Both books provide an extended history and context of indigenous struggles, both have an anthropological bent to them, but do try to authentically represent the people who are being talked about… important reading especially for educators, and anyone interested in getting a deeper understanding of Bolivia, Ecuador and the Andean region.
During the mid-1990s, a bilingual intercultural education initiative was launched to promote the introduction of indigenous languages alongside Spanish in public elementary schools in Bolivia’s indigenous regions. Bret Gustafson spent fourteen years studying and working in southeastern Bolivia with the Guarani, who were at the vanguard of the movement for bilingual education. Drawing on his collaborative work with indigenous organizations and bilingual-education activists as well as more traditional ethnographic research, Gustafson traces two decades of indigenous resurgence and education politics in Bolivia, from the 1980s through the election of Evo Morales in 2005. Bilingual education was a component of education reform linked to foreign-aid development mandates, and foreign aid workers figure in New Languages of the State, as do teachers and their unions, transnational intellectual networks, and assertive indigenous political and intellectual movements across the Andes.
Gustafson shows that bilingual education is an issue that extends far beyond the classroom. Public schools are at the center of a broader battle over territory, power, and knowledge as indigenous movements across Latin America actively defend their languages and knowledge systems. In attempting to decolonize nation-states, the indigenous movements are challenging deep-rooted colonial racism and neoliberal reforms intended to mold public education to serve the market. Meanwhile, market reformers nominally embrace cultural pluralism while implementing political and economic policies that exacerbate inequality. Juxtaposing Guarani life, language, and activism with intimate portraits of reform politics among academics, bureaucrats, and others in and beyond La Paz, Gustafson illuminates the issues, strategic dilemmas, and imperfect alliances behind bilingual intercultural education.
In June 1990, Indigenous peoples shocked Ecuadorian elites with a powerful uprising that paralyzed the country for a week. Militants insisted that the government address Indigenous demands for land ownership, education, and economic development. This uprising was a milestone in the history of Ecuador’s social justice movements, and it inspired popular organizing efforts across Latin America. While the insurrection seemed to come out of nowhere, Marc Becker demonstrates that it emerged out of years of organizing and developing strategies to advance Indigenous rights. In this richly documented account, he chronicles a long history of Indigenous political activism in Ecuador, from the creation of the first local agricultural syndicates in the 1920s through the galvanizing protests of 1990. In so doing, he reveals the central role of women in Indigenous movements and the history of productive collaborations between rural Indigenous activists and urban leftist intellectuals.
Becker explains how rural laborers and urban activists worked together in Ecuador, merging ethnic and class-based struggles for social justice. Socialists were often the first to defend Indigenous languages, cultures, and social organizations. They introduced rural activists to new tactics, including demonstrations and strikes. Drawing on leftist influences, Indigenous peoples became adept at reacting to immediate, local forms of exploitation while at the same time addressing broader underlying structural inequities. Through an examination of strike activity in the 1930s, the establishment of a national-level Ecuadorian Federation of Indians in 1944, and agitation for agrarian reform in the 1960s, Becker shows that the history of Indigenous mobilizations in Ecuador is longer and deeper than many contemporary observers have recognized.
The water debate and protests continued in Ecuador, as indigenous groups blockaded some streets in Quito, however there are also other groups who have expressed support for the Correa government.
Meanwhile the general strike call in Bolivia did not garner much support, with some in the Morales administration suggesting a US hand behind the protests:
The Bolivian government has blamed the United States for fomenting the strike, AFP reported.
“Anybody who comes from the unions knows that a general, indefinite strike has political content. General indefinite strikes are called to overthrow governments,” Vice President Alvaro Garcia told reporters.
“No doubt, behind this there could be some officials from the US Embassy,” he added.
The call for an indefinite work stoppage by the country’s trade union federation is seen as a challenge to President Evo Morales, who is regarded as the champion of the poor indigenous masses.
Two of the more important nations struggling for an independent socio-economic system are going through some challenges. In Bolivia, unions are insisting on a wage increase greater than the 5% offered by Evo Morales’ government, and segments of the indigenous population of Ecuador are protesting new water laws that they believe will lead to privatization. These are important issues, and reveal some of shortcomings of nationalist based reform oriented movements. In both cases there are attempts by the governments to try and be a government of all the people of the respective countries. In doing so, they are ending up with compromises that don’t sit well with significant parts of the population who elected Morales and Correa. On the other hand, if the protests are not contained and focused, they can easily end up playing into the hands of the imperialist oligarchy who are waiting in the wings to take the spoils.
Chavez, Morales, and Correa at some point soon, will need to confront the oligarchy head on, and radically restructure their economy, without such a move, the danger is that their movements will end up weak and nothing more than liberal social – democratic, with little to distinguish them from Euro-Capitalists.
(As a side note while the events in Ecuador and Bolivia are significant, and appears to represent genuine grievances of the populations, there has been no massive outcry on part of the North American-Euro “left” – such as there was with the USA/Psy-op “green protests” in Iran. Not surprising, of-course, given that the North American-Euro “left” is little more than a replica of the North American-Euro Right wing when it comes to their ignorant attitudes and Islamophobias).
The three day conference on Climate Change in Cochabamba, Bolivia no doubt brought together some interesting organizations and people and no doubt there were some good discussions, perhaps even some on strategy. But like the World Social Forum, such large scale conferences have yet to deal with the question of representation. I think that one of the reasons the World Social Forum has lost much of its momentum, and has become little more than a gathering of NGOs and North American/European based non-profit organizations, is that it never addressed serious questions about movement building, nor did it address issues of glaringly obvious internal inequalities with North American and European “delegations” often hoging and lounging in some of the best 5 Star Hotels, while local representatives either doubling up with other locals, staying at 1 or no star hotels, or camping… Furthermore, the delegations from North America and Europe rarely included individuals from historically oppressed backgrounds, and are predominately White “leaders” of NGOs.
If the Climate Change conference is not to whither into oblivion and irrelevance, it needs to address these issues – one of the ways it can do this is to require that European and North American delegations must have at least 50% representation of oppressed peoples – this should be required of both independents and NGOs. A sliding scale should could be developed with a significant higher cost of participation for well funded NGOs subsidizing participants who otherwise might not be able to attend. IF the conference is to move into an actual movement building phase, then (especially privileged) Euro-North American decision making powers needs to be limited, an inverse voting mechanism could be developed where Third World participants’ votes would be given significantly more weight, and Euro-North American delegations’ decision making powers limited or marginal (at best). There are many more questions, especially with regards to class backgrounds and the NGOification of such conferences – but I don’t see how one can make much headway without first addressing the question of representation.
