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.