SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 2004

These consequences will remain unclear, in turn, untilihe process of Maya rearticulation begins. Given thegenocidal brutality of Guatemala's ruling elite, amplydemonstrated in recent histor)', this process is sure toturn ugly. It would be fatalistic to abandon hopes forrearticulation in anticipation of this ugliness, but irre-sponsible to advocate Maya ascendancy without imagin-mg some means to assuage the fears and lessen the polar-ization. To occupy the space of the indio permitido may

REPORT ON RACE, PART 1

well be the most reasonable means at hand. If so, it willbe especially crucial to name that space, to highlight themenace it entails, and to subject its occupants to strin-gent demands for accountability to an indigenous con-stituency with an alternative political vision. Otherwise,It will be safe to assume that those who occupy thisspace have acquiesced, if only by default, to the regres-sive neoliberal project that the indio permitido is meantto serve. •

Land Rights and GarifunaIdentity

byEvaT. Thorne

THE HISTORY OF THE GARlFUNA PEOPLE HAS

long been tied to land. The Garifunaoriginate from the 17th century when,

on the windward Caribbean island of St.Vincent, the island's indigenous Arawak-Caribs integrated runaway and shipwreckedAfrican slaves into their communities,European colonists first referred to their prog-eny as "Black Caribs" and later "Garifuna," asthey are still known. When the English pushedout the French settlers of St. Vincent andsought possession of the island, they encoun-

The undeveloped beachfronlof Tela, Honduras, an increas-ingly popular tourist destina-tion.

tered fierce resistance from the Garifuna. Theconflict erupted into a yearlong war in 1772,ending in a treaty considered by most accountsto be the first signed between the British andan indigenous Caribbean population.

A second war broke out over the failure ofthe British to honor the terms of the treaty, butthis time the overpowered Garifuna surren-dered on British terms. The entire populationwas imprisoned for a year in a camp on a near-by island, where more than half perished. Thesurvivors were then loaded onto the H.M.S.

Eva I Thome is

Meyer and WallerJafje assistant

professor of politico

at Brandeis

l/niversity inWaltham,

Massachusetts.

21

REPORT ON RACE, PART 1

NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS

Experiment, no less, and transported thousands of milesaway to the Honduran island of Roatan. Erom there,they fanned out throughout the Caribbean coast ofCentral America, Garifuna communities now ring thecoast from Belize and Guatemala to Honduras andNicaragua.

Garifunachildren inrela,Hondurassell cassavabread to atourist.

Honduras currently has the largest population ofGarifuna at 250,000, according to the country's SpecialOffice on Ethnicity and Cultural Heritage. Their com-munities reside, as they have for generations, along thenorthern coast of the country and La Mosquitia in theeast. There, they have managed to preserve their lan-guage and many cultural practices, including uniquemusical, culinary and religious forms. The high degreeof coherence and continuity that characterizes their cul-tural identity and residency patterns has become centralto their renewed struggles to secure land.

In fact, the increasingly powerful Gartfuna communi-ty in Honduras leads one of the more successful Afro-descendant land rights movements in Latin America. Aspart of their political mobilization, they have affirmedtheir racial and ethnic identity to strengthen their col-lective territorial claims. Indeed, the partial victories ofthe land rights struggles of Honduras' Garifuna cannotbe understood without taking into account the ways inwhich this community has successfully politicized andlinked identity and land, and forced the Honduran gov-ernment to recognize this linkage.

LAND CONFLICTS HAVE OCCURRED REGULARLY IN LATIN

American societies for centuries, and they continue todo so despite the regional trend toward rapid urbaniza-tion. Access to land has long been documented to play22

a vital role in reducing rural poverty and remains animportant political and policy issue in the region. MostAfro-descendant communities in Latin America are stillheavily reliant on access to land for their cultural, eco-nomic, environmental and social security In recentyears, these communities have asserted collective claimto the lands they have inhabited since the colonial era,pressuring national governments to provide them for-mal title.

As a central element of this struggle, rural blacksacross Latin America are demanding recognition as dis-tinct ethnic groups vrtth group-specific rights, includingto land and territory Here, the distinction between raceand ethnicity is important. In the juridical context ofmost countries of the region, historically derived eth-nicity, and not race per se, forms the legal basis for col-lective claims to a distinct territory Not all rural blackcommunities can successfully claim such rights: onlythose able to document their history as communitiesfounded by escaped slaves. Thus, most Afro-descendantgroups pursuing collective land rights have begun theirstruggles for land by first upholding a set of claimsrelating to ethnic lineage and historic residencyTypically, these groups first seek legitimation based onsocial memories of their battles, dating from the colo-nial era, against racial oppression. They also affirm theirdistinct ethnic identity and link this to longstandingoccupation of a given territory, dating from before thefounding of the independent Latin American nation-state. These claims confer upon them indigenous-likelegal status.

This strategy stems from the constitutional reformsthat became an integral part of the Latin American polit-ical landscape as democratization swept the region inthe 1980s, While these reforms often legally enshrinedauthoritarian enclaves that shaped the emerging demo-cratic regimes, they also contained elements of promisefor the promotion of popular interests. In particular,they allowed for land reform, one category of which wasethnic-specific, introduced to address Afro-descendantand indigenous land claims. These reforms reflectedincreasing governmental acknowledgment of the pluri-cultural and multiethnic character of the region's popu-lations.

As a result, in some Latin American countries ruralAfro-descendant communities are now legally recog-nized as having a distinct ethnicity and as commandingthe right to collective and communal land title. In 1988,the Brazilian Constitution adopted Transitory Article68, which recognized the land claims of descendants of

SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 2004

REPORT ON RACE, PARTI

the country's escaped slave communities, known asquilombos.^ In Colombia, the land rights of blacks onthe Pacific coast gained constitutional recognition in1991 with Transitory Article 55, which was implement-ed with the 1993 approval of Law 70,^ Article 83 of the1998 Constitution of Ecuador granted Afro-Ecuadorians collective rights to ancestral lands.

Indigenous groups have often been granted addition-al rights not afforded to Afro-descendant groups. InColombia, for example, indigenous communities weregranted not only rights over land but also political,jurisdictional autonomy, so that local, indigenous-ledgovernments now govern their own territories. In sharpdistinction, no such privileges have been granted Afro-descendant communities.

The legal logic behind ethnically based land claimscan be both empowering and exclusionary. It is empow-

ering insofar as it accepts theThe victories of the legitimacy of deeply rooted,

Garifuna's land rights ethnically distmct communityidentities. It is exclusionary to

struggles in ^y^^ extent it demands strict

Honduras cannot be ethnohistorical "proof" that, , , draws potentially controver-

understood without i L J .U Jsial boundaries withm and

taking into account between communities,theways in which excluding those unable to

generate acceptable documen-this community has tation. In the notable cases ofsuccessfully Brazil, Colombia and

Ecuador, for example, to bepoliticized and linked i g^ble to claim land rights aidentity and land. community must be able to

clearly demarcate the territorylinked to its historically rooted identity In Hondurasand Nicaragua, groups must show that they have tradi-tionally used their lands. Such requirements imply theprerequisite of cultural or ethnic distinctiveness.

Although some Afro-descendant communities definethemselves in ethnic terms, the dominant societies inwhich they exist insist upon viewing them still as strict-ly racial groups, negating these communities' diverseself-conceptions,^ Their social and political marginal-ization partly stems from their identification as raciallyOther and, complicating matters further, in someinstances the communities themselves claim both eth-nic and racial identities,"^ These issues of racial and eth-nic identity further overlap with land titling and naturalresource use and require better integration, bothanalytically and practically

THESE COMPLICATED ISSUES ARE ALL AT PLAY IN THE LAND

struggles of Honduras' Garifuna, The Garifuna are one ofnine recognized ethnic groups in Honduras, which col-lectively represent about 13% of the country's popula-tion. The Garifuna alone account for approximately 2%.

Among those practices that distinguish the Garifunaas a separate ethnic group are a particular set of subsis-tence activities and a related gendered division of labor,Garifuna men engage in non-commercial, low-intensityfishing in both the ocean and rivers. They also hunt,mainly deer and iguana. In agricultural production,men are usually responsible for soil preparation as wellas slashing and burning, while both men and womenare involved in the sowing, harvesting and storage ofthe crop. Women cultivate and grate yucca, dry it, andthen bake it over hot coals into the finished product,cassava bread, some of which is reserved for local mar-ket consumption. Women are also responsible for thesale of surplus fish and agricultural products. (Withmassive male migration abroad from Garifuna commu-nities, a growing non-traditional male subsistence roleis the provision of remittances, while women increas-ingly assume the formerly male responsibilities of prop-erty transactions and maintenance.)

The Garifuna maintain other unique cultural prac-tices such as the Garifuna language, a particular set ofreligious beliefs and associated practices, as well as cul-turally specific festivals. Many of these practices areinextricably linked to the group's conceptions of landand territory; Community festivals mark the plantingand harvest seasons and particular fishing activities, forexample, and Garifuna cosmology invokes very specificnotions about the land and how it is to be treated.

With respect to land nghts, the Garifuna occupy acomplex position. Legal and constitutional instrumentsare often too narrow to acknowledge the diverse ways inwhich Garifuna self-perceive and position themselvesexternally Although they have been racialized withinthe categories of negro (black) and moreno (dark-skinned), the Garifuna see themselves, and are seen, asboth a racial and an ethnic group. As a group, they haveexperienced high levels of discrimination ever sincetheir arrival in Honduras, characterized by the denial ofsocial and civil rights. Historic indicators of their exclu-sion include their concentration in low-wage labor posi-tions and their lack of access to public spaces and high-er learning. In these ways, their experience recalls thatof blacks in the United States during the Jim Crow era.Their "blackness" has also excluded them fromHonduran national identity, which, as in most Latin

23

REPORT ON RACE, PART 1

NACLA REPORT ON THE AMERICAS

American countries, is characterized as mestizo. Thisconcept incorporates a mix of European and indigenousqualities, but largely ignores and/or marginalizesHonduran society's African legacy. This exclusion fromthe hegemonic understanding of national belongingpreviously undermined the abiUty of the Garifuna lomake group-specific claims. Active political mohiliza-tion, however, has largely attenuated the LatinAmerican myth of the mestizo nation.

To the extent that the reality of culturaldifference has been acknowledged andaddressed in conceptions of national iden-tity, legal frameworks and public policiesin Honduras, this largely has been theaccomplishment of indigenous people.These groups have successfully command-ed official recognition as distinct, collec-tive subjects with specific languages, cos-mologies, and relationships to land andterritory. Moreover, they have won speciallegal status by virtue of their pre-Europeanpresence in Honduras.

It is within this rubric of "the indige-nous" that the Garifuna have gained polit-ical leverage. First, the Garifuna originated from a mix-ing of Africans with an indigenous Caribbean popula-tion. Significant elements of their language areAmerindian in origin, as are other elements of theirunique, indigenous-like identity. For example, theyorganize their communities communally, especiallywith respect to iand tenure and agricultural practices,much like their indigenous counterparts. Second, theyare "indigenous" to Honduras in that they arrived beforethe republic won independence from Spain in the1800s.

Garlfuna leaders have used this indigenous frame-work to promote their case with the Honduran state.They have also reached out for international points ofleverage, taking advantage of the overarching institu-tional framework characteristic of this era of globaliza-tion. For instance, they successfully pressured theHonduran state to recognize the applicabiUty to theirstatus of International Labor Organization Convention169 on indigenous peoples. They have also gained con-siderable ground through analogous policies withinmultilateral development banks, such as the WorldBank and the Inter-American Development Bank. Theselegal instruments and institutional policies, with theirprovisions for group land rights, have offered theGarifuna a critical foothold by which to proceed with

24

While other

commercial interests

have historically

threatened

encroachment on

Garifuna lands,

tourism has greatly

amplified the intensity

and dimensions of this

threat

their claims. Ironically, however, the same internationalbodies are also mdirectly undermining Garlfuna gains.The World Bank has provided the government ofHonduras with a loan for coastal and tourism develop-ment, which may have profoundly negative conse-quences for Garlfuna communities and their strugglefor land.5

Since Garifuna communities are located along thecountry's spectacular northern beaches, thegrowth of tourism imperils their land claimefforts. Tourism has become Honduras' sec-ond largest source of foreign exchange.According to the National TourismInstitute, in 2001 tourism generated$256.2 million from 483,300 tourists—themaj ority from neighboring CentralAmencan countries, about a third from theUnited States. The government projects amore than 5% annual increase in tourismand anticipates Honduras will attract onemillion foreign tourists and generate30,000 direct and 40,000 indirect jobs overthe next four years.^

Honduras' tourism plan centers on acombination of six attractions: archaeology, colonialcities, nature and adventure, beaches and culturas vivas{living cultures). As the centerpiece of the country'stourism effort, its ecotourism program offers an exten-sive system of national parks and protected areas creat-ed over the past 20 years. Through the coordination ofthe Honduras Tourism Institute and the Ministry of theEnvironment (SEDA), the government has made a con-certed effort to attract foreign investment to the indus-try.

Foreign investment in the tourism sector necessitatesclarity around existing land ownership. Honduran con-stitutional recognition of Garifuna land rights puts valu-able lands under a communal titling regime that is, atleast theoretically, immune to market logic. The repre-sentative political institutions of Garlfuna communities,known as patronatos, hold the communal land titles.These titles grant the community rights to a given areain perpetuity. They may not sell the land or transfer itsownership outside the community. Improvements, suchas houses and other buildings, can be bought and soldwithin the community, but the land remains inalienable.

Meanwhile, the tourism boom of recent years and theconsequent demand for valuable beachfront propertyhas created incentives for land invasions and intimida-tion, as well as bribery and outright violence against

SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 2004

REPORT ON RACE, PART 1

Garifuna communities. While other commercial inter-ests have historically threatened encroachment onGarifuna lands, tourism has greatly amplified the inten-sity and dimensions of this threat. Some communitymembers have responded by illegally selling their landto outsiders, often fearing they will lose their land with-out financial compensation if they refuse to sell. Somepatronatos have also engaged in illegal land sales to out-siders. Because of such sales, and because Honduranpolitical and legal institutions are often ineffective andcorrupt, nearly all Garifuna territories suffer from multi-ple ownership claims. This has made foreign investmentin coastal tourism contentious and difficult to manage.

These threats to Garifuna land have generated a mas-sive grassroots political response. Since the late 1980s, anumber of Garifuna-led organizations have arisen. Twoare especially prominent: the Black FraternalOrganization of Honduras (OFRANEH) and the EthnicCommunity Development Organization (ODECO), bothof which have offices in La Ceiba, on the Atlantic coast.OFRANEH is a grassroots support organization.ODECO, the more powerful of the two nongovernmen-tal organizations (NGOs) in terms of its internationalreach and funding, serves as an intermediary betweeninternational aid agencies and Garifuna communities.Both have played a key role in pressuring the Hondurangovernment to honor its constitutional commitment totitle Garifuna land. They are active in public educationand consciousness-raising, political advocacy and lobby-ing, community organizing, development work andfund raising.

Until 1992 all the Garifuna communities inHonduras, with the exception of those of Cristales andRio Negro, possessed only titulos de ocupacwn (titles ofoccupation) for their lands. These titles acknowledgedthe community's presence on the land but not its right tofull and legai ownership. In 1996, Garifuna NGOs andpatronatos united under the umbrella of the NationalCoordinator of Black Organizations of Honduras(CNONH) to mobilize more than five thousand peoplefor the "First Grand Peaceful March of the Black Peopleof Honduras." This demonstration sought to pressurethe Honduran government into addressing titulacion(titling), ampliacion (enlargement) and saneamiento(dealing with third parties) in Garifuna communities.The Coordinadora, as the coalition was known, succeed-ed in securing a meeting with a presidential commission,which resulted in an agreement to set aside the equiva-lent of $227,000 for the National Agrarian Institute totitle Garifuna lands.

A Garifuna manin Tocamachoon Honduras'north coast.

Between 1997 and 2002, most Garifuna communi-ties received formal ownership titles to a significantportion of land. This major accomplishment reflectsthe Garifunas success in pressing for the recognitionof their ethnic distinctness and their linking of thisidentity to lands of traditional occupation. In mostcases, however, the titles are limited and apply only tothe casco urbano of the community. In other words,communal titles have generally been granted only toareas where Garifuna houses are actually located, leav-ing untitled areas where the communities' agriculturalactivities take place. Yet these areas—in addition tothose used historically by the community for hunting,fishing and other activities—comprise the majorityof Garifunas' territorial claims. Mestizo cattle ranchers,real estate speculators, large businesses and foreignerstarget these territories for invasions. PowerfulHonduran military, business and political actors holdland in these areas and have sponsored a numberof legislative efforts designed to reduce the size ofGarifuna territory Although several Garifunaagricultural cooperatives did surmount these powerfulcompeting interests and receive title in 1998, the strug-gle is clearly unfinished and the obstacles remainsubstantial. •

25