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.