|
| |
Nora Ventura
CRCL 5734
October 18, 2011
Colonialism and Post-colonialism
in Indigenous Mexico
During the course I realized
how limited my knowledge regarding Mexican colonization is. More specifically, I
know little of what indigenous people’s lives are like in a post-colonial world.
How did they manage to salvage their culture, language, and religion? Or did
they? What role do they play in a modern world? Personally, all I know is that I
grew up in a culture where being prieto/prieta
(dark skinned) is not beauty, and being
indio/india meant to be stupid,
ignorant. No seas indio (don’t
be an indian) is an insult that continues to echo our racist past, as the racism
is carried on onto our future.
First, a brief flashback:
Twenty-five million humans died as a result of a bloody Spanish invasion in
Central Mexico, “a genocide not talked about nearly as much as the
Holocaust is” (Urrieta159). But not all indigenous peoples were eradicated; most
of those who survived were forced to assimilate, to rid themselves of their
histories. Frantz Fanon declares, “Colonialism is not satisfied merely with
holding a people in its grip and emptying the native’s brain of all form and
content. By a kind of perverted logic, it turns to the past of the oppressed
people, and distorts, disfigures, and destroys it” (qtd. in Alfred and
Corntassel 602). When the Spanish developed the casta system (sistema
de castas), it not only served as a pigmentocratic
system, but rather as an incentive for natives to quickly assimilate which in
turn would guarantee that people would be more eager to leave their culture
behind. Urrieta points out that “the caste system excluded yet tantalized lower
castes with the possibility of escaping their casta
in future generations by mixing with people of a
higher caste” (159). One can think that perhaps yielding to this incentive was
not only an act of assimilation and possible access to a higher socio-economic
status, but rather an attempt for survival.
History tells us that the
Spanish left, eventually. Or that the Mexicans revolted and gained independence;
that too is history. Vasquez’s article reports on the Mexican government's
attempt to unify a nation after Mexico’s
independence. This was necessary because “only the creoles (Mexican born
Spaniards of “pure blood”), the uppermost class of Mexican society, succeeded in
developing a sense of national identity in the three centuries of colonial rule”
(30). Vasquez goes on to explain how the nation’s schools were identified as the
ones to be responsible for carrying out this task. As we are aware, the heroes
and the villains of history are determined by whose version of history we are
learning. The Catholic Church’s textbooks’ heroes were Cortes, Iturbide, and
Miramon--all Spaniards devoted to the Spanish crown. The Mexican government
however, viewed
Cuauhtémoc,
Hidalgo,
Morelos, Guerrero, Juarez, and Madero as the true heroes--all devoted to the
Mexican people. In 1959 “obligatory free sponsored textbooks became compulsory”
(32). Vasquez summarizes pedagogic tactics which were incorporated into the
educational curricula which she claims neutralized the conquest by both
acknowledging its victims and emphasizing the positive (technology)--all as an
attempt “to explain the diversity of human nature and understand the sameness of
the human experience, thus profiting from the cultural heritage of all other
peoples” (35). I find this idea of “sameness” problematic when “sameness” means
forced assimilation for indigenous people in Mexico.
The idea of “profiting from
cultural heritage” is hypocritical when indigenous peoples of Mexico are being systematically
eradicated. Underiner’s article explores indigenous peoples’ perceived role and
one of their tactics of resistance. Underider confirms, “The fields of
anthropology and tourism, for example, tend to construct the Maya as remnants of
a lost civilization, whose glory days are past and whose contemporary utility
exists in their status as links to the past--and their ability to produce
artisanal reminders of it” 351). That being the case, it is appropriate to point
out that indigenousness is then profitable in the sense that one can be
entertained by it, or that it can be used for decoration. Both Jamaica Kincaid
and Rudyard Kipling’s writing reflect this orientalist perception in regards to
the “natives” they write about. Underiner goes on to write about “cultural
missions” sponsored by the Mexican government in the 1940’s and 1950’s in the
form of traveling theatre troupes. These theatre troupes “were a key part of Mexico’s
modernization plans and served to dramatize the prescribed new ways of Mexican
life to a largely illiterate countryside” (352). Instead, indigenous people
incorporated theatre into their communities. As a result, “Mayan-identified
theatre emerges as an important alternative site for ethnic self-representation”
(369). In the article, different theatre troupes are presented. The themes of
their plays include but are not limited to women’s issues, migration,
globalization, and land reform. Of all presented,
Las Langostas (The Locusts) by Indigenous Playwright
Feliciano Sanchez Chan is the most compelling to me because of Sanchez Chan’s
use of Mayan prophesy intertwined with rural problems. Originally written in
Yucatecan Mayan, the play incorporates Mayan myth with contemporary issues
(globalization, nutrition, indigenous marginalization) to provide an explanation
for the problems their communities face while providing also a glimpse to
possible solutions--solidarity and self-sufficiency.
This brief research sparked interest for further exploration regarding three
specific topics: indigenous education, “Mayanness,” and Indigenous literature. A
recurring theme in the articles was the indigenous peoples’ historic struggle to
have access to education that is relevant to their communities. The educators
they demand are those who know their language, respect their culture, and
educate them on their rights as citizens of Mexico. Also, they request that
teaching of agricultural skills remains but not as a replacement for an
education that has the potential to lead to higher education. Of “Mayanness,”
Underiner pointed out that it is a constructed term”for international
consumption” (351). Under this umbrella of “Mayan culture” or “Mayan
civilization,” it is often taken for granted that we speak of peoples with over
a hundred different dialects with different customs and beliefs. In fact, for
academic research purposes, even Underiner yields to the term to be able to
reference “heterogeneous peoples and societies that nonetheless shared certain
religious, historical, aesthetic, social, and linguistic forms in a geopolitical
space called Mesoamerica” (qtd. in Underiner
351).
Lastly, after reading brief introductions to Indigenous Literature, I now want
to find an indigenous writer comparable to Jamaica Kincaid—one
who unapologetically writes about the effects of colonialism on her people.
It will no longer suffice to read only their
creation myths, but as we are learning in class, there is no academic research
that can replace what one can learn from Literature.
Works Cited:
Alfred, Taiaiake, and Jeff
Corntassel. "Being Indigenous: Resurgences against Contemporary Colonialism."
Government & Opposition
40.4 (2005): 597-614. Academic Search Complete.
EBSCO. Web. 14 Oct. 2011.
Underiner, Tamara L.
"Incidents of Theatre in Chiapas,
Tabasco, and Yucatan:
Cultural Enactments in Mayan
Mexico." Theatre
Journal Oct. 1998: 349.
Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 14 Oct. 2011.
Urrieta, Luis . "Las
Identidades Tambien Lloran, Identities Also Cry: Exploring the Human Side of
Indigenous Latina/o Identities." Educational Studies.
34.2 (2003): n. page. Web. 14 Oct. 2011.
<http://www.edb.utexas.edu/education/assets/files/ci/publications/urrieta/edstudies.pdf>.
Vasquez, Josefina Zoraida.
"Teaching History in Mexico, A Mestizo Country."
History Teacher. 12.1 (1998):
29-36. Web. 14 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/491345>
|
