Chiapas Mexico and the Return of the Zapatista Movement

My second blog, Northern Baja and the Mexican Revolution, offered a brief history of the Mexican revolution of 1910, lead by Emiliano Zapata in support of agrarian reform and indigenous rights. Journeying to the southern-most state of Mexico, Chiapas, revealed a side of Mexico where the Zapatista movement is still very much alive.

A BRIEF HISTORY:

On January first, 1994, an armed and well organized group of political rebels invaded several cities throughout the state of Chiapas. The insurgents took control of local radio stations to public ly declare autonomy from the Mexican government which, they explained, did not truly represent the people of Mexico, particularly the poor and indigenous. The declaration clearly set forth the groups intentions, values, and demands of the Mexican government, mostly focusing on the protection of campensino lands fom the potential encroachment of foriegn interests.
The date chosen for this invasion was not arbitrary. On the same day, the Mexican government was signing contracts to ratify the North American Free Trade Agreement, which the leaders of the Zapatista movement knew would encourage foreign agricultural and mining investments that would inevitably displace native farmers.

The most visible representative of the Zapatista movement of 1994, was Subcommandante Marcos, a former university professor from Mexico City of metizo, rather than pure indigenous, ancestry. After years of living with and organizing indigenous communities, most of which do not speak Spanish as a first language, Marcos represented the marginalized people to the government and explained their position. Speaking for the indigenous and campensinos, Marcos castigated the Euro/Mestizo-centricism that champions democracy while denying indigenous communities a voice in the fate of the land that they depend on.

The invasion of 1994 was not an attempt to overthrow the Mexican government or to put a new government into power. The goal of the armed attack was to create a platform from which these marginalized voices would be heard. Shortly after the rebellion, the Zapatistas made demonstrations of peace, clearly displaying their intentions to proceed with their movement diplomatically, rather than with violence.

When the Mexican military retaliated by sending armed tanks into Zapatista territory, women played a central role in protecting the lands. Unarmed, the women would create human barracades to stand up to the soldiers and tanks, pushing them slowly into retreat.

Female Zapatista leader, Subcommandante Ramona, was sent to important congressional meetings to speak on behalf of the movement, and womens reproductive rights are included in the Zapatista declarations of demands. In these ways, the Zapatista movement is also a feminist movement.

In 2006, during the Mexican national elections, the Zapatistas clearly stated their intentions to abstain from the ´democratic´ process to display their denial of its validity as a mechanism of true representation. Instead, the leaders of the movement iniciated ´The Other Campaign´, a tour of Zapatista leaders to remote areas of Mexico and Guatemala to dialogue with people who are not represented by politicans of the national system. The campaign clearly indicated that the Zapatista movement is not a movement for power, but is rather a movement of solidarity among communities that would benefit from autonomy from centralized government. The Zapatistas of Chiapas have been walking their talk in their creation of five, self-governing communities that are centers of independence from the national government. These towns are called ´Caracoles´ (snail shells) and they represent the political structure of the resistence. After 15 years, these communities continue to develope, representing a strengthening sustainability and the continued evolution of their movement.

Under the name, Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (Zapatista National Liberation Movement), or EZLN, the group maintains a very active website: ezln.org that provides up to date information about current issues in Chiapas and acts as a portal to an incredible variety of related struggles all over the world. It is through this communication that the indigenous people of Chiapas voice their struggles to the international community that they rely on for support.

MY EXPERIENCE:

Traveling the north of Mexico, I found most everyone had a different opinion of the Zapatistas. Some consider them victorious heros, some consider them frauds, others sadly view their plight as a tragic failure.

The Zapatistas are victorious heros because no matter what the consequence, their initial and most urgent goal was accomplished: to be acknowledged, so that their culture and land rights would not be silently erased by the dominant society. Since the group gained visibility, the Mexican government has been forced to engage them in negotiation rather than simply push them aside. The international community is now aware of their existence and with the help of technology, this awareness creates a network of protection and advocacy that indigenous communities have never before benefitted from.

My experience in Chiapas indicated many levels of the movement´s success. Despite the touristy nature of San Christobal de Las Casas, the climate of indigenous/campensino independence, and the survival and progression of the movement was visible. San Christobal hosts many independent movie theaters that rotate different documentaries about the history and current state of the Zapatistas so that the constant flow of foreign tourists are always educated about their effect on the movement: their opportunity to support it and their responsibility to respect it. Souvenir shops on the main drag in San Christobal sell products of the Caracoles, from political paraphinalia to local seeds and other agricultural products, so that tourism supports the local communities rather than foriegn companies (this is not strictly the case: their are a lot of different stores with products from other origins, but the Zapatista stores are highly accessible and are in well trafficed areas). While the capital of Chiapas supports and maintains the survival of the Zapatistas by promoting their history and progression in tourism, the Zapatista communities themselves, are not easily accessible. Permission is required for foreigners to enter the Caracoles and though there are official programs that allow entry, extranjeros are not welcome without introduction. A French traveler I met, attempted on two different occassions to visit one of the communities called Oventik. He was politely asked to wait at the central building for permission to enter and was then ignored until he went home. The communities protect against foreigners to maintain their independence and their culture.

The indication most representative of the peoples´ independence, in my experience, was their agriculture. On my way to a small farm outside of Oxchuc, a city fought for by the Zapatistas, the entire road was lined with tiny parcels of cultivated land. Mostly corn, bananas and papaya, it was clear to see that the land was cultivated by the people for their own sustainance, a far cry from the enormous plantations I witnessed in Baja where workers sell their labor to land owners from other countries.

The people who call the Zapatista movement a fruad are mostly doubtful of Subcommandante Marcos. His mestizo ancestry and his love of media attention creates the suspicion that the movement is nothing more than a publicity stunt, lacking the true revolutionary and indigenous representation that it claims. A poet in Oaxaca exclaimed that if Marcos was a true revolutionary who threatened the powers of the Mexican government, he would be dead or in prison. The fact that he is free indicates the impotence of his position.

Others point out the perpetuation of systems of language oppression within the revolution. Marcos became the spokesperson for the indigenous people because they did not speak Spanish well enough to represent themselves to the government. Despite the access Marcos has offered the people as a voice to the government, language barriers within the communities prevent all members from participating equally in making decisions and in representing the organization to the outside world. The French traveler in Oventik for example, initially talked to a Mayan speaking woman who did not know Spanish. She had to go find a man (who never came) to translate and make the decision about permitting entrance. It is the cultural tendency that the men of the indigenous villages learn Spanish more than the women. This imbalance of female to male access to communication mimics larger the imbalance of mestizo to indigenous access to the powers of self representation. In this way, the vision of equality promoted by the Zapatista movement is challenged by the cultural logistics of change. When the message doesn´t match the experienced reality, it can easily be viewed as fraudulent.

In my opinion, though these critiques are valid, they do not detract from the credibility of the movement. Those who criticize Marcos for not being a true revolutionary, do not understand his type of revolution. The Zapatistas do not seek to violently claim the power of the national government, they seek to peacefully dismantel it by empowering themselves. Those dissappointed that Marcos has not lead his people into bloody battle (which he did, though only briefly), do not believe that publicity alone will affect mainstream mentality or impact their actions to support the preservation of the rebel culture.

The issue of language barriers does create a heirarchy of access to power and representation. At the same time, one of the main goals of protecting these communities, is to protect the culture and language, maintaining a population who conitnue the tradition of speaking different dialects of Mayan as their first language. Our perception that those with the ability to speak Spanish have more power than the rest, is colored by our perspective as outsiders. Without experiencing the inner workings of Caracol politics, it is impossible to tell if the balance of power is unequal or not, but maintanance of Mayan language culture is eminently important to the survival of the Caracol.

The opinion that the Zapatista movement was a failure came mostly from those who dream of a world where the Mexican government does not have the power to sell land (especially valuable mines and areas ideal for agriculture) to foriegners or to individuals only interested in personal profits. There are still many parts of Chiapas that are not self-governing and are utilized for classic, capital driven industrial agriculture or resource extraction. For this, people believe that the movement failed to impact the system on a tangible scale and was thusly a failure.

Like the other two, this perspective is absolutely valid. In the end, the Zapatistas were only able to save their own land and were not able to create a revolution that changed the national system of environmental and racial oppression effecting the larger population. Despite this, I believe that their personal success acts as a viable model and powerful inspiration for other communities who have the same goal. One clear lesson to take from the Zapatista movement is that, if you want autonomy, you need to fight for it yourself. Your representative is not going to do it for you, and though the Zapatista movement, as a whole, advocates for other communities, they cannot build sustainable autonomy for anyone but themselves. Those who lament the failure of the Zapatista movement need to look at their own communities and take responsibility for their own autonomy and sustainability.

Other factors play into my personal opinion of the ultimate success or failure of the movement. The owner of the organic farm that I worked on in Chiapas told me that there are some Zapatista farmers that use GMO seeds and Monsanto´s infamous Roundup pestcide. I was shocked to hear that individuals within a movement founded on philosophies of independence would choose to enter a system of chemically dependent agriculture. I did not see these farmers first hand so I could not confirm their existence. I also heard that there was an organic seed bank in Oventik (which I also did not have the opportunity to see first hand), suggesting an active opposition to GMO agriculture. Whether these stories are true or merely hear say, it is worth mentioning that there are non-political forms of colonization that impede environmental and economic freedom. Without awareness of such factors, it is difficult to define independence, let alone achieve it.