By Vinnie Rodriguez
On a Sunday morning, we visited an indigenous community in the municipality of Tepoztlán, Mexico. As we met with one of the community leaders in his house, he shared with us why his piece of land and the general land is so important to his community. We talked a lot about how various laws and policies have led to the privatization of this land and the affects it has on the rights of the indigenous community. According to him, it is not viewed positively. He defined private property as “an invention of oppression that systems of power have made up”, and that oppression is unfortunately a part of the indigenous reality that they must face day-to-day. Here’s an explanation of what I mean.
When the Spanish first arrived in Mexico during the Spanish Conquest, they took over Mexico—especially, the land.
[This part of the mural in the Palacio de Cortez by Diego Rivera represents the Spanish Conquest and how the indigenous people are sometimes represented by animals in the image]
From then on, the Spanish considered the Mexican natives as animals and used them for forced labor for their own economic benefit. Because the natives/indigenous weren’t seen as people, they had no right to the land which they originally had inhabited, and Spanish were considered to be at the top of the class system while the indigenous were left at the bottom of the pit.
[This part of Diego Rivera’s mural depicts the obvious distinction of class and duty between the Spanish and the indigenous people.]
As a result, it has been a struggle for indigenous people to keep their land. Article 27 was one important step. It stated that communal and ejido land cannot be taken, bought, or sold. However, in 1990, President Carlos Salinas de Gordali reversed Article 27 in an effort to put NAFTA in place, which meant that constitutional rights to ejido and communal land were eliminated and land can now be privatized or sold.
Not only are foreign institutions developing without considering indigenous values, but their very own Mexican government has a history of not including the indigenous community in economic development. Sometimes, it’s because of a clash in cultural values as well. For example, Chiapas has 33% of its population without light, but provides 52% of the electric population in the country. Why? The community leader says it’s because they are considered an obstacle to the nation’s plan. The government says they don’t want to develop, but it’s because the plans don’t line up with the values of their society. For example, after receiving dozens of letters from the indigenous community leader, the government finally came to them with a development project idea to build fish farms, and they laughed and refused to allow it unless the government would bring sufficient water into their community first. The government used that as an excuse to say the indigenous didn’t want to develop. This
miscommunication along with the clash of cultural principles is what causes so much trouble for the indigenous communities. When the Spanish took the ejido (communal) land, they paid gold in exchange, but they didn’t understand the significance of the land to the indigenous.
[This painting was done on one of the walls of the dorm where we stay here in Mexico. What does it make you think about privatization and globalization?]
Because of the examples above, it is very difficult for an indigenous community to have a say in their own land and their own rights when they have to deal with the obstacles of their very own government and the rapid pace of globalization fever of foreign investors to buy out land. It almost seems to me as though foreign corporations and investors perceive themselves to have more rights over the ejido (communal) land than the indigenous communities do. Privatization is benefitting big corporations and big government who have the (financial) power to make these transactions. From the surface, Mexico’s economy has historically boomed from NAFTA, which is all foreigners need to know to be convinced into investing, and small Mexican communities can thus be ignored. The real question is about cash flow: who does the money really go to? How can a small indigenous town become a voice and beneficiary in the global decision-making process? Do they have to change their beliefs and customs so to favor the government and thus then be included in decisions? Or do they stand their ground, protect their community, and risk resistance by the government and pressure from global corporations? If economic prosperity is measured by how much land one can buy, then will they ever be financially successful if they believe in keeping their land as a part of the community? However, we also need to look at the issue from another side. Would it necessarily be a good thing if the globalization/privatization process were reversed? Will that actually help the indigenous community or Mexico as a whole? Does Mexico need more or less foreign investment if it wants to “move up the ranks”?
"Do they have to change their beliefs and customs so to favor the government and thus then be included in decisions?"
ResponderEliminarVinnie's comment resonated with a revelation I had while reading a definition of globalization in class. I am interested in globalization as it relates to conformity. As a citizen of the most powerful globalizing nation, I find that I continually expect other countries (Mexico in particular) to look to the United States as the perfect model for global economic, political, and cultural success. After reflecting on the class session however, I have come to realize that my mindset is perhaps a product of globalization. It seems that the overarching dominance of western society in the global environment has led me to conclude that there is a formula for global success, and its name is the United States of America. However, I'm glad to have been able to take a step back from my idea of a "perfect" world to see that my concept of global peace and prosperity is not universal. Long live diversity.
Hola! I was really excited to see that you mentioned Tepoltzlan! I spent a month at the Tashirat Community in Tepoltzlan in January of 2008. The mountains, the people and their culture make for a pretty magical place.
ResponderEliminarYour blog touched upon some of the same issues we are seeing over here in Thailand. In a time when development seems inevitable I worry about the indigenous cultures and their sustainability. Can a balance be found between the needs of the ever growing industry and the rural poor? Livelihoods that depend upon the land around them are at a constant threat for survival. I continue to see a lack of communication between villagers and their government. Incorporating local people in to development planning could reduce the negative impacts that are most often seen with development.
Enjoy your time in México and if you can visit Tashirat! The community which started as a learning center has expanded by adopted 25 children, started a school and grows a lot of their own food. Good people to talk with!!
www.tashirat.com...info@tashiratkids.org
Tany Horgan - CIEE Thailand Spring 2009
Hola! All of you have made me think about the issue of development and how destructive it has been. We tend to sacrifice long term, sustainability, for the short-term pleasure or feeling of success. The difference in values prevents the government from respecting and including indigenous communities to participate in development planning. I see it as a plain clash of interests.
ResponderEliminarIn my experiences in Thailand, I have noticed how local communities want to protect the land from development as it does much irreversible damage. They know the land best, as they have been living with the land for many years. The government and big companies are aware of this, so they consciously choose not to involve local communities, as they know they have different ideas of development.
So how can indigenous/ local communities survive in an overwhelming world of development? The only hope I have is through education. Education is very powerful, but needs to be used for the common good, not corruption. We, as students, can spread the awareness through communication, as we are doing right now. Once people know both the good and the bad affects of their decisions, they can choose knowingly.
--Piper - CIEE-Thailand - Spring 2009
Hola Vinnie! Me gusto mucho tus commentarios! Land rights, particularly in terms of local and indigenous communities have also been on my mind recently in Thailand.
ResponderEliminarDuring our last unit, I was staying in Nong Jahn, a community currently living "illegally" on National Park Land. Despite being on that land long before it was ever declared a National Park, these people cannot get land titles to prove that they have rights to the land, or to keep them from being evicted from it.
I was sitting in an exchange with the National Park Department one rainy afternoon when I thought to myself, "Man, what a ridiculous thing this owning of land is." The National Park has said that they will only evict the people of Nong Jahn if they can find suitable land as replacement. But really, what land will be as beautiful, as resourceful, as bountiful as this National Park Land... except other National Park Land. Hmm.. tough spot.
OF COURSE there were people living on this land by the time the Park Service declared it a park in 1991! They have said themselves, it has mountains, rivers, animals, good soil. Its not as if people hundreds of years ago would have avoided this land just in case it would be preserved by the government in the future. No! They would live on it and take care of it and develop and nurture the resources they receive from it.
What odd and arbitrary things we do sometimes... I can't help but agree with the community leader that owning land is only an "invention of power."
You have some very interesting ideas. I was inspired by your questions at the end.
ResponderEliminarThe question, "if economic prosperity is measured by how much land one can buy, then will they ever be financially successful if they believe in keeping their land as a part of the community?" As Cortney mentioned above, Nong Jahn village is iving "illegally" on National Park land, which was declared such AFTER they had been living on it for a few decades. National Park Act of 1961 explicitly prohibits the use of designated land for holding or possessing land, colecting natural resources, hunting or catchinig animals,and deteriorating soil, to name a few. These restrictions and inability to receive land titles leave their access to food, water, work, and culture extremely insecure. Any of these could be taken away with the stroke of a pen. Since Nong Jahn is not elligable to receive the Chanod land title (a permanent right to land if occupied before the 1940s) nor any other land title (many of which re inadequete for the community's needs and are temporary), many villagers have expressed interest in a community land title. This would allow them to own and manage land as a community, and ensure that the common areas and infrastructure are protected; thus securing and preserving individual households' homes and the village's community-based culture. To answer your question, if the government develops a community land title, it will allow the community to remain "financially successful". Although, I think that what ACTUALLY needs to change is the way we think about things, which is the point of your question. We measure everything in terms of economic gain. For Nong Jahn and many other communities we've visited (such as the river villages affected by dams), life did not need economic participation until recently. They were 100% sustainable, in the TRUE sense of the word.
-Sarah Robinson
CIEE Thailand Spring 2009
I wanted to comment on Sara’s response about land rights in Nang Jahn. Nang Jahn has been living peacefully with no land title (meaning no legal documents whatsoever) for over 60 years. However, they have been in jeopardy of loosing their land for the past 20 years ever since the government turned the land they live on into a national forest. In this particular case the government has denied Nang Jahn’s petition for a land title in order to preserve the National Forest. Because the village has no land titles proving their residence before 1940, the government has refused to issue them permanent residence. Therefore, if the government were to grant them land rights it would open the door for future communities to form on the preserved land. In the US there are groups who devote their entire lives to the preservation of land and the creation of National Forests. It would be very unlikely that these groups would open the door (legally) for cases such as this.
ResponderEliminar- Tyler Jackson, CIEE Thailand
It is amazing how much your experiences connect with our semester in Thailand. As other people have already said, the issue of the government and big businesses having control over indigenous individuals and communities is very present in this country as well.
ResponderEliminarWe just came back from a homestay in a community who is fighting against the construction of a potash mine. As evidenced by other mines around the country, and in other countries as well, the potash mine will have devastating effects on the people in the community and on the environment. It will make the soil saltier, harming the agriculture and way of life of the villagers. It will also most likely displace many of the villagers who are currently living in the area where the mine will be built.
After meeting with community leaders and also representatives from the mine, it is so frustrating and confusing to see the differences in beliefs. The mining reps thought that the mine was needed for the economic development for the region and the country. The villagers thought that this mine would destroy their traditional culture and way of life. After thinking about your questions, I have a couple more as well - How does one reconcile the differences in core beliefs? Is their some way that there can be a balance of what indigenous cultures want and need and what governments want and need? And how can one value some needs over others?
Thanks for your great post!
Julia Lee - CIEE Thailand
What really struck me in this post was your description of the class hierarchy in Mexico, with the Spanish at the top and the indigenous people at the bottom. In Thailand, a similar caste system remains in place. Thailand was never officially "colonized" but Thai ethnic people technically only live in the central part of the country.
ResponderEliminarWhere CIEE is located, Northeast Thailand is where Isaan people live. The food, the people, and the language are all different in Isaan than in Bangkok. Instead of an "outside" colonizing force like the Spanish in Mexico, Thailand is full of domestic colonization by the ethnic Thai population in central Thailand.
The people of Isaan struggle to secure their land, most of which they do not own. In a country where 90% of the land is owned by 10% of the people, the lack of land titles is a burden carried by most.
Thanks for your post!
-Melissa
In response to Tany Horgan’s comment, I agree there are many similarities between Vinnie’s portrayals of the parallels between Thailand and Mexico, in terms of security of tenure. The poor of Thailand have seen there land rights violated multiple times, including forced evictions, limited use of resources for their land, and even limited land owner rights for the land 100 meters into the earth. Often times the poor are asked to make sacrifices for large scale developmental programs in the name of a greater good. These projects are designed to help the poor, why then should the very people supposed to benefit in reality gain nothing, often having their way of life changed forever. This is the problem; people putting profit over other people. How is it fair that a few receive huge rewards for building large developmental projects, such as dams and mines, while the poor are negatively impacted? There is no public participation, which is weird when the projects are focused on the benefit of the poor, but the government does not even ask what the poor need or want.
ResponderEliminarSam, CIEE Thailand
Everyone seems to be chatting about land rights on this blog! While it was something we looked so closely in Nong Jahn and the slum communities we stayed in, land ownership in Thailand was an issue I had a very hard time understanding. The history and therefore philosophy of land ownership is so different from America. My family owns my house, and someone else owned it before we bought it. There is no fear involved; that's all there is. In Thailand, until not too long ago, the monarch owned all land. When one day, land ownership was introduced, many villages sold their land, thinking of it as free money. They had never needed ownership to live and work on their land before, so of course they would accept money to continue doing more of the same. And that is why so many people have no ownership of their land, which is a problem now when land has been comodified and so many other things, such as electricity and education, are intricately tied to land ownership as well.
ResponderEliminar--Margo Silverman
The concept of belonging to and living for one’s land was a foreign idea to me until listening to this talk Vinnie speaks of by Nacho in Amatlán. In the United States, private property reigns and everyone in my neighborhood puts up fences to surround their own yard. You own your house, front yard, backyard, driveway, and plants, but it is considered “trespassing” to go without permission onto another’s “land.” In addition, I do not see the same connection to the actual “land” from the people in the United States as I see here in Mexico. For example, in the U.S., institutionalized religions don’t always mention the land and usually include services held within the walls of a church or temple, whereas many indigenous religions are based in the land and are held outdoors in order to connect with the surrounding environment. In addition, many followers of indigenous religions see their beliefs and a respect for the land as intertwined with everyday living, rather than as tasks to complete and think about only on certain days on the week.
ResponderEliminarNacho says that he and his people are not owners of the land. Rather, they belong to the land. “The land needs the energy of this wind, this sun, this rain, and these animals. By privatizing the land, you prevent it from having access to all of this and flourishing.” They talk of the corn seeds harvested for generations upon generations, which allows us to “taste the love and hard work of their abuelas hundreds of years earlier.” After the ceremony in the sacred spot at the base of the mountain, Nacho talked of the “civilized world” from which we just came. He said with all the noise, congestion, competition, and business, he does not think it is possible to find peace there. However, when we one with nature, respecting the land around us, that is where we can truly find peace within ourselves.
Ok, I hope I can say this clearly the second time (this computer deleted my previous attempt), but I wanted to reflect on the idea of property being an “invention of power” and how increased power divisions in turn seems to disconnect people more. I couldn’t help but think about the concept of a ‘fence.’ I don’t know the history of fences really, but I’m guessing they showed up around the time when property laws were invented (why else would anyone care?). A fence is a physical representation of the barrier between “mine” and “yours,” helping to solidify that in legal terms. More than legal terms however, I see fences as something that affects the communal psyche of a neighborhood – it seems easier to rely on yourself and your own resources if you have a representation of what is “yours” than it would be without a fence.
ResponderEliminarI hardly see fences here in Thailand. On our home stays, half the time I don’t even know who exactly is in our family or where exactly their ‘property’ ends – they walk, talk, and share so freely with each other. I’ve never felt such a strong community ambience before coming here. I don’t sense hierarchy or distrust. It’s refreshing, to say the least.
Lisa Bruckner - CIEE Thailand
Out here in Thailand, its not always clear what it means for a people to be indigenous, or even ethnically “Thai.” There are, however, people who have been living on and with the land and its natural resources for decades or even centuries. Today, those people are being forced to adapt to the pressures of national development projects. I’ve often wondered why it is that projects such as dams, mines, and deforestation always seem to disrupt the traditional ways of living. In the cases of people who live with the natural resources around them, their way of life has supported their community for many generations. But this sustainable way of living does not support the centralized way of life the government is working to promote. I’m thinking specifically of a way of life that is often termed “modern.” One dependent on unseen contributors for food, electricity, water, and many other resources people take for granted. If we are to ever solve the problems of these communities, I think we’ve got to rethink how our socities are going to develop. There must be some way to strike a balance between industrial and economic development with the preservation of culture, and traditional way of life.
ResponderEliminarHi Vinnie!
ResponderEliminarIt’s really interesting to read about the land rights issues in Mexico because most of the villages that we have visited are struggling to gain rights to their land as well.
Although Thailand has never been colonized, the villagers in slums, forest communities and other villages across the country are fighting against the government and government companies for the right to live on the land they have been inhabiting for their whole lives.
I, along with 14 other students studying at Khon Kaen University, visited Nong Jon village, in the Loei province in order to write a Human Rights report on the human rights violations taking place. Although they were living in relative peace at the time that we visited them, they have been evicted twice within the past 30 years. The first time the government evicted them because they were rounding up forest communities in order to expose communists who were hiding in the forest. The second time the government evicted them because the land on which the villagers lived was declared a national park. Both evictions were forceful and sometimes violent. And they did not receive adequate compensation for either.
It is unfortunate that such issues seem to be occurring all over the world.
Word to the above statements. I've been thinking about the question you posed: does Mexico need more or less foreign investment to "move up into the ranks"?
ResponderEliminarWhy does Mexico (or Thailand) even need to ask itself that question? Has globalization just made countries insecure in their own way of doing things? One common thread I see is the blanketing of diversity. For instance, corporations and government officials love aggregate numbers because they are easy to manipulate, and sugar coat. What the statistics don't mention is that indigenous communities, and other marginalized groups are making sacrifices for the supposedly "greater good" and reaping none of the supposed benefits.
More foreign investment is hard to separate from more foreign involvement in the political economy. Like the swine flu that is apparently a big deal right now. The origins of the pandemic lie in an industrial pig farm located in Mexico, but it is owned by a U.S. based company. Who's accountable? The U.S. or Mexico?
Along the lines of what Jenny posted, my ideas of "success" have been challenged a lot this far on a personal level, but I have not yet considered it on an international level. There seems to be a constant struggle for power from countries; governments want more money, more influence, and more development. Who ever made this standard for success? Why did I grow up thinking I needed to move out of my hometown to be successful? And why do countries want to "move up into the ranks"? These are questions I haven't fully answered myself, because international politics is something I don't understand as well as my own day-to-day interactions. I do suspect that government's desire for power on the international scale is somewhat influenced by the voices of its citizens. Isn't that the case in America? I mean, I know i've heard the assertion that we are the most powerful nation in the world or whatever, and that we needed to go to war in order to protect that status. Well now I can ask, what if I don't care if I'm living in the "most powerful nation"? I just want to live, and be happy.
ResponderEliminarLand rights are a big issue in Thailand. In our time with villagers from the Northeast, we have seen that not owning land has led to a lack of access to food, water, housing, education, and other fundamental benefits that should be guaranteed as human rights.
ResponderEliminarTo see that the indigenous peoples of Mexico view private property as “an invention of oppression that systems of power have made up” displays a distinct problem within Thailand. Many of the villagers here feel that their inability to have legal land titles means the eventual eviction by the government for development projects. For villagers, public ("shared land") entails giving their rice fields to the 'greater good' of the country.
-Perla, CIEE Thailand
Beyond the devaluing of cultural ties, many have been displaced as land has been taken or sold by the government or private companies. In Thailand, villagers either lose their land, or can no longer depend on community resources (community forests, waterways, etc.) for subsistence. Villagers have to rely more on money, and as a result are forced to search for secondary sources of income, often involving some sort of a migration to another location for work.
ResponderEliminarThis is the case for many villagers who live in slum communities in Khon Kaen. Unable to afford other housing, they are forced to intrude on land owned by the State Railroad of Thailand (SRT). Villagers once again face issues of land ownership as both state and private investors lay (or attempt to buy) claim to the land. They lack formal ownership of the land altogether or have impermanent rental agreements. The threat of eviction is constant.
-Rebecca Haverson, CIEE Thailand
Hi Vinnie,
ResponderEliminarThank you for your thought-provoking post. In your post, you said that “Not only are foreign institutions developing without considering indigenous values, but their very own Mexican government has a history of not including the indigenous community in economic development”. We have seen this happening in Thailand too, and I am sure it is happening in many other places as well. Time and time again, villagers are left out of decisions making processes and economic development is pursued without their input. On our last unit learning about dams and water issues, we saw a huge, hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-costing dam that was built for the purpose of providing irrigation water to farmers. Not only did the dam have disastrous effects for river peoples’ environments, livelihoods, and ways of life, but it did a pretty terrible job of providing irrigation water. Villagers, however, have come up with their own system of irrigation that is more effective, a ton cheaper, and can be done without building a dam and destroying one people’s livelihood to provide for another’s. Had these villagers been involved in the decision-making process, the government could have avoided building the dam and saved millions and millions of dollars.
--Kelsey Birza, CIEE Thailand
Thailand has never been colonized, but here we’ve seen a lot of similar practices enacted by the government against “native” people living off the land. I’ve been especially struck by the stigma that surrounds views of villagers or hilltribes here. Just as in Mexico where indigenous people were seen as “animals,” the equivalent people here are seen as backwards, uncivil and dirty. This stigma has been woven through many of our units, and it has resulted in a lot of young people leaving behind their families in villages and moving to cities for a more “progressive” lifestyle. Government policy on land rights don’t really help things either. The Nang John community is a perfect example of land rights being denied a whole group of people just because the Thai government decided to come in and designate their traditional land a national forest. There are thousands and thousands of others in the same situation. There is this huge disconnect between government and villagers, and it seems that nobody really understands anybody. I hope with a more balanced distribution of information and viewpoints that the stigma and misunderstanding will one day be lessened. I really appreciated your questions at the end. They were really thought provoking.
ResponderEliminarMy own experience in Thailand has made me ponder over the definition of – a higher standard of living. Do T.Vs and cars necessarily increase a peoples’ quality of life? In some cases, knowledge of world events and transportation to more job opportunities would be beneficial. However, I feel like a lot of the time these things are used as status symbols versus actual qualifiers for betterment of livelihood.
ResponderEliminarIn Isaan, people have fought tooth and nail to be able to live the way their ancestors did. They have suffered the effects of poorly devised development schemes, such as the Pak Mun Dam. The hydropower generator was approved and undertaken blindly, with a complete disregard to the environment and its local people. The dam was being built in hopes of creating enough energy to develop the Isaan region of Thailand. 30 years later, the dam produces no significant amount of electricity and has lead to the flooding of farmland, a decrease in wildlife and one of the longest lasting protests to date. It has been labeled a failure by the World Commission on Dams, the World Bank and others.
I feel like a resistance to development may be seen by most westerners as ignorant. However, that is not most often the case with traditional groups of people. The fact that they want to stay in the ‘dark ages’ is a petty stereotype. In Isaan, parents regard their children’s education as a serious priority. So much so, that paying for the next generation’s schooling is what causes this generation to go into debt. A burden they undertake willingly in hopes of creating a brighter future for their kids.
Learning from my own experience in Thailand, and from CGE Mexico’s posts, it has become apparent that the traditional people, we have come in contact with, live sustainably with the environment. They do not, in other words, deplete the earth of natural resources and take only what they actually need. Isn’t that something we ourselves should be striving for? To not live in excess and refrain from taking so much from Mother Nature so that eventually future generations inherit nothing besides the natural catastrophes we ourselves created?
In conclusion, I do not think that it is at all surprising that we are facing similar issues, although we are located in two different nations on separate continents. Globalization stems from the word ‘global’. Therefore, these problems refer to the world as a whole. These phenomenons we are experiencing abroad are not isolated incidents. But what scares me the most is when I think about the role our own society, and I unknowingly play, in this world. Is globalization just another word for Western imperialism?