[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: NAFTA, Capitalism and Alternatives, VII
Victor:
"Subcomandante" Marcos is no social revolutionary. God knows the whealing and
dealing he has made behind the scenes to simply arm his band. And if past
History is an indication of how things work, Marcos is at best an unwitting
pawn in Mexico's high stakes politics, narco-politics, or both. At worst he
is an egomaniac working in cahoots with the most repulsive elements in
PRI-politics ( The Raul Salinas/Hank Gonzales wing).
One item is true though, Mesoamerican Indians have no tradition of
individualism and are thus ill-equiped to deal with a democratic (as
understood by the other 75% of Mexicans) system. During colonial times, after
the encomienda system was abolish, and as a consequence of the advocacy of
the Catholic friars in favor of the Indians with the Spanish Crown the
Spanish Cronwn stablish a system of self-governance and self economic
reliance at the village level for the Indian communities. This was recognized
in the royal grants of land to the communities. The system survived the
period following independence and it was ironically outlawed by the Liberal
Constitution of 1857, under the leadership -and this is the most ironic part-
of Benito Juarez, a Zapotec Indian himself.
Most history books emphasize that these laws (which made illegal the
ownership of land by the equivalent of today's non-profit corporations)
were directed at the land owned by the Catholic Church, but in fact the great
loosers were the Indian Communities. These communal lands were, in the
Spanish tradition, called ejidos -from the Latin 'exitus' that is lands in
the outside of the Village). By act of law were the land titles granted by
the Spanish Crown to these communities null and void. The villages situated
close to cities and roads were quickly dispossed by the triumphant liberals
after their victory against the Mexican Conservatives.
It is a little known fact that the most ardent supporters of Maximilian and
the conservatives were the Indians because it had been Juarez and the
liberals who had dispossed them. The rate of dispossesion grew during the
golden years of liberalism under the leadership of yet another Oaxacan
Indian, Porfirio Diaz. Commander in chief of Juarez liberal armies.
Thus when Zapata spoke of the restoration of the ejidos to the communities,
he was talking about these communal lands granted by the Spanish crown to the
Indian communities. It has to be understood, that not all peasants are
Indians (most are mestizo) and had not ever lived in such communities.
Cardenas agrarian reform feat was to extend land reform to this peasants,
then known as "peones acasillados". In doing so, he forego to return the land
to the original ejido comunities in many instances. Why?
It is said that Calles is the founding father of the PRI. But it was really
Cardenas who made it into what it is today. By granting land to the "peones
acasillados" he guaranteed their support, furthermore to assure their
alliance to the party, he created the Ejidal system as we now know it (with
banco ejidal, caciques, comisarios ejidales, etc. The Works!) and created the
CNC or sector campesino. The arming of the ejidos had more to do with the
Guerra Cristera and Cardenas politics vis-a-vis "El Maximato" than anything
else. To insinuate that it was to help peasants defend against landowners is
ridiculous.
Landowners have never been, not now, not in the past a deciding factor in
Mexico's national politics. At the local level, perhaps. But remember even
before Mexico was Mexico decisions were made in the great Tenochtitlan. Any
two bit general or Mexico city politico carried more weight than a feared
landowner. Mexico's economic power has never been in agriculture. Mexico is a
mining country.
Cardenas used the ejidos to form brigadas campesinas who effectively fought
the Cristeros and the CROMistas of Morones. Cardenas also launched the CNC
and the political career of Fidel Velasquez. The popular sector of the PRI
was later added by Miguel Aleman in susbstitution of the military sector.
Returning to the main topic, what does all of this have to do with the
Zapatistas? First, things aren't always what they seem to be. marcos could
turn out to be another opportunist using armed peasants to pressure on behalf
of his sponsors, or himself should he try to go over his boss' head. Of
course he could be legit (it would really be nothing short of miraculous). In
which case he would bring up to the national consciousness the fact the 25%
of Mexico's population is so at odds with the democratic aspirations of the
other 75% that nothing short of the creation of autonomous confederate states
for the etnias would do.
This last point brings another set of problems that have become apparent in
the Chiapas case. Opportunists (a la PRD, or COCEI) usually mestizo
-the scourge of the indian- on the left using a real historical wrong
against the etnias to bring water to their windmills (traer agua para su
molinito).