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?