Carol A. Smith "Indigenous Movements in Guatemala and Ecuador: Different Histories, Different Social Contexts, Different Strategies?" March 15, 2004

Carol A. Smith during her talk at the Center for Latin American Studies on March 15, 2004. Smith is Professor and Chair of Anthropology at UC Davis. She has worked with the Maya of Guatemala in many different parts of the country for 30 years, concentrating on ethnic/class relations. Recently, her work has considered the nature of Guatemala’s Maya movement as it has shifted over time and space, race and racism in Guatemala and the intersection of race, class, and gender in Guatemala and other parts of Central America.

Indigenous Movements in Context: Historical Explanations in Ecuador and Guatemala
Sebastian Petty

Indigenous movements have sprung up across Latin American during the last two decades. With the exception of Peru, virtually every country with a significant and distinct indigenous population has experienced this phenomenon. This change has been facilitated by national governments and international organizations, both of which have proven to be increasingly supportive of demands for multicultural recognition. Yet, despite a similar international context, different indigenous movements have met with widely varying degrees of success. Carol A. Smith, Professor of Anthropology at UC Davis, contrasted movements in Ecuador and Guatemala, arguing that differences in the organization, agendas and successes of indigenous movements are best understood by examining the social and historical context of their participants.

Indigenous movements in Ecuador and Guatemala have developed differently despite a number of similarities between the two nations. Both have large indigenous populations: ethnic Mayans make up 50 percent of Guatemala’s inhabitants while some 30 to 40 percent of Ecuador’s population is indigenous. The countries also exhibit historical similarities in their approach to issues of race. Unlike other nations in Latin America, neither engaged in a mestizaje project of racial mixing. Instead, both have emphasized cultural distinctiveness and the separation of indigenous and ladino (Spanish-speaking) elements of the population.

However, despite these common factors, the indigenous movements that emerged during the 1980s and 1990s are strikingly dissimilar. In Ecuador, the indigenous movement operates at a national scale, enjoys support from the ladino population and is a powerful force in politics. During the 1990s, this movement, which Smith describes as “one of the most vibrant indigenous movements which exists in the Americas,” succeeded in arranging two nationwide strikes and bringing national attention to its goals. By contrast, the Guatemalan movement is highly fragmented, has limited its goals to a strictly cultural agenda and has little political clout. While Smith emphasized that the development of an indigenous movement in a country so recently torn by violence is an achievement in itself, she argued that the Guatemalan movement is deeply marred by internal divisions and organizational problems.

The success of Ecuador’s indigenous movement, particularly in the country’s highland region, may be best understood in terms of the shared history of its indigenous communities. In the 19th century, the majority of Ecuador’s indigenous population was absorbed into the region’s feudal hacienda system, leaving them with little opportunity for independent political and social organization. The hacienda system remained largely unchanged through the 1960s, and it was not until this late date that the government moved to constitute independent indigenous communities. Prior to the modernization and revision of the haciendas, there had been no real system of indigenous communities in Ecuador. In the 1960s they were formed largely on the basis of ex-haciendas. Community members thus came from similar backgrounds, faced similar problems of how to represent themselves politically and were relatively undifferentiated by class or education. The Ecuadorian government incorporated the newly formed communities into the national administrative hierarchy. Leaders of the indigenous movement devised a nationwide hierarchical system of organization parallel to the government’s administrative structure. The common history and shared Quechua language of indigenous communities in Ecuador allowed them to organize a powerful national movement, minimizing differences between communities and reinforcing common ground.

If Ecuador’s flourishing indigenous movement has been made possible by the unity of its indigenous communities, then Guatemala’s has been fragmented and weakened by localism and a history of intercommunity division. The nation’s Mayan population is extremely diverse and is divided into 22 distinct linguistic groups. Beyond this fundamental division over language, Mayan communities have a long history of independence and differentiation. Villages began to split apart economically as early as the 1830s when the policies of the populist dictator Rafael Carrera prompted some communities to focus on artisanal production and trade rather then agrarian production.

Unlike Ecuador, Guatemala never had a true hacienda system. Instead, coffee estates and coastal plantations were supplied with Mayan labor through the efforts of ladino recruiters and moneylenders who operated near indigenous communities. Mayans were thus drawn into a pattern of seasonal plantation labor, which, while disruptive in its own right, nevertheless maintained the territorial and social integrity of the indigenous communities. Separated linguistically and economically from one another, indigenous communities in Guatemala often found themselves competing over land and other resources. Smith argued that these fundamental divisions between indigenous communities have undermined the potential for national organization; large-scale indigenous struggles in Guatemala, such as the 1980s insurgency, have only been able to occur under external, ladino leadership.

The legacy of war and violence has been another major factor affecting the course of Guatemala’s indigenous movement. During the 1980s, the Guatemalan military responded to the leftist guerilla movement with a brutal counter-insurgency campaign directed at the Mayan population that left hundreds of thousands dead. Even beyond this most recent onslaught, the Guatemalan state has historically used violence as a means of controlling a population that has often viewed its authority as illegitimate. The fear of violence has thus served to limit the scope and agenda of the modern indigenous movement. In part because of such concerns, it is not a mass movement calling for new political rights or economic changes, but instead remains focused on cultural rights and recognition. However, Smith argued that the divisions and fragmentation that characterize the movement ultimately have less to do with violence than they do with localism and community independence. Paradoxically, it is the strength and effectiveness of local community organization that has stifled moves towards national indigenous unity.

In considering the future of Guatemala’s indigenous movement, Smith focused on the role of Mayan leaders and intellectuals. She observed a sharp disconnect between Mayan intellectuals and the bulk of the indigenous population in Guatemala. The rural majority of the population has limited exposure to cultural figures and Mayan politicians in the capital and remains uncomfortable with the “Mayan Movement” label applied to indigenous organizations. There is still no political party in Guatemala effectively representing Mayan interests, despite recent attempts to organize one. More generally, political mobilization of the indigenous population has been an ongoing problem as evidenced by the failure of the 1998 popular referendum attempting to add the terms of the 1996 Peace Accords to the national constitution. Smith maintained that those who would like to see the Guatemalan indigenous movement progress must first consider “how intellectual leaders can communicate the need for tactical unity without threatening the power of the local authorities.”

While indigenous movements have grown in Latin America from Mexico to Chile, Carol Smith made the case that the agendas and successes of these movements are deeply affected by the historical legacies and political contexts of their participant communities.

Carol A. Smith is Professor and Chair of Anthropology at the University of California Davis. She spoke at the Center for Latin American Studies on March 15th, 2004.

Sebastian Petty is an undergraduate student in the Department of Geography.

Professor Smith speaks with an audience member after the event on March 15.