The Zapatistas have proven themselves to be adaptable in how they changed their message from one of general disagreement with the Mexican government’s adoption of structural adjustment policies, to a more specific message aimed at saving the rights of indigenous people because of the effects of these policies. What started out as violent action Jan. 1, 1994, has turned into more of a revolution of ideas and actions destined for the improvement of the indigenous people of the Chiapas area. I think one of their most effective concepts is the idea of leaders responding to the will of the people. Though this concept is always espoused by various political parties, it’s very rarely followed. By doing this, indigenous people are establishing agency and investment in improving their lives. Though it has been sixteen years, and the world could say they haven’t been successful, they have managed to gain some areas of autonomy. Schools have been built, and NGO’s have established a presence in the area helping to empower women and marketing native crafts. They are a long way from realizing their goals, but savvy use of the media and internet, are keeping their fight against globalization in front of the world’s attention.
I think that the Zapatistas have came along way in their progress towards being treated better, after all they have made an effort to build institutions which they didnt have before, like schools to help their education system, which lacked before. i think that is one of the best movements that happened for them, becuase lack of education closes alot of doors for their future of ever escaping poverty. although i do not think that there rebellion was a revolution of ideas and actions to improve there rights, i do think that it helped that in the end, but this rebellion was bound to happen due to them being mistreated and living in such low poverty. they still have a long ways to go before they reach their ultimate rights, after all they deserve it.
Collier ends the book in chapter 7, with a brief sketch of possible future developments, not least of which was "the very real possibility of further armed confrontation". Unfortunately, it has been realized by the state violating the cease-fire and rupturing discussions. The struggle to bring their military offensive to a real stop continues, far beyond the mountains of the Mexican Southwest. Fortunately, for those of us involved in that struggle, Collier's book provided extremely useful information and analysis to make the case against the continuing barbarism of the state's approach to dealing with Chiapas. Beyond the barbarism of its military operations, Collier's book helps demonstrate how the state's social and economic policies hold out nothing but disaster for most of the people of Chiapas. It provides us with vital grenades in the war of words with the Mexican state and its American backers and it provides us with abundant material to convince and draw others to our side in this effort. Great book discussing third world views on confrontations and struggles!
One of the main things I kept asking over the course of reading and listening to lectures about these different revolutions was 'could this ever happen in the US?' And I'm pretty sure this would never happen in our country. I remember during the low points of the recession there was a business that had to shut its doors because Bank of America wouldn't extend their loans in order to keep them running. The employees staged a protest and sit in and eventually this convinced BOA (I'm sure they didn't like all that bad press) to work with the company in order to keep them in operation and people in their jobs. If this would have turned violent for even a split second the end of this story would not be the same. If we look at what happened in Seattle during the WTO protests in 1999 we can see how a protest can turn ugly very quickly.
The Zapatista rebellion has proven that we can't just take people's way of living away from them. In this case it was the land that the indigenous people needed to live on. The thing I don't see is why in the first place were they taking the land? The people were living in the lowest poverty and they only had their land left to live off of. Unfortunately, the US only got pieces of what was going on from the media. Since the US is so accustomed to going into countries that need help why haven't we gone down there and helped them. Not saying that would be the best options it is just interesting that we pick the fights we want to enter in by if they benefit us.
The Zapatista Rebellion is very interesting to me. The book as showed how much the people in Chiapas have had taken away from them. First off it is difficult just making a living from farming, but then their land was taken away from them, and they suddenly were thrown into a world where they had to depend upon wage to eat and make a living. These people were bombarded with a sudden change in their way of life, and had to start their lives pretty much from scratch. I never knew this was a probem in mexico, it just goes to show how much is going on in the world that doesn't get talked about.
In response to Katy's comment on the U.S and the Zapatistas....I agree that its quite interesting which countries and politics we choose to enter into. Most often we base our judgments on the beneficial outcomes for us rather than bettering a struggling country. I think the Zapatista rebellion was necessary for them to stand up for themselves when no one else will. Honestly, I almost wish the U.S. would pick one side of the fence: either give an honest helping hand to as many other countries as possible, or try to stay out of as many as possible. When we want to pick and choose (essentially have our cake and eat it too) we run the threat of burning bridges that could be beneficial in the long run.
The Land and Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas was an eye opener. It really makes you realize howlucky we are in the United States. I could not imagine trying to make a living off of my ownfarm let alone a farm in Southern Mexico in those times, especially after the NAFTA. However, they have come along way as far as trying to better tehmselves through education, which I believe is the best thingthey could do. Education is a very crucial plan. Being more educated canonly lead to more opportunities. Onthe other hand Iwasunaware of the poverty and Rebellion in Mexico. This is becuse of how sheltered we are onthe US. Why don't we see this as a problem,andwhy don't we here about these types of things unless we are in a college class that brings it to our attention. This actually kind of bugs me!
In chapter 9 of Collier he is talking about the social inequities of agricultural free trade. and he says, "For most of the past century, agriculture held special status in international trade regulation, which did not interfere with countries efforts to support and protect domestic food production by means of subsidies, tariffs, and import restrictions. Agriculture was exempt from the trade agreements develop over the years by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), even during the 1980s, When the United States and Europe began to push for liberalization of global markets for their agricultural exports. The inclusion of agriculture in free-trade agreements such as NAFTA, and in the 1990s, thus marked a historic break from policies of national sovereignty over food-trade policy and farming"(Collier, P206).
The Zapatistas have proven themselves to be adaptable in how they changed their message from one of general disagreement with the Mexican government’s adoption of structural adjustment policies, to a more specific message aimed at saving the rights of indigenous people because of the effects of these policies. What started out as violent action Jan. 1, 1994, has turned into more of a revolution of ideas and actions destined for the improvement of the indigenous people of the Chiapas area. I think one of their most effective concepts is the idea of leaders responding to the will of the people. Though this concept is always espoused by various political parties, it’s very rarely followed. By doing this, indigenous people are establishing agency and investment in improving their lives. Though it has been sixteen years, and the world could say they haven’t been successful, they have managed to gain some areas of autonomy. Schools have been built, and NGO’s have established a presence in the area helping to empower women and marketing native crafts. They are a long way from realizing their goals, but savvy use of the media and internet, are keeping their fight against globalization in front of the world’s attention.
ReplyDeleteAmy Hart
ReplyDeleteI think that the Zapatistas have came along way in their progress towards being treated better, after all they have made an effort to build institutions which they didnt have before, like schools to help their education system, which lacked before. i think that is one of the best movements that happened for them, becuase lack of education closes alot of doors for their future of ever escaping poverty. although i do not think that there rebellion was a revolution of ideas and actions to improve there rights, i do think that it helped that in the end, but this rebellion was bound to happen due to them being mistreated and living in such low poverty. they still have a long ways to go before they reach their ultimate rights, after all they deserve it.
Name: Lauryn Gallagher
ReplyDeleteDate: 11/9/2010
Class: Anth. 366
Collier ends the book in chapter 7, with a brief sketch of possible future developments, not least of which was "the very real possibility of further armed confrontation". Unfortunately, it has been realized by the state violating the cease-fire and rupturing discussions. The struggle to bring their military offensive to a real stop continues, far beyond the mountains of the Mexican Southwest. Fortunately, for those of us involved in that struggle, Collier's book provided extremely useful information and analysis to make the case against the continuing barbarism of the state's approach to dealing with Chiapas. Beyond the barbarism of its military operations, Collier's book helps demonstrate how the state's social and economic policies hold out nothing but disaster for most of the people of Chiapas. It provides us with vital grenades in the war of words with the Mexican state and its American backers and it provides us with abundant material to convince and draw others to our side in this effort. Great book discussing third world views on confrontations and struggles!
One of the main things I kept asking over the course of reading and listening to lectures about these different revolutions was 'could this ever happen in the US?' And I'm pretty sure this would never happen in our country. I remember during the low points of the recession there was a business that had to shut its doors because Bank of America wouldn't extend their loans in order to keep them running. The employees staged a protest and sit in and eventually this convinced BOA (I'm sure they didn't like all that bad press) to work with the company in order to keep them in operation and people in their jobs. If this would have turned violent for even a split second the end of this story would not be the same. If we look at what happened in Seattle during the WTO protests in 1999 we can see how a protest can turn ugly very quickly.
ReplyDeleteThe Zapatista rebellion has proven that we can't just take people's way of living away from them. In this case it was the land that the indigenous people needed to live on. The thing I don't see is why in the first place were they taking the land? The people were living in the lowest poverty and they only had their land left to live off of. Unfortunately, the US only got pieces of what was going on from the media. Since the US is so accustomed to going into countries that need help why haven't we gone down there and helped them. Not saying that would be the best options it is just interesting that we pick the fights we want to enter in by if they benefit us.
ReplyDeleteKelsey Stutzman
ReplyDeleteThe Zapatista Rebellion is very interesting to me. The book as showed how much the people in Chiapas have had taken away from them. First off it is difficult just making a living from farming, but then their land was taken away from them, and they suddenly were thrown into a world where they had to depend upon wage to eat and make a living. These people were bombarded with a sudden change in their way of life, and had to start their lives pretty much from scratch. I never knew this was a probem in mexico, it just goes to show how much is going on in the world that doesn't get talked about.
In response to Katy's comment on the U.S and the Zapatistas....I agree that its quite interesting which countries and politics we choose to enter into. Most often we base our judgments on the beneficial outcomes for us rather than bettering a struggling country. I think the Zapatista rebellion was necessary for them to stand up for themselves when no one else will. Honestly, I almost wish the U.S. would pick one side of the fence: either give an honest helping hand to as many other countries as possible, or try to stay out of as many as possible. When we want to pick and choose (essentially have our cake and eat it too) we run the threat of burning bridges that could be beneficial in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe Land and Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas was an eye opener. It really makes you realize howlucky we are in the United States. I could not imagine trying to make a living off of my ownfarm let alone a farm in Southern Mexico in those times, especially after the NAFTA. However, they have come along way as far as trying to better tehmselves through education, which I believe is the best thingthey could do. Education is a very crucial plan. Being more educated canonly lead to more opportunities. Onthe other hand Iwasunaware of the poverty and Rebellion in Mexico. This is becuse of how sheltered we are onthe US. Why don't we see this as a problem,andwhy don't we here about these types of things unless we are in a college class that brings it to our attention. This actually kind of bugs me!
ReplyDeleteFatkidsoccer is chrissii almquist ANTH 10 am
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 9 of Collier he is talking about the social inequities of agricultural free trade. and he says, "For most of the past century, agriculture held special status in international trade regulation, which did not interfere with countries efforts to support and protect domestic food production by means of subsidies, tariffs, and import restrictions. Agriculture was exempt from the trade agreements develop over the years by the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), even during the 1980s, When the United States and Europe began to push for liberalization of global markets for their agricultural exports. The inclusion of agriculture in free-trade agreements such as NAFTA, and in the 1990s, thus marked a historic break from policies of national sovereignty over food-trade policy and farming"(Collier, P206).
ReplyDelete