IDENTIDAD: "Latino", "HIspano" como mecanismos intellectuales de colonizacion

¿SERÁ EL PROPÓSITO DE PROMOVER EL USO DE LAS PALABRAS “LATINO” e “HISPANO” EL HACER A INDIGENAS IDENTIFICARSE COMO EUROPEOS?

¡¡Origen de la identidad Latinoamericana está en: Francia!! ¡¡Origen de la identidad Hispana está en: España!!

Origen de su Control: Roma?

Las fronteras de “Latinoamérica (lingüísticamente y políticamente) y el uso de las palabras “Latino” e “Hispano” fueron y son mecanismos para la división de Pueblos Indígenas por los dirigentes de estados Europeos que se asentaron en “América Latina” para lograr (conjuntamente y a la vez en competencia con los estados hermanos anglo-sajones del norte) la total y final aniquilación cultural y genocidio de las Naciones y Pueblos Indígenas de Abya Yala  [término de los indígenas Kunas de “Panamá” para el continente de las “Américas”].

Veamos aquí un resumen etimológico en “Wikipedia” que explica quien(es) empezaron a promover el uso de la palabra “Latinoamérica,” “América Latina” y con qué propósito:

Etimología de

América Latina o Latinoamérica

El término fue utilizado por primera vez en París en 1856 en una conferencia del filósofo chileno Francisco Bilbao³ y, el mismo año, por el escritor colombiano José María Torres Caicedo en su poema Las dos Américas.⁴

El término América Latina fue apoyado por el  Imperio Francés de Napoleón III durante su Invasión francesa de México como forma de incluir a Francia entre los países con influencia en América, para así poder excluir a los anglosajones y separar a Hispanoamérica de España emocionalmente. Desde su aparición, el término ha ido evolucionando para comprender un conjunto de características culturales, étnicas, políticas, sociales y económicas.⁵

Sin embargo, es totalmente incorrecto el uso del adjetivo "latino" para referirse al hispanoamericano,^{[cita requerida]} ya que la denominación "latino" corresponde inherentemente a la zona de Italia designada por tal nombre en la época de la Antigua Roma (Latium). Posteriormente, y por interés francés, este significado fue extendido a cualquier parlante de una lengua derivada del latín, cuando normalmente esta referencia es a lenguas romances (derivadas del latín romano), tales como el italiano, francés, español, portugués, gallego, asturiano, catalán, etc. Éstas serían lenguas romances (o latinas, con la nueva designación francesa).^[cit

¿Será posible, que en realidad nos consideran aún sujetos/ciudadanos  del Imperio Romano? Dicen algunos historiadores y teólogos  que sí  (ver: http://dncdn.dvlabs.com/ipod/dn2013-0228.mp4), y que los Césares Romanos jamás han dejado de regir, que han dominado a toda Europa por los últimos 2,300 años,  y  que solo se cambiaron de vestimentas imperiales…a vestimentas sacerdotales. Hay que recordar que el título que asumieron algunos de los Césares de Roma mientras reinaban era “Póntifus Máximus,” el mismo título otorgado aún a los Papas hasta el   día de hoy. También declaraban que tenían un derecho Divino de regir, tal cómo lo han declarado prácticamente todos los reyes a través de la historia, con algunos anunciando que eran Dios(es) y por ende incapaces de cometer alguna falla (infalibles). Más recientemente, la idea que se usa por el “Póntifus Máximus” para justificar el derecho de regir es por ser “Sucesor de Pedro. Declaran que porque Jesus Cristo es Rey del Cielo y de la tierra, y porque Jesus Cristo no está ahorita aquí,  el Sucesor de Pedro, como Vicario de Jesus Cristo, tiene todo el derecho del ( Rey) Jesus Cristo para decidir  lo que se va hacer  con todo lo que existe aquí en la tierra y disponer de todo ello. Por eso pudo el Papa Alejandro VI en 1493, a menos de un año de encontrarse perdido en este continente Cristóbal Colón, otorgar primero a los Reyes de España prácticamente este continente entero, al emitir la bula (boletín o carta) papal tituladada “Inter Caetera,” y subsecuentemente decidir repartir a otros Reyes de Europa algo de las inmensas riquezas y tierras de los Pueblos indígenas que llevaban habitando por miles y miles de años antes de que existiera el Vaticano, el imperio Romano, o cualquier otra nación Europea conformada como tal.

¿Pero de cuál(es) Dios(es) recibirían ese derecho de regir? Entre los orígenes de  de la palabra “Divino” están dos palabras “Di” que significa “del”, y Vino o Viña (dicen algunas “autoridades” lingüísticas y religiosas que es de la “Viña del Señor,”). Tú decidarás, pero hazlo con una revisión minuciosa de los hechos históricos de los reyes y de los orígenes de los cultos de adoración a los Dioses de la intemperancia y libertinaje llamados “Dionysus y Bacchus.” “Vino” se entiende claramente, y apunta a las borracheras extremas, perversas y atontadoras desde dónde se auto-declaraban “Dioses” bajo la influencia del vino. “De la Viña del Señor” se presta a más rodeos para tratar de encubrir lo obvio.   

Debe quedar muy claro lo siguiente: Si tienes abuelos indígenas de Abya Yala, es decir, si tienes una sola gota de sangre indígena en tus venas, la ley de “una gota” establece que por hasta cuatro generaciones de retirado que esté alguien de un/a indígena de sangre “pura”  esa  persona no es blanca, es indígena.  Así determinaron los amos blancos que  se puede declarar a alguien como no-europeo y por lo tanto, sin derechos  soberanos de los que puede gozar un hombre blanco. Pero no faltarán los que por estar más retirados que cuatro generaciones de un abuelo/a indígena de sangre pura dirán lo que tanto se escucha entre nuestro Pueblo, “Entonces, yo no soy Indio.” A ellos les advierto, “¿Y que te hace creer que la designación de “Una Gota” no la cambien arbitrariamente tal como arbitrariamente declararon cuatro generaciones de retirado/a ser la regla con la que se determina si alguien es indígena o no-blanco? Es decir, si tienes abuelos indígenas o no-blancos, para la cúpula de dirigentes de los Estados Europeos,  eres y siempre serás indígena, no le hace que tan blanca sea tu piel, o que tan claros sean tus ojos – eso te hace aún más indeseable para ellos porque les da coraje que les cuesta más identificarte como lo que sigues y seguirás siendo para ellos, un/a indígena más que puede conectarse de nuevo con mayor facilidad  (por la memoria genética que contienes en tu sangre)  a las vías de vida sagradas indígenas ancestrales infinitamente profundas y fuertes que pueden restaurar la verdadera Paz y Harmonia Sagrada que proviene de nuestro/a original Creador/a del Universo de Universos.  También les incita esto coraje por los sentimientos de miedo y de fracaso al ver que los descendientes de indígenas siguén aún vivos y en aumento a pesar de sus innumerables violaciones  e intentos de su total exterminio.

Somos Indígenas, Originales y descendientes de nuestros Abuelos, Pueblos y Naciones Indígenas de Abya Yala. Aunque por las cóntinuas embestidas por parte de invasores, algunos entre los nuestros no han podido entrar en conciencia clara de lo que son, aceptando las infinitas mentiras que nos han contado incluyendo el identificarnos como “Latinos” o “Hispanos” para usarnos y manipularnos para sus fines económicos y políticos así como lo hizo el General Francés Napoleón. Quieren  hacernos sentirnos como uno de ellos, mientras que lo que buscan realmente es que nos olvidemos de nuestr@s abuel@s indígenas y sus vías de vida sagradas que fomentan la vida perpétua para las futuras generaciones, quitarnos todo y dejarnos sin cultura, sin vida.  Es nuestro derecho como herederos de los originales mismos  vivir en este continente, mientras respetemos las leyes ancestrales que se requieren para permitir que nuestras futuras generaciones también lo puedan hacer…en harmonía con toda la Creación de Nuestro/a Gran Creador/a.  Pero eso sí, dicen las verdaderas autoridades de nuestros Pueblos que el que se convierta en enemigo de los Pueblos originales, aunque traiga en sí sangre indígena, pierde todo derecho de seguir viviendo en está gran isla de Abya Yala.

Indigenous Movements in the Americas: From Demand for Recognition to Building Autonomies

As you read this article, move the frame out of the Latino-Anglo American inflection, and extend the possibility for analysis and action hemispherically into Arizona and points north, then ask yourself if you can see the reflection and hear the echo of the 

Wakeup Call from the Nightmare of Manifest Destiny:

5 de Mayo 2013 March for Justice and Self Determination

*******

Indigenous Movements in the Americas: From Demand for Recognition to Building Autonomies 

Posted on: 25/02/2008 by lopez

This post is also available in: Spanish

"In the struggle for a freed Latin America, in opposition to the obedient voices of those who usurp its official representation, there arises now, with invincible power, the genuine voice of the people, a voice that rises from the depths of its tin and coal mines, from its factories and sugar mills, from its feudal lands, where obedient to usurpers of their official function, now rises with invincible power, the genuine voice of the masses of people, a voice that emerges from the bowels of coal and tin mines, from factories and sugarcane fields, from the feudalistic lands where rotos, cholos, gauchos, jíbaros, heirs of Zapata and Sandino, grip the weapons of their freedom."

—Havana Declaration, 1960

 

Latin America is living a time of autonomy movements, especially for indigenous autonomy. The demand became a central concern in national indigenous movements in the 1990s and intensified in the early 21st century.

Not that it didn’t exist before. On the contrary, demands for autonomy have permeated struggles of resistance and emancipation by indigenous peoples since the conquest—Spanish in some cases, Portuguese in others—and the establishment of nation-states, since the rebellions against colonial power by Tupac Amaru, Tupac Katari, and Bartolina Sisa in the Andes and Jacinto Canek in Mayan lands; by Willka Pablo Zarate in Bolivia, and Tetabiate and Juan Banderas among the Yaquis in Mexico during the republican period [1800s]; Emiliano Zapata in Mexico and Manuel Quintín Lame in Colombia in the 20th century; and on into the 20th and 21st centuries with the Zapatista rebellion in Mayan areas.
These struggles have included among their most important demands the same utopian proposals that arise from peoples demanding full rights, territories, natural resources, self-defined organizational methods and political representation before state entities, exercise of internal justice based on their own law, conservation and evolution of their cultures, and elaboration and implementation of their own development plans.

This is not a small matter. From the beginning of the 21st century, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) warned that indigenous movements would be one of the main challenges to national governments over the following 15 years and that they would "increase, facilitated by transnational networks of indigenous rights activists and supported by well-funded international human rights and environmental groups. Tensions will intensify in the area from Mexico through the Amazon region … ."1
 
More recently, United States Deputy Secretary of State, John Dimitri Negroponte, referring to victory by the indigenous Aymara Evo Morales Ayma in the Bolivian presidential elections, averred that subversive movements are misusing the benefits of democracy, which endangers the stability of nation-states throughout Latin America.


Indigenous movements and their struggle for autonomy are a concern for dominant economic and political groups because they are a part of other social movements in Latin America that are resisting neoliberal policies and their effects on people. They are also an integral part of the broad social sectors supporting alternative proposals that would help us resolve the crisis in which the world finds itself.

But in contrast to others, indigenous peoples movements and organizations are more radical and deeper in their framing of the issues, as is apparent in their choice of the means of struggle—mostly pacific, but when that is not possible, with the use of violence—and also because their demands require a profound transformation of national states and institutions that would practically lead us to a re-founding of nation-states in Latin America.


The reclamation by indigenous peoples of recognition of their autonomy has another component that gives pause to the hegemonic classes wielding power in Latin American states where movements occur. Movements arise precisely at a time when states begin to undergo a serious weakening, a product of the push by international economic forces to move them out of the public sphere and reduce them in practice to simple managers of capitalistic interests.

Paradoxically, these same classes scream to high heaven that states will fall apart if the indigenous peoples’ demands are met—demands for reformation or re-founding of states to make them more functional for the multiculturalism of their populations. But the reality is quite different, because if a new state were established with indigenous peoples recognized as autonomous political subjects, surely it would be strengthened, and then free market economic forces would lose their hegemony in the crafting of anti-popular policies.


This argument has been used by those in power to design counterinsurgency policies against social movements and their allies, under the guise of defense of national sovereignty, as has happened in different ways. In some cases, for example, Bolivia and Mexico, the state directly confronted the indigenous movements, even mobilizing its military without respecting the constitution. In other places like Panama and Nicaragua, and to a certain extent in Ecuador, especially in the Andean region, the use of an "encircling strategy" has been adopted in order to recover lost spaces.


In these cases there is no violent confrontation, because political parties are used as a means of control, offering channels to power that become forms of control and disarticulation. Another strategy is isolation, used in Brazil and part of Ecuador, where an open field has been left for transnational companies exploiting natural resources to directly confront indigenous discontent, while the state acts as if nothing were happening.2

Let’s be clear: indigenous peoples in Latin America struggle for autonomy because in the 21st century, they are still colonies. The 19th-century wars for independence ended foreign colonization—Spanish and Portuguese, but those who rose to power continued to view indigenous peoples as colonies. The hegemonic classes hid these colonies behind the mask of individual rights and juridical equality, proclaimed by that century’s liberalism, and now, given proof of the falsity of that argument, they hide behind the discourse of conservative multiculturalism, apparent in legal reforms that recognize cultural differences in the population, although the state continues to act as if they did not exist.


Meanwhile, Latin American indigenous peoples suffered and continue to suffer from the power of internal colonialism. That is why indigenous movements, in contrast to other types of social movements, are struggles of resistance and emancipation. That is why their demands coalesce in the struggle for autonomy; that is why the concern among imperialist forces increases as the movements grow; that is why achievement of their demands implies the re-founding of national states.

 500 Years of Resistance

In 1992, indigenous movements substantively revised their forms of political actions and their demands in the context of the continental campaign of 500 years of indigenous, black, and popular resistance, in which different indigenous movements on the American continent protested against government-supported celebrations of five centuries since the European invasion, or so-called "discovery."

First, indigenous movements ceased to be appendices to rural farmer movements, which had always put them last in their participation as well as their reclamations, and became political subjects themselves. Then, they denounced the internal colonialism exercised against them in the nation-states where they lived, revealed "indigenism" as a policy to mask their colonial situation, and demanded their right to self-determination as the peoples that they are.


Nicaragua is an exceptional case because, after the counterrevolution adopted ethnic discourse, it established regional autonomies in 1987 in order to deactivate the armed opposition, and this, over time, also effectively deactivated the indigenous movement. Except for this case, since 1992 indigenous movements are movements of resistance and emancipation: resistance in order to not cease to be peoples; emancipation in order to not continue being colonies. Ethnic reclamations were conjoined with class reclamations.


The axis of the indigenous movements’ demands became the right to free determination expressed in autonomy.

Since 1966, the UN Pacts on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights recognized peoples’ right to free determination and, as a result, to freely establish their political condition, as well as make decisions about their economic, social, and cultural development. The recognized right included the free administration of natural resources for their own benefit, without ignoring the necessity of international cooperation based on mutual benefit.


Indigenous movements demand not only rights for individuals but also for collectives, for the peoples they are part of. Their demand is not limited to making state institutions fulfill their functions but also change. They demand not lands but territories. They ask not that they be allowed to exploit the natural resources in their territories, but that they be granted ownership of them. They demand that justice be administered not only according to state law, but also in recognition of their right to administer justice themselves and in accordance with their own laws. They seek not development plans designed for them, but recognition of their right to direct their own development. They want their own cultures recognized and respected instead of only the dominant culture. Indigenous peoples do not want to continue as colonies, but rather, as peoples with full rights.

These reclamations by indigenous movements opened a new period in the history of indigenous rights, which first became visible when Latin American nation-states that had not already revised their political constitutions and internal legislation to incorporate recognition of indigenous peoples and guarantee their collective rights, did so. A legislative fever was unleashed, but legislation was passed so that the political class would not lose legitimacy, more than to recognize rights. In this way, except for a few places like Chile, almost all states revised their political constitutions to incorporate indigenous peoples and their rights.

Autonomous Tendencies

When indigenous peoples realized that their struggle for constitutional recognition of their rights had not produced the desired results, they focused their efforts on building de facto autonomies. Some movements that already had shifted in this direction grew more powerful, as others began the long path of making the shift. To accomplish this, they appealed to what they had: their cultures, histories of resistance, organic structures, relations with other social movements, and concrete realities in their countries.

IV Continental Indigenous Summit of Abya Yala - Puno, Pero 2009

YouTube:

"No somos inmigrantes en nuestro propio continente."

On different levels during the 1990s, Latin American states noticed transformations in the indigenous movements that had struggled since the prior decade to reclaim their rights. Some movements transcended local struggles and broke national barriers, achieving more notoriety than others. Indigenous movements for autonomy were a social phenomenon seen in all of Latin America. Just when worker and rural farmer movements were weakening from Mesoamerica to Patagonia, indigenous movements were reactivating, much to the concern of neoliberals.


Community-based autonomies arose as a concrete expression of indigenous peoples’ resistance to colonialism and their struggle for emancipation. Since the majority of indigenous peoples were politically de-structured, and communities were the concrete expression of their existence, when indigenous movements propelled the struggle for their self-determination as peoples, it was the communities that defended the right. To do this, they used their centuries-old experience in resistance, but also their self-generative experiences within the farm workers movement.

Entrenched in community structures, indigenous movements forcefully made themselves heard, and in many cases, states had no alternative other than yielding to their demands. The strongest proof of this is that most Latin American legislation on indigenous rights recognizes the juridical personhood of indigenous communities and enunciates some of the competencies states recognize in them, all the while requiring, as stated in the recognitions, their conformity to the framework of state law.
 
Another tendency among indigenous autonomies is the regional autonomy proposal. It arose in response to the need to surpass the community space of indigenous peoples and seek spaces not only larger than the community, but also beyond local state governments. Its first expression was in the autonomous regions in Nicaragua, introduced as a form of government in the 1987 Political Constitution of the State. Since this event, unprecedented in Latin America, it spread to other countries through intellectuals close to indigenous reclamations, to the extent that in some countries, such as Mexico and Chile,3 proposals were put forth for constitutional reforms and statutes of autonomy. In others, it remained one more tendency in the struggle for indigenous autonomy but without any concrete expression.


As on many other occasions, indigenous movements themselves resolved the "contradiction" between community proponents and regionalists. When the occasion presented itself, first they showed that the proposals were not contradictory, but rather, complementary. This has been very clear in Mexico with the Zapatista Caracoles communities, but also in the community police in the state of Guerrero. The same is happening in the Cauca region of Colombia and in the Cochabamba Department in Bolivia. In all these cases it has been demonstrated that communities function as a foundation for building regional structure, which is the roof for autonomy, and they can combine effectively, because regional autonomy is not imposed from above, but occurs as a process that consolidates the communal autonomies that then decide the scope of the region.

Together with the community and regional tendencies there are other indigenous movements that do not demand autonomies but the re-founding of nation-states based on indigenous cultures. This is the tendency most apparent in the various movements in the Andean region of the continent, especially among the Aymara in Bolivia. Participants in these movements say they do not understand why, since their population is larger than the mestizos, they should adapt to the political will of minorities.


Many Latin American governments have coopted the indigenous movement’s discourse, emptied it of meaning, and begun to speak of a "new relationship between the indigenous peoples and the government," and to elaborate "transversal policies" with the participation of all interested parties, when in reality they continue to posit the same old indigenist programs that indigenous peoples reject.


In order to legitimize their discourse and actions, they have incorporated into public administration a few indigenous leaders who had long worked for autonomy and now serve as a screen to depict as change what actually is continuity. Some countries have gone further by denaturing the autonomy demand and presenting it as a mechanism by which certain privileged sectors maintain their privileges. This is the case among the bourgeoisies in the departments of Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, Guayaquil, Ecuador, and the state of Zilia in Venezuela.

If one assumes that autonomy is a concrete expression of the right to free determination, and that this is a right held by peoples, it cannot be forgotten that the titular subjects of indigenous rights are the indigenous peoples, not their communities, much less the organizations that they build to propel their struggle. This is why along with building autonomies, indigenous movements assume a commitment to their own reconstitution. At this particular juncture, given the fragmentation among the majority of indigenous peoples, communities are important to articulate their resistance struggles and building of autonomies, but movements do not renounce the utopia of reconstituting the indigenous peoples of which they are a part, so that the peoples can assume the holdership of rights. For this reason the defense of community rights is made at the same time as they establish relations with other communities and peoples in their countries and elsewhere, to support each other in their particular demands, but also hoist common demands.


An external problem to becoming political subjects encountered by indigenous peoples is that in the majority of cases, they are politically de-structured, affected by the politics of colonialism wielded through government entities in order to subject them to the interests of the class in power. A concrete example of such politics is that numerically larger indigenous peoples find themselves divided between various states or departments, and the smaller ones between different towns, municipalities, or mayoralties, depending on how states organize local governments.


Indigenous peoples know that in this situation the construction of autonomies can rarely be done from those spaces, because even if they were in control of local governments, their structure and functioning would follow state logic, limiting their faculties to those that are functional to state control; but in the worst of the cases it could turn out that, in the name of indigenous rights, power is handed over to the mestizo groups led by local cacique bosses, that would use it against indigenous peoples.

 On the other hand, they know that indigenous communities composed of one people find themselves divided and in conflict for diverse reasons that run from land ownership, use of natural resources, and religious beliefs, to political preferences, among others. In other cases fictitious or invented problems are created by actors outside the communities.


To confront these problems interested indigenous peoples make efforts to identify the causes for division and conflict, locate those that originate in the communities’ own problems, and seek solutions. At the same time, they try to determine problems created from the outside and seek ways to repulse them.

The struggle for the installation of autonomous indigenous governments represents an effort by indigenous peoples themselves to construct political regimes different from the current ones, where they and the communities that form them can organize their own governments, with specific faculties and competencies regarding their internal life.


With the decision to build autonomies, indigenous peoples seek to disperse power in order to achieve its direct exercise by the indigenous communities that demand it. It is a sort of decentralization that has nothing to do with that pushed by the government with the support of international institutions, which actually endeavors to enhance government control over society. 

The decentralization we are talking about, the one that indigenous

peoples and communities advancing toward autonomy are showing us, includes the creation of paralegal forms to exercise power that are different from government entities, where communities can strengthen themselves and make their own decisions.


When indigenous peoples decide to build autonomies, they have made a decision that goes against state policies and forces those who choose that path to begin political processes to build networks of power capable of withstanding state attack, counter-powers that will allow them to establish themselves as a force with which governance must be negotiated, and alternative powers that will oblige the state to take them into account. This is why building autonomies cannot be a volunteerist act by "enlightened" leaders or an organization, no matter how indigenous it claims to be.
In any case, it requires the direct participation of indigenous communities in the processes toward autonomy. In other words, indigenous communities must become political subjects with capacity and desire to fight for their collective rights, must understand the social, economic, political, and cultural reality in which they are immersed, as well as the various factors that contribute to their subordination and those that can be used to transcend that situation in such a way that they can take a position on their actions.


With the struggle for autonomy indigenous peoples and communities transcend the folkloric, culturalist, and developmentalist visions that the state propagates, and many people still passively accept. Experience has taught them that it is not enough for some law to recognize their existence and a few rights not in conflict with neoliberal policies, or cultural contributions by indigenous peoples to the multicultural make-up of the country. Nor is it sufficient for governments to mark specific funds for development projects in indigenous regions, amounts that are always too small and are applied in activities and forms decided by the government, which rob the communities of any type of decision-making power and deny their autonomy.

Is it not by chance that the Zapatista rebellion in Mexico began in January 1994, when the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between that country, the United States, and Canada went into effect, or that most of the national demands by indigenous movements include the rescue of natural resources from control by transnational corporations, or that the struggles in Ecuador, Peru, and Chile include opposition to free trade agreements.


They also know that the struggle for autonomy cannot be a struggle by indigenous peoples alone. For this reason, they build relations of solidarity with other social sectors, supporting each other in their particular struggles, while at the same time pushing common demands.


Indigenous peoples, by appealing to their culture and identifying practices in order to mobilize in defense of their rights, are questioning vertical political forms even as they offer horizontal forms that work for them, because they have tested them over centuries of resistance to colonialism. These are practices that come into play precisely at a moment when traditional organizations of political parties, syndicates, or others that are class-based and representative, are entering into a crisis, and society no longer sees itself reflected in them.

These political practices are apparent in many ways, from the postmodern guerrilla, as the Zapatista Army of National Liberation has been labeled, that rose up in armed rebellion in 1994 in Mayan lands, brandishing arms more as a symbol of resistance than to make war, to the long marches by authorities among indigenous peoples in Colombia, the "uprisings" of Ecuadoran peoples, or the Aymara blockade of La Paz, Bolivia, and the Mapuche direct confrontation against forestry companies trying to steal their natural resources.


In these battles indigenous peoples, instead of turning to sophisticated political theories to prepare their discourses, recover historical memory to ground their demands and political practices, and this gives the new movements a distinctive and even symbolic touch. Indigenous peoples in Mexico recuperate the memory of Emiliano Zapata, the incorruptible general of the Army of the South during the revolution of 1910-17, whose principal demand was the restitution of native lands usurped by the large landowners. Colombians recuperate the program and deeds of Manuel Quintín Lame. Andeans in Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia make immediate the rebellions by Tupac Amaru, Tupac Katari, and Bartolina Sisa during colonization, and by Willka Pablo Zarate during the republican period. Local and national heroes are present again in the struggle to guide their armies, as if they had been resting, waiting for the best time to return to the fight.

Along with their historical memory, peoples turn their eye to what they already have so as to become stronger, and, tired of so much disillusionment with traditional political organizations, to recover their own, their own systems of responsibilities. This is why those who are unaware of their particular forms of organization affirm that they act anarchically, that it’s not the right way, that they contribute to dispersion, and that it’s a bad example for the unity of the oppressed, the exploited, and the excluded.

Final Reflections

Everything said here about indigenous autonomies and the shift from demanding constitutional reform to becoming a process of construction, has as background the search for the root cause of the problem that is the condition of internal colonialism in which indigenous peoples live in the states they are part of.


It is a situation that neither juridical equality of citizens prescribed by 19th-century liberalism, nor indigenist policies imposed by different Latin American states throughout the 20th century, were able to resolve, because they did not go to the heart of the problem which, as can be seen now, involves the recognition of indigenous peoples as collective subjects with rights, but also the re-founding of states to correct the historical anomalies of viewing themselves as monocultural in multicultural societies.

Where will the processes to build indigenous autonomies in Latin America lead us? That is a question that no one can answer, because even the social movements do not know. The actors in this drama draw their utopian horizon, but whether they can achieve it does not depend entirely on them but on different factors, most of which are outside their control. What we can be sure of is that the problem will not be solved in the situation in which states currently find themselves, and for that reason, struggles by indigenous peoples for their autonomy cannot retreat.

Neither the Zapatista guerrilla in Mexico, nor the indigenous self-governments in Colombia, nor the struggles by Andean and Mapuche peoples will find a full solution if the state is not re-founded. But it is also true that states cannot be re-founded without taking seriously their indigenous peoples. The challenge is dual, then: nation-states must be re-founded taking into account their indigenous peoples, and these must include in their utopias the type of state they need and fight for it. This is what indigenous autonomies and struggles to build them are about.


Therefore, we must celebrate that many indigenous peoples and communities have decided not to wait passively for changes to come from the outside and have enlisted in the construction of autonomous governments, unleashing processes where they test new forms of understanding rights, imagine other ways to exercise power, and create other types of citizenships.

No one knows how the processes will turn out, but it is certain that there is no going back to the past.

Link:

TONATIERRA

The Law of Exceptions

End Notes

1. Jim Cason and David Brooks, "Movimientos indígenas, principales retos para AL en el futuro: CIA," La Jornada (Mexico), Dec. 19, 2000, http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2000/12/19/024n1mun.html. The complete English version of the report is posted at: https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/globaltrends2015/index.html#link2.
2. Leo Gabriel and Gilberto López y Rivas, ed., Autonomías indígenas en América Latina. Nuevas formas de convivencia política, Plaza y Valdez editores-Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana-Unidad Iztapalapa-Ludwig Boltzmann Institut, México, 2005, p. 19.
3. Javier Lavanchy, Conflicto y propuesta de autonomía mapuche, Santiago de Chile, Junio de 1999, Proyecto de documentación Ñuke Mapu, http://www.soc.uu.se/mapuche.  

Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples-Migrant Workers in Maricopa County, AZ

 
TONATIERRA

Comités de Defensa del Barrio (CDB)

Press Release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: May 27, 2013

Contact: Rafael Reyes (480) 518-5500 Email: rreyes13@cox.net

Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples-Migrant Workers in Maricopa County, AZ

The decision of Judge Murray Snow regarding practices of racial profiling by the Office of the Maricopa County Sheriff  against "Latinos" is another step in the long march to defend the civil rights of all peoples.  In the national context of U.S. society, this struggle began with the dismantling of the systemic discriminatory racial profiling which favored “WHITE” European Americans with ethnic preferences in electoral, educational, economic, cultural, and legal systems.  The struggle for equality continues, and includes many chapters, but the narrative always begins with the universal recognition of the fundamental principles of human dignity and compassion.

In the context of international law and as Indigenous Peoples, we recognize that human rights are inherent.  The United States is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  These two facts are legal realities that must be considered in order to comprehensively assess the Human Rights context of the judge Snow’s recent decision beyond the domestic frame in defense of "Latino" constituencies.

As migrant workers of Abya Yala,  [the Americas] Original Peoples with the inherent right of our own cultural identity as Nican Tlacah, we do not identify as "Latino."

On September 13, 2007, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.  The United States was one of four governments that opposed the declaration, including the anglophile states of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand who as derivatives represent immigrant sovereignties that are residual republics of the colonies of the British Empire.

In light of Judge Snow’s decision and the case of the US Department of Justice investigation of the issues of racial profiling and discrimination on the part of the Office of the Maricopa County Sheriff; in view of the fact that in both cases there has been NO MENTION of the systematic practices of racial profiling against Indigenous Peoples in particular in terms of violations of Civil Rights, Human Rights and Indigenous Rights in the general review of police operations in Maricopa County, we now DEMAND RESTITUTION of the RIGHT of LAW, in terms recognition, respect and protection of our individual and collective rights as Migrant Workers of Indigenous Peoples without discrimination and criminalization in all parts of our continent of Abya Yala.

"Stopping Mexicans to make Sure they are legal is not racist. If you have dark skin, you have dark skin! Unfortunately, That is the look of the Mexican illegal."

Files of Maricopa County Sheriff J. Arpaio

quoted on page 28 of U.S. District Court Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS

Document 494 12/23/11
******
Links:
February 7, 2012
Memorandum to the US Justice Department
******* 
 November 8, 2012
Comités de Defensa del Barrio
Commision de Derechos Humanos

Discriminacion contra los Trabajadores de Pueblos Originales en el Condado de Maricopa, AZ

TONATIERRA

Comités de Defensa del Barrio (CDB)
 Press Release 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE   Date: May 27, 2013
Contact: Rafael Reyes  (480) 518-5500    rreyes13@cox.net

DISCRIMINACION CONTRA LOS TRABAJADORES DE PUEBLOS ORIGINALES EN EL CONDADO DE MARICOPA, AZ

La decisión del juez federal Murray Snow que la Oficina del Alguacil del Condado Maricopa cometió perfil racial en contra de “Latinos” es un paso mas en la larga marcha en defensa de los derechos civiles de todos los Pueblos.  En el contexto nacional de la sociedad de EEUU, esta lucha comenzó con el desmantelamiento de prácticas discriminatorias de perfil racial que favorecieron los europeo-americanos “blancos” con preferencias étnicas en sistemas electorales, educativos, económicos, culturales, y legales.  La lucha sigue, y ya lleva miles de capítulos, pero comienza siempre con el reconocimiento universal básico de la dignidad y la compasión humana.

En el contexto de la Ley Internacional y como Pueblos Indígenas, nosotros reconocemos que los Derechos Humanos son inherentes.  Los Estados Unidos de Norteamérica es firmante de la Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos.  Estos dos hechos son realidades legales que deben ser contemplados para evaluar en un contexto global la decisión recién del juez Snow mas allá que el reclamo en defensa de la población “Latina”.

Como trabajadores de Pueblos Originales de Abya Yala [Las Américas] con el derecho inherente de nuestra propia identidad cultural, Nican Tlacah, no nos identificamos como “Latinos.”

El 13 de septiembre del 2007, la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas adoptó la Declaración de los Derechos de los Pueblos Indígenas.  Los Estados Unidos fue uno de cuatro gobiernos que se opuso a la declaración, incluyendo los estados anglophiles de Canada, Australia, y Nueva Zelandia quien como derivados, representan los soberanías inmigrantes que son residuos republicanas de las colonias del imperio británico.

En luz que la decisión del juez Snow y el caso del Departamento de Justicia en que se entretienen temas de perfil racial y actos policíacos discriminatorios de parte de la Oficina del Alguacil del Condado de Maricopa, visto que en ambos casos NO han mencionado prácticas sistemáticas de perfil racial en contra de los Pueblos Indígenas en particular como fundamental de las violaciones en general de Derechos Civiles, Derechos Humanos, y Derechos Indígenas dentro de la revisión de operaciones policíacas en el condado de Maricopa, DEMANDAMOS que se restituye el Derecho de Ley en términos del reconocimiento, respeto, y protección de nuestros derechos individuales y colectivos como Trabajadores de Pueblos Originales, sin discriminación y criminalización en todas partes de nuestro continente de Abya Yala. 

"Stopping Mexicans to make sure they are legal is not racist.  If you have dark skin, you have dark skin! Unfortunately, that is the look of the Mexican illegal."

Files of Maricopa County Sheriff J. Arpaio,

quoted on page 28 of US District Court Case 2:07-cv-02513-GMS

Document 494 12/23/11
 *******
Links:
February 7, 2012
Memorandum to the US Justice Department
******* 
 November 8, 2012
Comités de Defensa del Barrio
Commision de Derechos Humanos

Dismantling Monsanto

A Tale of Two Semiconductor Cities

Why It Took So Long to Investigate
Vapor Intrusion in Phoenix

Lenny Siegel

Center for Public Environmental Oversight

March, 2010

     The other day I received a phone call from a TV reporter in Arizona. He asked me why it took so long for regulatory agencies to launch a vapor intrusion investigation near the Motorola 52^nd Street Superfund site in Phoenix. I had visited this site a month earlier, conducting a community workshop on vapor intrusion, and I had been ready to write a report asking why such an investigation had not been undertaken. But at the meeting where I presented, officials from U.S. EPA Region 9 announced that they had launched such an investigation. The technical experts advising the study were the same people who have been supporting the vapor intrusion investigations in my community of Mountain View, California, since 2002, so the announcement came as a great relief.

     But the reporter’s question is still valid. Comparing Mountain View and Phoenix, this appears to be a serious instance of environmental injustice. Mountain View, in the heart of Silicon Valley, is a diverse but highly educated, relatively affluent, and empowered community. The population of Phoenix above the Motorola plume is predominantly Latino, lacking—on average—the education, wealth, and power of Mountain View residents. 

 

Former Motorola plant as seen from Lindon Park Neighborhood, Phoenix, Arizona 

     In the early 1980s, contamination at a south San Jose, California semiconductor plant owned and operated by Fairchild Semiconductor prompted regulators to require electronics manufacturers throughout Silicon Valley to test their underground storage tanks, adjacent soil, and groundwater. Most of the tanks had leaked, and the supposedly clean semiconductor industry turned out to be responsible for perhaps the greatest concentration of TCE plumes in the country, including a large one at the birthplace of the commercial semiconductor industry, about a mile from my house in Mountain View. Defined by the three surface streets that parallel its boundaries, it is known as the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman (MEW) Superfund Study Area. The plume from MEW flows under Bayshore Freeway, merging with contamination from Navy and NASA sources at Moffett Field, a former Naval Air Station now primarily operated by NASA’s Ames Research Center. Nearby are the former GTE military electronics plant, where an award-winning transit-oriented development was built in the 1990s, and the recently demolished Orion Park military housing area, both of which have smaller TCE plumes.

 

Former GTE plant, Mountain View, California

     Phoenix-based Motorola Semiconductor, one of the two early major chipmakers not based in Silicon Valley, turned out to have similar problems. In 1982 it discovered that volatile organic compounds had leaked from its underground storage tanks, and the plant was first proposed for the “Superfund” National Priorities List in 1984. Its seven-mile-long plume, boosted by releases from other companies, is larger than any groundwater contamination site in Silicon Valley. Its maximum TCE level of 1,470,000 parts per billion (ppb), reported in 1983, is to my knowledge larger than any sampling result in Silicon Valley. The principal responsible party is Freescale Semiconductor, which took over the plant from Motorola, but the plant is now operated by ON Semiconductor.

     State and federal regulators directed extensive cleanups in both areas, focused on protecting local groundwater. But in 2002 EPA Region 9, covering the Pacific Southwest as well as Pacific islands, joined EPA nationally in considering the risks posed by vapor intrusion, the migration of TCE and other volatile organic compounds from the subsurface into overlying buildings. In October of that year, it sent letters to the MEW responsible parties ordering them to undertake, under EPA supervision, an evaluation of the “groundwater to indoor air pathway.” In January 2003, EPA released a fact sheet describing four vapor intrusion investigations in Mountain View, inviting the public to a community meeting.

     Three to four hundred people, a majority of whom were residents of the former GTE site, showed up, reinforcing EPA’s decision to make Mountain View a test case for its new vapor intrusion strategy. The MEW vapor intrusion project is one of the largest and most complex in the country, involving a mix of over 130 occupied commercial buildings, 80 private residences, 14 multi-unit military housing buildings, and a planned university campus at Moffett Field. EPA did not issue a Proposed Plan until July 2009, but the responsible parties implemented mitigation as soon as evidence of vapor intrusion was found at any building.

     The GTE investigation proceeded faster, largely because the TCE plumes there were weaker and localized. Despite an unusually protective detection limit, prompted by EPA’s briefly proposed TCE screening level of .017 µg/m3, only one home was found to require mitigation (depressurization). Conceivably a few other homes would have needed mitigation, but the owners did not agree to have them tested. After a few years, the focus shifted to completing the cleanup of source areas, and neighborhood interest declined.

     The Motorola 52^nd Street site was also on EPA’s radar screen at this time. By January 2004, Region 9 had placed it among 14 Superfund sites considered “High Priority Sites for Expedited Review.” And well it should have. Hundreds, maybe thousands of homes sit over the TCE plume. Recent deep, bedrock aquifer samples show TCE levels as high as 610,000 ppb near the factory’s fenceline with the Lindon Park neighborhood, but concentrations in the upper, alluvial aquifer measure in the low thousands, with one sample reaching 2,800 ppb. In 2003 a new elementary school opened less than a half-mile from the plant, near some of the highest alluvial aquifer TCE concentrations, with no reported vapor intrusion assessment or response.

New elementary School above the Motorola Phoenix plume

     But no action was taken. Though on EPA’s Superfund list, the portion of the Motorola site nearest the plant was under the lead jurisdiction of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. The newsman who called me reported on the air, “Public documents show ADEQ discussed a vapor intrusion study in 2004 but never followed through. ‘Folks felt that the appropriate experience was not available to do this type of study properly,’ said ADEQ spokesperson Sherri Zendri.”

     I first learned about the oversight in oversight in Phoenix in March 2008. I was organizing a panel of representatives from vapor-intrusion-impacted communities for an EPA workshop in San Diego. An EPA Community Involvement Coordinator recommended as a presenter Mary Moore, Vice-President of the Lindon Park Neighborhood Association and manager of its EPA Technical Assistance Grant. Mary explained to the roomful of engineers and other consultants and officials that ADEQ was not moving forward with a needed vapor intrusion investigation, reporting the official ADEQ explanation that U.S. EPA had not finalized its official guidance! Mary repeated this at a similar forum in Philadelphia in January 2009. Still there was no action, but EPA officials apparently were listening and figuring out what to do.

Moore presents in San Diego, March 2008

     Finally, in early February 2010, while I was in Phoenix, EPA Region 9 announced that it was taking over the investigation and moving it forward. It handed out a January 28, 2010 review of a vapor intrusion study work plan prepared for Freescale Semiconductor in August 2004! The first steps will include door-to-door outreach and soil gas sampling.

     EPA deserves credit for finally taking on this investigation, which might surpass Endicott (NY), Pompton Lakes (NJ), Dayton (OH), and Denver (CO)—the Redfield plume—to become the community requiring the greatest number of residential mitigation systems. However, no one will know if there is an indoor air problem in Phoenix until sampling is undertaken. Region 9 has honed its skills here in Mountain View over the past seven years, so I expect it to do an effective, conscientious job.

     Why did it take so long? The superficial explanation for the delay in Arizona is that the state of Arizona does not have a vapor intrusion program, but one cannot rule out the conclusion, offered by the reporter from KPHO-TV news, that the residents of Lindon Park and other downgradient neighbors would have received more prompt protection had the demographics been different.

January 24, 2012 

Toxic Chemicals Discovered in Phoenix Neighborhood
*******
YouTube:
 
2013 Bioscience High School Students
Final Motorola Superfund Site Video Report 

Link:

Environmental Justice Resource Center