In Basta! Collier discusses the reasons why the Zapatistas begin a rebellion. First off, the treatment of many women in Chiapas was not fair. A lady discusses how a woman has no right to an education, to participate in assemblies, or to speak in public. Many of these oppressed women believe that joining the Zapatistas will help them seek freedom.
Along with the women being oppressed, the poor peasants were treated unfairly. Reform of Article 27 took away subsidies for peasants. Salina’s advisors decided that market subsidies for peasant crops had to be completely eliminated; they feared that the peasants were pretending they have crop failure in order to get money. Without subsidies, the peasants can’t buy fertilizer and other chemicals to help with their crops. Also, the Salina’s government was worried peasants would inefficiently produce land.
Now I can understand why the rebellion began because peasants had no way to support themselves, and the governemt was certainly not helping. A change was definitely needed.
What the Zapatistas were in need of was change. The peasants were treated fairly and had no way of surviving without their crops. Without the governments help by removing the subsidies they wouldn't be able to make the money needed. Not only did the peasants have the problem of getting ahold of fertilizer the women were also treated unfairly. The women weren't allowed to be educated or speak in public, just to name a few. No wonder there was a need for rebellion. It is just as comparable to the Civil Rights Movement. The African Americans were oppressed from freedom of education, causing a rebellion.
Looking back into the history of how the peasants and Indian people were perceived, I was surprised to learn that the leftist elite of Mexico looked upon the indigenous people as not worth the effort to organize. Collier writes, “...they represented an anachronistic, regressive sector of society that impeded the development of the proletarian class consciousness....” This seems in opposition to the little I know of Marxism. I thought the basic premise of Marxism was “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” I would think that indigenous people would be the very first group of people that the Marxists would want to indoctrinate into their point of view. Wasn’t the idea to develop a classless society based for the good of all? By believing that only a wage-earner class was valuable in the fight against capitalism, I would think this would only serve to create more separatism and therefore ignore valuable allies. It’s a minor point in the history, but fascinating to me.
The Zapatistas, a indigenous peasent group were bound for a rebelion. Collier does state that the women were mistreated, by being undereducated and basically not allowed to voice an opinion, but thats not to say that the men were highly edecated either or treated so highly, because after all the rebellion wasnt from only the women. Collier says, "many intellectuals denied the political potential of the countrys indigenous peoples and claimed that they were not worth organizing because they represented an anachronistic, regressive sector of society that impeded the development of the proletarian class consciousness needed to overthrow capitalism." Right before Collier states this he says that congress helped develop an awareness of shared problems across the ethnic lines, but to me it seems very odd that right after he states how much the indigenous were doubted and basically looked down on by them.
I think it's interesting to hear how long people had been building up radical social movements in Chiapas before they burst onto the scene in 1994, and how this was but one of several peasant rebellions in the region (and was just the first to receive major international media attention). The Zapatistas have gotten a lot of press, but much less attention has been given to all of the groups who work alongside them and make much of their work possible.
Name: Lauryn Gallagher Class: Anth. 366 Date: 1 November 2010
In chapter two of Anderson’s story it looks at the insurgencies in Western Sahara, Gaza, El Salvador, Burma and Afghanistan in a comparative manner. The chapter each deal with a particular facet of guerrilla live, although they are little more than collections of relevant stories. Little attempt is made to weave the stories together into a broader vision of insurgencies.
In chapter three of “Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas” it talks about fundamental connection between the people of Chiapas and the land. The social movements in Chiapas have primarily been mobilizations of peasants, who have been indigenous. Collier traces the history of conflicts over land from the conquest to the present. He sketches the theft of indigenous lands, the very limited gains of the Mexican revolution which mostly left the land in the hands of the thieves, and the ways the PRI long used the promise of land to gain support from the landless and the land poor while building up its own local power structure. Also it provides useful detail of the evolution of peasant organization that achieved by self-activity.
In Basta! Collier discusses the reasons why the Zapatistas begin a rebellion. First off, the treatment of many women in Chiapas was not fair. A lady discusses how a woman has no right to an education, to participate in assemblies, or to speak in public. Many of these oppressed women believe that joining the Zapatistas will help them seek freedom.
ReplyDeleteAlong with the women being oppressed, the poor peasants were treated unfairly. Reform of Article 27 took away subsidies for peasants. Salina’s advisors decided that market subsidies for peasant crops had to be completely eliminated; they feared that the peasants were pretending they have crop failure in order to get money. Without subsidies, the peasants can’t buy fertilizer and other chemicals to help with their crops. Also, the Salina’s government was worried peasants would inefficiently produce land.
Now I can understand why the rebellion began because peasants had no way to support themselves, and the governemt was certainly not helping. A change was definitely needed.
What the Zapatistas were in need of was change. The peasants were treated fairly and had no way of surviving without their crops. Without the governments help by removing the subsidies they wouldn't be able to make the money needed. Not only did the peasants have the problem of getting ahold of fertilizer the women were also treated unfairly. The women weren't allowed to be educated or speak in public, just to name a few. No wonder there was a need for rebellion. It is just as comparable to the Civil Rights Movement. The African Americans were oppressed from freedom of education, causing a rebellion.
ReplyDeleteLooking back into the history of how the peasants and Indian people were perceived, I was surprised to learn that the leftist elite of Mexico looked upon the indigenous people as not worth the effort to organize. Collier writes, “...they represented an anachronistic, regressive sector of society that impeded the development of the proletarian class consciousness....” This seems in opposition to the little I know of Marxism. I thought the basic premise of Marxism was “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” I would think that indigenous people would be the very first group of people that the Marxists would want to indoctrinate into their point of view. Wasn’t the idea to develop a classless society based for the good of all? By believing that only a wage-earner class was valuable in the fight against capitalism, I would think this would only serve to create more separatism and therefore ignore valuable allies. It’s a minor point in the history, but fascinating to me.
ReplyDeleteAmy Hart
ReplyDelete9:00 am
The Zapatistas, a indigenous peasent group were bound for a rebelion. Collier does state that the women were mistreated, by being undereducated and basically not allowed to voice an opinion, but thats not to say that the men were highly edecated either or treated so highly, because after all the rebellion wasnt from only the women. Collier says, "many intellectuals denied the political potential of the countrys indigenous peoples and claimed that they were not worth organizing because they represented an anachronistic, regressive sector of society that impeded the development of the proletarian class consciousness needed to overthrow capitalism." Right before Collier states this he says that congress helped develop an awareness of shared problems across the ethnic lines, but to me it seems very odd that right after he states how much the indigenous were doubted and basically looked down on by them.
I think it's interesting to hear how long people had been building up radical social movements in Chiapas before they burst onto the scene in 1994, and how this was but one of several peasant rebellions in the region (and was just the first to receive major international media attention). The Zapatistas have gotten a lot of press, but much less attention has been given to all of the groups who work alongside them and make much of their work possible.
ReplyDeleteName: Lauryn Gallagher
ReplyDeleteClass: Anth. 366
Date: 1 November 2010
In chapter two of Anderson’s story it looks at the insurgencies in Western Sahara, Gaza, El Salvador, Burma and Afghanistan in a comparative manner. The chapter each deal with a particular facet of guerrilla live, although they are little more than collections of relevant stories. Little attempt is made to weave the stories together into a broader vision of insurgencies.
In chapter three of “Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas” it talks about
fundamental connection between the people of Chiapas and the land. The social movements in Chiapas have primarily been mobilizations of peasants, who have been indigenous. Collier traces the history of conflicts over land from the conquest to the present. He sketches the theft of indigenous lands, the very limited gains of the Mexican revolution which mostly left the land in the hands of the thieves, and the ways the PRI long used the promise of land to gain support from the landless and the land poor while building up its own local power structure. Also it provides useful detail of the evolution of peasant organization that achieved by self-activity.