense patrols was quite crafty yet just another method of wiping out the Maya people. There were so many mind games that were played during the war as we have discussed. The civil defense patrols were given a sense of agency while they were simply tools aiding the government to keep the civilians, typically the Maya, oppressed. The "frijoles y fusiles" program was a very provocative method of moving the people to cooperate with the army through fear or face the grave consequences (59).
I find it really unfortunate that the election of a civilian president could not bring the violent actions of the army to a steep decline. Although both presidents Serrano and Leon Carpio were elected by the people, they appeared to lack the ability to protect and please the people. With the assasinations and daily murders still at alarming rates, it seems as if the presidents fell short of bringing forth the beauty of Guatemala. All in all, I believe that Leon Carpio, especially, did make some very positive steps for the country, such as the sucessful signing of a Comprehensive Human Rights Accord (92).
At the end of the day and the book, Guatemala is still in a very depressing situation. Although the lands are perfect for producing crops such as coffee, bananas, and a plethora of other items for export, the country barely has enough to feed its own citizens. The fact that 85% of the population is living in poverty is somewhat unreal. I am really curious as to how with such a high percentage of people living in poverty, and with 70% living in extreme poverty, there aren't more individuals living on the street. How is it that the government appears to show little concern about the majority of the population in poverty, yet they seem to be taken care? Maybe a number isn't enough information to explain the plight of the people it is attempting to describe.
The beauty that one sees on the surface is masked by beasts such as violence, a continuous lack of peace, and poverty within the country. It's such a sad tale that has unfortunately been a reality for the Guatemalan people for many years.
The fact that the army sees itself as a means of peace is rather ironic when they are the same individuals that caused much of the oppression during the 80's and even now. Under General Efrain Rios Montt the amount of Guatemalan blood shed was unreal. He allowed his troops to completely annihilate entire villages. Further more the idea of civil defense patrols was quite crafty yet just another method of wiping out the Maya people. There were so many mind games that were played during the war as we have discussed. The civil defense patrols were given a sense of agency while they were simply tools aiding the government to keep the civilians, typically the Maya, oppressed. The "frijoles y fusiles" program was a very provocative method of moving the people to cooperate with the army through fear or face the grave consequences (59).
I find it really unfortunate that the election of a civilian president could not bring the violent actions of the army to a steep decline. Although both presidents Serrano and Leon Carpio were elected by the people, they appeared to lack the ability to protect and please the people. With the assasinations and daily murders still at alarming rates, it seems as if the presidents fell short of bringing forth the beauty of Guatemala. All in all, I believe that Leon Carpio, especially, did make some very positive steps for the country, such as the sucessful signing of a Comprehensive Human Rights Accord (92).
At the end of the day and the book, Guatemala is still in a very depressing situation. Although the lands are perfect for producing crops such as coffee, bananas, and a plethora of other items for export, the country barely has enough to feed its own citizens. The fact that 85% of the population is living in poverty is somewhat unreal. I am really curious as to how with such a high percentage of people living in poverty, and with 70% living in extreme poverty, there aren't more individuals living on the street. How is it that the government appears to show little concern about the majority of the population in poverty, yet they seem to be taken care? Maybe a number isn't enough information to explain the plight of the people it is attempting to describe.
The beauty that one sees on the surface is masked by beasts such as violence, a continuous lack of peace, and poverty within the country. It's such a sad tale that has unfortunately been a reality for the Guatemalan people for many years.
Peace
The reading this week made me think about Peace and what that really means. Chapter 9 is titled, Peace of the Dead. In chapter 9 Lovell states, “If, in relative terms, peace prevailed, it was an uneasy, unsettling peace – the peace of the dead.” That term, “peace of the dead” seemed very ironic to me. Those who had died were often gruesomely tortured and murdered. I doubt that they or the loved ones they left behind were at peace. They were silent and frozen in fear and this could be construed as a type of peace.
Later in the Searching for Peace Chapter I began to think of peace in two different ways. One way is the forced peace that Guatemala was still experiencing in 1993 with the militarized communities. I think the “peace of the dead” would also fall into this category. The other peace is what I would consider real peace. Real peace is what Guatemala hoped to have, but cannot with such a heavy emphasis on the military. Lovell summed up my thoughts when he noted, “Peace in Guatemala hinges on defining a very different role for the national armed forces than they have assumed and enacted up to now.” Forced peace seems to be a state in which peace does not actually exist but one in which a façade is created for the outside world. I think the Guatemalan government was hoping to present itself in a different more civil light to other counties.
In Chapter Sixteen, “Scarred by War” Lovell states, “ Talking about peace may be the closest Guatemala ever gets to it.” Although Lovell argues that drudging up the past and talking about peace might not be beneficial I would disagree. It seems that slowly but surely Guatemala is getting some of the retribution it deserves. For example, Alpírez was brought forward on his numerous crimes. It seems that the acknowledgement of the atrocities committed and that the army was involved is a step in the right direction. Hopefully talking about peace will eventually lead to actions.
War and responsibility
Like Grace and Rachel, I want to talk about Rios Mont and the atrocities that the army carried out during his presidency. Lovell sites an editorial about one specific massacre: "It would be difficult for any person in their right mind to imagine this kind of extermination...How is it possible for a human adult to murder, in cold blood, a baby of less than a year-and-a-half?" What I don't understand (and I doubt very many people understand this) is how anybody can make the conscious decision to torture and kill an innocent person, particularly a baby or a child who could not have possibly done anything wrong. Were these soldiers just evil?
To my frustration, I can't actually believe that every man who carried out these acts was completely evil, even though the acts themselves clearly were. As we have discussed in class before, many of the soldiers were Mayans who were forced into armies or guardias. They didn't plan to become killers or torturers. So what happened that made them do things that I can't imagine even considering?
I think that this question brings us back full-circle to the systematic institutionalization of violence. By himself, a man would probably not make the decision to torture and kill entire families and villages. However, under a hierarchical military system, an individual's decisions are not the most important force. A politician or military officer can tell those below them in the power ladder to kill all people in a village, because they are insurgents (or for some other apparently sensible reason). After the word has gone through several people down to the soldiers, it is not the soldier's responsibility to decide what is right or wrong. In order to keep their position of safety within the army, they do what they are told. They are trained not to think about right or wrong, but only to follow orders, and certainly threats on their own lives, peer pressure, and personal frustration all contribute to the acts that they carry out. The military setting can be manipulated to become a complete moral vacuum. In the end, the setting and necessity of following orders acts to brain wash the soldiers. (This is why I am scared in general of strong military systems.)
Then the question is: who is accountable? In one section, Lovell focuses on Mont specifically: "Watching and listening to him, I found myself bombarded by questions. Is this man evil? If s on what grounds? Because he himself directly sanctioned the slaughter of his fellow Guatemalans? How could he? Is he not a Christian? Isn't he a son, a husband, a father who appreciates the value of life?...Has the bloodbath been planned from above, or is it the work of soldiers in the field, gone mindlessly out of control? With whom does responsibility and the burden of truth ultimately rest?" (62)
As much as I think there needs to be accountability and justice after the horrors that so many Mayans went through, how does anybody make sense of the violence and allocate blame? I think that we can agree for the most part that Mont was a pretty horrible person, and that what happened is partially his fault, but certainly there were others at blame as well. How do we determine where all of this hatred and violence came from and how it developed? In a lot of ways I think we will never truly understand.
As a final question, Lovell's descriptions of the evangelical groups in Guatemala seemed to leave a lot open to interpretation. As foreigners, what was their (and even our) responsibility to understand the situation? How much did they know about the massacres going on? How much were foreigners blinded by propaganda and the hype surrounding the Cold War? Clearly, our government ignored signs about massacres, but did tourists and missionaries do the same? I thought about that a lot as I read through the Lovell chapters.
To my frustration, I can't actually believe that every man who carried out these acts was completely evil, even though the acts themselves clearly were. As we have discussed in class before, many of the soldiers were Mayans who were forced into armies or guardias. They didn't plan to become killers or torturers. So what happened that made them do things that I can't imagine even considering?
I think that this question brings us back full-circle to the systematic institutionalization of violence. By himself, a man would probably not make the decision to torture and kill entire families and villages. However, under a hierarchical military system, an individual's decisions are not the most important force. A politician or military officer can tell those below them in the power ladder to kill all people in a village, because they are insurgents (or for some other apparently sensible reason). After the word has gone through several people down to the soldiers, it is not the soldier's responsibility to decide what is right or wrong. In order to keep their position of safety within the army, they do what they are told. They are trained not to think about right or wrong, but only to follow orders, and certainly threats on their own lives, peer pressure, and personal frustration all contribute to the acts that they carry out. The military setting can be manipulated to become a complete moral vacuum. In the end, the setting and necessity of following orders acts to brain wash the soldiers. (This is why I am scared in general of strong military systems.)
Then the question is: who is accountable? In one section, Lovell focuses on Mont specifically: "Watching and listening to him, I found myself bombarded by questions. Is this man evil? If s on what grounds? Because he himself directly sanctioned the slaughter of his fellow Guatemalans? How could he? Is he not a Christian? Isn't he a son, a husband, a father who appreciates the value of life?...Has the bloodbath been planned from above, or is it the work of soldiers in the field, gone mindlessly out of control? With whom does responsibility and the burden of truth ultimately rest?" (62)
As much as I think there needs to be accountability and justice after the horrors that so many Mayans went through, how does anybody make sense of the violence and allocate blame? I think that we can agree for the most part that Mont was a pretty horrible person, and that what happened is partially his fault, but certainly there were others at blame as well. How do we determine where all of this hatred and violence came from and how it developed? In a lot of ways I think we will never truly understand.
As a final question, Lovell's descriptions of the evangelical groups in Guatemala seemed to leave a lot open to interpretation. As foreigners, what was their (and even our) responsibility to understand the situation? How much did they know about the massacres going on? How much were foreigners blinded by propaganda and the hype surrounding the Cold War? Clearly, our government ignored signs about massacres, but did tourists and missionaries do the same? I thought about that a lot as I read through the Lovell chapters.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Is the war really over?
Lovell’s chronological assessment of armed conflict and “post-war” Guatemala was enlightening in numerous ways. As I read each chapter I found myself thinking “the next phase must be better” or “the next president will surely get it right and be able to control the military”. But to my optimistic souls despair, I came to realize that Lovell’s telling of the events up to the millennium demonstrated that just because the war seems to be over, does not mean that the guns have been put down.
Ríos Montt, as Rachel has clearly demonstrated, is a perfect example of this. Other leaders in the coup that brought him into power remembered Montt as a “soldier of impeccable integrity, an honest, moral, consummate professional” (55). This irony is almost comical seeing the events that occurred throughout his presidency. One of his first acts was to censor the press, followed by the “bloodiest times Maya have known” (59). As his leadership continued he set up civil patrol groups and claimed responsibility for a twelve-point code of conduct. Unfortunately soldiers only obeyed one code of conduct: “I obey, but I do not act accordingly” (61). Finally, the last part of Montt’s presidency was characterized by an epic denial of his wrongdoings followed by the proclamation that the government had “pledged a commitment to change” (62). Although this is the phase that most remember and places Montt in a very positive light, it is hard to understand how the horrors that occurred months before could so easily be forgiven since Montt was in fact the one whose hands the blood had stained.
Jump ahead a few years to 1987 and Lovell can describe the scene perfectly: “Almost unnoticed by the rest of the world, the war in Guatemala drags on disheartingly” (73). Although this statement is very realistic it is still astounding to me that the army is able to blame “terrorists” for the murders and abductions that are still going on. It is in this chapter that I really question the use of an army at all. As this thought progresses I get stuck on the idea of war at large. What is the point? Who thought it would be a good idea? Does history not show us that after thousands of years the soldiers who pledge their allegiance (and those who are forced in) are not the only ones affected by the massacre? In fact it is far worse than imaginable as Lovell describes women being raped, beaten, and killed. Children being stabbed in their stomachs and old people knifed as if they were animals. What would it take for our world to stop fighting all together? And how can countries continue to spend money on their troops if all it takes is one flip of a page to read about the millions who were unjustly killed in war. I think I am getting ahead of myself though, and since it is obviously impractical to say that the solution to Guatemala and the world’s problems is to end war forever, I will refocus my blog.
In medical anthropology we recently learned about the tendency in which armed conflicts are dissolved into just numbers. The number of people killed by the insurgents, the number of Mayan uprooted from their town when their land was burned and ruined, the number of women raped by soldiers. I think Lovell does a good job of bringing in the other aspects of life that were ruined by this war. He talks about the experiences of the refugees and how even after the “war had ended” there were so many reasons why they would not want to come back. He also discussed the poverty that existed in Guatemala. The most depressing fact being that “three out of four workers earn wages of only $2.00 (U.S.) daily” (90). In relation to this he discussed education, and the lack of opportunity for women, especially Mayan. Finally, he mentions acceptance, and in a quote I particularly liked he states that “Guatemala, I have learned to accept, unfolds in a trajectory of its own elaboration” (102). While it is easy to think of all these factors as individual aspects of Guatemalan suffering, there is no doubt that they are all pieces of the same puzzle – a puzzles that’s larger picture is one of war. What the answer is to helping Guatemala move on is like always a big question mark in my mind. What I do know is that the armed conflict was part of every aspect of Guatemalan life, and in order to get anywhere, the repair must be thought of in this way as well.
Monday, April 12, 2010
“How can you marvel at beauty in the midst of so much pain?”
At the end of chapter eight, Lovell asks a perplexing question: “How can you marvel at beauty in the midst of so much pain?” This question is a central theme to the entire book, and I assume where the title stems from. I often find that when thinking about Guatemala and reading the assigned articles, my mind tends to separate the violent aspect of Guatemala from the cultural aspects. Lovell’s question helped me bring everything together, and was a way of reminding myself that the same people who are exposed to so much violence and the constant kidnappings or torturing of their loved ones are the same people that have such special customs and such a strong sense of community. It amazes me how exposed the Guatemalans are to violence, and how customary death and kidnappings are to everyday lives. What is even more shocking is that fact that no one is punished for this acts. In the majority of accounts Lovell provides us with, the target was killed by “unknown assassins.” Even during the talk given by Tom Offit, he attested that even when most people know who the murderer is, they remain irresponsible and pay no consequences for their actions. This is completely different from the policy in the United States. Even for small issue, Americas seek justice and revenge. I feel that if there were higher consequences for these murders in Guatemala, violence would be significantly reduced. However, this is an issue that is extremely hard to tackle, especially when the government is involved in the violence as well. On a completely side note, I wonder why teachers are often main targets of murder and kidnappings.
Another aspect that was brought to my attention was the importance of tourism. Tourism is an impactful way for outsiders to stimulate the economy of Guatemala. Unfortunately, the interconnected relationship between tourism and violence creates an ongoing cycle. As violence increases, less people are likely to travel to Guatemala. As tourism decreases, the economy is hurt and less people are likely to educate the rest of the world about the violence that is occurring.
Although we touched upon this in the past, the rule of Rios Montt seems to have been both good and bad for the Mayan people. The three stages of his rule utilize particularly interesting tactics. First, when Montt worked with the junta but wasn’t president yet, the massacres in Mayan communities reached new levels of severity. Lovell paraphrases Mao Tse Tung, who said, “the Indians were the water in which the fish to be caught swam freely.” (56). I think is quote is a great analogy depicting the situation the Mayans were caught in. The army “unleashed a fearful repression on the native people,” primarily out of fear that they would unite against the army. As we’ve discussed in class, this tactic results in the opposite effect. The second stage is marked by a “shift from a physical to psychological war,” which played off the natives suffering from their “scorched” land. The Plan of Assistance to Areas of Conflict, or “beans and rifles” campaign seemed to outsiders as if the natives had a choice when in actuality they did not. They army offered food to the natives if they allowed them to set up civil defense patrols, but it was by no means a choice, hence the motto “comply and be fed, equivocate and be killed” (p. 57). One aspect that I found particularly interesting was the speech that Rios Montt gave to President Reagan in Honduras. Montt made it seem as if the government’s beans and riffle campaign was bringing peace to Guatemala and solving internal problems. My favorite part was when he said that “we have granted the farmers the right to defend themselves military.” It is clear that the natives had no rights and no choice in the situation. However, the way Montt proposed the bean and riffle campaigns explains why there was little effort of outside countries to make changes and intervene in Guatemala.
The third stage of Montt’s rule is known as “techo, trabajo, y tortilla- Shelter, work, and food” (p. 61). Brilliantly utilizing the proper words, Montt describes to President Reagan that “the underlying philosophy of ‘beans and rifles’ is that permanent security ultimately comes only though economic development, social justice, and progress.” Montt described the plans for Guatemala in such a tactful way that the Reagan administration removed Guatemala from President Carter’s “black list,” reinstituting both military and economic assistance from the U.S.
Overall, the benefits and consequences of Rios Montt’s rule are controversial. Although his regime is characterized by horrific violence and massacres, violence decreased in the latter part of his rule. Day-to-day life was generally more peaceful and street crime was low, even though there were large-scale massacres. Lovell asks a series of mind-provoking questions at the end of chapter nine, but even he seeks no answer.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
what works?
Throughout both the Harris and Wilson articles, I was surprised that the authors were able to go into so much detail about Mayan health practices without actually assessing whether or not those practices work. In part, I was probably puzzled because I haven't taken anthropology classes before. I liked reading these very descriptive, unbiased perspectives about Mayan healthcare practices. However, at the same time I kept thinking to myself...'ok...but does it work?'
Particularly the Harris article contained absolutely no critique about whether throwing an egg in water and chanting to heal a sick baby has a medical benefit. Harris does state very clearly that many of the Mayan people believe that it works. However, is that the only thing we should take into account? Or should people be told that their beliefs are probably not the most helpful and that they should use aspirin or antibiotics instead (if aspirin and antibiotics would work better)?
I am not trying to say that Western medicine is always better. I actually believe that Americans should resort to medications a lot less than we do (even though I would be lying if I said that I don't rely on IBProfin even for the smallest pain). Herbal remedies and even spiritual healing can be very effective, and I would definitely be interesetd in using those a lot more than I do now. At the same time, there are undoubtedly some practices that work from a physical/scientific standpoint and some that do not. Maybe through syncronization with new Western medicine, the helpful traditional practices will be kept, while some others will not be (or will be continually used to uphold culture but in conjunction with treatment that is medically beneficial).
When talking about culture in general, I am sure that we agree that it's not possible (or desirable) to determine what is 'right' or 'wrong.' However, discussing a culture's healthcare seems different to me than considering their language or art; while we shouldn't judge which culture has 'good' or 'bad' art and language, maybe we can critique healthcare differently. It's not just a matter of culture, but also of science and even life-and-death decisions.
Particularly the Harris article contained absolutely no critique about whether throwing an egg in water and chanting to heal a sick baby has a medical benefit. Harris does state very clearly that many of the Mayan people believe that it works. However, is that the only thing we should take into account? Or should people be told that their beliefs are probably not the most helpful and that they should use aspirin or antibiotics instead (if aspirin and antibiotics would work better)?
I am not trying to say that Western medicine is always better. I actually believe that Americans should resort to medications a lot less than we do (even though I would be lying if I said that I don't rely on IBProfin even for the smallest pain). Herbal remedies and even spiritual healing can be very effective, and I would definitely be interesetd in using those a lot more than I do now. At the same time, there are undoubtedly some practices that work from a physical/scientific standpoint and some that do not. Maybe through syncronization with new Western medicine, the helpful traditional practices will be kept, while some others will not be (or will be continually used to uphold culture but in conjunction with treatment that is medically beneficial).
When talking about culture in general, I am sure that we agree that it's not possible (or desirable) to determine what is 'right' or 'wrong.' However, discussing a culture's healthcare seems different to me than considering their language or art; while we shouldn't judge which culture has 'good' or 'bad' art and language, maybe we can critique healthcare differently. It's not just a matter of culture, but also of science and even life-and-death decisions.
Comparing Pregnancy in Guatemala vs. US
Pregnant women in Guatemala seem to have a very different experience than women in the US. these differences are mainly reflected in the differences discussed in the paper of midwifery vs. hospitalization. In Guatemala, a pregnancy is treated much more holistically than it is in the United States. I think in the United States has lost a certain aspect of having a baby that midwifes in Guatemala are very in tune with. The creation and birth of a new being has always been a pretty miraculous event and it seems that the midwifes acknowledge and respect this miracle. They are dedicated to their profession and see it as more of a calling.
I found this perspective to be very interesting. For myself as a hopeful doctor, I tend to think of the process of pregnancy in very clinical terms. I often think of Obstetrics as simply another specialty. This article made me realize that it can be about a lot more than just that. I couldn't help but thinking I wanted some of that personal and accommodating care that the Guatemalan midwifes provide.
Not only is the prenatal care different in Guatemala, but the attitudes of the women are also very different. The woman who miscarried was not devastated, but simple understood that there was nothing to be done. She was able to move forward and try again. In general women in the US are devastated by a miscarriage and may have trouble bouncing back from such a devastating blow. I think the Guatemalan woman's attitude may be attributable to her religious beliefs and also that idea that a pregnancy is a miraculous event and that complications are to be expected. Again in the US we have been able to advance the pregnancy and birthing process to have low risks of miscarriage and death. However, being aware of the Guatemalan perspective might be beneficial to women in the US.
I think women in the US have a lot that they could learn and subsequently benefit from the attitudes of women in Guatemala. No matter how advanced we come in our understanding of pregnancy I never think it hurts to remember the basics of what is happening. A new life is being brought into the world and the significance of this is reflected much more in Guatemala.
Traditional versus Western
I am glad that everyone seems particularly interested in this weeks readings due to its medical relevance, so I am really excited about the discussion for this week as well.
As I read through the reading entitled "Someone is Making You Sick", I kept asking myself about the fundamental differences between the western and traditional medical systems. What keeps them so separate and is it possible for them to be reconciled? It is interesting how two people from different backgrounds can have what seems to be the same exact disease but have completely different ways of classifying it and thus completely different ways for treating it. For example, the traditional system describes what appear to be symptoms in the Western system as the actual disease; however, in the Western system, these symptoms are indications of the an overarching disease. Perhaps this could be due to the Western point of view from which this selection was written; however, this makes it appear as if the traditional system of medicine simply falls short of delving deeper to cure the root of the medical issue as opposed to superficially responding to symptoms. On the other hand, I tried to make some connections between the two systems of traditional and western medicine. For instance, a lot of the causes of the "diseases" such as cold or diarrhea could find some kind of overlap in the Western system, but once again, this would lead to further explanation of what the disease/medical issue is in the Western system.
Even in reading this, I think many people have a tendency to try to decide which medical system works better, but I don't think this is necessary. We can simply agree that they are just different. From the reading, I got the sense that the Western system is more comprehensive than the traditional system in terms of curing some of the diseases that the traditional system cannot. For instance when the young boy was asked if there were any diseases that could not be cured by herbs, he finally stated that dolor de corazon, dolor de pulmon, and operation could not be handled using the traditional system. Despite Westerners' tendencies to believe that their medical system is superior, it too does not always have all of the answers in which case some people try the traditional system. This goes back to the question that I believe was posed by Rachel down below: who is to say whether the Western system is better or not (in reference to the safety of hospitals)?
One conclusion that I pondered was that if a certain disease does not have a cause in a certain medical system, then it cannot be treated under that medical system. For instance, when the guy described dolor de corazon, dolor de pulmon, and operations as things that could not be cured by the traditional system, I wondered if the traditional system had a cause for it. Perhaps these diseases are of the more modern times (that the ancestors had not experienced) and thus did not have cures developed for them under the traditional system.
I believe one reason that the traditional system seems to be more shunned or less highly regarded in the Western system is due to our constant need to reason through everything and have evidence to support our explanations for everything. As a pre-med student, I can certainly appreciate the power of science, but perhaps due to faith or religious background, I am also aware that some things just may not be able to be explained. For instance, when people who battled certain illnesses that their doctors had no answer for were healed once taken to the church and prayed over. Another example includes when the midwives such as those in the other reading "Your Destiny is to Care for Pregnant Women" just know that it is their calling to be a midwife, and there is no explanation as to why she is chosen. We depend on explanations and hard evidence for everything, and the problem comes when that explanation is beyond us or cannot be provided. I think this is similar to some of the reasons why there is a clash between the Western and traditional systems of medicine. Thus, I don't know if the Western and traditional system can ever be reconciled because they seem to be based off of very different fundamentals.
As I read through the reading entitled "Someone is Making You Sick", I kept asking myself about the fundamental differences between the western and traditional medical systems. What keeps them so separate and is it possible for them to be reconciled? It is interesting how two people from different backgrounds can have what seems to be the same exact disease but have completely different ways of classifying it and thus completely different ways for treating it. For example, the traditional system describes what appear to be symptoms in the Western system as the actual disease; however, in the Western system, these symptoms are indications of the an overarching disease. Perhaps this could be due to the Western point of view from which this selection was written; however, this makes it appear as if the traditional system of medicine simply falls short of delving deeper to cure the root of the medical issue as opposed to superficially responding to symptoms. On the other hand, I tried to make some connections between the two systems of traditional and western medicine. For instance, a lot of the causes of the "diseases" such as cold or diarrhea could find some kind of overlap in the Western system, but once again, this would lead to further explanation of what the disease/medical issue is in the Western system.
Even in reading this, I think many people have a tendency to try to decide which medical system works better, but I don't think this is necessary. We can simply agree that they are just different. From the reading, I got the sense that the Western system is more comprehensive than the traditional system in terms of curing some of the diseases that the traditional system cannot. For instance when the young boy was asked if there were any diseases that could not be cured by herbs, he finally stated that dolor de corazon, dolor de pulmon, and operation could not be handled using the traditional system. Despite Westerners' tendencies to believe that their medical system is superior, it too does not always have all of the answers in which case some people try the traditional system. This goes back to the question that I believe was posed by Rachel down below: who is to say whether the Western system is better or not (in reference to the safety of hospitals)?
One conclusion that I pondered was that if a certain disease does not have a cause in a certain medical system, then it cannot be treated under that medical system. For instance, when the guy described dolor de corazon, dolor de pulmon, and operations as things that could not be cured by the traditional system, I wondered if the traditional system had a cause for it. Perhaps these diseases are of the more modern times (that the ancestors had not experienced) and thus did not have cures developed for them under the traditional system.
I believe one reason that the traditional system seems to be more shunned or less highly regarded in the Western system is due to our constant need to reason through everything and have evidence to support our explanations for everything. As a pre-med student, I can certainly appreciate the power of science, but perhaps due to faith or religious background, I am also aware that some things just may not be able to be explained. For instance, when people who battled certain illnesses that their doctors had no answer for were healed once taken to the church and prayed over. Another example includes when the midwives such as those in the other reading "Your Destiny is to Care for Pregnant Women" just know that it is their calling to be a midwife, and there is no explanation as to why she is chosen. We depend on explanations and hard evidence for everything, and the problem comes when that explanation is beyond us or cannot be provided. I think this is similar to some of the reasons why there is a clash between the Western and traditional systems of medicine. Thus, I don't know if the Western and traditional system can ever be reconciled because they seem to be based off of very different fundamentals.
Enchoque Cultural
Enchoque Cultural, or "culture shock" refers to the anxiety and feelings--of surprise, disorientation, uncertainty, confusion, etc.--felt when people have to operate within a different and unknown culture such as one may encounter in a foreign country. It grows out of the difficulties in assimilating the new culture, causing difficulty in knowing what is appropriate and what is not. This is often combined with a dislike for or even disgust--moral or aesthetical--with certain aspects of the new or different culture. (Bellini) On one hand it is easy to feel fascinated and interested in the practice of other cultures from the safety of the classroom: when Manuel's wife came in to talk to our class about pregnancy and delivery I had no trouble actively listening and imagining the practices done in Guatemala. However, there were definitely images that she painted that shocked me and made me feel a little queasy. These images of women's health in Guatemala were given in greater detail in this week's reading. For instance, as a female, I cannot fathom participating in the prenatal care that prescribes the tuj (small sweathouse) while being pregnant or lying on "hard-packed dirt, with only a blanket separating her (me) from the floor" to give birth or blamming the poor eye sight of my child on my husband and myself failing to properly bury the placenta from the birth...I can go on and on. Perhaps this queasyness comes from the fact that I am a college student and talking about pregnancy and babies goes completely against the current clock of my life that I am working so hard at to keep on a strict schedule. However, these feelings of uneasyness go deeper and come from the huge contrast that I see between health in general in the United States versus the practices in Guatemala. One huge culture shock. According to Bellini there are actually four stages of culture shock ranging from awe to rejection, isolation to assimilation. As we only have to opportuinty to stay in Guatemala for one month, I will not grasp the full experience of a culture shock. However, there are undeniable differences in the ways in which health is viewed in the US versus in Guatemala. Most post have already touched on them and I think it basically comes down to the different ways in which we see ourselves in nature, our relationship with the land, and our family/community dynamics.
Echoing off of last weeks reading (an perhaps most of the previous readings), again, the biggest theme of this week is transculturation. The transculturation from the early midwives to the introduction to the medicalization of childbirth and the transculturation from a system that has function well for hundreds of years in Santa Catarina to the inescapable influx of Western ideas and products, for example, are broad trangressions that jump of the pages of this weeks readings.
Echoing off of last weeks reading (an perhaps most of the previous readings), again, the biggest theme of this week is transculturation. The transculturation from the early midwives to the introduction to the medicalization of childbirth and the transculturation from a system that has function well for hundreds of years in Santa Catarina to the inescapable influx of Western ideas and products, for example, are broad trangressions that jump of the pages of this weeks readings.
Out of Sync
The idea of syncretism has played a huge role throughout this semester with our many discussions on the development, culture, and society in Guatemala. We always seem to end discussions with very difficult questions to answer. How can the indigenous peoples of Guatemala maintain their individual culture and customs when Western ideas are constantly flowing in? Is there not a reasonable balance that can be reached between traditional and new ideas in order to better many different aspects of society? Is there a right way to achieving development and could that possibly be the way of the West?
These Western ideas, in the context of economic development, religion, and healthcare, often seem to be perceived as a threat (Harris 27). Often times when I am reading the selections, I wonder why there is such a strong opposition to the ideas of the Western world. I believe being a citizen of the United States for my entire life certainly gives me a very different outlook on mixing of cultures. With the United States being the mixing pot that it is, it only seems natural or commonplace that new ideas are taken from one culture or another in most processes of development in this country. The Mayas of Guatemala are in a very different situation. They are all they have of their culture and obviously they feel if they allow new and foreign ideas to penetrate their society, their ways and customs will surely vanish. This mindset is somewhat difficult to work with is areas such as health and disease. The lack of belief of modern thoughts on disease that Harris discovered in Santa Catarina may seem very ignorant to us, but makes sense to them and has suited them for a very long time. The fusion or acceptance, however, of some ideas such as the contagion theory would no doubt benefit the community. Harris's host father mentions how it is mostly the older generation who opposes the new ideas because their time old traditions have worked just fine for them (31). The barrier between the fusing of new and old ideas appears to be simply the opposition to change.
In terms of pregnancy in Guatemala, the idea of syncretism is such a practical approach. Before I considered all of the difficulties of merging the midwifery system and the hospital for childbirth, a mixture of the two systems seemed like the obvious answer. Midwives could provide the sincere, individual care that women prefered. Hospitals could provide the security that husbands hoped for their wife and children (137). When you look at the lack of literacy and the language barrier between midwives and hospital staff, it becomes a little clearer why such a merge is a slightly unmanageable task. As was the case with the idea of disease, there are traditions the some of the older people refuse to let go of. The old midwives have had their practices for so long and it has for the most part worked for them.
In both situations, I believe it would be a lovely thing if both schools of thoughts, ideas, and practices could be brought to the table and fashioned in such a way that the overall health of the people is improved. Syncretism seems like such a great idea to my Western mind, however, the thought of losing tradition is certainly a threat to the indigenous people of Guatemala. Unfortunately these mindsets are just out of sync.
These Western ideas, in the context of economic development, religion, and healthcare, often seem to be perceived as a threat (Harris 27). Often times when I am reading the selections, I wonder why there is such a strong opposition to the ideas of the Western world. I believe being a citizen of the United States for my entire life certainly gives me a very different outlook on mixing of cultures. With the United States being the mixing pot that it is, it only seems natural or commonplace that new ideas are taken from one culture or another in most processes of development in this country. The Mayas of Guatemala are in a very different situation. They are all they have of their culture and obviously they feel if they allow new and foreign ideas to penetrate their society, their ways and customs will surely vanish. This mindset is somewhat difficult to work with is areas such as health and disease. The lack of belief of modern thoughts on disease that Harris discovered in Santa Catarina may seem very ignorant to us, but makes sense to them and has suited them for a very long time. The fusion or acceptance, however, of some ideas such as the contagion theory would no doubt benefit the community. Harris's host father mentions how it is mostly the older generation who opposes the new ideas because their time old traditions have worked just fine for them (31). The barrier between the fusing of new and old ideas appears to be simply the opposition to change.
In terms of pregnancy in Guatemala, the idea of syncretism is such a practical approach. Before I considered all of the difficulties of merging the midwifery system and the hospital for childbirth, a mixture of the two systems seemed like the obvious answer. Midwives could provide the sincere, individual care that women prefered. Hospitals could provide the security that husbands hoped for their wife and children (137). When you look at the lack of literacy and the language barrier between midwives and hospital staff, it becomes a little clearer why such a merge is a slightly unmanageable task. As was the case with the idea of disease, there are traditions the some of the older people refuse to let go of. The old midwives have had their practices for so long and it has for the most part worked for them.
In both situations, I believe it would be a lovely thing if both schools of thoughts, ideas, and practices could be brought to the table and fashioned in such a way that the overall health of the people is improved. Syncretism seems like such a great idea to my Western mind, however, the thought of losing tradition is certainly a threat to the indigenous people of Guatemala. Unfortunately these mindsets are just out of sync.
Religion and Tradition vs. Western Ideals
"Your Destiny is to Care for a Pregnant Woman" by Wilson seems to draw a distinct line between two infrastructures of pregnancy: hospitals and midwifes. Pregnant women in Guatemala can choose between the two methods of pregnancy, but in general, traditional midwives are chosen first and hospitals are later visited if problems occur during the pregnancy. In this sense, hospitals and midwives appear to co-exist, but why not combine the best of both worlds? It is easy to say this of course, but difficult to implement.
The receptionist at the National Hospital suggests that midwives join pregnant women at hospitals. The fact that this has not happened yet—is it due to a lack of communication between hospitals and midwives? Or is it that the joining of two different systems is a radical idea? Do hospitals feel that midwives would just be in the way if they arrived at the hospital? Would midwives feel uncomfortable joining their patients at the hospital and working in conjunction with physicians and nurses? It’s hard to say, because hospitals do offer educational courses for midwives, and midwives attend these classes. In other words, there is some overlap between the two systems already, and this may progress further in the future, perhaps leading to midwives joining their patients during pregnancy. Also, if midwives begin entering the hospital in this manner, they would be able to learn how physicians treat pregnant women.
Of course, the midwives may not possess the tools to implement what they learn from physicians. Therefore, the next question that comes to mind is how to better supply the small population of midwives in Guatemala? It’s not a profitable job, so midwives cannot be expected to obtain their own tools, such as sterile gloves. This problem might be solved by training more midwives, especially in villages lacking them, so that midwives won’t have to travel great lengths and spend the majority of their money on travel. However, the training of midwives is costly, and most women feel that it is a calling given to them by God, as opposed to a career that they can choose to practice.
“Someone is Making you Sick” by Harris describes how people “resist change” to new ideas, which is similar to how most Mayan women prefer traditional midwives and feel uncomfortable in the new setting of a hospital (31). It’s unfair to consider Mayan ways primitive, because Guatemala is just being exposed to Western ideas and we can’t expect the Mayans to automatically accept the scientific explanations of the modern world. Imagine holding a certain belief for 60 years; wouldn’t you naturally doubt something different? In the case of the household with contagious cholera, modern medicine speaks the truth, but how would you prove that to someone hearing about the spread cholera for the first time? Especially when you’re speaking about microorganisms that cannot be seen with the naked eye. (Although, I wouldn’t claim that the artes magicas can be seen either, but people have grown up believing this and religion has more sway in the Mayan world).
In essence, science is equivalent to a new religion for the Mayans. And for anyone, changing your religion is not an easy transition. Especially, when religion is a way of life as opposed to set of beliefs that you agree with, as it often is in the U.S.
The receptionist at the National Hospital suggests that midwives join pregnant women at hospitals. The fact that this has not happened yet—is it due to a lack of communication between hospitals and midwives? Or is it that the joining of two different systems is a radical idea? Do hospitals feel that midwives would just be in the way if they arrived at the hospital? Would midwives feel uncomfortable joining their patients at the hospital and working in conjunction with physicians and nurses? It’s hard to say, because hospitals do offer educational courses for midwives, and midwives attend these classes. In other words, there is some overlap between the two systems already, and this may progress further in the future, perhaps leading to midwives joining their patients during pregnancy. Also, if midwives begin entering the hospital in this manner, they would be able to learn how physicians treat pregnant women.
Of course, the midwives may not possess the tools to implement what they learn from physicians. Therefore, the next question that comes to mind is how to better supply the small population of midwives in Guatemala? It’s not a profitable job, so midwives cannot be expected to obtain their own tools, such as sterile gloves. This problem might be solved by training more midwives, especially in villages lacking them, so that midwives won’t have to travel great lengths and spend the majority of their money on travel. However, the training of midwives is costly, and most women feel that it is a calling given to them by God, as opposed to a career that they can choose to practice.
“Someone is Making you Sick” by Harris describes how people “resist change” to new ideas, which is similar to how most Mayan women prefer traditional midwives and feel uncomfortable in the new setting of a hospital (31). It’s unfair to consider Mayan ways primitive, because Guatemala is just being exposed to Western ideas and we can’t expect the Mayans to automatically accept the scientific explanations of the modern world. Imagine holding a certain belief for 60 years; wouldn’t you naturally doubt something different? In the case of the household with contagious cholera, modern medicine speaks the truth, but how would you prove that to someone hearing about the spread cholera for the first time? Especially when you’re speaking about microorganisms that cannot be seen with the naked eye. (Although, I wouldn’t claim that the artes magicas can be seen either, but people have grown up believing this and religion has more sway in the Mayan world).
In essence, science is equivalent to a new religion for the Mayans. And for anyone, changing your religion is not an easy transition. Especially, when religion is a way of life as opposed to set of beliefs that you agree with, as it often is in the U.S.
Disease, Illness, and Birth in Guatemala
After reading “Something Is Making You Sick”, I was struck by the completely separate ways in which in which the people of Santa Catarina Ixtahuacan understand disease and illness, in contrast to our own interpretations of being sick. In my other Medical Anthropology class the year, we have been learning about the differences between disease and illness. Disease is the biochemical and scientific abnormalities that impairs a healthy body, while illness is a person’s personal experience of an ailment. Both the Mayan’s construction of disease and illness are very different from the ways we define, treat, and comprehend disease here in the U.S. For example, I found it very interesting that the Mayans “conceive symptoms as separate illnesses”(28). This differentiation is unusual to us, as we understand symptoms as evidence of a larger disease. However, in Guatemala, our symptoms are considered diseases. What implication does this have for learning about health in Guatemala in face of our own interpretations about symptoms?
While reading it also struck me that disease is just another part of culture, and that its interpretations differs in every society. Illness, like disease, is subjective as well. A large part of Mayan society is the idea of K’oqob’al diseases—or symptoms that originate through the work of another person and imply forms of punishment (32). This supernatural category hints a specific type of disease that is distinctive from other resulting just from natural causes. The disease is specifically linked with personal faults, moral factors, revenge, and jealousy. Thus, someone who believes they have a K’oqob’al disease will react differently to the implications of the disease, and will have a different experience all together. Some may assume personal responsibility for their disease and pledge to change their ways. Others may be fearful that someone wants to see them harmed. Either way, these disease symptoms create a unique illness experience that is specific to Guatemala culture. Once again, the challenge lies in reconciling our own notions with illness with those of the Mayan, who link social ramifications and the supernatural world into the illness experience.
Lastly, I wanted to address Rachel questions of whether hospitals births are necessarily safer and better. I agree with the article in saying that both hospitals and the midwife system have positive and negative aspects associated with their care. Midwifes are able to provided “personal care” while is vital and special to the traditional system of giving birth in Guatemala (142). However, hospitals are able to “provide the security” of medicines, doctors, and trained staff which many women desire (141). I believe that a lot of decision of how to give birth lies with the woman’s location, age, family, and faith in tradition. My mom actually gave birth to my brother at home using a traditional midwife. She reflected many of Mayans woman’s complaints that hospitals are too impersonal and detached from patients. Because my brother is the youngest, she also had already had my sister and I, and knew what to expect when giving birth. Things such as this are likely determining factors for Mayan women as well. Ultimately, I believe that both institutions in Guatemala should continue to integrate simply for the health of women and the future mothers of the country who deserve security, personal care, and educated physicians in all aspects of the pregnancy and birth processes.
Issues of Health in Guatemala
I also found the readings this week to incredibly interesting and also beneficial for our class in helping us understand a little more about the aspects of health in Guatemala. In the “Someone is Making you Sick” article I was really fascinated by the amount of outside blame that is placed on illness. It seems the Mayans have a way of always finding an outside cause whether it be nature or even another person/witch. Never was there any mention of personal blame. In the United States this is a well-known aspect of disease. If a person has smoked their entire life and develops lung cancer or a person develops heart problems due to poor eating habits, it is clear that some blame will be placed on the individual for their lifestyle choices. In Guatemala it seems that a person’s only control of his or her on health is through maintaining health social relationships. Illness is much less a biological and scientific aspect of a person’s health, it is instead a punishment brought on by inappropriate social conduct. This leads into the differences seen in the Protestant and Catholic religions. Even thought the Protestants renounced the idea of witchcraft as a mean for getting sick, it seems they just replaced this idea with Satan. So instead of being punished by another person in society an individual will be punished by a supernatural force Satan, thus getting rid of some of the social regulation. In general as a person going into the medical field I found it very hard to read about the certain ways the Mayans go about curing disease. For instance when dealing with fallen crown in an adult, they push the roof of the mouth until the condition is corrected. Reading about all these different practices I struggled with the notion that Western medicine isn’t the only way to fix health problems. However, I had to realize it’s a completely different culture that finds a deep religious connection in disease and though I am very skeptical it is hard for anyone to deny that some of their practices do in fact work even if there seems to be a much more simple remedy provided by Western medicine.
In the “Your Destiny is to Care for Pregnant Women” article I was reminded of our classes visit with Manuel’s wife and the details she told us about midwifes and the relationships she had with them during her numerous pregnancy. Much of the information presented in this article seemed to be exactly like what she told us, however, I feel the article stressed a much more spiritual side to midwifery that was not presented in class. As this article addressed, destiny is what decides who should or should not be a midwife. This idea of destiny playing such a big role ties back into the religious and spiritual aspect of health that the Mayans believe so strongly in. The other interesting part of this article was the conflict between the midwives and the hospital. I found myself really wondering which has more benefits, a midwife or the hospital? Although the hospital provides better health care in the delivery of the baby, it does not provide the comfort that a midwife brings and it is hard to say which aspect is more important in the birthing process. The education of the midwives is an issue that can be seen as a great example of development problems we have been discussing this semester. The issue with being able to even educate the midwives provides a big standstill in ever truly developing the midwifery program in Guatemala. Most women are illiterate or speak various dialects so it is very hard to provide a unified system of education that would benefit in the development of midwifery.
Fusion despite differences
Like Grace, I also found the reading from this week to be the most interesting reading so far, due to its medical emphasis. Although Harris’s article included a lot of new information, the reoccurring theme highlighting the close relationship between Guatemalans and nature is evident. According to Mayan beliefs, all illnesses (both the yab’ilal and k’oqob’al) have natural roots. Harris states. “Ixtahuaquenses frequently told me that nature is the origin of most common illnesses. The natural causes of disease often symbolically echo the illnesses they produce” (p. 29). The fact that the Mayans define illnesses in terms of nature exhibits how much they value the earth. Not only does disease originate in nature, but its cure is derived in nature as well. As an older man explained, “every plant contains a cure.” Another instance that displays the importance of nature is the idea that failing to recognize a day’s importance may cause illness due to disrespect for that day. As we’ve seen in past readings, this respect for nature and land is a focal point of Mayan culture.
After reading “Someone is making you sick,” I felt like I had hypocritical thoughts, which inspired me to pose this question to the class: where do you draw the line between faith and naïveté? Trust and fate are qualities that characterize the Mayans and make them unique. Their trust in their ancestors’ remedies and trust that these remedies will work without a proven reason makes the Mayan people so special. At the same time, I find myself thinking, “how can they be so naïve?” Contagion is a concept in Western medicine that completely reformed the idea of health and medicine. Understanding contagion and making simple changes to prevent it can have a fundamental effect on a population. I know it is a biased question, but if Americans know we can improve the heath of these individuals, at what point can we intervene?
Along the lines of trust, I find it interesting that Americans rely so heavily on explanation, reasoning, and evidence regarding the cause of an illness, where as the Mayans simply trust nature, trust the Gods, and trust that the remedies passed down by their ancestors will work. Even the head of the health clinic in Santa Catarina simply answered, “se cura” (one gets better), when asked how a remedy worked. An answer like such would never be accepted in the U.S.
Furthermore, the social function of medicine in Guatemala is extremely interesting to me. Whether or not there is actually such a things as witchcraft or B’anom yab’ilal, the fear that it causes functions to create order society. People feel compelled to be nice to their neighbors, respect the property of others, and not become too greedy in order to prevent someone from instilling bad health upon them. In this sense, retaining these beliefs is important. I don’t think health mandates social order in society the same way in America as it does in Guatemala. This is one advantage that their medical beliefs have over Western medicine.
The other reading, “Your Destiny Is To Care For Pregnant Women,” reiterated many things we have heard from both Manuel’s wife, Isabella, as well as Danielle. One thing that I noticed was different was the ritual with the umbilical cord. I think Isabella said that it is customary to wrap the umbilical cord around the baby’s neck as a form of protection. I thought that Isabella and Manuel were from Nahualá as well, but if not, maybe this tradition varies amongst different regions. Also, Wilson mentions that when a woman is giving birth in the kneeling position, “generally her husband or another family member supports her.” I thought that the husband was generally absent from the birthing process, but maybe this displays the movement away from traditional birthing customs.
I found the relationship between the midwife system and the hospital system to be more civil than I expected. The fact that the midwives acknowledge and accept the resources and aid that hospitals can provide is a huge step towards increasing the safety of the birthing process. The different accounts of Laura’s hospital experience on pages 135 and 136 were particularly interesting to see how a husband and wife’s views differed. Marco’s primary concern was the health of his wife and his child. I was shocked that he even admitted, “as soon as there is the smallest problem or complication, the midwife not only does not know how to deal with it, but can increase the severity of the problem because she does not know what she is doing.” On the other hand, Laura explains that she too is thankful for her healthy child, but her experience at the hospital was rather uncomfortable. She didn’t feel culturally accepted and thus did not have the experience that she had hoped for. On a different note, I was also surprised to see that multiple people in the hospital suggested that the midwives come with the mother to the hospital. They know that the mothers often feel uncomfortable and scared, so why isn’t there change being made to correct this? Right now both parties understand and accept each other, but they are in a period of standstill. Someone needs to take the initiative and more successfully integrate these two systems in order to benefit the patient to the highest degree.
Although this contradicts some of what I had just said, I found these facts about hospital births to be shocking. (Hopefully this link works):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bm77ZujkTbw
As Americans, we are quick to judge the Mayans as primitive and assume that our methods are better and safer. However, are hospital births actually safer?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)