The whole time that I was reading this article, I kept thinking about how ironic it was to me that one of the main initial reasons that CDRO was appealing was because of its ancient origins and the Mayan culture that it portrayed. For example, at the Inter-American Conference of Mayors in Miami, Floride, Charles Reilly noted CDRO as the most promising example of local governance and the Guatemalan government recognized CDRO when CDRO was awarded the National Order of Guatemalan Patrimony Award. Because CDRO was appealing to people, it seemed beneficial for the Guatemalan government to recognize CDRO in this moment. This is interesting because it appears that the Mayan culture and people are seen as second best or part of a sub-class in the Guatemalan country; however, the Guatemalan government is more accepting of them when it is beneficial. When Charles Reilly used CDRO as an example to be followed--an example of progress, he shifted the Mayan role in that instant. The Mayan culture that was advantageous for CDRO was now positively associated with progress.
This contrasts with a previous reading that we read in class including Javier and the crossroads between ancient Mayan culture and what was considered more modern culture. The ancient Mayan culture in this crossroads carried with it the negative connotations of an antiquated culture that might hold one back. I got the sense from that reading that moving farther away from the traditional Mayan culture was beneficial and more positively associated with progress. In this reading, the Mayan culture is shown in a different light since it was what made CDRO appealing to others. Charles Reilly and the Guatemalan government recognized this.
The reversal of the Mayan role is further illustrated through CDRO's general advisor Benjamin Son Turnil's criticism of the Kaqchikel organization that took on more westernized strategies. Again, previous readings established the westernization or modernization as superior to anything associated with the ancient Maya; however, here this is not the case.
Overall, I think that this reading is an example of the idea that sadly the Maya culture is only appreciated for what it is when someone can directly benefit from it as CDRO and the people to which CDRO appealed do.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Rhetoric
With only three pages left of the DeHart reading, I thought I understood the main point pretty well; a development organization was corrupted by capitalism and expansionist ambitions. However, after reading the conclusion, I was very confused about what the bottom line of the article actually was.
I don’t think that DeHart specifically states that CDRO’s main idea was wrong. Even in the end, she only admits that there were disagreements between community members as to the function of CDRO. According to DeHart, the people that criticized CDRO for being self-interested were working towards their own interests as well. Interestingly, Carol Smith’s arguments apply here. DeHart agrees with Smith’s assertions that Mayan villages are often arenas for ‘petty capitalism’ and social hierarchy. The community members arguing against CDRO’s capitalist approach are themselves wealthier capitalist members of their village. Their statements that they disagree with capitalism as a whole cannot be entirely valid. In fact, petty capitalism preceded most US influence in these villages.
Then why did CDRO take a line of being anti-capitalist in the first place? I think that in this case rhetoric was used in a very similar way that it is used in the United States. In this case, instead of trying to be seen as a representative of the ‘American way’ or ‘traditional values,’ community members are persuading others that they are the ones who can follow the sole ‘Mayan’ way. In this case, the pop is an example of a symbol that represents the Mayan way. Whether that symbol is entirely accurate to the true Mayan culture and reality is a different matter entirely. On the other hand, detractors from CDRO are also trying to own control over that ‘Mayan’ way in order to gain support in the community. They pretend to be against the CDRO because it is capitalist, yet they are capitalists themselves.
In the end, I am not convinced that CDRO’s work was bad. I am also not sure whether a ‘capitalist’ approach is so un-Mayan as most people seem to think it is. It just gets a bad reputation because of rhetoric.
Similarly with the Cook/Offit article, different groups are competing over which religion is the most ‘Mayan.’ In the end though, based on the readings for this class so far it seems like a majority of the Mayan people don’t care which is more ‘Mayan,’ as evidenced by the large number of converts to Evangelical Protestantism. Maybe what is more important for most people is which religion works for them and is more available to them.
I don’t think that DeHart specifically states that CDRO’s main idea was wrong. Even in the end, she only admits that there were disagreements between community members as to the function of CDRO. According to DeHart, the people that criticized CDRO for being self-interested were working towards their own interests as well. Interestingly, Carol Smith’s arguments apply here. DeHart agrees with Smith’s assertions that Mayan villages are often arenas for ‘petty capitalism’ and social hierarchy. The community members arguing against CDRO’s capitalist approach are themselves wealthier capitalist members of their village. Their statements that they disagree with capitalism as a whole cannot be entirely valid. In fact, petty capitalism preceded most US influence in these villages.
Then why did CDRO take a line of being anti-capitalist in the first place? I think that in this case rhetoric was used in a very similar way that it is used in the United States. In this case, instead of trying to be seen as a representative of the ‘American way’ or ‘traditional values,’ community members are persuading others that they are the ones who can follow the sole ‘Mayan’ way. In this case, the pop is an example of a symbol that represents the Mayan way. Whether that symbol is entirely accurate to the true Mayan culture and reality is a different matter entirely. On the other hand, detractors from CDRO are also trying to own control over that ‘Mayan’ way in order to gain support in the community. They pretend to be against the CDRO because it is capitalist, yet they are capitalists themselves.
In the end, I am not convinced that CDRO’s work was bad. I am also not sure whether a ‘capitalist’ approach is so un-Mayan as most people seem to think it is. It just gets a bad reputation because of rhetoric.
Similarly with the Cook/Offit article, different groups are competing over which religion is the most ‘Mayan.’ In the end though, based on the readings for this class so far it seems like a majority of the Mayan people don’t care which is more ‘Mayan,’ as evidenced by the large number of converts to Evangelical Protestantism. Maybe what is more important for most people is which religion works for them and is more available to them.
Providing or Profiting?
DeHart’s analysis of the CDRO made me question the motives behind the company. Sometimes companies might start off with the intention of promoting ethnic development and as it gains momentum becomes too interested in self-serving capitalistic gains. There must be a balance between the two. There can be two interpretations of CDRO’s choice of logo. The first is that they chose the pop based solely on its importance in Mayan identity and history. The second interpretation is that CDRO intentionally chose a logo that not only represented Mayan culture, but also would be easy to identify and a smart branding choice.
It seems that the initial ideas of a holistic approach that the CDRO presented would have been effective; however, they were not effectively implemented into Maya communities. What began to put off Maya was when CDRO no longer represented the ideals that the pop represented.
This issue is reflected well in Juan who originally agreed and promoted the CDRO and later changed his mind as he grew to perceive the company as something similar to a fast food chain. Juan was probably drawn in by the ideals that the CDRO advertised, but as he became involved in the company itself he became disillusioned by CDRO and its misuse of pop.
There is a fine line between offering a service to build a community and operating under a false pretense for economic gain. I guess my question from this reading is where is this line and how does one know if it has been crossed?
Unity
Dehart’s article speaks of the classic battle between Western capitalism and Mayan authenticity. The CDRO attempts to unify these concepts and thus grows in global popularity; however, Juan and Emilio separate the two entities when their authority in the community is threatened. They claim that as council members, they are not capitalists like the CDRO. Instead of putting blame on one party, Juan and Emilio should see the relation between Western capitalism and Mayan authenticity because, as others have stated before, development stems from a combination of both traits. The council members themselves are entrepreneurs, as indicated by Carol Smith’s article, so why not accept that capitalism is a natural part of any development strategy? For example, the CDRO did not “oppose Western capitalist practices…but retrofitted them for community use” (143). Perhaps the CDRO took things too far with their franchising, since some communities complained that their techniques actually worsened the economy in rural communities, but it began with good intentions as a grassroots organization. Juan and Emilio themselves began with the same intentions, and are ironically, fought against the exact same criticisms that the CDRO received. The controversy has turned to who is a better a developer, as opposed to the actual development of San Pedro.
Cook’s article describes Mayan authenticity from the angle of religion. He explores the unification of religions in the Mayan world, especially that of “Mayan Christianity” which maintains “Mayan identity” while being in favor of “Christian modernity” (47). For example, Mayan gods are portrayed as demons to be killed and the result of this endeavor is “improved harvests and success in business” (48). In essence, religion in Guatemala integrates Western and traditional values, by reconstituting certain indigenous institutions through the acceptance of external ideologies. Even those who to wish to return to the traditional Mayan days of ritual, unintentionally adopt Western practices. As with the CDRO and council members in Dehart’s article, development--whether it is the development of religion or the economy—is inevitably affected by modern and traditional values, and perhaps it is the unity between these two aspects that we should focus on, instead of separating the two concepts into distinct categories that cannot be reconciled.
Cook’s article describes Mayan authenticity from the angle of religion. He explores the unification of religions in the Mayan world, especially that of “Mayan Christianity” which maintains “Mayan identity” while being in favor of “Christian modernity” (47). For example, Mayan gods are portrayed as demons to be killed and the result of this endeavor is “improved harvests and success in business” (48). In essence, religion in Guatemala integrates Western and traditional values, by reconstituting certain indigenous institutions through the acceptance of external ideologies. Even those who to wish to return to the traditional Mayan days of ritual, unintentionally adopt Western practices. As with the CDRO and council members in Dehart’s article, development--whether it is the development of religion or the economy—is inevitably affected by modern and traditional values, and perhaps it is the unity between these two aspects that we should focus on, instead of separating the two concepts into distinct categories that cannot be reconciled.
In my opinion, yes.
To summarize my understanding of Deharts article, I found that it draws on ethnographic research with the K'iche' community development organization in the rural setting of Tontonicapan to examine how neoliberal development policy in post-war Guatemala both enabled and problematized grassroots ethnic development strategies. Specifically, this study analyses efforts by the CDRO to employ Maya culture as a tool for development through the pop (woven mat) methodology. The particular development model was successful in its ability to appeal to both the international development industry and local community. Furthermore, this article also examines, however, how the pop also became an important site of critique of neoliberal state reforms and class inequality within the community.
To tie both of the articles together and also confer with Grace and Rachel's posts on the present and future of Guatemala, I wonder how Guatemala is and will develop? For instance, how will young Mayan men from highland Guatemal adapt to the changing economic conditions in their country while attempting to maintain strong connections to the religious and cultural traditions of their rural homelands? This is just one specific population but can also be generalized. So far we have seen a broad spectrum from those who are embarrased about their culture/want nothing more than to assimilate to the status quo to those who struggle with trying to maintain their culture in mint condition. From here there is the question about what exactly is a culture? Becasuse times change and is there such a thing as pure culture? I am leaning toward yes, transculuturation is the only way...for the vast majority of Guatemalans. There will be, of course those outliers who somehow sequester themselves and their families off in the highland brush away from outsiders who I suppost could "maintain their culture" exactly as it is now...but it is impossible for that to last forever.
To tie both of the articles together and also confer with Grace and Rachel's posts on the present and future of Guatemala, I wonder how Guatemala is and will develop? For instance, how will young Mayan men from highland Guatemal adapt to the changing economic conditions in their country while attempting to maintain strong connections to the religious and cultural traditions of their rural homelands? This is just one specific population but can also be generalized. So far we have seen a broad spectrum from those who are embarrased about their culture/want nothing more than to assimilate to the status quo to those who struggle with trying to maintain their culture in mint condition. From here there is the question about what exactly is a culture? Becasuse times change and is there such a thing as pure culture? I am leaning toward yes, transculuturation is the only way...for the vast majority of Guatemalans. There will be, of course those outliers who somehow sequester themselves and their families off in the highland brush away from outsiders who I suppost could "maintain their culture" exactly as it is now...but it is impossible for that to last forever.
Irony and Development
I found that this week’s reading was very unique simply because the amount of paradoxes that existed within each article. The combination of culture, the Western world, and development created the basis for these ironies. Rachel talked about this conflict a little when she said “How can a country with such a strong sense of culture…find balance between that culture and international policies in order to develop?” Based on Cook and DeHart’s article, I think that the best way to brighten Guatemala’s future is to take into account the various contradictions and inconsistencies that come with development, and to understand and be aware that they are natural to the development process. However, I believe that these ironies can be both an indicator of the failings of a country to progress as well as a sign of their success and improvement. Further, these paradoxes can say a lot about the condition and status of development in a region.
Cooks defines transculturation as “a sometimes effective strategy to accept profound change in some aspects of a culture in order to preserve some other institutional arrangement” (48). The idea of transculturation is itself ironic, as it suggests that to save some parts of a culture, you must “adopt accommodative external forms”. While this idea may seem counterproductive, tranculturation proves especially relevant in Cook’s article for the continuity of Mayan religion. Within the article, the author cites the many ways in which Mayan religion has changed in the past years to include many traditional elements of worship as well as indigenous forms of theology. However, the article also states that many aspects of Mayan religion have adopted Pentecostal forms of worships such as a focus on “a charismatic leadership” (55). In relation to development, the fact that Guatemalans are changing the ways in which they worship based on their own desires represents a significant step towards the instrumental freedoms cited by Sen. By forging new religions, people are exercising their right to choose what they value from other doctrines and are subsequently incorporating those aspects into their own worship. Transculturation thus can be seen as an extension of development and freedom.
However, paradoxes in communities also allow us to see the inaccuracies of some developmental processes. For example, in DeHart’s article, the author explains the way in which the CDRO chose the Mayan woven mat or “pop” as a means to symbolize it’s “development methodology, institutional configuration, and it’s authentic Mayan identity”(141). By using a traditional symbol and being based locally, the cooperation hoped to identify itself as an authentic indigenous communal group, “in opposition to Western Capitalist”(146). Ultimately, the distance between the CDRO and Western capitalists became very hard to calculate- the group began to link development and business together. Thus, the cooperation ended up becoming everything it was originally set against. This contradiction represents one way in which irony and development are connected. DeHart’s example demonstrates how paradoxes are able to highlight important truths about development, and attests to the problems that occur when the process is understood with a limited perspective.
Camp Compromise
I think Grace makes a very good point in stating that the idea of transculturation may frighten the Maya people because such a movement would only make it more difficult to hold on to their beloved traditions. In my mind, transculturation appears to be a means of development. The saying "It takes a village to raise a child" is one that could be compared with this particular situation for the Maya.
The indigenous peoples of Guatemala have struggled for centuries to maintain their own unique ways of life. The Spanish first disrupted their isolated communities and forced these peoples into congregaciones where unique identities had the fate of being mixed and tainted among many others. The relocated peoples were exposed to completely novel ways of life when they were forced to move. Although the majority of the Mayas made it clear that they would have nothing to do with the Spaniards and their colonization, they could never truly be the same following this initial contact. The Spaniards attempted to form villages composed of the different departments and communities of the Maya, which were at the time strongly resistant. The indigenous groups wanted to function as they once did, in their own individual communities, raising the next generations to perpetuate their customs.
Although many circumstances have changed and many different events have taken place throughout the history of Guatemala, some indigenous peoples have tightly held on to their traditional customs. Personally, I believe that this act of sticking to tradition is honorable. Even in my own family, I greatly appreciate many of the traditional things that we do. When it comes to the issue of development, however, the traditions and customs of the Maya alone do not appear to be the best solution. In the light of development, I see the indigenous peoples as the child. Not in a condescending way as has been mentioned in previous readings, but as a child who has so much potential and just needs some help to develop in that potential. That is where the village comes in. Within the village, there are so many different people with different ideas. The different people and their ideas could be likened to the idea of transculturation. On an even smaller scale, those various people could represent the different Mayan traditions. The weave points of pop mentioned in DeHart's work is said to symbolize the "interconnectedness and interdependency that characterize Mayan collective tradition" (141).
I believe that as an organization, CDRO should be commended for defining what it is from what it is not. This juxtaposition allows for the representation of the traditional culture as well as other cultures that may aid in development. Personally, transculturation doesn't appear to be such a bad idea as long as the Maya people maintain their identity as well as traditions of their culture. This, however, is much easier said than done. The Mayas have been battling outside forces for many years and have seen certain customs cease to exist. I can completely understand the fear of introducing foreign ideas, but I also feel as if a compromise between the two would make for a great success in terms of development. Once again, compromise is easier said than done.
The indigenous peoples of Guatemala have struggled for centuries to maintain their own unique ways of life. The Spanish first disrupted their isolated communities and forced these peoples into congregaciones where unique identities had the fate of being mixed and tainted among many others. The relocated peoples were exposed to completely novel ways of life when they were forced to move. Although the majority of the Mayas made it clear that they would have nothing to do with the Spaniards and their colonization, they could never truly be the same following this initial contact. The Spaniards attempted to form villages composed of the different departments and communities of the Maya, which were at the time strongly resistant. The indigenous groups wanted to function as they once did, in their own individual communities, raising the next generations to perpetuate their customs.
Although many circumstances have changed and many different events have taken place throughout the history of Guatemala, some indigenous peoples have tightly held on to their traditional customs. Personally, I believe that this act of sticking to tradition is honorable. Even in my own family, I greatly appreciate many of the traditional things that we do. When it comes to the issue of development, however, the traditions and customs of the Maya alone do not appear to be the best solution. In the light of development, I see the indigenous peoples as the child. Not in a condescending way as has been mentioned in previous readings, but as a child who has so much potential and just needs some help to develop in that potential. That is where the village comes in. Within the village, there are so many different people with different ideas. The different people and their ideas could be likened to the idea of transculturation. On an even smaller scale, those various people could represent the different Mayan traditions. The weave points of pop mentioned in DeHart's work is said to symbolize the "interconnectedness and interdependency that characterize Mayan collective tradition" (141).
I believe that as an organization, CDRO should be commended for defining what it is from what it is not. This juxtaposition allows for the representation of the traditional culture as well as other cultures that may aid in development. Personally, transculturation doesn't appear to be such a bad idea as long as the Maya people maintain their identity as well as traditions of their culture. This, however, is much easier said than done. The Mayas have been battling outside forces for many years and have seen certain customs cease to exist. I can completely understand the fear of introducing foreign ideas, but I also feel as if a compromise between the two would make for a great success in terms of development. Once again, compromise is easier said than done.
Finding a Balance
DeHart’s article provided us with a new perspective and new facts, but left me with the same question that we’ve been dancing around since the beginning of the semester: How can Guatemala develop? This reading presented a conflict that became more prevalent to me: how can a country with such a strong sense of culture and ethnicity find the balance between that culture and international policies in order to develop?
The Cooperation for Rural Development of the West was founded on Mayan ideas. The CDRO founders “established an organizational system based on traditional Mayan culture which they envisions as a vehicle for facilitating community self-development.” The K’iche pop became the CDRO symbol for its meaning of interconnectedness and interdependency. In terms of the CDRO as a developmental organization, the pop embodied the goals of “community participation, mutual support, and horizontality.” Upon first glance, all these ideas seem to provide a stable foundation for development. It is thus clear why the CDRO initiative became so popular within the global community. Additionally, it seems as if Mayan culture was perserved. However, once the CDRO was acknowledged internationally, its ethnic ties were compromised for Western capitalism and “development.”
I thought that it was extremely ironic that Reilly, the former Peace Corp director and Inter-American Development Bank representative said, “everyone in the development business might learn something from the Pop,” and “CDRO, with its woven mat, is far ahead of us” (145). It’s interesting that a man from a developed nation is calling Guatemala, which is respectively underdeveloped, “ahead of us.” Most people would link the phrase “ahead of us” in accordance with “development.” From the outside, the basis on which the CDRO is founded seems like a strong start. This being so, why is Guatemala still underdeveloped? The article also states “Mayan techniques provide a more useful means of achieving development within the rural communities because of the refusal to separate out problems in favor of exploring the interrelatedness of the causes and effects of underdevelopment” (146). Again, it seems logical to focus on interrelatedness because in essence, communities behave in an interrelated manner. However, I question if it’s possible/beneficial to only view problems from an interrelated perspective? How do you develop and start solving a society’s problems without first breaking them down? Similarly, when Juan García was explaining his relationship with the CDRO, he sates, “CDRO comes to the communities and constructs an organizational framework but doesn’t resolve the problems of the communities and, thus, leaves them in an awkward state of confusion” (147). Again, the predicament lies on the basis of how to actively solve problems and development once we have this organizational foundation in place. On a separate note, Juan García also accused “CDRO of having a capitalist mentality that equated development with good business” (148). This quote stood out to me because it is a common association that Sen addresses and advises that we avoid.
Over time, CDRO, which stemmed from “Mayan oral traditions, historical documents, and community customs” in order to achieve community development, completely strayed from this cultural foundation. A San Pedro council member, when asked how Mayan culture is integrated into the CDRO’s initiative, replied that its is merely “how CDRO paints the organizations for the gringos” (p. 148). Even the traditional meaning of pop has faded, as it became the emblem of CDRO and thus capital interest. It is now more of a symbol of irony as it is commonly seen on the CDRO’s four-wheel-drive Toyota pickups. It appears that the CDRO is “more of a global marketing strategy than a reflection of legitimate community ideals” (p.148). Even when DeHart first entered the CDRO community hall, she became the potential for “securing new development funds,” and seen as a means to capital. All in all, is it possible for Guatemala to develop? If their developmental organizations achieve international recognition, they often conflict with their ethnic foundation. Like Grace posed, how do they achieve this balance? After reading Offit and Cook’s article and understanding the concept of transculturation, maybe this concept needs to be more widely accepted throughout Guatemala in order to foster development. Maybe the Mayans need to take their value of “interrelatedness” (discussed on page 146) and apply it on a global scale.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Is transculturation the only way?
Though the two readings this week talked about different aspects of development and culture, their underlying message was very similar. The idea of transculturation was one that was new to me especially in the context of modern day Guatemala, but it makes perfect sense. Whether it be over religious ideals or community development overall, the Mayans are at a point in their history where acceptance of Ladino and Western influences seem almost inevitable if they wish to survive. The preservation of Mayan culture is a very noble and worthy goal, but it seems as though this will be hard if the people cannot even agree on what this culture is. More importantly though, as both articles point out, this preservation is more of a hybrid of many cultural ideals that the people/founders titled so that it would seem as though only Mayan traditions are a part of it when in fact other influences have obviously seeped through. But how is it possible for these influences not to? After hundreds of years of infiltration and Spanish values being forced upon them it seems nearly impossible that the Mayans would escape without even some acceptance of these ideas. At the same time, the countries hardships in terms of development would suggest that maybe it is not such a terrible idea to try another way that includes Western capitalist ideas – although CDRO is quick to renounce them.
I think the most important idea from the reading was the difficulty in finding the right balance between preserving the Mayan culture and accepting their Spanish influence and need to develop. I cannot say where this balance lies or if it will ever be perfectly attained, but what I do think is that the Mayans will continue to be impoverished and taken advantage of as long as they cannot figure out their identity in today’s Guatemala. Some examples from the reading follow. The CDRO was established with the premises that it would help “address ethnic development needs and interests” by promoting “total community participation, mutual support, and horizontality” (141, 143). All these factors were claimed to be traditional Mayan organizational methods. The projects that resulted from efforts of the CDRO however, turned out to be a little different: “On the one hand, CDRO’s projects were community-based and culturally appropriate…on the other hand, they were privately funded, locally managed, and complementary with market incorporation” (144). When you analyze the projects with this in mind, it seems as though traditional Mayan methods are only half of the efforts, with more modern, developmental methods making up the other half. This is a perfect example of the transculturation Cook and Offit discuss in their article.
The issue over religion also represents what seems to be a sense of confusion in what is “Mayan”. While the Costumbres identify themselves as traditional, the article maintains that they were more accurately a “blend of Christian and Maya religion” (47). Maybe this is the only way to preserve Mayan culture however. By combining it with village religions like Christianity and Protestantism, the Mayan traditions are at least in some way guaranteed to continue to exist. Like we have talked about before (especially with Javier’s situation – as well as Manuel’s) the Mayans are at a very challenging “crossroad” where it seems as though some aspects of society have already chosen to take the path of combined preservation. What it best or correct is a question that is left to be answered.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Return to Ashes
It seems as if everything read about in regards to Guatemala is about land or death over land. The amount of detail and violence in this weeks reading was overwhelming, so say the least. The hatred and hardships that had to be over come to reconstruct Santa María Tzejá were more then most people could bear. The ways in which the army obtained the town and abused it's people reminded me of a modern day holocaust. It is hard to understand how all of this could go on in the 1980's, a modern time, with no one noticing or stepping in to resolve the terror. The extended massacre and destruction of the town is just a small part of the devastation. I can't even imagine what it would be like to see me town burned and then be forced into a hybrid social colony. Over spring break a worked in a town just like Santa María Tzejá and I now see what it is like to build a town from the ground up and understand the labor it takes to plow a field bay hand with only minimal tools and I an not sure how the peasants went on after loosing everything.
Even though we have already read so much this semester, it still boggles my mind the lengths people will go to, to acquire and protect land. Land is clearly livelihood in Guatemala, but it seems that it is more valuable then a human life, which could should never be the case. I am not sure Guatemala will ever be a country not filled with turmoil, it's people seem to have a lot of harbored hatred and resentment towards the country and for valid reason.
Division vs. Unity/Perspective
To begin, I think it is important to note the perspective from which these accounts are given. Throughout reading the Paradise in Ashes, I tried to keep in mind Beatriz Manz's background and how this may have influenced her delivery of the accounts encountered. I thought it was interesting to note that Manz may have had similar experiences in her home country of Chile to what she encountered in Guatemala although she admits that the situation in Guatemala were more severe. Perhaps this could make her more understanding of the situations that she reports. To play devil's advocate, this could possibly make her overly sympathetic to the situations that she reports. Depending on one's position, this may be of value or serve as a disadvantage to the reader. Nonetheless, I thought it was important to keep in mind how her unique perspective may have been shaped by her past.
Furthermore, I thought many of my peers made some interesting comments below me, many of which coincided with some of the points that I noticed throughout my reading. I thought that Natalie made an interesting point when she discusses the reunification section, and how it was surprising to her that many of the peasants disagreed on issues concerning war and insurgency. I think this brings up an important issue concerning the divisions in Guatemala that can be easily overlooked. So often in our class discussions, we discuss ladinos versus Mayans, and this helps develop the sense of a dichotomous system of classes or groups that exist within Guatemala; however, as we discovered here, it is much more complex than that. We so often talk about the differences between the ladinos and the indigenous people, that it can be easy to overlook the many differences within the indigenous groups that separates one unique culture from the next one. In the Carol reading and even much earlier in the semester when Miguel spoke to the class during his first visit, we were able to get a glimpse of the pride that different indigenous people have for their respective groups. I think that if we consider the different Mayan groups individuality in their unique cultures more carefully, it will be easier to understand why such differences exist in their opinions concerning such issues are war and insurgency.
Ironically, as we discuss the differences among different indigenous groups, we encounter similarities between ladinos and Mayas, once again offering a different perspective to what I normally consider, as Katie points out in her comment. Because the Mayan people are so often considered the victimized group, it is easy to overlook some of the difficulties that some of the ladinos suffer. Instead I often lump them in with the idea of ladinos being the "superior" group and oppressors of the "inferior" Maya people. As we found within the reading, economic status can bring different groups of people together no matter what ethnic group they belong to. It forces them to experience similar situations in a country where they are expected to be on opposing sides of the spectrum. Once again, this is another way in which my tendency to imagine the dichotomous system of ladinos and Mayans has been disrupted.
Finally, I think it is very appropriate to end with a question that Nikhila and Katie raise, which I think is the recurring central question in all of our readings and class discussions when we consider Guatemala's history. How can a country overcome difficulties caused by a system that was forced upon them and that has continued for so long up until this point? I think this is the question that many developing countries struggle with, and until they are able to find solutions to this very complex issue in addition to correcting what has been considered "right" in their country since colonization, I don't know if it will be possible to solve their issues.
Furthermore, I thought many of my peers made some interesting comments below me, many of which coincided with some of the points that I noticed throughout my reading. I thought that Natalie made an interesting point when she discusses the reunification section, and how it was surprising to her that many of the peasants disagreed on issues concerning war and insurgency. I think this brings up an important issue concerning the divisions in Guatemala that can be easily overlooked. So often in our class discussions, we discuss ladinos versus Mayans, and this helps develop the sense of a dichotomous system of classes or groups that exist within Guatemala; however, as we discovered here, it is much more complex than that. We so often talk about the differences between the ladinos and the indigenous people, that it can be easy to overlook the many differences within the indigenous groups that separates one unique culture from the next one. In the Carol reading and even much earlier in the semester when Miguel spoke to the class during his first visit, we were able to get a glimpse of the pride that different indigenous people have for their respective groups. I think that if we consider the different Mayan groups individuality in their unique cultures more carefully, it will be easier to understand why such differences exist in their opinions concerning such issues are war and insurgency.
Ironically, as we discuss the differences among different indigenous groups, we encounter similarities between ladinos and Mayas, once again offering a different perspective to what I normally consider, as Katie points out in her comment. Because the Mayan people are so often considered the victimized group, it is easy to overlook some of the difficulties that some of the ladinos suffer. Instead I often lump them in with the idea of ladinos being the "superior" group and oppressors of the "inferior" Maya people. As we found within the reading, economic status can bring different groups of people together no matter what ethnic group they belong to. It forces them to experience similar situations in a country where they are expected to be on opposing sides of the spectrum. Once again, this is another way in which my tendency to imagine the dichotomous system of ladinos and Mayans has been disrupted.
Finally, I think it is very appropriate to end with a question that Nikhila and Katie raise, which I think is the recurring central question in all of our readings and class discussions when we consider Guatemala's history. How can a country overcome difficulties caused by a system that was forced upon them and that has continued for so long up until this point? I think this is the question that many developing countries struggle with, and until they are able to find solutions to this very complex issue in addition to correcting what has been considered "right" in their country since colonization, I don't know if it will be possible to solve their issues.
Reunification
As I read through this book I had some of the same thoughts that many others have discussed. It's interesting after learning so much about Guatemala this semester to once again hear even more about the hardships that the indigenous people faced and how they were able to pull through it as a community. The beginning sections of this book offer a nice glimpse into the formation of community in this "promise land". This mood quickly changes into one of horror as the details of war in the 1980's were delved into and discussed. There were so many stories, like the ones Hanna mentioned about the soldiers celebrating while other people were suffering, that help to really put into perspective how horrible the situation really was.
After reading so much about the terror that the country was plagued with I found the section on reunification to be the most promising and the most interesting. I found it rather intriguing that there was so much fighting between the different groups of peasants. It’s hard to understand how people who all come from the same lifestyle can take such different views when an issue like insurgency and war comes up. As the author pointed out to the refugees, “ the three groups were all poor and insecure peasants in search of land” (185). However, what I found to be the most promising fact was the way in which the antiguos and the refugees were able to come to a general understanding that the army was the only one truly benefiting from the peasants fighting. It is from this realization as well as many other painstaking measures and agreements that the refugees were finally capable of returning to Guatemala. I didn’t realize how much life in refugee camps in Mexico altered the mindset and outlook of the refugees and how their stays in Mexico helped provide them with the capabilities they needed to rebuild their community when they returned to Guatemala. People like Roselia Hernandez were able to use their time in Mexico to learn and adapt in ways that would help a growing community. However, these new found skills were not always useful as many times, “ the returnees were often frustrated by the meekness of those who stayed” (197). As horrible as this sounds it does make some sense. It has to be hard for the refugees to have this outlook and hope for the future and bring it back with them only to have the community that stayed put not cooperating with the new ideas. All in all, it is from the ability of both sides to balance these differences that the community of Santa Maria Tzeja was the only village in which reunification was successful.
Land of Psychological Operations
As I read Paradise in Ashes and thought about what I could possibly blog about, I had in mind to mention the psychological aspect of all the things that were occuring in Santa Maria Tzeja and the surrounding areas in Guatemala. I think Beatriz Manz does a very good job of capturing individuals thoughts and perspectives on the situations discussed. Land ownership was also a central and reoccuring them in this book.
Father Luis certainly played a major role in equipping the first settlers of Santa Maria Tzeja to hold their own. Casa Social seemed to be an institutuion within which people were given not only the physical and cognitive tools they needed to survive on their own, but they were also give the psychological encouragement to build and maintain their own village. The intense training and preparation and the promise of owning land were factors that psyched the future inhabitants of "the promised land" to make the long trek to a place they had never been. The idea of having maize was enough for the people of the newly formed Santa Maria Tzeja to labor all day in the difficult rainforest and scorching heat. As we have discussed on so many occasions, land is very important to many people in Guatemala, especially the indigenous peoples. I honestly felt the sincerety for the sacredness of land when one villager stated, "No more worries; there is maize, there is food, there is life (64)." It's amazing that this one thing could make the village so happy. Although they had to work really for this land, they were beyond pleased to call it their own.
It is so disheartening that the many days, weeks, and months the villagers worked to build Santa Maria Tzeja seemed all for naught. The tactics used by the government army were very psychologically driven. As the years passed and the violence continued to escalate in the book, I noticed that there were many mind games that the army played with the hope of forcing the people they had under their authority to remain without hope. The army wanted to diminish the hope of returning to one's villiage and once again living peacefully surrrounded by relatives. One of the tactics the government army used was titled "psychological operations" (159). Under this plan, the army posed as the protectors of the the villagers against the ruthless guerillas who were the actual "perpertrators of destruction". The fact the army went as far as to corroborate stories of and items belonging to members of the guerilla army demonstrates how ruthless the army could be at times. The fact that there were people who honestly believed the stories, in my opinion, demonstrates the psychological effect the army hoped to achieve.
Another game that the army played, which I must say was well-executed, was using land as a factor in their "psychological operations". With the introduction of new settlers into Santa Maria Tzeja, the goverment army was able to further advance their tearing apart of the nation. Their strategy contained so much promise because it contained a strong psyche-deceiving component and also divided the population that existed in so many different factions that there was little chance of the people uniting and overtaking those in authority. By creating a population consisting of seven different ethnolinguistic groups and five different religious denominations, the army ensured that the people would never form a strong enough cohesive unit to overcome the goverment that was in power. Furthermore, by introducing newcomers, or nuevos into Santa Maria Tzeja, the army was able to please a decent portion of the population. As a result of having extremely content peasants who had been given land, the army was able to get these individuals to do anything they for the most part.
Land was a very important motivating factor for these peasants, just as it was for the villagers who first built Santa Maria Tzeja. Through all of the mind strengthening prepartion of Casa Social and the psychological games of the army, one of the many ideas is the importance or owning and working one's own land. I believe the army understand how important this was and therefore centered its acts of destruction around this entity in as many ways as possible. The ultimate illusration of such destruction are the ashes that serve as a sign of what used to be and what the army had the power to make, or better yet destroy.
Father Luis certainly played a major role in equipping the first settlers of Santa Maria Tzeja to hold their own. Casa Social seemed to be an institutuion within which people were given not only the physical and cognitive tools they needed to survive on their own, but they were also give the psychological encouragement to build and maintain their own village. The intense training and preparation and the promise of owning land were factors that psyched the future inhabitants of "the promised land" to make the long trek to a place they had never been. The idea of having maize was enough for the people of the newly formed Santa Maria Tzeja to labor all day in the difficult rainforest and scorching heat. As we have discussed on so many occasions, land is very important to many people in Guatemala, especially the indigenous peoples. I honestly felt the sincerety for the sacredness of land when one villager stated, "No more worries; there is maize, there is food, there is life (64)." It's amazing that this one thing could make the village so happy. Although they had to work really for this land, they were beyond pleased to call it their own.
It is so disheartening that the many days, weeks, and months the villagers worked to build Santa Maria Tzeja seemed all for naught. The tactics used by the government army were very psychologically driven. As the years passed and the violence continued to escalate in the book, I noticed that there were many mind games that the army played with the hope of forcing the people they had under their authority to remain without hope. The army wanted to diminish the hope of returning to one's villiage and once again living peacefully surrrounded by relatives. One of the tactics the government army used was titled "psychological operations" (159). Under this plan, the army posed as the protectors of the the villagers against the ruthless guerillas who were the actual "perpertrators of destruction". The fact the army went as far as to corroborate stories of and items belonging to members of the guerilla army demonstrates how ruthless the army could be at times. The fact that there were people who honestly believed the stories, in my opinion, demonstrates the psychological effect the army hoped to achieve.
Another game that the army played, which I must say was well-executed, was using land as a factor in their "psychological operations". With the introduction of new settlers into Santa Maria Tzeja, the goverment army was able to further advance their tearing apart of the nation. Their strategy contained so much promise because it contained a strong psyche-deceiving component and also divided the population that existed in so many different factions that there was little chance of the people uniting and overtaking those in authority. By creating a population consisting of seven different ethnolinguistic groups and five different religious denominations, the army ensured that the people would never form a strong enough cohesive unit to overcome the goverment that was in power. Furthermore, by introducing newcomers, or nuevos into Santa Maria Tzeja, the army was able to please a decent portion of the population. As a result of having extremely content peasants who had been given land, the army was able to get these individuals to do anything they for the most part.
Land was a very important motivating factor for these peasants, just as it was for the villagers who first built Santa Maria Tzeja. Through all of the mind strengthening prepartion of Casa Social and the psychological games of the army, one of the many ideas is the importance or owning and working one's own land. I believe the army understand how important this was and therefore centered its acts of destruction around this entity in as many ways as possible. The ultimate illusration of such destruction are the ashes that serve as a sign of what used to be and what the army had the power to make, or better yet destroy.
Nuevos and Antiguos
I found the difference in perspectives of the nuevos and antiguos in the millitarized village created by the army to be very telling of the tension in that community. The antiguos had experienced the destruction of their lives and then the subsequent redistribution of lands that they had worked very hard to settle. Fom the antiguos perspective they had lost the agency to chose. The army forced them into volunteer patrols and told them were to live and watched them go about their lives. Understandably, the antiguos performed these tasks and endured grudgingly because they had no other option.
While the nuevos experienced the same terms and conditions of the militarized community, they had a very different perspective of the army and their situation. The nuevos were peasants brought in often from worse conditions. The nuevos were loyal to the military because they proved them with land. The nuevos saw the patrol duties as something that they were doing to help out the army that had already given them so much.
The differences between the nuevos and antiguos can be related back to Sen's theory on freedom and choice. One's perspective can be radically altered depending on whether he/she feels like they have a choice. The two groups had differing opinions on the exact same required military service due to the fact that they had different backgrounds that altered their perspective of that service. I liked how Beatriz Manz phrased this issue, that the two groups had a, "profound difference in their frame of reference: the antiguos measured the present against a dream they had acheived and seen imcinerated; the nuevos compared their situation to their landless desperation of yesterday."
The disparity in these two perspectives created a broken community. With such polarizing differences and animosity between the two what else could be expected? This was exactly what the military intended on doing by bringing in new, loyal settlers. By weakening the social cohesion in the settlement the military hoped to keep revolts or uprisings from from occuring. Their strategy proved effective for the short term, but not at all in the larger scheme of things.
The Oppression of Mayans and Ladinos
Through descriptive language and personal narratives, Paradise in Ashes weaves an image of the Mayan cycle of poverty on plantations called fincas. We had read about the dismal labor conditions of the Mayans earlier, but now we are seeing it in fine detail. “We are housed as if we are pigs,” a woman from Santa Maria Tzeja comments (42). It’s tragic to hear that the laborers were treated no better than animals, and sometimes even worse than animals.
What lead up to the fincas is reminiscent of the topics discussed by Carol, especially when the author describes how the peasants in Santa Cruz “viewed their situation as one of oppression and dependence,” that they were the “yoke of tyranny” (36). The Mayans did not subjugate themselves to this eternal torture, but rather it is rooted in history, a violent result of the Spanish invasion and conquest. The more difficult thought that resounds in my head, just as did for Katie, is will this circle of bloodshed and oppression ever end? Once the seed is planted, it stays there.
Something that I found extremely interesting and peculiar is the story about the Ladino, Miguel Reyes, in Chapter 2. “Miguel and the other Ladino families from El Palmar were a minority in the new predominantly K’iche’-speaking village, but they were as poor as the K’iche’ in the highlands, and their dreams were the same” (65). This is quite the opposite of the findings listed in Carol’s essay and provides an interesting twist on the story, because it seems that the barrier between Ladino and Maya is not quite as simple we originally thought it was. The author even stated earlier that the “the distinction between Ladinos and Mayas is complex, ambiguous, and not always easy to identify” (36). The reason Miguel story is fascinating is because it almost indicates that the minority are the oppressed, as opposed to a specific race being oppressed due to historical ties. Just like the Mayans in a Ladino populated town, Miguel and the Ladino families felt as if they had no voice. However, this lack of participation occurred in the beginning of settling down to a new land and the Ladinos could not physically communicate with the Mayans at that point in time since they spoke Spanish, not K’iche’.
In reference to settling in a new land and fulfilling one’s dreams, it’s disheartening to hear that that Guatemalans (whether they are Mayan or Ladino) must always be on the move to discover new opportunities or run away from oppression and violence. The same can be said for other under developed countries. The inhabitants of Santa Maria Tzeja trekked to Mexico, only to become refugees who received little aid. It pains me to hear about the families who decided to stay, reluctant to leave behind their hard work and dreams. How one can cling to a life destroyed by fellow villagers escapes me, but perhaps that is why they cling so tightly to it. It is difficult to emotionally detach yourself from that, I imagine. In the end, I always come back to my main question. The people of Guatemala have suffered so much; when will it end and can it end? The situation goes above and beyond just Mayan opppression.
What lead up to the fincas is reminiscent of the topics discussed by Carol, especially when the author describes how the peasants in Santa Cruz “viewed their situation as one of oppression and dependence,” that they were the “yoke of tyranny” (36). The Mayans did not subjugate themselves to this eternal torture, but rather it is rooted in history, a violent result of the Spanish invasion and conquest. The more difficult thought that resounds in my head, just as did for Katie, is will this circle of bloodshed and oppression ever end? Once the seed is planted, it stays there.
Something that I found extremely interesting and peculiar is the story about the Ladino, Miguel Reyes, in Chapter 2. “Miguel and the other Ladino families from El Palmar were a minority in the new predominantly K’iche’-speaking village, but they were as poor as the K’iche’ in the highlands, and their dreams were the same” (65). This is quite the opposite of the findings listed in Carol’s essay and provides an interesting twist on the story, because it seems that the barrier between Ladino and Maya is not quite as simple we originally thought it was. The author even stated earlier that the “the distinction between Ladinos and Mayas is complex, ambiguous, and not always easy to identify” (36). The reason Miguel story is fascinating is because it almost indicates that the minority are the oppressed, as opposed to a specific race being oppressed due to historical ties. Just like the Mayans in a Ladino populated town, Miguel and the Ladino families felt as if they had no voice. However, this lack of participation occurred in the beginning of settling down to a new land and the Ladinos could not physically communicate with the Mayans at that point in time since they spoke Spanish, not K’iche’.
In reference to settling in a new land and fulfilling one’s dreams, it’s disheartening to hear that that Guatemalans (whether they are Mayan or Ladino) must always be on the move to discover new opportunities or run away from oppression and violence. The same can be said for other under developed countries. The inhabitants of Santa Maria Tzeja trekked to Mexico, only to become refugees who received little aid. It pains me to hear about the families who decided to stay, reluctant to leave behind their hard work and dreams. How one can cling to a life destroyed by fellow villagers escapes me, but perhaps that is why they cling so tightly to it. It is difficult to emotionally detach yourself from that, I imagine. In the end, I always come back to my main question. The people of Guatemala have suffered so much; when will it end and can it end? The situation goes above and beyond just Mayan opppression.
Community in Santa Maria Tzeja
One thing that I found interesting from this week’s reading was the nature in which the village of Santa Maria Tzeja was founded. The town is both a symbol of a successful cooperative community established by the impoverished as well as a painful reminder of the horrors experienced during the violence of the 1980’s. As seen before in many of our readings, the theme of land plays a large role in the lives of these Guatemalans. It represents a vital component integral to the development of the community. Luis Gurriaran, the priest responsible for the founding of the cooperative even states, “ The fundamental problem was always how to resolve the land problem” (57). The desire for land was even reflected in the phrase “the promise land” which is a phrase used over and over again by the author and villagers. Could the organization, preparation, and participation that all the residents put into Santa Maria Tzeja stem simply from the desire to own their own land? Or could the success and development of the village be a reaction against the racism and discrimination that the residents had experienced throughout their lifetime?
While reading this part of the book, I thought back to the Carol Smith’s article we read before break. Smith had discussed how Mayan isolation and interdependence was used as a means of survival and protection from the outside world (222). This sentiment is echoed in relation to Santa Maria Tzeja. Manz recalles that, “Individuals could not succeed if the village failed, and the fate of the village rested on community and participation” (66). However, the cooperative did not just include Maya, but also multiple Ladino families. This is where I think the reading did a great job in explaining the role of the poor Ladino in Guatemalan society during this time. While the two racial groups experienced inequality and social conflict in other parts of the country, they were able to assimilate and live with one another peacefully and flawlessly in the township. This co-existence was to such an extent that both groups, “…lived as brothers, intermarried, and became god parents for each other children” (68). Hence, the merging of these two groups speaks to the shared inequality between all poor Guatemala farmers. The achievement in combining these groups peacefully in one area emphasizes the deprecating poverty and dismal economic conditions during this time period.
Lastly, the efficiency and growth of communities like Santa Maria Tzeja undermined government structures and well as the system of forced labor instilled by wealthy landowners. Institutions such as fincas were a large part of Guatemala during this time; any changes in the status quo would upset the social, economic, and political system that had defined Guatemala for generations. Further, changes would, “…risk running afoul a rigid social structure and deeply authoritarian state with severe, frightening consequences”(107). The permeation of inequality, oppression, and injustice in the political system reflects back to the days of the Spanish. Was there any other way to reconcile progression and a corrupt system other than bloodshed? Further, could there have been a peaceful solution reached in Guatemala during this time?
While reading this part of the book, I thought back to the Carol Smith’s article we read before break. Smith had discussed how Mayan isolation and interdependence was used as a means of survival and protection from the outside world (222). This sentiment is echoed in relation to Santa Maria Tzeja. Manz recalles that, “Individuals could not succeed if the village failed, and the fate of the village rested on community and participation” (66). However, the cooperative did not just include Maya, but also multiple Ladino families. This is where I think the reading did a great job in explaining the role of the poor Ladino in Guatemalan society during this time. While the two racial groups experienced inequality and social conflict in other parts of the country, they were able to assimilate and live with one another peacefully and flawlessly in the township. This co-existence was to such an extent that both groups, “…lived as brothers, intermarried, and became god parents for each other children” (68). Hence, the merging of these two groups speaks to the shared inequality between all poor Guatemala farmers. The achievement in combining these groups peacefully in one area emphasizes the deprecating poverty and dismal economic conditions during this time period.
Lastly, the efficiency and growth of communities like Santa Maria Tzeja undermined government structures and well as the system of forced labor instilled by wealthy landowners. Institutions such as fincas were a large part of Guatemala during this time; any changes in the status quo would upset the social, economic, and political system that had defined Guatemala for generations. Further, changes would, “…risk running afoul a rigid social structure and deeply authoritarian state with severe, frightening consequences”(107). The permeation of inequality, oppression, and injustice in the political system reflects back to the days of the Spanish. Was there any other way to reconcile progression and a corrupt system other than bloodshed? Further, could there have been a peaceful solution reached in Guatemala during this time?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Peasants v Peasants
After reading Paradise in Ashes I once again found myself belittled by the hardships yet determination that poor peasants (most specifically Mayans) endured throughout the history of Guatemala. It is hard to determine where to even begin with this book, seeing as it is lush with individual anecdotes and detailed historical accounts, so I have chosen a few things that stood out to me yet in no way come close to describing the millions of thoughts I had while reading.
The first portion of the book that focuses on the Mayans before they settled Santa María Tzejá gives a heartbreaking and very up-close look at plantation labor. Although it is obvious from this book as well as other readings we have done that this type of labor is less than ideal, the author makes a refreshing and interesting point about this type of labor. Manz quotes a British author, Aldous Huxley, who says “Naked or in disguises, as slavery or in some less brutal form, forced labor has everywhere been employed in the development of wild countries. And it is exceedingly difficult to see how they could have been developed without it” (46). Although Manz is quick to point out that this forced labor did not in fact help development in Guatemala, it is interesting to consider the truth in what Huxley claims. Sad as it may be, it seems as though our own country best exemplifies this model, where other people had to be oppressed and in many ways destroyed in order for the country to develop. It is also interesting to think about what would have happened if the Native Americans faired more like the Mayans. Obviously the Mayans in no way had an easy time, but compared to the Native Americans it seems as though at least their population and cultural presence is much more influential in Guatemala than the Native Americans in the United States. It makes me wonder where the development of these two countries drastically diverged so that one is a world super power, and the other is not even considered “developed”.
The history and stories about the guerilla movement also intrigued me quite a bit. Although at first it appeared that the guerillas were by far the more righteous group compared to the army, it is clearly not that simple. Some good things about the guerillas were as follows: in the beginning at least the movement to join the guerillas was purely voluntary and could serve as a family for those who has lost their biological ones. Additionally it is important to note that “the struggle wasn’t born because the guerillas wanted it…rather the was come out of necessity” (107). With all this being said, at this point of the book I was definitely sympathetic with the guerilla cause. However, as I read on it was clear that the guerillas practiced killing on accusations just like the army, making them seem not quite as noble as I at first imagined. However, as one villager pointed out, guerillas “killed [people] and left [there] bodies there so that his people could bury him. In contrast the army would burn the bodies so they would be unrecognizable, nothing would be left” (114). Although this statement is incredibly ironic (as I noted in the margins of my book), it is hard to ignore the simple humanities the army disregarded with respect to the peasants culture and people.
Although the new information I gained about the guerillas was helpful to my understanding of Guatemalan history, the struggle I found most intriguing was that of the peasants against themselves. Once war broke out in the Ixcan and army occupation was a permanent thing, the peasants were divided between those who came out of hiding quickly and stayed in the village, those who continued hiding in the rain forest, and those who fled to Mexico. Because rain forest life was incredibly demanding both physically and psychologically, it took many years for the peasants to build something real and sustainable that was also completely hidden. For this reason when corn and rice fields eventually did become a reality, the people in the forest were overjoyed with their new food source. However, torture and oppression was the reality at the military bases, making the peasants there so miserable that they were forced to choose between giving up the secret locations of the hidden peasants and their own death. As a result many relatives and former neighbors ended up telling the army where their family and friends were hiding, and even personally took part in destroying all their crops. As many people who went to the military bases would contest, “those who cooperated with the military…received better treatment and hope of returning to their village”, however, “deep shame existed about what took place, and even those who avoided participation do not like to name those who did” (150). I thought this was the most extreme yet truthful example of how the peasants were played against each other by the army. And although it is easy to accuse the peasants who gave up information to the army as being weak and unloyal, it is very hard to know what I would have done in the same situation. Would I have spared my own life and possibly that of my families at the cost of destroying the only food source my fellow peasants had? It is certainly an ugly question that warrants the kind of decision no man should ever have to make. I suppose the real question is: what were they supposed to do?
On a final note I found the description of the reunification of the town to be very heart warming despite the challenges villagers faced. I thought it was especially interesting that “it was and still is the only village in which the original inhabitants were reunited and the peasants who had occupied land quietly – resigned to the inevitable” (192). Although the new settlers (or nuevos) that had come during the war seemed strong headed when the army was present, they were quick to give up their land and retreat when the conflict had subsided and old town members who had fled to Mexico were returning. I wonder why this was when no other town had such a simple reunion. Finally, on a completely different note, I really enjoyed the photograph on page 193 welcoming the refugees back into the town. It was so interesting to have physical evidence that although the peasants may have acted against each other during the war, in the end the community was able to heal these severed bonds.
The power of Unity
One reoccurring theme that we’ve encountered this semester is the strong sense of community amongst indigenous Guatemalans. The power that unity and community can have is truly amazing. One point that I thought was extremely important and unique to Santa María Tzejá was the fact that the refugees managed to get their land back. After all the torture and violence in Santa María Tzejá, there were still problems to be settled amongst the people. Conflict existed between three distinct groups of peasants: the antiguos, the nuevos, and refugees. The antiguos were the original people living in Santa María Tzejá, while the nuevos were invited in by the government to take over the land of those who fled. The refugees in Mexico felt that the antiguos had betrayed them, and the tension between the three groups became an advantage to the army. The army tried to enhance the mistrust between the three groups because it gave them more power and made it easier to control the peasants. This is a point that we’ve discussed in class before, when the Spanish tried to separate Mayans into municipios to disunify them. However, the refugees and antiguos were able to put aside their differences when they realized that they both wanted the same thing: “a unified and prosperous village” (p. 186). I thought that the repatriation effort started by Cerezo is a great example of how important unity is to Guatemala. At first, the refugees only cared about getting rid of the people who were living in their lands, and the nuevos were willing to fight back in order to keep living there. However, Manz makes a good point when she explains that despite their differences, the refugees, the antiguos, and the nuevos were all “poor and insecure peasants in search of land” (p. 185). I think the work that Manz did to encourage the refugees to return to Guatemala is amazing. She personally brought news, letters, and photographs of the nuevos so that the refugees felt connected to their land and could learn more about the people living there. Once the refugees began interacting with the antiguos and realized that they both wanted the same thing, it fostered the return of the refugees.
As I read about reunification, I wondered why Santa María Tzejá was the first village in Guatemala in which its refugees returned. Initially, the Santa María Tzejá refugees were separated into different camps, but made an effort to be relocated together. This unity enabled the refugees to reclaim their land. In Mexico, the refugees gained more education and behaved differently, but moved back as a group to their homeland and cohabited with the antiguos. Manz brings up an interesting point when she talks about the “consciousness of the community.” Although the refugees were not from common ancestry, “the experience of building the village had been so powerful that the villagers viewed themselves as a community in Mexico” (p. 188). I think that consciousness of the community is something that is unique to Guatemala as a whole.
Overall, despite the severe violence they endured, the three groups of peasants were able to survive by unifying separately and then eventually settling their differences to achieve their common goal. The refugees sought unity in the camps, and those who remained in Santa María Tzejá relied on each other as a group in order to hide from the military. These cohesive units provided the foundation for Santa María Tzejá to become a successful and self-sufficient village in the late 20th century.
Paradise in Ashes, literally
I found this reading to be a deeply engaging account of he violence and repression that defined the murderous Guatemalan civil war. The story of the village of Santa Maria Tzeja--its birth, destruction, and rebirth--embodies the forces and conflicts that define Guatemala today. Santa Maria Tzeja is what Manz calls "community by choice" (244). It was settled i 1970 by 150 families from the mountain highlands of Guatemala who came together to colonize a piece of the lowland rainforest. Driven by poverty and drawn by the hope of a "promised land" (58), these settlers traveled a path of nearly impassable mud during the rainy season, cleared plots of land, constructed a school, formed cooperative, and in the process built a community which not only survived but thrived in the face of governmental resistance and physical hardships. The interviews with peasants, community leaders, guerrillas, and paramilitary forces provides a detailed explanation of the politics that surround Santa Maria. The work is not only the history of a community but the history of a country at war. Through this study, Manz contributes to our understanding of a national-level war from a community-level perspective. Throughout the book, Manz contextualizes the local events and reflections into the broader Guatemalan and international situation. While she exposes the brutality of the Guatemalan military and the complicity of the US government in Guatemalan atrocities, she does not romanticize the guerrilla nor shy away from sharing villagers criticisms of the guerrilla movement.
There are two instances that made the most significant impact on my understanding of the reading: the juxtaposition of the soldiers celebrating in the forest with food while the villagers sit soaking in the tropical rain, unable to cook, their children coughing and crying with marimba music playing in the background (120) and the man named Santos who was charged as a subversive and kidnapped. The first because it perfectly portrays the theme and title of the reading: a paradise in ashes. The second because of the injustice of the situation--Santos was targeted for asserting his independence. Again and again it is obvious and justified to me the reason behind the stigma the people feel for anything related to the government.
There are two instances that made the most significant impact on my understanding of the reading: the juxtaposition of the soldiers celebrating in the forest with food while the villagers sit soaking in the tropical rain, unable to cook, their children coughing and crying with marimba music playing in the background (120) and the man named Santos who was charged as a subversive and kidnapped. The first because it perfectly portrays the theme and title of the reading: a paradise in ashes. The second because of the injustice of the situation--Santos was targeted for asserting his independence. Again and again it is obvious and justified to me the reason behind the stigma the people feel for anything related to the government.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Resistance Groups
Reading "There is life before and after wage labor: The resistance communities of Guatemala
On the other hand, although these resistance groups initially appear positive, I wonder if the presence of these resistance groups only serves to perpetuate that which they are trying to overcome. The indigenous people lost their pride and self-esteem during the colonial period when they were driven into forced labor by the Spanish colonists as the article indicates. These resistance groups serve the purpose of restoring these essential elements that were damaged; however, the indigenous people still remain a second class group that has been excluded in its own country. Do these resistance groups really help to overcome this? From the article, it does not appear so.
Overall, the reistance groups are just the next best result for the indigenous people. The article elaborates on how the indigenous people exercise power within the resistance groups, but I could not fail to realize how futile their efforts may be. Although they have support within the resistance groups, the lack of support for the indigenous people on a national scale overrides this. The resistance groups provide support for the indigenous people, but I believe it further establishes them as a separate group that has been excluded in Guatemala, and thus further perpetuates the situation that the resistance groups hoped to overcome.
On the other hand, although these resistance groups initially appear positive, I wonder if the presence of these resistance groups only serves to perpetuate that which they are trying to overcome. The indigenous people lost their pride and self-esteem during the colonial period when they were driven into forced labor by the Spanish colonists as the article indicates. These resistance groups serve the purpose of restoring these essential elements that were damaged; however, the indigenous people still remain a second class group that has been excluded in its own country. Do these resistance groups really help to overcome this? From the article, it does not appear so.
Overall, the reistance groups are just the next best result for the indigenous people. The article elaborates on how the indigenous people exercise power within the resistance groups, but I could not fail to realize how futile their efforts may be. Although they have support within the resistance groups, the lack of support for the indigenous people on a national scale overrides this. The resistance groups provide support for the indigenous people, but I believe it further establishes them as a separate group that has been excluded in Guatemala, and thus further perpetuates the situation that the resistance groups hoped to overcome.
Development in a Historical and Conceptual Context
I found it refreshing that the 2007/2008 NHDR for Guatemala tied into historical concepts that we learned from our readings. I feel like the history of Guatemala is often ignored when considering development. The authors of this report seem to agree with Sen especially, for they make the statement, “The second part includes an overview of…human capabilities, freedom to produce, freedom to work, freedom to have, freedom to consume worthy goods…” (7). These ideas are a direct reference to the concept that development is freedom, the very title of Sen’s book. I am also reminded of Lovell and Carol when the report states, “The third part presents an analysis of the different actors shaping the Guatemalan economy over the past decades: the State, entrepreneurs, workers and the mass media” (7). The reference to the State could be indicating the many changes in government due to the Liberal and Conservative parties, as is described in Lovell’s novel. The terms entrepreneurs and workers makes me think of the essay written by Carol, and the effect of being ladino or indigenous in the work field.
The NHDR also brings in new topics to consider about Guatemala. The report mentions in Chapter 6 that an increase in life expectancy will occur “20 to 50 years later than it was achieved in developed countries and other countries in Latin America” (25). It’s astonishing to hear that Guatemala is toward the bottom of the list in terms of development in Latin America. Why is this so? A few reasons, in terms of life expectancy, can be the lack of access to healthcare and also poverty. Before we can consider improving the economy, we must work backwards and think of the factors that affect economy. The amount of labor force affects the economy, but if people are unhealthy and have short life expectancies then the size of the labor force is significantly lowered, as Grace also pointed out earlier. Of course, since so many factors directly relate to each other, it makes the process of improving development infinitely complex. However, I think the NHDR takes a thoughtful step closer to the solution through well represented statistics and diagrams. I would not say that statistics themselves can accurately describe the inner details of a country, but they can certainly help us gain an overview of the country.
Another topic of interest in the report is that of nutrition. “The percentage of the Guatemalan population suffering from obesity (5.4%) is greater than the Latin American average” (27). Once again, Guatemala is significantly set off from other Latin American countries, and according to the report Guatemala has actually increased in its obesity rate. I find it interesting that the consumption of sweeteners and vegetable oils has increased since 1990 and that the consumption of beans and corn has gone down. This may be because there are less people producing corn and beans, in other words less people spending their time on farming. More people are leaving their homes, immigrating to other nations for the sake of finding a job. Moreover, the necessity to leave behind one’s family arises from poverty. As we can see, the factors that affect development each have a root source. It seems that the common root source may be poverty, but to fix poverty one must attain a decent level of education, obtain a well-paying job that can provide for health care and prevent the necessity of split up families, which may lead to a better economy in the end. However, if income is too low to begin with, then the first step of education cannot be accomplished. Therefore, it’s a vicious cycle between poverty and economy, the two “ends” of the circle; each one leads to the other and at the same time each one is affected by the other.
Which leads me to the ultimate question: can Guatemala be more developed by the standards derived in the 2007/2008 NHDR?
The NHDR also brings in new topics to consider about Guatemala. The report mentions in Chapter 6 that an increase in life expectancy will occur “20 to 50 years later than it was achieved in developed countries and other countries in Latin America” (25). It’s astonishing to hear that Guatemala is toward the bottom of the list in terms of development in Latin America. Why is this so? A few reasons, in terms of life expectancy, can be the lack of access to healthcare and also poverty. Before we can consider improving the economy, we must work backwards and think of the factors that affect economy. The amount of labor force affects the economy, but if people are unhealthy and have short life expectancies then the size of the labor force is significantly lowered, as Grace also pointed out earlier. Of course, since so many factors directly relate to each other, it makes the process of improving development infinitely complex. However, I think the NHDR takes a thoughtful step closer to the solution through well represented statistics and diagrams. I would not say that statistics themselves can accurately describe the inner details of a country, but they can certainly help us gain an overview of the country.
Another topic of interest in the report is that of nutrition. “The percentage of the Guatemalan population suffering from obesity (5.4%) is greater than the Latin American average” (27). Once again, Guatemala is significantly set off from other Latin American countries, and according to the report Guatemala has actually increased in its obesity rate. I find it interesting that the consumption of sweeteners and vegetable oils has increased since 1990 and that the consumption of beans and corn has gone down. This may be because there are less people producing corn and beans, in other words less people spending their time on farming. More people are leaving their homes, immigrating to other nations for the sake of finding a job. Moreover, the necessity to leave behind one’s family arises from poverty. As we can see, the factors that affect development each have a root source. It seems that the common root source may be poverty, but to fix poverty one must attain a decent level of education, obtain a well-paying job that can provide for health care and prevent the necessity of split up families, which may lead to a better economy in the end. However, if income is too low to begin with, then the first step of education cannot be accomplished. Therefore, it’s a vicious cycle between poverty and economy, the two “ends” of the circle; each one leads to the other and at the same time each one is affected by the other.
Which leads me to the ultimate question: can Guatemala be more developed by the standards derived in the 2007/2008 NHDR?
Human Development and Economic Growth
Reading over the National Human Development Report I kept returning back to the main issue of development that is discussed in the beginning. The mutual reinforcement of economic growth and human development seems to be something that is completely necessary for development and also something that seems to impede any further growth. The opening statements in chapter 2 really tie in well to Sen's main argument for increasing a person's capabilities. Allowing a person to have more freedoms helps to "remove the obstacles that hinder self-fufillment." It can be seen that an increase in human development leads to an increase in economic development which is good, but the only way to increase human development is through economic growth. It is clear that one cannot exist without the other, but there is no clear way of establishing a balance that will help Guatemala increase its development.
As I continued reading the later chapters about freedom to produce, freedom to work, freedom to have this sensitive balance between economic and human development became very apparent. In discussing the health of the country, even though some improvements have been made like a growth in population, increase in life expectancy to the age of 70, and increase in educational attainment, none of these things are of high enough quality to really do any good. So until there is a population that is in a "healthy" enough state for development, it doesn't seem like an amount of capabilities will really do anything. It seems that in order to improve condition in Guatemala progress must begin from the ground up. By starting with the well-being of the people as a whole, capabilities can begin to be increased that will then lead to economic growth. But once again there may be a problem with this because none of these improvements can be made without economic backing.
Holism and Health
I found the National Human Development Report to be a very refreshing and through method of analyzing Guatemala. Many of the topics we had directly address in class are referenced in the analysis, and strongly tie back to Sen’s notions of development. As such, I thought the way in which the report took into consideration the economic and political history of the country was integral in it’s effectiveness in developing new conclusions about the current status of the country. For example, the report states that “macroeconomic stability increased [in the years of 2007-2008], internal integration increased, and the country moved towards a more democratic political model”(21). This point blank conclusion makes it sounds as if Guatemala has always had a relatively stable and established economic system for the duration of its history. If I were to read these conclusions without any background, I wouldn’t be able to make correct conclusions about the progress of the country. However, this is where the report goes deeper than just numbers, and informs the reader that this “increase was rather low” and only occurred after a debt crisis and internal armed conflict. By analyzing this data holistically, the report is more effective at estimating the improvements within the country and pinpointing productive solutions for current problems.
As the goal of the NHDR is to generate growth and measure human development in its evaluation, I was struck by some of the numbers and conclusions about the conditions of health among children and adolescents. Children are the future of any country, and their well-being is vital for the growth and success of a society. However, the malnutrition rates of children measure 55% in some rural areas of Guatemala. Health is a fundamental basis for freedom and development, and Guatemala undernourished children limits the chances of a better future. Furthermore, practically “half of the years of potential productive life (YPPL) of the working-age population (age 15-24) are lost as a result of external causes (violence and accidents), tumors, and cardiovascular diseases”(27). These numbers also suggests that Guatemala’s younger population suffers from many preventable heath related problems that in turn adversely affect the development of their country. This relationship between health and human development is an important factor for the youth of Guatemala, and represents one aspect of development that has specific implications, which need to be addressed for a brighter future in the country.
As the goal of the NHDR is to generate growth and measure human development in its evaluation, I was struck by some of the numbers and conclusions about the conditions of health among children and adolescents. Children are the future of any country, and their well-being is vital for the growth and success of a society. However, the malnutrition rates of children measure 55% in some rural areas of Guatemala. Health is a fundamental basis for freedom and development, and Guatemala undernourished children limits the chances of a better future. Furthermore, practically “half of the years of potential productive life (YPPL) of the working-age population (age 15-24) are lost as a result of external causes (violence and accidents), tumors, and cardiovascular diseases”(27). These numbers also suggests that Guatemala’s younger population suffers from many preventable heath related problems that in turn adversely affect the development of their country. This relationship between health and human development is an important factor for the youth of Guatemala, and represents one aspect of development that has specific implications, which need to be addressed for a brighter future in the country.
Health in the Guatemalan Economy
This publication address a wide range of issues affecting health in Guatemala's economy, including various types of economic organization and potential dangers the world faces as a new century begins. In a way, this publication seems to be a culmination of the major authors we have read thus far this semester. For instance, the chapters regarding the freedom to work, have, and produce, correlate with Sen's opinions of development because they are discussed as capabilities essential for freedom. Furthermore, Carol Smith and Lovell find common ground in the parts of the report (mainly the beginning) that address conceptual and historical considerations. I like the way this report ties Sen and Lovell together right before Part II stating "low levels of development produce informality, which in turn hinders modernization. However, informality is also an option for survival. The growth of the informal sector evinces a deficiency in public institutions." The variety of lessons learned in this publication will be of use to decision-makers, health and development experts, emerging civil society groups, and even groups like us in Guatemala to help guide them in better addressing the enormous risk facing all sectors of society as a result of globalization by enabling them to take advantage of the tremendous potential this process affords.
Falling Short
Is the economy of Guatemala devoted to human development? From the perspective of Amartya Sen, is Guatemala's economy devoted to freedom? There were a multitude of areas addressed in the summary of the National Human Development Report. Many of the topics that were raised and discussed reminded me of many of the same arguments that Sen brought up in Development as Freedom. The fact that there was even a section concerned with human capital was somewhat expected, but comforting to see. It appears as if the country of Guatemala has had it its plan for many decades to provide the necessary resources in order for human development and consequently its economy to be at its peak. There are, however, many areas in which they seem to be lacking certain and necessary components.
The summary of the NHDR states that Guatemala believes that having both a democracy and free markets would surely lead to "prosperity, development, and well-being for the majority of the population" (9). This idea is synonymous with that of Sen's argument for treating the people as agents. When the people are involved in making decisions and feel as if they are contributing to the economy, both the people and the economy in question are bound to thrive. The NHDR also presents another idea that suggests economic growth is the means or medium by which human development is achieved. I believe that there is a paradigm that can be developed from that thought. If the goal of human development is accomplished, then the success of the people will ultimately feed back into the success of the economy encouraging the same growth that sparked the whole thing. Therefore the human development that will hopefully lead to freedom has become a means in addition to the ends. I feel as if this was the plan that Guatemala had in mind for achieving both economic growth and human development, but there was one major problem among others that in my opinion put a dent in those plans. As some others have mentioned, the well-being of Guatemala's economy is troubled by inequality.
There are three main areas that tear this country apart and make it virtually impossible for the larger human development. The percentage of the population suffering from poverty and poverty like conditions is astounding. Over half of the population is living under these conditions while a very small percentage hold a stunning majority of the country's wealth. Two major themes that were regarded as valuable human capabilities according to Sen are access to effective healthcare and a good education. Once again, there is certainly inequality when is comes to the distribution of these two entities throughout the population. Many people in Guatemala are still dying from preventable and curable diseases because they lack the option of and/or accessibility to decent healthcare. There are many of the working age 15 to 24 who barely have a 6th grade education. Healthy and educated citizens certainly contribute to the well being of the country and the strength of its economy. If only a very small percentage of the population has the necessary human capabilities, then the overall human development will be insufficient to power economic development. Chapter 6 of the summary concludes Guatemala's struggle so well... "Without a well-nourished healthy and hightly qualified population, it will be difficult to build a better future for everyone". Without eliminating the inequality within the country, Guatemala will unfortunately continue to fall short in constructing an economy achieving human development.
The summary of the NHDR states that Guatemala believes that having both a democracy and free markets would surely lead to "prosperity, development, and well-being for the majority of the population" (9). This idea is synonymous with that of Sen's argument for treating the people as agents. When the people are involved in making decisions and feel as if they are contributing to the economy, both the people and the economy in question are bound to thrive. The NHDR also presents another idea that suggests economic growth is the means or medium by which human development is achieved. I believe that there is a paradigm that can be developed from that thought. If the goal of human development is accomplished, then the success of the people will ultimately feed back into the success of the economy encouraging the same growth that sparked the whole thing. Therefore the human development that will hopefully lead to freedom has become a means in addition to the ends. I feel as if this was the plan that Guatemala had in mind for achieving both economic growth and human development, but there was one major problem among others that in my opinion put a dent in those plans. As some others have mentioned, the well-being of Guatemala's economy is troubled by inequality.
There are three main areas that tear this country apart and make it virtually impossible for the larger human development. The percentage of the population suffering from poverty and poverty like conditions is astounding. Over half of the population is living under these conditions while a very small percentage hold a stunning majority of the country's wealth. Two major themes that were regarded as valuable human capabilities according to Sen are access to effective healthcare and a good education. Once again, there is certainly inequality when is comes to the distribution of these two entities throughout the population. Many people in Guatemala are still dying from preventable and curable diseases because they lack the option of and/or accessibility to decent healthcare. There are many of the working age 15 to 24 who barely have a 6th grade education. Healthy and educated citizens certainly contribute to the well being of the country and the strength of its economy. If only a very small percentage of the population has the necessary human capabilities, then the overall human development will be insufficient to power economic development. Chapter 6 of the summary concludes Guatemala's struggle so well... "Without a well-nourished healthy and hightly qualified population, it will be difficult to build a better future for everyone". Without eliminating the inequality within the country, Guatemala will unfortunately continue to fall short in constructing an economy achieving human development.
Inequalities inhibit human development
The report helped me to understand why Guatemala, with its economic improvements, continues to fall behind in human development. The report stated, "The more freedom and human development people have, the more productive they become." This idea reflects Sen's approach well. Freedom and choice play a very important role in a person's perception of his/her own situation. It's not enough to have a growing economy. Human development must be increasing as well. In Guatemala, however, great inequality is denying people their freedoms and further inhibiting human development. Inequality is one of the main issues holding human development back. It’s not only that the country’s wealth is unequally distributed, but also its education, income, population, bank loans and infrastructure among other things. The fact that this inequality is so widespread in all aspects of the country makes it difficult to address. Therefore, the solution to improving Guatemala’s human development and economy is to make changes in many different areas. Redistributing the wealth is not enough because inequality of income and wealth creates social divides that have to be dealt with as well. The concluding remarks of the report reflect this broad need for change. In the four axes that are addressed every aspect of life is presented. While I agree that its important to tackle all these axes and not let one group fall behind it also seems to be very difficult. I think the best way Guatemala can hope to improve is to make small changes to each area. In this way the bar of economic growth and human development is being raised in unison. If one axis grows too fast while another lags behind the bar will dip and may make attaining goals harder or impossible.
On an unrelated note, I had another more specific thought while reading chaper 7 on the freedom to produce. I related the conflict of mining in Guatemala to the history of the mining industry in the United States. The differences in the two reflect the eras in which they occurred. Unlike the United States, Guatemala is attempting to develop its economy in an age where environmental activism is prevalent. When the mining industry took off in the United States, the negative impacts of mining on the environment were much less understood. Therefore the growth of the mining industry was not limited and mining became an important factor in industrialization. Guatemala, however, must take into account this additional factor. Mining offers an important way to spur economic growth. On the other hand, a responsibility to the environment must be considered.
Inquiries on Terminology
The National Human Development Report (NHDR) for 2007/2008 provided a lot of important information to further our studies of Guatemala. However, there were a few aspects that I was uncertain about. Like Grace, I found the part about the media to be intriguing as well. When I read that television was the primary new outlet, a few questions arose. How many Guatemalan households contain televisions? What percentage of these television owners are Ladinos and what percentage are Mayans? Are there any Mayan networks? If approximately 50% of the country is impoverished, how is it possible that television is the main source of information in Guatemala?
Another part of this report that stood out to me was the title of the sections, such as “Freedom to produce,” “Freedom to work,” “Freedom to have,” and “Freedom to consume worthy goods.” It is important to question how the NHDR defines freedom. Yes, more indigenous people have entered the work force in the past 25 years. Yet I found this contradiction rather interesting: the NHDR first states, “The number of indigenous working-age population choosing or having the opportunity to enter the labor market is also noteworthy: the participation rate of indigenous people grew, from around 49.6% in 1989 to almost 61.7 % in 2006.” However, within the conclusion of this section they point out “Only a small and privileged group, composed mainly of non- indigenous, urban, educated men, enjoys full freedom to work.” If at first they note that the indigenous Guatemalans have the choice and opportunity to work but then say that only a small group of non-indigenous people have the full freedom to work, then what exactly does the NHDR mean by freedom? Also, why is the section, “Freedom to have,” titled as so if it mentions the inequality in production distribution?
Similar to the U.S and other countries throughout the world, the importance of education is evident. In general, the more educated a person is, the better job they obtain, the more income they will make, and the healthier they will be. It seems like education is the root many problems within a country, but a poor family needs all members to work instead of taking the time to go to school. This makes it difficult to move to a higher socioeconomic status. However, I wonder if a Ladino still has more occupational opportunities than a more educated indigenous Guatemalan.
Lastly, I was wondering if anyone could explain to me “non-labor income.” I don’t know much about economics and I tried looking it up online but couldn’t find any additional information. According to the NHDR, it significantly reduces poverty, so it must be important. Although I don’t know exactly what non-income labor is, I can detect discrepancies in its distribution: “Non-indigenous, female-headed households from high socioeconomic strata receive the largest income.” If the point is to redistribute wealth, wouldn't they want the poorest families to receive more additional income?
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
I found the National Human Development Report (NHDR) for 2007/2008 to be both consistent with what we have learned in class as well as inclusive of many aspects of development I was not aware of. It was comforting to see that every sector of development this report accounts for showed improvement in about the last thirty years. At the same time however, I could not ignore the fact that land issues continued to prevail as failing attempts to develop, as well as overall failures as a country to reach the improvement level desired and essential for human development. I thought the connection between human development and economic development was especially intriguing with regard to the “bi-directional” link. Although it may seem obvious, “the more freedom and human development people have, the more productive they become” which thereby stimulates economic development. I appreciated that the report included arguments such as this seeing as I find it to be absolutely true, but more importantly understated by economists especially. In this sense it seems as though the authors of this report would agree with Sen.
Of the areas focused on in this report I found education and health to be most important (this is obviously just my opinion). Although life expectancy has increased and educational funding has as well, both still need significant improvement. With an emerging working-age population that maintains a rate of 12.2% illiteracy and a population that still suffers from preventable diseases on a regular basis it seems almost inconsequential that improvements have been made. These two areas are also directly related to the economy since unhealthy, uneducated people are not going to be able to contribute nearly as much to the labor force as those who were the opposite. It seems as though it sometimes takes the most basic of improvements to build the foundation for monumental change.
Another interesting point was that the minimum wage in 2006 only covered 64% of the cost of the Vital Basic Basket (VBB) and furthermore, that half of the EP does not earn the minimum wage. Aside from this statistic being extremely disheartening and somewhat barbaric, I found it even more surprising that with rates like this such a small percentage of people participated in unions. However, on second thought it seemed rather characteristic (at least of the indigenous people) to oppose organized and communal resistance like a union would support.
Because of the current economic system Guatemalans are faced with, the migration pattern does not surprise me. However, I was a little caught off guard to learn that the father usually traveled alone to the United States (or wherever else) in seek of better economic opportunities. Although financially it makes sense, the Guatemalan commitment to family and loyalty to their country made me realize the horrible situation many Guatemalans must be faced with in order to take such extreme measures.
Finally, the section on media was both new and intriguing to me for many reasons. The report stated television as the primary way current news reaches Guatemalan citizens yet it also said that private interests still restrict freedom of expression. I would like to know more about this topic, especially with regard to how the news is portrayed, seeing as if the citizens are being misguided by biased information (which I assume to be true) the development of the nation is probably being suspended and prolonged.
Indiginous Resistence in Guatemala vs. Mexico
My initial response to the Sixth Declaration of the Selva Lacandona was that the Zapatistas had a lot of the same needs and goals as the Maya resistance movements. Despite differences in the seriousness and specificis of their situations, both the Mexican Zapatistas and the Guatemalan indians wanted to be free of economic, political, and violent persecution and exploitation. They don't trust the capitalist system, because they have been forced to change their type of living in response to economic repression and globalization. Rebels from both nations attempted to protest through politics and sometimes violence. However, isolating themselves from the overarching capitalist system was also a method of living out their ideas.
Even more interesting to me than the similarities are the differences in the overall goals of the two groups. The Zapatistas, according to the Declaration, are trying to unify different oppressed groups throughout the world. They see capitalism and neoliberalism as the ultimate antagonists towards freedom and fairness. Contrarily, while the Guatemalan indians certainly were victims of economic exploitation, they focused inwards on their own cultures. They emphasized their customs and communicated very little with the outside world. The community remained the central focus; even when people from different tribes formed CPR's, they did not organize into larger supraregional political groups (Milborn 167). Our readings so far suggest that the indíginas viewed Guatemalan ladinos and the military as the main opressors, instead of global economic problems.
In the Declaration, the Zapatistas refer to Argentina, Honduras, and several other Latin American countries. The Zapatistas sympathize and want to work together with resistance movements from these countries. Interestingly, they don't mention Guatemala, even though the indíginas in that country experienced the worst violent persecution. Maybe this is because of the time difference in the movements (since the Declaration was written only a few years ago, while technically the Guatemalan civil war ended during the 1990's). However, as we have discussed in class, the Guatemalan indíginas still experience poverty and prejudice. Maybe the Zapatistas don't mention Guatemala, because it the movement there seems much more isolated and the focus is around communities instead of global action.
Of course, there are many reasons that the Guatemalan resistance movements were isolated. The language barriers, cultural differences, and even transportation issues made it difficult for indíginas to unite even within Guatemala. Additionally, the military's systematic violence toward the indíginas was certainly successful in many ways. On the other hand, the Zapatistas in Mexico probably had much more freedom to communicate with other groups in Mexico and even the rest of the world. By confronting capitalism instead of a specific group (the ladinos), the Zapatistas may be more able to expand their support base.
Based on the readings, the difference appears to be the intensity of prejudice as a cause of social and economic problems. We know that in Guatemala, the Maya were almost always the targets of violence and oppression, especially during the height of the Civil War in the early 1980’s. While there were and still are poor ladinos, they do not face the same types of prejudice and have greater social mobility. The indíginas' cultures and not their economic statuses, determined how they would be treated. Conversely, the Zapatistas seek cooperation from all the poor people everywhere, and even other disenfranchised and persecuted groups, such as homosexuals, religious workers, factory laborers, and even women. In fact, even though the Declaration opposed the United States government, it recognizes that even some Americans could be considered part of the anti-neoliberal movement and invites their participation.
I can’t actually say how much of the Declaration is just rhetoric and how much of it is accurate in describing the movement’s actions and goals. Although I don't know very much about the Zapatista movement in general, my conclusion, based on the reading, is that the Zapatistas' mission is attempting to look outward and gain support from a wide variety of groups throughout the world. However, the indíginas in Guatemala, because of communication barriers and cultural/community focus, did the opposite and fought oppression largely alone.
Even more interesting to me than the similarities are the differences in the overall goals of the two groups. The Zapatistas, according to the Declaration, are trying to unify different oppressed groups throughout the world. They see capitalism and neoliberalism as the ultimate antagonists towards freedom and fairness. Contrarily, while the Guatemalan indians certainly were victims of economic exploitation, they focused inwards on their own cultures. They emphasized their customs and communicated very little with the outside world. The community remained the central focus; even when people from different tribes formed CPR's, they did not organize into larger supraregional political groups (Milborn 167). Our readings so far suggest that the indíginas viewed Guatemalan ladinos and the military as the main opressors, instead of global economic problems.
In the Declaration, the Zapatistas refer to Argentina, Honduras, and several other Latin American countries. The Zapatistas sympathize and want to work together with resistance movements from these countries. Interestingly, they don't mention Guatemala, even though the indíginas in that country experienced the worst violent persecution. Maybe this is because of the time difference in the movements (since the Declaration was written only a few years ago, while technically the Guatemalan civil war ended during the 1990's). However, as we have discussed in class, the Guatemalan indíginas still experience poverty and prejudice. Maybe the Zapatistas don't mention Guatemala, because it the movement there seems much more isolated and the focus is around communities instead of global action.
Of course, there are many reasons that the Guatemalan resistance movements were isolated. The language barriers, cultural differences, and even transportation issues made it difficult for indíginas to unite even within Guatemala. Additionally, the military's systematic violence toward the indíginas was certainly successful in many ways. On the other hand, the Zapatistas in Mexico probably had much more freedom to communicate with other groups in Mexico and even the rest of the world. By confronting capitalism instead of a specific group (the ladinos), the Zapatistas may be more able to expand their support base.
Based on the readings, the difference appears to be the intensity of prejudice as a cause of social and economic problems. We know that in Guatemala, the Maya were almost always the targets of violence and oppression, especially during the height of the Civil War in the early 1980’s. While there were and still are poor ladinos, they do not face the same types of prejudice and have greater social mobility. The indíginas' cultures and not their economic statuses, determined how they would be treated. Conversely, the Zapatistas seek cooperation from all the poor people everywhere, and even other disenfranchised and persecuted groups, such as homosexuals, religious workers, factory laborers, and even women. In fact, even though the Declaration opposed the United States government, it recognizes that even some Americans could be considered part of the anti-neoliberal movement and invites their participation.
I can’t actually say how much of the Declaration is just rhetoric and how much of it is accurate in describing the movement’s actions and goals. Although I don't know very much about the Zapatista movement in general, my conclusion, based on the reading, is that the Zapatistas' mission is attempting to look outward and gain support from a wide variety of groups throughout the world. However, the indíginas in Guatemala, because of communication barriers and cultural/community focus, did the opposite and fought oppression largely alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)