Comunalidad as the Axis of Oaxacan Thought in Mexico (p4 of 17)<\/p>\n
The following article by Jaime Martinez Luna originally appeared in
\nthe anthology “New World of Indigenous Resistance: Noam Chomsky and
\nVoices from North, South, and Central America,” edited by Lois Meyer
\nand Benjam\u00ccn Maldonado and published by City Lights. The book is a
\ncollection of interviews with Noam Chomsky and articles written in
\nresponse to those interviews by indigenous activists and scholars. For
\nmore information on the Academia de Comunalidad or on the First
\nInternational Congress on Comunalidad- Communal Struggles and
\nStrategies: Horizons Beyond Capitalism visit
\nhttp:\/\/www.congresocomunalidad2015.org<\/p>\n
The Fourth Principle<\/p>\n
The history of Oaxaca has been interwoven with principles and values
\nthat display its deeply rooted comunalidad. For the Oaxacan people
\nacross many centuries, this has meant integrating a process of
\ncultural, economic, and political resistance of great importance.
\nSince the Spanish conquest individualist and mercantilist as it was
\nOaxaca has responded with a form and reason for being communal that
\nhas permitted it to survive even in the face of an asphyxiating
\nglobalizing process.<\/p>\n
This historic and latent resistance is the basis for the achievement
\ntoday of having the concept of comunalidad written into the State
\nEducation Act of 1995, as the fourth guiding principle of education.
\nFor its transcendence, this principle requires that it be integrally
\nimplemented so that in future generations, it becomes the foundational
\nknowledge and the basis for constructing all other knowledge. This
\nwill guarantee its security and immediate identity within the current
\nintercultural education process.<\/p>\n
We have not the slightest doubt that comunalidad is the
\nepistemological notion that sustains an ancestral, yet still new and
\nunique, civilizing process, one which holds back the decrepit
\nindividualization of knowledge, power, and culture.<\/p>\n
Based in the above, many of us as professionals who serve the
\ninterests of the form of education that Oaxacan communities demand
\nconsider it appropriate to lay out the set of criteria that undergird
\nan integrated treatment of the concept of comunalidad, seen as the
\ncentral concept in Oaxacan life.<\/p>\n
A BRIEF HISTORY<\/p>\n
The existence of a polytheism which sacralizes the natural world, the
\nabsence of private property, an economy oriented toward immediate
\nsatisfaction, and a political system supported by knowledge and work,
\nled the original peoples to create a cosmovision originating from the
\nus, from the self-determining and action-oriented collective, and,
\nalong with this, to construct a communalist attitude which has been
\ncontinually consolidating itself despite cultural and economic
\npressures from outside.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the colonizers, who were educated in autocratic regimens
\nwith a monotheistic and individualizing religion, a market-oriented
\neconomy, and a concentrated, privatizing concept of nature, have
\nforced original peoples to develop strategies of resistance based in
\nthe collective, in shared labor, and in respect for their community
\nelders or wise men (or se\u00d2ores naturales, natural gentlemen, as they
\nwere called in colonial law).<\/p>\n
With independence and the creation of the nation-state, the encounter
\nof these two visions did not erase their differences. The heirs of the
\ncolonial system, criollos1 and mestizos,[2] set themselves up as the
\ncentral power of the nascent republic, undergirded by Western values,
\nsuch as liberty, equality, and fraternity, that were constructed in
\nthe glow of the French Revolution. The Constitution of 1857 reflects
\nEuropean and North American influences; it supports private property
\nand declares that ecclesiastical property, and perhaps communal
\nproperty, as well, though this is unclear, are no longer held in
\nperpetuity. Resistance to these actions varied across the Republic.
\nStates with lands of interest to the market felt the effects of these
\nlaws the most; not so much Oaxaca, where flat lands appropriate for
\nmercantilist agriculture are scarce, and the greatest capitalist use
\nof plains and plateaus included livestock in the areas where private
\nproperty today is prevalent, such as the coastal region and Tuxtepec.
\nThe same occurred in the political sphere. The majority of Oaxacan
\ncommunities and municipalities retained their self-determination,
\ninherited from their cacicazcos, or prehispanic forms of governance.
\nThese managed to maintain their authority with the strategic support
\nof both the colonizers and the independents.<\/p>\n
With the Mexican Revolution, there was not much change. The
\ncontradictions played out with greater intensity in the indigenous
\nregions. Oaxaca stands out in its resistance, thanks to its
\ntopography. At present, it is the state with the greatest communal
\nland ownership, the greatest number of municipalities, the most
\npeoples with distinct languages and cultures, but at the same time,
\nthe least important state in the nation, according to government
\nstatistics, despite its illustrious native sons Benito Ju\u00b7rez, Flores
\nMag\u00dbn,[3] and Porfirio D\u00ccaz, in order of importance.<\/p>\n
Presently, thanks to the ways of thinking and being of its people,
\nOaxaca boasts the best preserved natural regions. It stands out in
\nterms of energy potential, which has made it an expansive region
\ncoveted by private interests as lucrative terrain for development.
\nGlobalization and privatization find in Oaxaca unlimited potential for
\nprofit-making. It follows, then, that Oaxaca has also provided many
\nopportunities for resistance and a depth of knowledge to more clearly
\ndefine this process. This is demonstrated in the comunalidad which
\ndisplays itself in every dimension of life. <\/p>\n
COMUNALIDAD AXIS OF
\nOAXACAN THOUGHT<\/p>\n
The world is awakening from the illusion of a universal culture shaped
\nby one hegemonic form of reasoning. Today it confronts the reality of
\ndiversity, multiculturalism, and the recognition of a daily
\nintercultural process strengthened by increasing migration across the
\nplanet. The individualism which was imposed on the colonies, today
\nnation-states, is reaching its limits in regard to the development of
\nequality and democracy, as it confronts the truly vibrant
\nepistemological proposal of comunalidad.<\/p>\n
Comunalidad does not originate from a discourse devised in a cubicle,
\na classroom, or a laboratory. It emerges as a tacit display of social
\nmovements, which in the 1980s achieved their goal of controlling their
\nown development by conceptualizing their actions.<\/p>\n
The organizing mechanisms that sustain comunalidad are not visible
\noutside of the social process; it is in this same social process that
\nthey become visible. In other words, comunalidad carries on
\nindependently of whether we conceive of it as such, or not. The
\nactions are a demonstration of principles and values emanating from a
\nhistorical reality, one that transcends the centuries and is being
\nconsolidated in a concrete struggle for the liberation of peoples, as
\nwell as their cultural reaffirmation.<\/p>\n
Comunalidad is confronted by the individualism imposed as part of the
\nlogic of colonialism, privatization, and mercantilism, which are
\ndeveloped according to a philosophy centered in the individual as the
\naxis of the universe. Neither Marxism nor nineteenth-century
\nliberalism strays from this base. Comunalidad integrates diversity and
\nreproduces it within collaborative forms of work and joint
\nconstruction. In other words, we could say that predatory and now
\nglobalized individualism is confronted by an ancient communalism
\n(which in the opinion of Marx, was surpassed by later modes of
\nproduction). But in reality, comunalidad is an historical experience
\nand a vibrant, present day set of behaviors, which is constantly
\nrenovated in the face of the social and economic contradictions
\ngenerated by capitalist individualism.<\/p>\n
In Oaxaca, the vitality of comunalidad as it presents itself witnesses
\nto the integration of four basic elements: territory, governance,
\nlabor, and enjoyment (fiesta). The principles and values that
\narticulate these elements are respect and reciprocity. Comunalidad and
\nindividualism overlap in Oaxacan thought. We are the unique result of
\nour own culture, but we are also colonized. Everyone displays
\nknowledge according to the context surrounding them; hence,
\ncontradictions are a daily occurrence, not only of individuals, but
\nalso of communities. This is why, due to the social processes that
\nOaxaca experiences, the study and reproduction of comunalidad in all
\ndimensions of life is vitally necessary if we wish to transcend our
\nprevalent socioeconomic contradictions. <\/p>\n
COMUNALIDAD IN EDUCATION <\/p>\n
In the 1980s, thanks to indigenous, peasant, and social movements in
\ngeneral, comunalidad was proposed as the explanatory concept of the
\norganizational modalities of Oaxacan society. The teachers insurgence,
\nas well as the commitments of various Oaxacan and Mexican
\nintellectuals, found in this concept a logical articulation of their
\nmobilizations and their teaching. The outcome was that Oaxacan
\nteachers managed to insert the concept of comunalidad as the fourth
\nguiding principle together with democracy, nationalism and humanism in
\nthe State Education Act of 1995. That law was, of course, also a
\nresponse to fears generated in government officials by the Zapatista
\nuprising of 1994.<\/p>\n
The communal vision of life transcends the labyrinth that presently
\nentraps indigenous education. Community-controlled education starkly
\nmarks the boundaries that separate school-based, cloistered education
\nfrom that which the community in its entirety provides. Understanding
\nthe presence of comunalidad in education means understanding very
\nspecifically how to plant the seed of a civilizing process, one that
\ninvestigates and proposes a concrete pedagogy that guarantees not only
\nthat the concept (and now guiding principle) of Oaxacan education is
\nunderstood, but also that continuous mobilizations are undertaken for
\nthe liberation of knowledge. Now that comunalidad is established as a
\nprinciple in the State Education Act, spaces and opportunities must be
\nopened up which are dedicated to developing the necessary knowledge
\nand designing needed tools to make it a reality. This means
\nincorporating this knowledge and these tools into the centrally
\nplanned state education which contradicts our realities and serves as
\nan obstacle to our being able to express our own experiences. By
\nexpressing our experiences, we will be able to reproduce the
\nprinciples and values that support the reaffirmation of our cultural
\ndiversity.<\/p>\n
This line of reasoning can and must result in the achievement of our
\nexpectations. This leads us to the following conclusions: -It is
\nnecessary to integrate specific, local, and regional content in the
\neducation that is imparted throughout the territory of Oaxaca. -It is
\nimportant to strengthen our ancestral knowledge using pedagogical
\nagencies and tools appropriate to the task, in order to resist the
\nruinous individualization of knowledge. -It is imperative that we
\nground an epistemology in the everyday labor of society in order to
\nshape a new conception of the universe. Thinking must not be the
\npreserve or property of the academy. It must be the practice of all
\nthe worlds inhabitants.<\/p>\n
A NEW PEDAGOGY<\/p>\n
What needs to be taught is nothing more than sharing the sharing of
\nanger, enchantment, routine, misfortune, pain, tenderness, joy. For
\nteachers, all of these words are a familiar lingo. Paulo Freire called
\nthis the pedagogy of the oppressed, Makarenko referred to the identity
\nof others, Summerhill saw it as constant hilarity; thus, everyone sees
\nwhat they want to see. Everyone depends on his or her concept, context
\nand text. In this sense, one cannot speak of one pedagogy, but rather
\nan intellectual diversity that captures the world, that is not
\ntime-bound, but if given space, that defines character and emotion.<\/p>\n
All pedagogical technologies depend on interests of all kinds: social
\ninterests, because they respond to the stimuli of relationships;
\nacquired, and in many cases, imposed values; political interests,
\nbecause they respond to governments set up by those who want to manage
\nthe lives of the inhabitants; and economic interests, because they
\nrespond to needs inserted from the outside, not only to those that are
\ninternal.<\/p>\n
All of which leads us to understand that no one can teach anyone else,
\nor all of us must teach each other, and with that we reproduce
\nintentions and resolve needs. This is what we learn from comunalidad.<\/p>\n
Noam Chomsky affirms that our peoples face challenges, in most cases
\nhistorical challenges. Neoliberalism is neither liberal nor new, but
\nit is a concentration of enormous power, and it also is collapsing.
\nEdgar Morin shares the same view, believing that the communal is a
\nvery significant proposal, but it must be understood, valued and
\nsupported. The Mexican philosopher Luis Villoro is very enamored of
\nthis perspective and agrees with the communitarian view, though he
\nwill not be separated from his republican passion. The European
\nphilosopher Panikkar also agrees with communitarianism; however, his
\nWestern orientation keeps him from developing more detailed responses
\nto this matter. Gonz\u00b7lez Casanova continues to be obsessed with
\ndemocracy, a topic in need of debate in light of current realities.[4]<\/p>\n
In education, that which is communitarian is a paradigmatic vision. A
\nfundamental principle is to liberate the exercise of knowledge. It
\nmust be acknowledged to be the result of everyones labor: the
\nso-called university-educated, bricklayers, teachers, peasants, in the
\nend, all of us who inhabit the natural world. I am not bothered by the
\nidea of knocking down schools and suppressing teachers because,
\nessentially, we are all teachers. Teachers are not the ones, despite
\ntheir intelligence, who should determine what we must know. They must
\nunderstand that it is each and every one of us who has to open the
\ndoor to knowledge. The collective task does not come from the outside;
\nit has always been within us, and also the need. Nature has obligated
\nus to work together, and not for the politicized notion of mass labor
\nembodied in the Industrial Revolution, if that is what you want to
\ncall it, but rather for the need to survive.<\/p>\n
AN EXAMPLE TO HELP CLARIFY<\/p>\n
As an 8-year-old boy, my mother enrolled me in a boarding school
\nfounded due to the initiative of L\u00b7zaro C\u00b7rdenas.[5] The students came
\nfrom many communities, basically indigenous, a concept imposed on us
\nthanks to Manuel Gamio[6] and his collection of anthropologist and
\nbureaucrat followers. The tale is long but its importance centers on
\nthe the educational organization of the experience.<\/p>\n
There was an assembly made up of all the students. Through a committee
\nthe students organized homework and chores; even the meting out of
\njustice was decided in this representative way. The teachers were
\nsimply consultants; the students determined what was to be done.<\/p>\n
There were workshops for agriculture, textile and shoe production,
\nbread and food production, carpentry, ceramics, and music. The
\neducational process was not centered on the teaching staff but rather
\nin liberation and work. This is a long story, but we can understand
\nand summarize it in the following manner: a. An education founded in
\nwork. b. An education based not in organization from above, but in the
\nparticipation of all. c. An educational method founded in respect for
\neveryone\u00a5s knowledge, and fundamentally, respect for that which is our
\nown. <\/p>\n
CONCEPTUAL CONTEXT OF THE IDEA<\/p>\n
In 1856, Karl Marx wrote in his Outlines of the Critique of Political
\nEconomy or Grundisse, about the existence of communalism, basing
\nhimself on the experiences of the Aztecs, the Iroquois, and the
\nAsians, both Hindu and Chinese. He discovered in these sources
\ndistinct values and modes of organization. Yet his reflections were in
\na certain respect pessimistic. He thought that these were cultures
\ndestined to disappear. For him, industrial development made the worker
\ninto the subject responsible for social and economic transformation.
\nHowever, in his reflections he provides elements that are consistent
\nwith an understanding of the communal within the relationship of human
\nbeings with territory.<\/p>\n
This is the first reflection that I want to share with you. Communal
\nbeings, as Benjam\u00ccn Maldonado affirms, make sense of themselves in
\nterms of their relationship with the land. An indigenous person
\nunderstands himself in relationship with the land. I want to clarify
\nthat I am not referring to the Zapatista or Magonista maxim of Land
\nand Liberty, but rather to a relationship with the land that is not
\nmercantile, a relationship of sharing and caring. That is, humans are
\nlinked to the land not only for organic sustenance, but also for
\nspiritual and symbolic sustenance. In other words, the land does not
\nbelong to those who work it, in my way of reasoning; rather, those who
\ncare for it, share it, and when necessary work it belong to the land,
\nand not the other way around.<\/p>\n
Obviously in a world ruled by the logic of the market, it is easier to
\nappropriate everything from nature for ourselves rather than to grasp
\nan entirely reverse conception of ourselves. The need to survive
\ncauses us to view everything from a materialistic perspective; on this
\nsubject Marx made an abundance of reflections of great importance. But
\nhere is where the difference from indigenous thinking springs forth.
\nComunalidad is a way of understanding life as being permeated with
\nspirituality, symbolism, and a greater integration with nature. It is
\none way of understanding that human beings are not the center, but
\nsimply a part of this great natural world. It is here that we can
\ndistinguish the enormous difference between Western and indigenous
\nthought. Who is at the center only one, or all? The individual, or
\neveryone? The market makes everything into a product, a thing, and
\nwith that nature is also commodified.<\/p>\n
My second reflection is on organization. Marx respects the community
\nas the nucleus that integrates families, that which makes of territory
\na space for social relationships appropriate for the exercise of a
\nnecessary social organization. This necessary organization is
\nobligatory, not only for peaceful coexistence, but also for the
\ndefense of territorial, spiritual, symbolic, artistic, and
\nintellectual values. The community is like a virtual gigantic family.
\nIts organization stems initially and always from respect.<\/p>\n
Everything is done together, a practice obviously reinforced by the
\npolicy of the Spanish colonizers of concentrating populations. Still,
\nit is a natural reaction, naturally linked up with the use of a common
\nlanguage.<\/p>\n
The creation and functioning of the communal assembly perhaps was not
\nnecessary before the arrival of the Spaniards, but for the sake of
\ndefense it had to be developed. Once the population was concentrated,
\nreligious societies to attend the saints (cofrad\u00ccas), and community
\norganizations to plan fiestas (mayordom\u00ccas) developed, which were
\ncells of social organization that strengthened the ethics of the
\nassembly. Out of this, the communally appointed leadership roles
\n(cargos) originated. Someone had to represent the group, but all this
\nimplied the need for greater consolidation for decision-making. The
\nSpanish governors designed the details of the colonial organizational
\nstructure, but in one way or another over time all the new colonial
\nroles simply were absorbed into already-established traditional roles
\nand responsibilities. Centuries had to pass before the colonial cargos
\nthat were used to control the native population were diluted and
\nleveled enough so that the macehuales (community members, now
\ncomuneros) could ascend the social pyramid, and the community could
\nbecome a space of truly horizontal participation.<\/p>\n
Today, as before, one does not receive a community cargo by empty
\ntalk, but rather because of ones labor, attitude, and respect for the
\nresponsibilities entrusted. Everyone knows this, having learned it
\neven before the age of eighteen, perhaps at ten or fourteen years of
\nage, when assigned the first cargo, that of community policeman
\n(topilillo). This gives the cargo a profound moral value that has
\nnothing to do with categories such as economic value, efficiency,
\nprofitability, or punctuality, but rather with respect for the
\nresponsibilities involved. This has created a truly complicated
\npolitical spectrum in Oaxaca. We have 570 municipalities and more than
\n10,000 communities. Eighty percent of these continue to govern
\nthemselves by communal assemblies. Their representatives are named in
\nthe assembly. For this reason, the widespread civic uprising that
\noccurred in 2006 in Oaxaca must be analyzed under more meticulous
\nparameters, a topic that will not be addressed here.<\/p>\n
The third reflection refers to communal work. Weber, as well as Keynes
\nand Marx, analyzed productivity in terms of the individual. They found
\nin individual labor a process of value production that they explained
\naccording to their theoretical frameworks. However, communal labor is
\na different matter. To begin with, communal labor does not respond to
\nthe drive for personal satisfaction, that is to say, it does not obey
\nthe logic of individual survival, but rather that of satisfying common
\nneeds, such as preparing a plot of land, repairing or building a road,
\nconstructing a community service hall, hospital, school, etc. This
\nlabor is voluntary, which implies that individual wages are not
\nreceived. In the urban world, everything is money-driven; you pay your
\ntaxes and away you go. Curiously, it is said of Oaxaca that it is the
\nsubsidized state par excellence, while what is not taken into account
\nis the value of communal work, which if calculated, would surpass all
\nthe fiscal supports that we are aware of. The value of this work can
\nalso be translated to the context of political representation. Ask
\nyourself how many political representatives in the city would
\ncontribute their time if they were not paid for it!<\/p>\n
Fifty percent of the cost involved in constructing any community
\nservice is the cost of labor, apart from the purchase of necessary
\nmaterials. This wealth of local participation goes unnoticed by the
\nstate and federal governments. We could say that Oaxaca lives by its
\nown resources without outside support, and this provides a wide degree
\nof self-determination. It is not a coincidence that 418 municipalities
\nare politically self-governed. I am referring here to what is called
\nusos y costumbres,[7] a concept that for me is pejorative, yet there
\nis no other state in the Republic of Mexico that enjoys this self
\ndetermination. If we add to this all the communal labor, then the
\nsituation becomes even clearer.<\/p>\n
It is important to point out a few details. Oaxaca is the state with
\nthe greatest number of municipalities (almost a quarter of the
\ncountry’s total). Almost 70 percent of its territory is in the
\ncategory of collective ownership, and there are seventeen indigenous
\nlanguages with thirty-seven variants of these.[8] It is the state with
\nthe two most biologically diverse areas in all of Mexico: the
\nChimalapas and the Sierra Norte. And something almost imperceptible
\nbut which marks the nature of Oaxaca it is the geographical
\nconvergence of the two mountain ranges of Mexico: the Sierra Madre
\nOriental and the Sierra Madre Occidental. This makes Oaxaca a wrinkled
\nlandscape, or, as Father Gay[9] used to say, like a crumpled sheet of
\npaper. It does not have plains to guarantee an elevated level of
\nproductivity, which also explains its motley pattern of communal
\norganization. It was easier to produce the dye-generating cochineal
\ninsect than corn, first, because of the geography, and also partly
\nbecause of the ease with which all of the inhabitants could
\nparticipate, both adults and children. Another reflection concerns the
\nfiesta. In a neoliberal context, it is the market that establishes the
\nrules, and it demands greater production of merchandise. In the
\ncommunity there is production, but it is for the fiesta. All year long
\nevery nuclear community cultivates its products: corn, beans, squash,
\nfruit, chickens, pigs, turkeys, even cattle. For what? For the fiesta.
\nAny urban dweller would say, what fools! They could sell them instead.
\nBut that is not how it works. Here is the root of the difference. The
\ncommunity member (comunero, or comunario as a Bolivian friend says),
\ndoes not work to sell, but for the joy derived. The little money that
\nshe or he manages to gather is used to buy some skirts, trousers,
\nfireworks. Many interpret this as ignorance; I call it a connection to
\nthe land, or spirituality. I would like to share some brief
\nconclusions with you.<\/p>\n
1. The year 1994 the year of the Zapatista uprising awakened new
\ndreams, but in reality what it achieved was to pull away the blanket
\nunder which we were hidden. Now here we are, reclaiming our
\ncomunalidad.<\/p>\n
2. The isms are aberrations that convert themselves into authorities
\nthat impose themselves and are not naturally born. I fear communalism
\nbecause it sounds doctrinaire. And I believe that is what we least
\nwant for our own free self-determination.<\/p>\n
3. Marx included in his writings a fountain of knowledge by which to
\nunderstand our social longevity, but this was covered up by his focus
\non industry and the protagonist role of the worker. And we all know
\nhow that turned out.<\/p>\n
4. We must find in the experience of our peoples the lessons necessary
\nto create new conceptual frameworks. And we must not be afraid to
\nconstruct new epistemological notions that will lead us to transcend
\neven ourselves.<\/p>\n
Jaime Mart\u00ccnez Luna is a Zapotec anthropologist, early theorist of
\nOaxacan comunalidad, community member of San Pablo Guelatao, Oaxaca,
\nand veteran community activist whose work has focused on the defense
\nof communal forests and other natural resources, and more recently on
\ntraditional and activist music and the development and promotion of
\ncommunity radio.<\/p>\n
NOTES 1. Persons born in Latin America of Spanish descent. 2. Persons
\nof mixed European and Indian descent; half-breeds. 3. Ricardo Flores
\nMag\u00dbn (1873-1922) was a Oaxacan anarchist who began a revolution
\nagainst the Mexican state under the banner of Land and Liberty. Exiled
\nto the United States in 1904, he organized three armed uprisings
\n(1906, 1908, 1911). He was the only revolutionary who was inspired by
\nindigenous peoples, believing that their historic experience of
\ncommunal life would be the foundation for reconstructing Mexican
\nsociety after the revolutions triuph. 4. Edgar Morin is a French
\nessayist who has influenced education through his proposals of
\ntransdisciplinarity and complex thought. See Los siete saberes
\nnecesarios para la educaci\u00dbn del futuro, available on internet at .
\nLuis Villoro is one of Mexicos major contemporary social philosophers
\nwith significant contributions in the areas of epistemology and
\nethical reflections on the relationship of the nation-state with
\nindigenous peoples. See Saber, creer, conocer (M\u00c8xico: Siglo XXI Eds.,
\n2008) and Estado plural, pluralidad de culturas (M\u00c8xico: Ed, Paid\u00dbs,
\n2002). Raim\u00dbn Panikkar is a Hindu-Catalan philosopher who reflects on
\nthe vast distance between Western and other cultures. See: \u00f8Es
\noccidental el concepto de los derechos humanos? (Mexico, Di\u00dbgenes 120,
\nWinter 1982) and Religi\u00dbn, filosof\u00cca y cultura (2000) on the Internet
\nat:
\nhttp:\/\/www.raimonpanikkar.com\/articles\/religion_filosofia_y_cultura.
\nhtm. Pablo Gonzalez Casanova is a Mexican sociologist, affiliated
\nclosely with Zapatismo, who in the 1970s proposed the idea of internal
\ncolonization to explain the relationship of the Mexican state with
\nindigenous peoples. See La democracia en M\u00c8xico (M\u00c8xico: Ed. Era,
\nSerie Popular, 1978); also El colonialismo interno, (2006) on the
\ninternet at:
\nhttp:\/\/bibliotecavirtual.clacso.org.ar\/ar\/libros\/secret\/gonzalez\/
\ncolonia.pdf. 5. L\u00b7zaro C\u00b7rdenas, the Marxist-oriented president of
\nMexico from 1934-1940, promoted socialist education policies and layed
\nthe foundation for indigenous assimilation (indigenismo) as public
\npolicy. 6. Manuel Gamio is considered to be the father of Mexican
\nanthropology. He carried out important interdisciplinary studies and
\nwas a functionary in postrevolutionary governments. 7. A term used to
\nrefer to the traditional form of governance through a communal
\nassembly that selects its community leaders in the form of cargos. 8.
\nThe number of languages and their variants spoken in Oaxaca is
\ndisputed. It is commonly reported that there are between fourteen and
\nseventeen languages with between thirty to fifty variants, though some
\nsay the number of variants may be as many as ninety. A language such
\nas Zapotec may more accurately be considered a language family, for
\nits variants, such as Zapotec of the Tehuantepec Isthmus and Zapotec
\nof the Sierra, are as different one from another as Spanish and
\nItalian and Portuguese. 9. Fray Antonio Gay was an early Oaxacan
\nhistorian whose work has served as the foundation of Oaxacan history.
\nIn reality, he pirated information from other sources and made
\nunsubstantiated claims, such as that the Chatino people descended from
\nVikings.<\/p>\n
“If the world is upside down the way it is now, wouldn’t we have to
\nturn it over to get it to stand up straight?” -Eduardo Galeano Support
\nUDW<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Comunalidad as the Axis of Oaxacan Thought in Mexico (p4 of 17) The following article by Jaime Martinez Luna originally appeared in the anthology “New World of Indigenous Resistance: Noam Chomsky and Voices from North, South, and Central America,” edited by Lois Meyer and Benjam\u00ccn Maldonado and published by City Lights. The book is a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"","spay_email":""},"categories":[5,155,180,123,15,118],"tags":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/bbrace.net\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8265"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/bbrace.net\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/bbrace.net\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bbrace.net\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bbrace.net\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=8265"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/bbrace.net\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8265\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/bbrace.net\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=8265"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bbrace.net\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=8265"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/bbrace.net\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=8265"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}