Crossroads

To begin, in reading Nikhila's post, I completely agree with the comparisons between Javier and Manuel. In fact, throughout a lot of the time that I was reading this article I put my memory of Manuel's face on Javier's words. I could not help but constantly make comparisons because they essentially appear to have the same dilemma or very similar situations. For instance, there seems to be apparent tension whenever Javier refers to his stepson Florentin. Javier understands the importance of progressing and creating opportunities for oneself by learning Spanish and other modern ways; however, he also understands the importance of truly knowing oneself and appreciating his own culture. This was made clear when K'iche was described as more than just a language, but instead one's identity. Javier's frustration with Florentin reminded me of the frustration that Manuel expressed with one of his student's fathers when he was a principal advocating for bilingual education. The father did not understand the importance of K'iche just as Florentin does not. It is easier for Javier to understand the importance of maintaining his culture because he witnessed the change and shift away from the indigenous culture occur. Thus he has more of a direct connection with his past. At the same time, I think it is unfair to expect the same thing from Florentin because he was born into a time where the sentiments and importance of the indigenous culture had already diminished. In fact, the article mentions that there was no incentive for the indigenous people to retain their indigenous culture that was viewed as inferior in the professional world. So unless the importance of retaining the indigenous culture is made apparent to the following generations, it is unfair to chastize the younger children for not fully understanding the importance of learning their culture or being able to speak pure K' iche without mixing it with Spanish as it is stated in the article.

Furthermore, I thought the presence of the Pan-American highway was significant because it serves as a symbol for several different things. Overall, I gathered that the Pan-American highway represents the introduction of new ideas, new people, opportunity, and unfortunately, the destruction of the indigenous culture. Growing up in the United States, a highway such as this one would normally be viewed in a positive light. It represents opportunity, diversity, and ultimately progression. These are things that are normally valued in the American culture and things that also appealed to those involved with the highway in Guatemala. The highway provided a way out of isolation in Nahuala, but the highway provided nothing that favored the indigenous culture. Once again there was no incentive to retain the indigenous culture after the implementation of this highway. Instead the highway served as a channel to move farther away from the indigenous culture, and as a result the positive aspects of the highway appear to be overshadowed in the eyes of Javier and the reader who perceives the story through his eyes.

The State of Modern Mayans

What is the state of the Mayan people today? This was the question I was left with after reading Jesse Morgan's article this week. I enjoyed his analysis on Mayan religion, and the ways in which he integrated the lives of Javiar, Alsonso, and Lázaro into his examination of larger ideas. More than anything, I was struck by the amount of change of which the article chronicles. Whether it be dress, language, or religion, the friction between the old ways and the new ways creates a palpable tension that is becoming almost common in the Mayan culture. It left me thinking to what extent can something be considered "quintessentially Mayan", when many cornerstones of Mayan religion and society are in fact a result of outside forces( 71)? Furthermore, to what extent is this change today affecting the core of Mayan identity?

The author states that, "In Nahualá, speaking K'iche' is more than a matter of communication--it is a matter of identity"(72). This close relationship between the Mayans and their means of expression is a source of pride and stands as a testament to their history. It is one way in which they reaffirm themselves and their character. Yet what is the role of K'iche' in the modern world? It seems that Javier spoke of the Mayan's language in almost contradictory terms. He labels his wife (who only speaks K'iche) as "closed" and "uneducated"(72). Yet he refers to Mayan who do not speak a "pure K'iche'" as shameful and disgraceful to the culture(72). While Spanish is the one way in which the Javiar was able to better himself, it is also understood in a negative light. It seems as if this dichotomy in language is hurting the culture more than helping it, and leaving the culture in limbo. One language represents a way to enlightenment and prosperity yet is concurrently labeled as foreign and intrusive. The other is a source of honor and a tribute to the past but creates the isolation and misunderstanding expereinced by the community. How does one rectify such a situation without adversely changing the core of Mayan culture?

Another part of the reading that struck me in relation to the current situation of Mayans was the dualism between the younger generation and older generation. This was especially apparent between Javier and his son Javier junior. In a way, their relationship symbolizes the change that is affecting the culture today. Morgan writes, "Ecologically, economically and socially, the Nahualá where Javier grew up and the Nahualá where his son was growing up were two different places"(67). How can the older generation begin to effectively prepare their children for the world today, if they themselves grew up in a different culture with contrasting traditional understanding? Is culture in fact limiting the prosperity and longevity of the Mayan people, or is it the source of their characteristic strength? I think Hanna stated it very well when she talked about Javier as "stuck" between the past and the future. Rapid change has occurred in the last few years, and the culture remains conflicted between traditional ways and the encroaching modern world. In the case of many Mayans, the question remains as to whether their identity will be defined by the past, or shaped by the future.

Crossroads of Culture

At first, the title "Standing at the Crossroads" did not mean much to me, but after reading this essay I believe Javier depicts the man who is at a crossroad between two cultures. Unlike most, he did not go down one path or the other. Instead, he always remains at the crossroad, living both cultures at once. "One of the reasons that Javier concerned himself with Nahuala's past may have been that he was also concerned about its future,” the author states (64). This statement reminds me very much of Manual who is fluent in Spanish and teaching at a prestigious university, but at the same time is extremely passionate about preserving his culture and especially the K’iche language. Although this is a simplified interpretation, the past that Javier speaks of may refer to Mayan traditionalism and the future may indicate the Westernized Spanish world. Javier’s attitude toward Florentin and his wife is a little harsh, but his sentiments reinforce how he balances the best of both worlds. On one hand Javier values his Indian heritage and dons the traditional traje, but when necessary he will put on a pair of pants. He understands that to succeed that one must speak Spanish and sometimes adapt to the ways of the modern world. I find Javier to be a walking contradiction, but he seems to have a better grasp on his identity than the young Javier who struggles with his heritage and dreams of the world outside his town.

It’s touching to hear that the indigenous people of Guatemala were pressured into slowly leaving their culture behind. “So that’s how they got Indian men to quit wearing traje—they did not say ‘Take it off, take it off.” But through jokes and prejudice, step by step it happened” (71). Being bullied like that can be emotionally demeaning and often one will do anything to prevent the harassment. Avoidance of the pain is motivation enough, even when the necessary act is to give up one’s culture. Prescribing to the Ladino culture does not appear to be an option for the Indians; sometimes it is the only way to earn a living and one must do what one can to support a family. However, assimilating into the Ladino work field does not seem to be without its benefits. “But because of the highway, they woke up…their ideas began to grow…their eyes and ears were opened so they could have a new life…they began to exchange ideas” (74). The amalgamation of many races such as the “Ladinos, Americans, Germans, white people, black people” in one location had a phenomenal effect on the philosophies of the men working there. This is quite reminiscent of the U.S. which is commonly referred to as the melting pot whenever culture comes into the conversation. Americans are proud of their diverse nation and for one reason: the exchange of ideas that occurs as a consequence. Americans highly value that prospect and that is where things like a liberal arts education stems from. A liberal arts education focuses on knowledge from many areas as opposed to just one subject. Some countries say we are not as smart as others and that we do not excel in one particular skill, but that is up to the reader to decide. Is it better to be narrow-focused or to be enlightened? Instead of weighing the pros and cons and picking one side over the other, Javier chooses to remain at the crossroads of that decision.

Indian Culture and Identity

The readings this week I think were very useful in helping to explain a lot of the topics we've discussed in class on a level that is going to be helpful to students like ourselves that are going to be visiting the country. I feel that Jesse provided a great first hand account on what it was like living in a place like Nahuala and the customs and religious practices that he observed while he was there.

The topic that I found most interesting was the ideas surrounding what actually makes someone an "Indian". Jesse states that Javier's beliefs would probably hover around "the fact that he and his townspeople dress differently from the Ladinos, speak K'iche', and plant maize" (68). After reading the entire chapter I think this can be seen as a somewhat accurate description. One of the interesting aspect that was discussed was the use of the K'iche' language in everyday communication. This was topic we discussed in class when Manuel was here and I find it to be one that really deals with Indian identity. I feel that learning Spanish is something most Indians in Guatemala have come to see as a necessary pathway to success, however, I don't think they should feel obligated to lose the identity that comes with being a native K'iche' speaker. GOing along with what Rachel discussed I also belief that bilingual education should be stressed more in school and it should also be stressed at home if older generations wish to keep the language around. I know we had this discussion when Manuel visited about how parents wish there children spoke the native language and I find that Javier and Manuel share some of the same frustrations. Javier went as far as to say his son didn't "speak anything at all!" (72). What I don't understand is why older generations don't just speak K'iche' more to their children at home and allow their children to practice Spanish outside of the home. If K'iche' truly is an important part of Indian identity then something is going to need to be done to keep it alive.

The one thing in this reading that we haven't spoken a lot about in class but is clearly a big reason for the changes in Indian culture is the Pan-American Highway. Construction of the highway lead to many changes in Indian culture including dress, jobs, and language. Now there were more opportunities for work outside of farming seasons. It was also interesting that so many people were forced to change their clothing simply to fit in the more Westernized society. It's amazing to me that so many of these changes in Indian culture, good and bad, were all based around the construction of this highway.

My initial response to this reading echos Rachel's in that I imagine our trip to Guatemala to look something like the way the author describes and I will be sure to pack lightly in case my host family lives "a short distance from town". The impact the Pan American Highway has on Nahuala is undeniable. Many of you have already commented on the power of change driven by the highway. It passes through many diverse climates and ecological types, from dense jungles to cold mountain passes. It overcomes the physical barrier of location that long kept villages like Nahuala out of connection. According to Chairman Mao, "The people and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history." He is referring to the power of the masses and to link oneself with the masses one must act in accordance with the needs and wishes of the masses. Mao felt that those who controlled the thoughts of the Chinese people thereby determined their destiny. Power therefore was linked to knowledge, particularly information about social conditions and about policies which public opinion could be cultivated to support. Therefore, power flowed from control over the processes of communication. Although the Highway is an inanimate object that is not running for political office, it in itself is powerful because of its ability to catalyze communication between masses of people. We see it most in the seismic changes from the days of Javier's father to the days of his son. He is stuck in the middle in an internal conflict of reviewing the past while facing the future.

This conflict stems out to his brother, Lazaro, with the upending of the old Mayan religion into a twisted mix of Catholicism. "One of the life decisions that for Javier may have been the most important and the most difficult...was that of choosing between mutually exclusive, bitterly opposed religious factions whose origins were neither entirely Nahualense nor entirely foreign (86)." This struggle is only compacted by the environment of Javier's upbringing because it placed value in the "outward appearance of consensus and harmonization."

Meet Me at the Crossroads

The reading for this week was a very interesting one as some of my classmates previously mentioned. It was a pleasure to read the work of an individual not unlike ourselves. What Jesse Morgan did is very similar to the experience that we are anxiously awaiting. He appears to have a very specific goal for his visit that may not exactly define our reason for traveling to Guatemala, but is still interesting to consider. Although we are largely concerned about the time we will be spending at Primeros Pasos, we will also be spending a considerable amount of time with our host families. It may not be completely appropriate to attempt to discern their deepest thoughts about religion and other themes discussed in this writing. It may, however, be to our advantage to talk with our host family about their own personal experience of change in Guatemala if they have sensed any. There is a possibility that we would able to identify some areas that relate or correspond to some of the things that we have been reading in this class. Reading this selection from a student gives me some ideas or questions I would like to have in mind as I mentally prepare for Guatemala. Depending on the backgrounds of our families, certain questions and answers would vary, but a question would go something like this: Have you seen any cultural shifts or changes in your community? If so, do you identify those changes as an advantage or disadvantage? What is so good about change or what is so bad about change? I thoroughly enjoyed this reading because it touches on so many different aspects of a community and attempts to illustrate how change within can make a profound impact.

One thing that really stood out about this article was the construction of the Pan-American Highway in Nahuala. Morgan lists some of the things that came along with road construction such as new ideas, symbols, changes, and religion (74). Furthermore, the people of Nahuala had the opportunity to mingle with plenty of other people outside of their community and culture. As I read this description of events, I could not help but thinking about Development as Freedom. The development of the Pan-American highway opened the door to so many new ideas the Nahaulenses had probably never been exposed to. This exposure can easily be correlated to the freedom that Sen mentioned as a result of development. As we have tirelessly discussed, development and freedom are not always ideal for a community. Development in Nahuala led to changes in dress, language, and religion (85). The presence of new ideas did offer the Nahualenses the opportunity to choose their paths, but those various decisions ultimately managed to tear the community apart. In our American society where diversity is highly encouraged, the decision to take alternate routes is what this country prides itself in. In the Mayan communities of Guatemala, the opposite is true.

Javier, being the curious and educated man that he is, is standing at the crossroads. He has in plain view the many different paths that are available. He also sees the various paths that members of his community have chosen... roads of dress, roads of language, and most importantly the rocky roads of religion. Each has played its role in the separation of the Nahualenses, but none greater than that of religion. Javier even believes that people who have chosen their religious paths and continue to debate about the legitimacy of their route have lost their way and purpose for their journey. Morgan mentions that a key component of the Indian or Mayan culture is shared communal accomadation and unified absorption (61). The development of the highway brought with it freedom through its new ideas. One of those ideas had the unforunate consequence of dividing the community because the people failed to accomodote and absorb. Religion tore apart the people of Nahuala. The development in Nahuala did add a certain dimension of freedom to the community, but at the same time made it extremely difficult for the community to peacefully operate as it once did. Javier is at the crossroad because there was once a time when the Nahualenses would meet there as a community. With development, however, things have changed and that time unfortunately appears to have passed. So much for development.

More detailed look at cultural change

Many of the readings we have done so far have mentioned the tendency for indíginas to move away from traditional dress, language, and customs. The reading this week helped me understand in more specific terms the concepts from other readings.

I particularly liked all of the information regarding religion. In the past, so many of the indígina versions of Catholicism has been a combination/assimilation of European Catholicism with Mayan costumbres. However, this brand of Catholicism is losing ground in many villages and being replaced with a Westernized mentality of opposites. Basically, you either believe in one savior in the manner in which the pastor/priest tells you to or you aren't a part of that religion. You are saved or you aren't. Not only evangelical sects have emphasized this; the Catholic Church has also created this division by telling indíginas that they need to choose Catholicism over their costumbres and over the protestant denominations as well. This religious and cultural inflexibility seems like a very Westernized concept to me.

What I think the author of the article is trying to get at is the idea that this development in religion mirrors modern cultural choices in Guatemala. You can 'become' a ladino by deserting indígina customs, but it is less easy now to assimulate these Western concepts into the Mayan mindset, because they are so inflexible. I will be very interested to see how this applies to the area we are in this May.

The Crossroads of Generations

In the Roads to Change article, Javier says, “My wife does not hear. She does not see. She does not go out.” What I took from this statement was that Javier believes his wife is isolated from the growing Spanish culture around her due to her ignorance of the language and her traditional dress. This disparate becomes more apparent during Jesse’s homestay because she isn’t included in conversation much of the time. It seems that Javier’s idea of being “deaf and dumb” applies to many people that are only spoke K’iche’. Often, in the past, people lived in the same cantón their entire life.

Although, he is adamant about preserving his culture Javier is also aware that to function in a community where people are beginning to interact with the outside world means to speak Spanish and in some cases dress in western clothing. I loved the way Javier described the highway workers as, “waking up and their ideas beginning to grow” (pg14). His explanation is a great way to describe the modernization of these highland communities. Javier describes the workers before as, “ wearing blinders, and had their ears stopped up.” Once the highway came through, with Spanish workers, technology and the increased opportunities for work, “their eyes and ears were opened so they could have a new life.” (pg14)

In a way Javier perfectly captured the transition and assimilation into a larger Spanish. The metaphors and imagery he uses are particularly poignant. The way he describes the transition seemed that he understood it not with anger but as something that was inevitable. Now, Javier is focused on keeping his traditions and culture alive in a way of life that is trying fast to forget them. He is attempting to bridge the gap between two generations.

The relationship between Javier and his stepson Florentín is a great example of this struggle. Javier gives favor to his real son, Mateo, who I believe he feels he can shape more than Florentín. Florentín seems rebellious and looking for something to call his own. He embraces the western culture and I wonder if that is in part from feelings of rejection from Javier. The modernization and westernization happening in larger cities offers opportunities to Florentín that he would not find in his small cantón. This new, larger view of life is exciting to Florentín and gives him a sense of belonging that he may not have experienced in his home.

In general, so many teenagers experience this angst and longing for something novel and I think those longings are reflected well in the Nahualanese youth who welcome the changes occurring in their communities and adopt them as their own. While the elders who are often set in their ways resist. There lies Javier's predicament of standing at the crossroads of change.

New Perspectives

I really enjoyed this week’s reading. I liked that it was from the perspective of a home-stay participant because it provides a similar viewpoint to what we will be experiencing this summer. There were many aspects of the reading that caught my attention because they either (1) brought a new perspective to what we have already learned or (2) counter most of the other readings that we have read.

First, I thought that it was interesting that Javier “described himself as a farmer,” when he had “also been employed as a carpenter, stone carver, educator, civil servant, and agricultural consultant” (p. 62). The fact that Javier described himself as a farmer first, amongst his other jobs, shows how much the land is valued in Guatemala.

Last week’s reading touched upon the importance of the kitchen, but I was shocked to find that Javier, his wife, and three of their children slept in the kitchen. Additionally, from our past readings I always pictured family life and marriage in Guatemala to be extremely secure. To discover that Javier had a stepson made me wonder what Mayans felt about divorce. I tried to find the divorce rate in Guatemala, and found that its .2 per 1000 persons compared to the United States divorce rate of 4.95 per 1,000 people (however I’m not sure what year this statistic was found or the reliability of the source).

Unlike the impression that I got from last week’s reading, I found that Javier’s thoughts about K’iche’ related more closely to Manuel’s feelings about the language: “K’iche’ is more than a matter of communication-it is a matter of identity” (p. 72). However, Javier’s relationship with K’iche’ is somewhat contradictory. On one hand, he feels that K’iche’ is the only language that Nahualenses should be using. I was surprised how angry he was with the K’iche’ that his son and other youths speak. I understand that is shameful to mix Spanish words while speaking K’iche’, but wouldn’t Javier prefer that his son speak “bad” K’iche’ rather than no K’iche’ at all? On the other hand, Javier understands the importance of Spanish in living a successful life in Guatemala. Therefore, he himself speaks Spanish and also wants to teach Spanish to his children. Furthermore, the description of bilingual education on page 73 made me question its true nature. It seems that bilingual education is far from bilingual, and more similar to education in the U.S in which most schools require students to learn a second language. I wonder if the term “bilingual education” is more of an appeasing title than an actual practice.

The aspect that I found most interesting was the huge impact that the Pan-American Highway had on Nahualá. Of a community that has centuries of cultural history, its incredible how the construction of this road could drastically change such a strong culture so quickly. The highway effected Nahualá in almost all important aspects of Mayan culture: language, dress, and religion. I think this paper did a great job of showing the significance of dress, for it’s one of the only ways to visually identify an Indian. However, this reading showed me a completely different side of the Mayans than I never imagined. I always thought that the Mayans took pride in every aspect of their culture, and that’s why they have retained so much of it throughout the years. I never would have imagined that the Mayans would be embarrassed by what they wore. I understand that it was difficult to get a job wearing traje, but I never expected that “jokes and prejudice” would cause the Mayans to stop wearing traditional dress.

On a different note, even after the elaborate description of religion, I’m still confused by the religious divisions in Nahualá. I think Morgan poses an important question: “had the old ways represented one religious system or two?” However, I still have a hard time grasping the current Mayan relationship with religion. Morgan clearly differentiates between Catholics, Protestants, and Costumbristas, and the large conflicts between them. However, in past readings, Mayans never seemed to define themselves by their religion. How important is religion in Guatemala? I also can’t seem to wrap my head around the difference between religion and Mayan traditional customs. I know the “old ways” seemed to integrate religion and culture, but is this fusion still present today?

Overall, I think that there are so many interesting perspectives and aspects of change that are worthy of discussion. I feel that we are constantly gaining new point of views from each reading we are assigned, which is great, but at the same time it’s hard to separate bias from facts. I also think it is important to remember that most of our readings focus on one specific region of Guatemala. Due to the cultural differences from region to region, it is difficult to make valid comparisons based on our readings. On a final note, Morgan’s paper is very helpful in understanding changes in Guatemala, but it is important to keep in mind that Javier is not the typical Nahualan. He is extremely wise, and his knowledge of the various religions is rare. Even he states that it is not common for a person to show allegiance to various religious groups. Javier’s perspectives on life and religion seem astute yet atypical; he views things in terms of social groups and what’s best for the people despite their differences.

Religious Choice: A Freedom or a Dividing Burden

I liked this weeks reading because of the personal viewpoint it provided as well as the broad range of topics it covered while being centered around one town (Nahuala) and one main object (the pan-American highway). Although this road helped Nahuala economically by providing an easy mode of transportation for the crops to get to the market, the road also brought the people of this town “eyes and hears” to a world they may have been better off without seeing. I never considered factors other than invasion and war as communicants of Western ideology and progress, yet the Pan-American Highway may have caused the greatest shifts of all.

One of the many differences brought about by the road was the idea of religious choice. Through the eyes of Javier it is apparent that religion became an area of confusion and pain for many people in Nahuala after the Pan-American Highway was built. A central concept to traditional Nahuala was the lack of separation between political, social, and religious life with Catholicism being the only religion. With easy access to other parts of the country and ideas however, new religious concepts started streaming in and people were forced to decide. In America we consider religious choice an essential component to freedom and development. This also reminded me of Sen and his idea that freedom means choice. For the Nahuala’s however, this choice seemed to be the reason for the hardships later entailed. Javier had particular trouble with this idea since he wanted to explore all the religions and understand his entire new world, yet he was the leader of the town and was meant to “choose between mutually exclusive, bitterly opposed religious factions whose origins were neither Nahualens nor entirely foreign” (86). Javier expresses his confusion by protesting that before, the Mayas “believed in everything” and he asks then, “why is it not all right to believe in everything now?”(87). Before the highway it was harder to find people who did not believe in religion overall. Today however, it is common to find people in Nahuala who do not belief at all or whose religious beliefs differ extravagantly. This seems so strange to me and somewhat contradictory to what Americans learn about in school as well as from their families concerning religion. In retrospect however, it makes sense that religion was a unifying part of the Mayan communities. Like their town name, it identified them with the group and like Javier somewhat pessimistically explains “there’s nothing you can do about it” being gone (91).

Another point I found very interesting was the section on clothing change. Aside from bringing varying religious views the new Pan-American Highway also produced jobs that forced the Mayans of Nahuala to dress and act a certain way. Instead of traditional garments (koxtaar) the Mayans wore pants and t-shirts like every other common laborer. I thought Alonso’s quote sums up the transition very nicely when he said, “some people put on the pants and never took them off” (69). Like Manuel discussed with language, once the Western influence was there is was hard to hold onto Mayan culture. Many men however found this okay, seeing as the women still wore traditional dress (especially the corte or ankle length skirt). Even though they too experienced intense ridicule and mockery for wearing these clothes, women were the ones pressured to uphold this standard. I found this interesting for many reasons. In a society that is at least somewhat built on a hierarchy of respect beginning with the oldest males and working down first by gender then ages it seems strange to me that the women were the ones expected to preserve Mayan culture. I don’t really know why the Mayan men would give such a seemingly important role to a group that had traditionally been treated as inferior, but it is interesting to think of the possibilities.

Community Identity

I have to agree with Danielle that this weeks reading really helped me to understand a little more clearly why the Indians didn't all join together. I understand from Smith's observations and conversations with native Indians in Totonicapan that most Indians focus solely on their identity in their own community as Smith stated on 223. I understand that each community had its own customs and beliefs, however, I'm still a little confused as to why they couldn't move past all of this and find new common grounds in order to stand up to the political evils being forced upon them. The struggle may have stopped them from completely hating each other, but I feel that it should have brought them closer together and not just "indifferent to each other" as Smith describes it.

What really interested me about this weeks reading was the ideas that Smith discussed about individual and their "costumbres". As I first started reading this section I was baffled that none of the Indians ever recruited cheaper labor if it was available. It seems only natural to me that if something can be made more profitable than it should be. Sarah and a few others made some good points about this earlier, but I think it all boils down to many of the differences that can be seen in the United States and Guatemala. The United States is a country filled with "real capitalists" and it is from this culture that I gain most of my assumptions on profits should be made. However in Guatemala, this idea of costumbres plays a big role in the way business is run. The only worry that people in Guatemala have is that people from other communities would just not fit in. This also led me to think about a previous discussion we had in the class about border control. One of the big arguments in the United States against letting so many foreigners into the country is that they will steal jobs that should be available to other Americans. However many people see foreign labor as a good thing because of the fact that it is much cheaper. Many of these border control issues are centered around the real capitalists agenda. I find it fascinating that this type of mindset is not well known in Guatemala simply on a basis of community identity.

Social Circle

What I found most striking while reading about class in Totonicapan, was that wealth did not come from farming the land it came from the ability to produce profitable artisan works. Where wealth comes from, was one of the few points that was actually clear to me after this weeks reading. While the whole research article was supposed to be determining class I could not see a sound social order in Totonicapan. What I found to be evident was that there was a strict divide between Indians and Ladions, and while this caused tension, it is if their social worlds did not overlap, Ladinos assumed they were better then Indians, while Indians were oblivious. Indians seemed to divide social class by township. In which wealth is not a determinate, but the ability to send people off to work. What I found most perplexing is that there were social classes, but not well defined ones. Everything reminded me of previous readings. Without modernization I feel it is hard to have defined social classes because very few have lots more or less then the majority. I believe that once modernization is introduced, social classes will form immediately, but until then it will be a jumble.

That being said I think social classes have a good possibility of never forming. As others mentioned many Guatemalans are labor workers and work for large corporations. Therefore they never truly gleam a large portion of what they produce making all laborers fiscally equal.

Rambling on I do not see why the Indians lack of support of the revolution was a surprise. They ultimately will gain almost nothing from a revolution. With no say in the government and few personal possessions to protect, they have no concrete vested interest in the revolution. I feel as thought I am missing key parts to this research because it seemed to go in a circle.

Community...a Different Perspective

While initially this particular reading appears to give a very different perspective on some of the conclusions that we have developed concerning Indians in Guatemala, after digesting some of the material, I also understand that it actually reinforces some of the main point of our discussions. Through the author's detailed descriptions of Totonicapan, I thought about the amount of diversity that exists within the Indian population in Guatemala. This is easy for me to forget because so often I gather from the discussions and the readings that the Indians as a whole are the oppressed population while the ladinos are the more highly esteemed privileged population of Guatemala. With this, it is easy to simply lump all of the Indians into one group, but as this reading indicates, this should not the case.

This idea is reinforced by the idea that workers in the community of Totonicapan passed up increased profits simply to preserve their community. Coming from a capitalist society where many businesses strive to minimize cost and maximize profit in many cases using cheap labor as a strategy, this was some what shocking to me as it was to the author as indicated by some of my peers mentioned below. Several of the people of the Totonicapan community simply responded to the author that those from outside communities have different customs than they have, and this was the reason that the people of Totonicapan did not invite outside labor even if it was cheaper. Although it may be difficult initially to grasp due to my background, it is a good demonstration of the immense amount of diversity within the Indian population of Guatemala. Thinking about this even further reminded me of some of the topics that have risen in class discussions. For instance, we have talked about the difficulties that would occur in uniting all of the Indian population through legislation or even centralized public health systems (last week with Danielle). Applying this to this week's readings, it makes me wonder if inviting outside labor to Totonicapan would even be effective. Due to the level of diversity that exists, how would outside laborers even communicate with those of Totonicapan who speak a different language or has "costumbres diferentes"? In light of these questions, it begins to make sense why the Totonicapan may not invite outside labor even if it may be cheaper.

Finally, another section of the reading that I found interesting is when the people speaking to the author explicitly compared themselves to other Indian groups and basically described their way of doing things in a superior fashion. This reminded me of Manuel's presentation when he described his native group as having the most beautiful culture and language; however, I got the sense that this was the type of pride that resulted from the ladinos trying to oppress and eradicate his people. I didn't expect this same type of pride in their respective communities to apply when comparing the Totonicapan community to other Indian communities. Thus although this reading spends a lot of time describing the community of Totonicapan and the unity presented within the community, ironically on a larger scale, this reading helped present a more fragmented image of Guatemala than I had envisioned before.

United they Stand, Divided they Stand?

I have been asking myself this question for weeks. It seems as if it would be so easy for the many indigenous peoples of Guatemala to join together against the people fostering their "oppression". This sounds like a perfect example of a situation where it is easier said than done. I completely understand how difficult it would be to organize the indigenous peoples of the several different departments of Guatemala. Afterall, they each have their own language and customs. However, I feel as if Indians fall into the same position of oppression or into a similar "class" no matter what department of Guatemala. There are so many instances where we have discussed the individuality and the unique aspects of the various Indian communities. I believe this is the first time, however, that we have read about Indians of various regions and backgrounds coming together to combat the forces of oppression. In the example given on page 226, the organization of a unified resistance of Indians from many different communities proved to be a great success for those involved. The collaboration of the Indians forced the ladino state to reconsider their plans of civilizing the "savages".

In general and based on this anecdote, I continued to wonder why the Indians of different communities did not join together more often in unified resistance. I feel as if the answer to question is also addressed on page 226. The text suggests that one must understand that the political conciousness of Indians is not developed solely by general Indian experiences. On the contrary, there are specific situations as a result of the relationships with the ladino state that spark a community's unique political consciousness. It almost seems as if the Indians of Totonicapan understood the variability among Indians. For example, when different Indian communities once again attempted a unified resistance in 1980 [226], the Indians of Totonicapan opted out in favor of a local struggle. The advantage of this decision is evident in the current situation of Totonicapan Indians as opposed to those who participated in the unified struggle.

It is interesting to think that Indians may have created their own class by intentionally separating themselves from other Indian communities and ladinos and by identifying their customs as different. I had the idea that a united mass of Indians would be able to take on the ladino population, but that idea has less merit after examining events such as the resistance in 1980. The Indians of Totonicapan appear to have founded a rather strong community with their own customs that allows them to effectively stand alone.

Development and Ethnocentrism

I would like to continue to discuss some of Sarah’s ideas about the relationship between development and the community of Totonicapán from our reading this week. As we have discussed many times in class, the changes and process that pertain to ‘development’ from our American understanding can often be rather counterproductive and ineffective in helping a community overcome its ‘underdeveloped’ state. In America, we value aggressiveness, assertiveness, and as admirable traits that ensure wealth and power in a world of competition. Yet over and over in Smith’s article do we hear from residents of Totonicapán that to hire cheap labor, to deny workers of fair wages, and to exploit others for individual gain, “…is just not our custom” (216). The irony is that here in the United States, these forms of oppression and injustice are considered to just be apart of business and the nature our system of economics. However, in Totonicapán such exploitation has yet to infiltrate the close community bond and shared sense of identity that defines the Mayans ‘costumbres’. With Guatemala becoming more and more developed every year, is it possible for such a sense unity to continue? To answer this question, I believe that we must reference the strength and vitality of the Mayan culture despite the many years of suffering and hardship they have faced. Time after time, the Mayan of Guatemala have thrived and kept their traditions and culture alive despite the persecutions they have faced for their way of life. With such a legacy of survival and stoicism, I believe that the Mayan of Totonicapán will be able to continue their ‘class consciousness’ and economic systems, even in the years ahead.

I would also like to discuss the nature by which Carol A. Smith wrote this article, and her attitude and method of analysis. While I found this study interesting and vital to our understanding of the Mayan, I was a little bit disturbed by the author’s often blunt ethnocentrism. For example, I felt that Smith treated the nature by which the Maya of Totonicapán understood their ‘costumbres’ and ran their market system as something strange and foreign( opposite of what an Anthropologist should do). While the idea of hiring labor for equal pay rather than making an individual profit may be strange to us, is this not the truly humanistic thing to do? Smith’s analysis at times sounded almost as if she was amazed that some communities actually treated all its members fairly. Through the article, she often came off as unethical and even unmoral. She further continues to call this system an “unusual phenomenon” (206). Is the town of Totonicapán’s way of treating its residents really completely unbelievable because it is actually honorable? Lastly, throughout the article Smith also constantly used the term ‘Indian’, rather than Mayan, to refer to the people of Guatemala. The term Indian, coined by Europeans, is itself a bit disrespectful and outdated, especially for a scholarly article such as this one.

Indigenous Culture's Influence on the State

After reading these two chapters, the basic thesis that I am finding is the emphasis on the relationship between the Indians and the state as the most important determinant of the Guatemalan social order. (I have been doing a lot of readings on power and what causes history to occur as it does based on the philosophies of Marx, Gramsci, and Weber. anyone familiar?) There is a culturalist perspective to the question of power and also a call to the neglect of local indigenous culture's influence on the state. Far from being mere creations of the state and economic order, corporate indigenous communities have themselves, through violent and passive resistance, been a key factor in shaping the very nature of the state. I read a little of the intro and on page 12 we are initially told that the state is autonomous. Therefore, how are the interests of the Ladino oligarchy and military expressed through the state? From a Marzists standpoint, the state is an instrument of direct class oppression. There is also a question of how the position of the indigenous plays into the role of the state. The position of the indigenous may argue that the Indian-Ladino relations are the most important determinate of social relations. That the state-community relationship is but one manifestation of the ethnic rivalry. Each set of views makes sense however falter by their prioritization of one level of social reality over any other (Weber). Maybe a way out of this conundrum is not to propose either class, ethnicity, or state-community relations as the fundamental determinant (Weber) but to treat all as a part of a whole that is completely interconnected, with each factor asserting only a contextual hegemony(Gramsci).

In Reference to 'Development'

I was very struck by some of the differences between Totonicapan and the United States. The regard for community and 'costumbres' is very different than the capitalistic mentality that many people exhibit in the United States. I think that a lot of American business owners would put a lot less consideration into the way in which their hiring and selling practices impact their community, especially if there is potentially a large profit involved. The lack of divisive social classes in Totonicapan shows the emphasis on community over individualism. According to Smith, these practices also support long-term economic interests and unity over short-term individual betterment. In this way, focusing on maintaining the community also helps to secure the individual's future by decreasing division in the face of abuse from ladinos and the government.

I would be interested to know if these same circumstances accurately describe Mayan towns today. Over the past 40 years, Guatemala has certainly become more 'developed' and Americanized. To what extent is this impacting the community mentality and small-town economic systems? Clearly, more people are moving to major cities, and farmers are growing different crops than they have historically. With improved communication and transportation, communities are more linked together; does that decrease the emphasis and pride surrounding community?

Finally, eliminating this ideology of community could be one of the costs of 'development.' Encouraging people to change their individual lifestyles and careers could drastically impact their communities and create more defined social classes. In America, I think that most people believe that the individual should be working hard to improve his own circumstances and those of his family. However, these actions could take away from the community's 'costumbres' and way of life in general. In encouraging development, I think that foreign organizations need to be considerate of these factors.

Who defines class?

This weeks reading was very interesting and informative, yet at the same time may have left me more confused than when I began. I understand Smith’s claim that Guatemalan Indians are united based on political oppression that has pushed them to this state, yet it is hard for me to see her argument concerning class. She states that it is a “mistaken impression” to say that the Indians “constitute a class in objective terms” (207). Later she continues by emphasizing the lack of any dominant traditions or practices other than language. The question I have for this argument is who is defining class? If class is meant to distinguish a common group of people who share certain practices, then I do believe that the Indians in Guatemala make up their own class. If I have learned anything from previous readings in this class, it is that Indians in Guatemala have survived because of their individuality and reliance on small communities rather than larger resistance. Therefore maybe it is this disunity that should be considered the tradition held among Indians. When looking at it from this perspective, it seems as though the Mayan tradition is holding strong.

I think this argument relates to our development discussion from our first few days of class. In the West economic standing and social formations usually distinguish class. However, in Guatemala class could mean something different to the Indians. As it appears, class is more related to their common belief in individual preservation of their own communities. In this sense all Guatemalan Indians have something in common. I would love to know others opinions on this matter however, seeing as I may have taken Smith’s arguments way too far in this analysis.

On a different note, I found the discussion of profit maximization and the refusal to use outside cheap labor to be very intriguing. Nikhila touched on this with her testament to the way in which Totonicapán’s do not wish to separate workers from their kin – but in general the lack of lack of consciousness concerning personal losses associated with not allowing outside cheap labor is astounding. In America the question always seems to be what is the best for me? Or how can I maximize my own output? Rarely do large-scale corporations or successful companies consider the effects that maximizing profits can have on their workers or potential workers. In this way I find the community pride and seclusion in Guatemala to be very admirable.

I also found it interesting to see the path Indians have taken away from agriculture. I know this is merely one example from one town, however the emphasis placed on work diversity was very surprising to me. After many readings pointing specifically to the connection Indians feel with their land, it was surprising to learn that some owned less than one tenth of an acre. Since this is most likely the result of economic hardships, it makes sense that certain family members must find other means of income. However, it is upsetting to know the powerful connection these people have with the land, and then see how they are being stripped away from it and forced to work in other arenas. To me this is an example of how modernization is destroying parts of Indian culture.

Roots of Identity

I found Smith’s paper to be rather intriguing; the questions she posed and attempted to answer got me thinking completely differently about Guatemalan culture. I think the points that Smith brought up were extremely valid and well thought, but I found that Smith couldn’t fully prove the basis of the Guatemalan class system. Maybe that’s the point of her paper. I personally don’t think its possible to understand or even grasp the idea of community in Guatemala. Smith states that “Totonicapán’s ethnic identity or “culture” was rooted in a history of oppositional tactics and means rather than in particular visible traditions, such as language, ways of dressing, religious beliefs” (222). I think this is why it’s so hard to understand the basis of their class system: we can only form observations based on things we can see (such as language, clothing, religion, etc.) rather than feel the sense of community or inter-municipio differences. Before Smith’s paper, I never really understood the tightness of municipios from our past readings. However, the conversation Smith had with a local Totonicapán helped me better understand the clear separation between them: “Each people has its own traditions, its own way of doing things. In Santo Tomás, the people are more humble than we are, they do not have our sense of pride. The people of Santo Tomás are Indians too and also mistreated by ladinos. But they do not defend themselves the way we do. Not like Totonicapeños.” I know that the analogy I’m about to make is technically not comparable to that of the Totonicapeños, but the point made by the Totonicapán immediately made me think of my reputation as a New Yorker in Tennessee. Yes, I speak the same language and share the same race as many people in Tennessee, but feel (and have been told multiple times) that my fellow New Yorkers and I have a sense of aggression that separates us from others. Even in Vanderbilt, I’ve seen people cut the lunch line or push their way through a crowd of people to save a table… 99% of the time these people are from New York. I find it interesting that both in Guatemala and in America, geographic affiliation is associated with personality traits.

Another point that stood out to me during this conversation was when the Totonicapán said, “it is true that they speak Quiché, but we Indians are not all the same.” This same idea was brought up again on page 224: “The Indians of Totonicapán felt little kinship with other Indians, even neighboring groups or those sharing the same language…” In my mind, I had previously classified Guatemalans by the language that they spoke. Especially after Manuel spoke with our class, I made the assumptions that Mayans were associated by language. Manuel has dedicated his life to preserving Quiché, but Smith’s paper made it seem that language doesn’t unify Guatemalans at all; it based mostly on one’s associated municipio.

Additionally, Smith seems to find the foundation of class rooted from political history rather than cultural history. I found this assertion to be particularly interesting because almost all the Totonicapáns that Smith spoke to mentioned something about having unique customs and traditions that separated municipios from one another. Additionally, they explained many of their economic endeavors based on the idea that they didn’t want to destroy tradition. Smith explains, “rich Totonicapán artisans did not employ cheaper outside workers, even though this directly contradicted their material interests, because they believed it would destroy the unity of their tradition. And they believed the unity of their tradition was worth protecting.” However, Smith opposes the Indians’ explanation and declares that “Totonicapán Indian identity was not fixed in tradition” (220). She continues to make what I consider to be a bold statement: “I believe that virtually all tradition could disappear in Totonicapán and yet the feeling or consciousness of local Indian identity would remain.” I completely understand Smith’s hypothesis that the “Indian class” arose from a series of historical events that pushed Indians to unite (yet still remain separate municipios) against the Ladinos. However, what power does Smith think she has to tell the Totonicapáns that their beliefs regarding the roots of their community is not actually based on tradition and customs? I think that Smith makes a good anthropological argument, but Smith is only an anthropologist; she is not an Indian in Guatemalan nor will she ever fully understand the mindset of these Indians. I know I personally cannot understand how individuals can put the interest of the community before the interest of themselves, yet still strive to be more successful than others. I also don’t understand how Guatemalans have preserved their individual communities and culture so well. Certain groups in the United States and other countries throughout the world were politically oppressed, so why don’t these groups have the same sense of identity as Guatemalan Indians? I haven’t studied or know of any place that has such a strong preservation of culture as Guatemala. Thus, I can only value Smith’s suggestion for the politically historical basis of class position as well as community because I don’t think is holds true universally.

All in all, I think the questions Smith brings up are extremely important to think about, and I think the points that she makes are worthy of discussion. I feel like I had a difficult time articulating my thoughts regarding this reading, but I think its because many of Smith’s arguments require further explanation and are circular. Did Ladino oppression directly cause the formation of the Indian class, or did it root from the way the Indians defined themselves as oppressed Indians, thus creating their current class? Are the Indians actually oppressed, or do they convince themselves that they are so that they retain their class, community and traditions? I look forward to class this week, because I feel that we can get into a really deep and opinionated discussion about Smith’s paper.

Cultural Respect

The strong emphasis on community really astonished me in this reading. I had gotten a sense of community in the previous readings of course, such as Tecpán Guatemala and A Beauty that Hurts¸ but I don’t think I fully understood the role that community plays in the Mayan lifestyle. Community affects this culture to a much larger extent than just everyday life, meals, family and tradition. It also extends into the work field and is interconnected with other neighboring communities, where its role really shines.

The commonality between the responses of the people that Smith interviewed emphasize the concept of community even more. I eagerly continued reading Smith’s paper, desperate to know why Totonicapán artisans didn’t “recruit workers from outside their own community” (213). The mystery really baffled me and like Smith, I couldn’t fathom a reason. As Lenin himself declared, the conditions for Mayan capitalists taking advantage of other communities were already set in place. Therefore, what was the barrier that was holding them back from creating dynasties?

The answer seems so simple and basic and humane, now that I look back on it. However, at the time, I was surprised to read the Totonicapán perspective of how why “petty capitalists…did not try to obtain cheaper wage labor for their enterprises” (213). I found Smith’s use of the word “petty” to be interesting. Often in the essay she says describes capitalists in a degrading light, hinting capitalists as the cause of inequality and class division. This view of capitalism doesn’t seem to fully apply in Totonicapán since the class division in Guatemala arises not from economic reasons, but rather from the background of oppression.

This background of oppression has had unique effects on the concept of community. Instead of creating only one class division between the Indians and the ladinos, it has preserved the traditional Mayan style of separate villages and small pockets of culture. Mayan oppression has not unified the entire Indian population. Of even greater interest is the Spanish phrase “tienen otras costumbres” (216). This sensitivity to the feelings and lifestyles of other communities really astounds me. Not to say that Americans aren’t also sensitive people, but rarely do we worry about others not fitting into our community. Yes, we do think of the comfort level of others, but we seem to focus more on shaping their lifestyle to ours and making them comfortable in our setting. It doesn’t occur to us that we should just let them be in their own environment. Even when us Americans visit other countries, we attempt to assimilate ourselves into foreign cultures. Regardless of who’s a guest in which country, rarely do two cultures not mix or put up a barrier to prevent mingling. (I personally believe that cultures should overlap for the purpose of education and globalization but that is another topic all together.)

The U.S. especially, is a melting pot of cultures to the point that it’s hard to define what the culture of our country is. However, Guatemala seems to have distinct community cultures, even if they only vary by a little bit. You would think that these communities would be able to congregate more easily than say Japanese and American cultures, yet the people of Totonicapán are very aware of each other and prefer to stay separate because they don’t want to pry others from their kin, their comfort zone. The residents of Totonicapán understand the isolation and loneliness that an outside laborer would experience, and as such they don’t want to place someone in that position. Whereas in the U.S. we have a tendency to adapt to whatever environment we are placed in.

I don’t want to say too much about this last point, but I admit that I was slightly taken aback when I read that some scholars consider tradition to be “nothing more than historical residue” and that “cultural baggage” is a “convenient explanation for the contradictory features of any given society” (215). Are scholars making this assumption while making comparisons to modernized nations? Are we placing ourselves as the standard and claiming that anything different from this is contradictory? I feel like that is oversimplifying the situation, especially when considering the notion of development.

Behind the Scenes

Compared to the previous readings, this book provides a very factual, “this is how it is” perspective about Guatemala. Which encroaches upon generalizations and stereotypes, but I think Fischer and Hendrickson are merely attempting to represent the different aspects of a unique culture.

One aspect that I would like to focus on is the role of woman in Tecpán. The authors state that “there is a dignified stoicism to women’s household work and this is widely, if implicitly, acknowledged by most men” (11). In modern times, it’s easy to look at the classic image of a house wife and say that such a lifestyle is backwards and that women are not fulfilling their potential through education and jobs. However, after reading the aforementioned quote, I would like to argue that housewives are important for the family structure in Tecpán. My very own mother and grandmother have lived (and still continue to do so) very similar lifestyles to that of Mayan women and at the end of the day I respect and admire their endurance and strength. I feel that without such women, there would be no pillar of support in a family and that it would crumble to pieces.

Some view my mother and grandmother as uneducated and lacking the skills needed to be successful in life, but I see it differently. I have such admiration for them because I know for a fact that I could never live like they do. I would not be able to handle the physical and mental strain. Fischer and Hendrickson describe how Mayan women wake up at the crack of dawn to prepare food, to take care of household chores and the children, and then to take the long trek to and back from work in the afternoon. They are constantly working without break. The husband, at least, can take a small break when he comes home for dinner.

Women also affect the relationships created within a family and the community. The food they prepare help foster unity between people and in turn form an environment in which understanding and group work are emphasized. Also, the same food induces an atmosphere of hospitality. The women’s hard work is paid off because the family and guests that are invited over for meals initiate conversation about issues in the community and thus strive toward a possible solution. All in all, though it may seem that women are agents in the background, their impact is very important and crucial for survival.

Just a few Reflections

I immensely enjoyed the reading for this week. I liked the detail it provided into Guatemalan life as well as the clear explanations and even pictures presented to try and immerse the reader in Mayan culture and tradition. Like Rachel, I found myself admiring many aspects of the Guatemalan way of life, and through visiting other countries have asked myself the same question as she: Who is better off? Fully modernized, work obsessed Americans, or smaller, simpler communities and people? Although it seems like the easy way out, in my opinion this question cannot be answered. There are good and bad things about both cultures and instead of focusing on who does it better, I believe that it would be more beneficial to recognize and appreciate that we can learn something from each other.

For me, this was the traditional approach to marriage. To make something clear: I am not saying that I would like to have my parents arrange my marriage or have my family be bribed by gifts without me even present. However, I do think there is something Americans could learn from the part where “elders impart their views on marriage and entreat the couple to live up to their expectations” (16). In response the “youths are expected to critically review their lives” (16). I have never heard of anything like this before but when I read about how the elderly try and make a couple think about why they want to be married and what kind of commitment they should expect, I thought it was a clever idea. In the United States, where over fifty percent of couples get divorced, I believe this period of analysis and critique of our lives is lost before getting married. I feel that sometimes couples rush into a marriage without fully understanding what it entails. If however, we took into consideration the emphasis Mayans place on listening to the elderly about marriage before they actually agree to it, maybe not as many children would find themselves living with only one parent.

Just as we can learn from the Mayans however, they too could probably learn something from the United States. Like Alexandria and Emily suggested, modernization could be a key aspect to bridging the gap of inequality and helping reduce poverty in Guatemala. Development is obviously a sensitive subject however, and just like our discussions in class have not really led us to a clear cut answer, it is interesting to consider the best way to help Guatemala modernize.

Another part of the reading that jumped out at me was the discussion of ladinos and how they seemingly look down on the indigenous people for not having “pure blood”. I agree with Karen completely in that the ladinos are being so hypocritical considering they are the ones with immigrant heritage. Another related point in this section was how the Guatemalan government uses the country’s Maya heritage to set them apart on a global level. As the author so nicely states, the activists for Mayan preservation “see this as the worst sort of hypocrisy: racists promoting stereotypical images to the world to enrich themselves by maintaining a system of oppression of Maya peoples” (30). I too find this very disturbing, seeing as they are trying to publicize their country for reasons that they secretly oppress. Indeed it is interesting to consider what the world would think if they fully understood this hypocrisy.

Deeper Meaning

I agree with Katie that the topic of medicine, healing, and religion is really interesting. I'm not sure that I completely agree with it being similar to our methods, but I'm also sure there are some similarities if we look deep enough. I say that treatment methods are lacking in similarity simply because I feel as if a lot of times patients in this country are treated as such. There often seems to be no face or character attached to individuals. That is not to say that this is always the case, but there really seems to be a deeper recognition of the differences in people among the indigenous people of Tecpan.

What really stands out about this passage are the two terms k'u'x and anima meaning heart and soul respectively. I don't think that this country has such a deep connection between k'u'x and anima as the indigenous people of Tecpan do. I can see similarities arise when things such as the the size of k'u'x or heart are raised. In both societies, the bigger someone's heart is, the more qualities such as honesty, trustworthiness, reliabilty, and kindness is associated with that individual. If we were to flip the script and describe the exact opposite, a small k'u'x or heart would do the job to describe their lack of the aforementioned qualities. Furthermore, there are so many examples of how important and influential the anima is in an individual's life. For example, the little boy Kan had a very unique and unsettled anima that required special attention. The ritual performed for the young boy took all points such as k'u'x, anima, predispostions, and real world experiences into account in determining the right treatment. A lot of the descriptions used to describe k'u'x and anima definitely match up, but the meaning and significance of these descriptions seem to have so much more value to the indigenous people of Tecpan.

Lastly, I thought the explanation of their religion to be quite interesting. In general, when I think of indigenous people, I think of them worshipping all different types of articles such as the gods of the trees, the grass, the sky, or the water. The explanation of praying to God explaining why the tree was to be cut down gave a different perspective of praying and their religion. Just about every topic touched in this section made me think about our discussion of the K'iche language. There is such deep meaning in thoughts, words, and actions. This also makes me think about why it has proved so difficult to destroy the indigenous cultures of Guatemala. The foundations of these individual groups of people is so strong and deeply rooted. Everything they they do or say has a deeper meaning that serves to perpetuate their long standing history and culture.

Politics vs. the Everyday, and Global Impact

I agree with a lot of my classmates that it was very interesting to get a better understanding of the Maya's day-to-day activities and lifestyle. In class, we have spent a lot of time talking about how the Mayas have been oppressed throughout the past 500 years. Understanding the oppression is important, but it is also important to talk about other, less dramatic aspects of the Maya's history and lifestyle.

The Mayas probably don't feel oppressed everyday; they are probably more concerned about taking care of their families and making sure their lives run smoothly. For most Mayas, day-to-day chores almost certainly take up more time than politics and talk about human rights. One of the other aspects that struck me about the reading was that it described the cynicism with which the Mayans in Tecpan view politics in general. In that way, the people of Tecpan reminded me of the United States; I think that a lot of Americans get excited about politics, but when their hopes are disapointed, they choose to focus on other things instead. I think that we are used to being disapointed and disenchanted with politics, and that the Mayans in Tecpan probably feel the same way.

The other part of the reading that stood out to me was the section on the murder of Bishop Juan Gerardi. Immediately when I read the subheading for that section, I thought about El Salvador and the murders of the Archbishop Romero, nuns, priests, lay workers, etc. that happened there during the late '70's and '80's. I think this is a sort of example that shows all of the similarities between what happened in Guatemala and what happened in other parts of Latin America.

More specifically, it reminded me again of the US's involvement. In El Salvador, we also supported a very brutal dictatorship; When Salvadorian militarymen raped and killed 3 American nuns and one lay worker, we conducted a massive investigation (because they were Americans). Congress was even involved. The Reagan administration also knew about reports of widescale massacres in El Salvador by the military, particularly the El Mozote Massacre, in which all men, women, and children in few villages were systematically murdered. (The troops involved had been trained by US military and the weapons they used were made in the US and contributed to the El Salvadorian army with US funds.) However, even after these events became public, the US continued supporting El Salvador's government.

I think I went into more detail on that than I intended. Also, I know that the US has done some really great, humanitarian things as well. However, in my opinion, those actions don't simply negate what the CIA and government did during the Cold War. You can see the similarities between what happened in Guatemala and what happened in El Salvador. My question is: why don't more people know/care about this?? There have been investigations (by the UN, FBI, etc.) and there is really no way of arguing that these tragedies didn't take place, and our government absolutely knew what was happening.

When are we (as a country) going to start taking responsibility for the way we are impacting the rest of the world? (A less extreme but more current example is the way we are forcing free-trade policies on other countries and then flooding their markets, hurting their own agricultural sectors and in effect changing rural agriculture-based villages.) To put it more specifically, we all live in a democracy. We can impact government (supposedly), so why don't more people react to what our government has done? Another thing we talked about in class two weeks ago, what is the CIA doing now? Are we naive enough to hope that they aren't doing these things anymore?

Clarity

This weeks reading were very eye opening. At times even though I have read much more about Guatemala then ever before, I still feel like I am walking in the dark and have no idea what I am getting myself into while going to Guatemala. Until this week, I had a hard time imagining what it would actually be like when we arrived in Guatemala. From always growing up in the suburbs I can’t imagine what it is like to have such different sec’s living right next to each other, and the though of barbed wire fences to protect homes, is only something I have seen in movies.

The more I read about the people of Guatemala, the more I feel there is some sort of compromise that can be made in the ways of modernization. While I fully agree with and understand wanting to preserve your traditions. I sometimes feel as though the people are living in the “stone age” for o apparent reason. Simple re-organization of resources and funds could go a long way in modernizing, and in turn could possibly help them profit more.

Equally as alarming is the way the Guatemalan people leave themselves open for attach, due to the divide within in the nation. The tension between the Mayans and the ladinos, reads like a modern day civil war just waiting to happen, in which the country would either be split in two, or where one ethnicity would be forced out of the country.

I found it most interesting to read about kinship, home life and the open-ness they have with one another. Reading about the home setup reminded me of my town at home, just a bit less modern. Family is very important in Guatemala and that is also seen in the kitchen being the center of the home. Food is a great way to grow closer to each other, as it is a time to talk and reconnect. This focus on family could possibly be connected with the importance and openness religion plays in the society. While the majority of the country affiliates with a religion, I found it most interesting to read about the difference between the k’u’x and anima and how Guatemalan’s use these to classify themselves and the world.

It was interesting to read about the important of spirituality, but at the same time, as a religious person it seemed as though the need for k’u’x’ in life took away from the importance of only focusing on God, one single god, in religion in America. I suppose the focus on religion I was expecting to read about as I turned the pages turned into rituals and spiritual acts that was much different then here in America.

Classifying and Quantifying a Country and Its People

I found chapter two particularly intriguing due to all of the relevant facts that were presented. I thought it was interesting to note at the beginning of the chapter that many ladinos do not refer to themselves as ladinos. This is important for us to realize in our time spent in Guatemala, so that we are aware of the use of certain terms that may be culturally offensive to a certain group of people. We use this "ladino" term so often in our discussions when referring to the non-indigenous group of people in Guatemala that it simply seemed normal to me to refer to them as ladinos before reading this chapter. So this is helpful and useful information to all of us interms of maintaining cultural sensitivity when visiting another country and integrating ourselves into the culture.

I thought it was also interesting that many of the ladinos in social elite circles prefer to refer to themselves "as Spaniards or European to stress "blood purity" and the closeness of their ties to Europe and all that that means in terms of culture (or perhaps "Culture") (25). This reveals their natural tendency to look down upon the indigenous people of Guatemala while holding any ties with the Western life in a higher regard. Why can it not be the other way around in which the indigenous people are held in a higher regard for actually being native to the land and thus having a closer tie and connection with their country? This just shows the impact of colonialism on Guatemala as they used certain methods to portray their way of life as the superior way of life, which was illustrated in our readings two weeks ago in George Lovell's A Beauty that Hurts: Life and Death in Guatemala". I think it is ironic that the ladinos refer to themselves as Spaniards and Europeans to show "blood purity", when they are the ones of mixed decent due to colonialism. Why don't they think of the indigenous people of Guatemala as having "blood purity" since they are not mixed with European decent? I think that the capitalization of the "c" in "Culture" when referring to the ladinos may be an expression of ethnocentrism; their culture is superior because it has hints of western culture. Again, to me this is one of the effects of colonialism that still remains in Guatemala.

Furthermore, the topic of passing also reminded me of the talk with Manuel as Emily makes the similar connection in her blog. With the generalizations of the supposedly superior ladino culture and the supposedly inferior indigenous culture, this is not surprising . What is sad is that it is being instilled in the indigenous people that there culture is not important enough for them to succeed with that culture alone. Instead, in order for them to get ahead, they feel that they must pass up their culture and the things that make them unique in order to make progress. As Manuel noted, this has sadly become the reality, but I also realize the danger in this. The danger in losing special cultures that have been a part of Guatemala for many years and in my opinion, the different cultures that give Guatemala its cultural attractiveness. Although it may be necessary to assimilate to a certain degree and learn the "modernized" way of life in order to make progress, the term "passing" implies to me that these people are forgetting their cultures in order to learn the way of life that is going to get them ahead. While this may be necessary, as Manuel stated last week, one must be aware of where he or she came from in order to truly move ahead.

Finally, I thought Emily made an interesting inference when she suggested that perhaps the country side of Guatemala, which is home to the indigenous people, may feel the need to modernize in due time. Due to personal experiences I would have initially disagreed. This is because my mother described a similar situation when I was interviewing her for a Women and Gender Studies class last semester. She is from Nigeria, and when she was a younger child, she lived with her immediate family in Lagos City; however, her family's roots were in a less modern village in Imo State where her grandparents resided. My mom's immediate family lived in Lagos because it was more modernized and thus her father was employed in this city. Although Lagos seemed to present more economic opportunity as does Guatemala city (or areas farther from the country side as described in our reading), my mom and her family still enjoyed the change in pace of their lives in the village whenever they visited. Besides, the village is home to their culture, so despite what the city life provides, they could still appreciate their village enough to avoid changing it too much. On the other hand, I didn't get the impression from Manuel that there were enough people like him who understood the importance of perserving their culture and life on the country side. As a result, I hesitate to refute Emily's inference about the future of the country side that is home to indigenous people in Guatemala.

Mayan Healing, Religion, and Relationships

One part of the reading that I really enjoyed this week was the section exploring Mayan ideas about medicine, religion, and healing. I am in a Medical Anthropology class this semester and many of the topics we have been discussing in this class can be related directly to Guatemala. The Mayan classification between k'u'x (the heart) and anima (the soul) represent the base through which people identify themselves in Guatemala. These forces are vital to life and health, and are a means through which Mayans make sense of the world. Furthermore, the various methods of treatment and medicine discussed in this chapter relate to k'u'x and anima. Such therapeutic procedures involving family and use of healers symbolize Guatemalan social systems and relationships. I think that by studying how the Mayan treat spirituality and medicine we will discover that our own practices here in the U.S are somewhat similar.

One example that I believed showed the interaction of k’u’x and anima was that of the little boy Kan. In this scenario, Kan had experienced stress and conflict in his early life. His parents thought that he had an “unbalanced k’u’x and misdirected anima” (82). Kan’s behavior problems and tantrums were thus linked symbolically to his inner spirit and soul loss. To heal him, his family called a aj q’ij (religious specialist) to perform a rejuvenating ritual. They all accompanied him to a stream, where he was repeatedly washed in the water to “return his missing parts of soul” (82). More than anything, this ceremony represents a social practice that Kan’s family participated in as a collective whole. By performing this ritual they were strengthening their ties and asserting loyalty. The role of the religious specialist also represents a vital figure whose power is created through healing. This example demonstrates the way in which Mayans use relationships, interpersonal interactions, and spiritual ceremonies as a way to overcome hardships.

In conclusion, the Mayan systems of faith, healing, and social relationships are not too different from our own ideas and practices here in the U.S. Christianity’s version of the soul closely reflects that of k’u’x’ and anima; moreover, when a family member becomes ill, others form a system of support, just like in Kan’s case. The powerful spiritual healers of the Mayan can be paralleled to our western medical physicians. It is interesting to note these similarities, for maybe we are not as different as we think from that of the culture of Guatemala.

Modernizing Mayan Culture

I enjoyed the readings this week. Partly because they painted a picture for me about what to expect while living in Guatemala. The first chapter had so many details that I feel as though I am more prepared and have a better understanding of daily life in Guatemala. My main points of reflection though are on the issue of modernization and how that might affect the communities in Guatemala.

In the discussion of Gini Index in the second chapter of Tecpán Guatemala I found it particularly unsettling that Guatemala’s score had risen in the past 50years. It seems this is directly related to the modernization of larger cities while the countryside remains entrenched in a more traditional existence. When comparing the Gini Index with the GNP of Guatemala, it becomes even more apparent that the country’s poverty is related more to inequality than wealth. We have discussed the question of how to redistribute this wealth in class, but have yet to come up with a definitive answer. I don’t believe there is one and so I think it is most important for us, as a group, to simply recognize this and take it for what it is.

The division of wealth was also related in the chapter to an ethnic division. Although the point was made that many ladinos are poor as well, the overall stereotype is that ladinos hold the majority of the wealth while the Indians, who make up the majority of the population, are in the minority when it comes to the distribution of wealth.

As Guatemala’s cities begin to incorporate the luxuries of modern technology and then become more active in the global scene, the disparity between the cities and the countryside becomes even more pronounced. Manuel talked with us last week about families expressing concern for the push towards bilingual education. I definitely see the concern these parents had for their children and I think that will continue to be a problem as cities being to further modernize. The question then becomes what will happen to the rural, countryside areas? It seems that they may be forced to modernize as well. If they do not does it not stand to reason that they will be forced into even greater poverty as the Gini Index trend has previously indicated?

The next concern I see is for the individual Mayan languages and dialects. It seems that they may be left in the past as areas begin to modernize. Manuel had a great point in his talk last week when he talked about the importance of knowing ones cultural background. I think that modernization will come but, that it should be accompanied by an influence on learning the language and history of ones community. Guatemala’s cultural history is what makes it so unique and just as in the US we are required to learn the history of our country so too should Guatemalan communities learn the history of their community. By learning to read and write their dialect and by also learning the historical events of their community I think younger and future generations will realize the pride that they may take in their heritage.