Social Cultural Policies Indigenous Peoples LA Perspectives

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

Social and Cultural PoliciesToward IndigenousPeoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin America∗

Guillermo de la PenaCentro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropologıa Social, 44190Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico, email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol.2005. 34:717–39

The Annual Review ofAnthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

doi: 10.1146/annurev.anthro.34.081804.120343

Copyright c© 2005 byAnnual Reviews. All rightsreserved

0084-6570/05/1021-0717$20.00

∗Dedicated to thememory of Jose Lameiras(1938–2003).

Key Words

postcolonial ethnicity, indigenous rights, populism, indigenousmovements, multiculturalism

AbstractThroughout the twentieth century, social and cultural policies to-ward indigenous peoples in Latin America have been closely re-lated to indigenismo, an ideological movement that denounced theexploitation of aboriginal groups and strove for the cultural unityand the extension of citizenship through social integration and “ac-culturation.” This review traces the colonial and nineteenth-centuryroots of indigenismo and places it in the context of the populist ten-dencies in most Latin American states from the 1920s to the 1970s,which favored economic protectionism and used agrarian reform andthe provision of services as tools for governance and legitimacy. Alsoexamined is the role of anthropological research in its relation tostate hegemony as well as the denunciation of indigenista policies byethnic intellectuals and organizations. In recent decades, the disman-tling of populist policies has given rise to a new official “neoliberal”discourse that extols multiculturalism. However, the widespread de-mand for multicultural policies is also seen as the outcome of the fightby militant indigenous organizations for a new type of citizenship.

717

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

WGIP: WorkingGroup onIndigenousPopulations

Contents

INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 718THE QUEST FOR THE NATION:

LIBERAL EQUALITY,POSITIVISM AND SOCIALEXCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 719

THE RISE OF POPULISTINDIGENISMO AND THECONGRESS OF PATZCUARO 723

ACCULTURATION POLICIESAND THE CHALLENGE OFINDIGENOUS MOVEMENTS . 728

MULTICULTURAL POLITICS:A NEOLIBERALINDIGENISMO? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 732

INTRODUCTION

The concept “indigenous people” gained le-gitimacy in the contemporary vocabulary ofinternational law with the creation in 1982 ofthe United Nations Working Group on In-digenous Populations (WGIP) (Gray 1997,pp. 9, 13–15). The establishment of thisgroup, which meets annually, helped to openup a new political space. In the words of itschairperson, the WGIP has allowed grass-roots movements “to gain direct access to theUN” (quoted by Karlsson 2003, p. 403; seealso Gray 1997). It has also influenced NGOs,state institutions, and international develop-ment agencies—the World Bank included—to express greater concern for the plight of“the indigenous” and to propose new strate-gies and policies designed to benefit them. Inturn, numerous social movements worldwidehave adopted the term “indigenous people” asa self-identifying and self-empowering labelthat epitomizes a past of oppression and thatlegitimizes their search for social, cultural, andpolitical rights (Karlsson 2003, pp. 404–6).(An important leader of the Miskito move-ment in Nicaragua once told me: “As peoples,we are entitled to free self-determination; asethnic groups, we are objects of anthropolog-

ical study.”) Anthropologists have also con-tributed to the diffusion of the term, althoughrecently there has been some disagreementover its usage, causing some heated debate(see Kuper 2003 and the ensuing discussionin Current Anthropology). I refer to this debateat the end of the article.

In Latin America, the term indıgena hasbeen used by many social scientists and politi-cians, in contradistinction to other termssuch as indio (Indian), tribesman, or ethnicgroup. Indio was the colonial term used by theIberian conquerors and their descendants torefer to the inhabitants of the Americas, be-cause Colombus and his companions initiallythought that they had reached the shores ofIndia. During the colonial period, the wordindio bore the connotation of legal inferior-ity in a caste society (Aguirre Beltran 1972); itwas therefore rejected as derogatory by manypost-Independence scholars and legislators,although it did not disappear from everydayspeech (see Bonfil 1970). (And more recentlysome radical movements call themselves in-dios as an expression of defiance; see Bonfil1981; Barre 1983, pp. 18–19.) Tribesman, orindio tribal, was popular among anthropolo-gists influenced by evolutionist theories, par-ticularly those of Morgan (developed by Ban-delier in relation to the Mexican situation),according to which pre-Columbian Ameri-can societies lacked state institutions and wereorganized solely on the basis of kinship (seeWhite & Bernal 1960). Subsequent researchshowed this characterization to be untrue forthe Mesoamerican and the Andean regions;however, the term tribe is still employed inreferring to the groups of the Amazon basin(see Ribeiro 1970). As for ethnic group (or et-nia), it is used in a Boasian sense to empha-size the particular cultural characteristics andfeelings of identity of a given collectivity, of-ten with little regard for its relationships withthe state. Thus, its meaning tends to abolish “anecessary level of analysis,” namely, the histor-ical insertion of the aboriginal population inthe construction of the modern nation-state(de Oliveira 1999, p. 125). To the contrary,

718 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

the generic term indıgena has been construedin order to express such insertion—as wellas, sometimes, to disguise its contradictorynature (Aguirre Beltran 1958; see Eriksen1993, pp. 13–14). In general, indıgena is thepreferred term in the Latin American aca-demic literature, although alternatives thatpurport to have a neutral connotation, suchas aborıgines or amerindios, are also acceptable.

After national independence, the “Indi-ans” were often regarded as a problem: Forthe white and mestizo (mixed blood) elites,they represented “the savage otherness” hos-tile to (European) civilization. But they werealso seen as “redeemable” by Liberal intellec-tuals, who argued in favor of state action—what we would call social policies—to im-prove their welfare. In addition, state ideol-ogists were interested in constituting a uni-fied sense of national identity, which requiredthe implementation of “cultural policies” es-pecially designed for the indıgenas. Gradually,the discourse of “redemption and nationaliza-tion” became official in most countries. How-ever, the point of departure for both types ofpolicy was to establish the distinctive traitsof the indigenous peoples and the path thatwould lead to their desired transformation.In fact, an important factor for state hege-mony in Latin America has been the capac-ity on the part of governments to define whatit is “to be” indigenous and to generate theconditions for a specific political-indigenousidentity to emerge within the nation. To namea particular kind of population and chart itsdestiny through coercion and consensus be-came (and remains) an essential part of thecultural revolution implied in the process ofstate formation (see Corrigan & Sayer 1985).The term indigenismo was coined to refer tothe congeries of discourses, categorizations,rules, strategies, and official actions that havethe express purpose of creating state domina-tion over the groups designated as indigenous,as well as instilling them with a sense of na-tional allegiance, but which have also carvedout an institutional niche for these groups tofurther their own agendas and advance their

demands for citizenship. In this process, theanthropological profession found a politicalvoice and a controversial role.

In this article, I focus on the impact of thestate—its actions and pronouncements—onthe dialectics of the relationships between theindigenous sectors and the dominant society.(A thorough review of ethnic politics in LatinAmerica should also take into account thepopulation of African descent, precluded herefor lack of space.) I start by briefly referring tothe birth of indigenismo and its complex rela-tionship first with Latin American Liberalismand then with the populist trends that per-meated the politics of the region from 1920to 1970. Second, I examine the debates andresolutions of the First Inter-American Indi-genista Congress, in 1940, which completedthe conversion of indigenismo into state ideol-ogy and anthropological doctrine. Third, therise and fall of indigenismo as a hegemonic toolwill be seen in relation both to changes inoverall state agendas and to the emergenceof indigenous organizations and movements.Finally, I look at the paradoxical relationshipsbetween neoliberalism and indigenismo at thedawn of the twenty-first century, in an inter-national (“globalized”) context that includesthe following: (a) widespread concern for hu-man and cultural rights that has contributedto the strengthening of indigenous actors,(b) the emergence of “indigenous movements”in the postcolonial world at large, and (c) adebate within the anthropological professionand the social sciences on multiculturalismand collective rights.

THE QUEST FOR THE NATION:LIBERAL EQUALITY,POSITIVISM AND SOCIALEXCLUSION

The independent states that came into be-ing in Latin America after 1820 articulated apublic ideological discourse of universal civilliberties. Even those governments labeled as“conservative” rejected the colonial distinc-tion of “quality” among persons, manifested

www.annualreviews.org • Social and Cultural Policies 719

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

in differential legal rights. A Mexican writerand Liberal politician, Jose Marıa Luis Mora,went so far as to present a motion to the Na-tional Congress banishing from public usageall words that might have a caste connota-tion: There would be no more Indians, Blacks,Mulattoes, or mestizos, only Mexicans (seeHale 1972, chapter 7). Yet certain discrim-inatory practices persisted. For instance, inthe Andean countries, Indians continued topay tribute until the 1850s; and Indian forcedlabor in the great landed domains or hacien-das lasted into the twentieth century. Thenotion also persisted that aboriginal peopleneeded protection and stern vigilance, as chil-dren do, and it found reinforcement in theracialist ideas that were widespread in the sec-ond half of the nineteenth century (Graham1990). And the conquerors’ distinction be-tween “tame” and “barbarian” Indians (indiosde policıa, who had cities, centralized politi-cal institutions, and an advanced agriculturaleconomy, and indios barbaros, who lived in no-madic bands of hunters and gatherers) still de-termined differences in policies and actions(Service 1955).

The Spanish Crown had forcefully orga-nized the “tame” Indians of the Andes andMesoamerica into corporate peasant commu-nities with landed resources, a limited formof self-government, and under direct supervi-sion by royal officers and the Church (Wolf1956). They did not enjoy freedom of move-ment or labor. Their obligations includedcommunal work, periodic labor services tothe authorities and Spanish entrepreneurs,and the payment of a per capita tribute;but they were formally granted the protec-tion of the Crown against aggression andabuses, which were nevertheless all too com-mon (Zavala & Miranda 1954; Parry 1966,chapter 9; Lockart & Schwartz 1983, chapter4). In contrast, the “barbarian” Indians in thefrontiers of the colonial realm—the arid plainsand rugged mountains of Northern Mexico,the Caribbean coast, the Argentinian pam-pas, and the Amazonian basin—were pacifiedthrough military garrisons (presidios) and reli-

gious missions (Parry 1966, pp. 168–72, 289–91). At the end of the eighteenth century, thereligious orders (mainly Jesuits and Francis-cans) had been taken out of the missionary re-doubts, and the frontiers were more than evercharacterized by actual warfare against theIndians (Vinas 1982, chapter 5). In the Por-tuguese domains, Indians were generally re-garded as “barbarians,” and the history of col-onization, notwithstanding the official pur-pose of protecting those bands who acceptedevangelization, consisted of campaigns to ex-terminate the Indians or reduce them to slav-ery, except in the Jesuit missions, which werethemselves dismantled in the eighteenth cen-tury (Metraux 1949; Morner 1965; Ribeiro1995, pp. 49–55; see Sweet 1992 for a darkerview of the missions). The 1758 decree ofthe Marquis of Pombal, the powerful minis-ter of Portugal who engineered the expulsionof the Jesuits, declared freedom for the Indi-ans (Black slavery continued until 1882) andlegal recognition of their lands. But Pombalalso created the office of Director of Indi-ans in the main cities: his “protective” tasksincluded the coercive allocation of laborersto settlers (Maybury-Lewis 1992, pp. 99–101;Ribeiro 1995, pp. 104–5). By 1822, at the timeof Brazil’s independence, the practices of en-slavement and violent displacement had re-turned (Melatti 1973, pp. 233–34).

At the end of the colonial period not allthe Indians were necessarily destitute; how-ever, both in Spanish America and Brazil thenewly independent governments had to devisepolicies to deal with a large number of peo-ple who either were subject to terrible aggres-sion or were, to say the least, at great disad-vantage. Among the new politicians, the maingoals of the enlightened sector were the exten-sion of civil liberties to Indians and their con-version into a prosperous class of small land-holders and artisans through schooling andaccess to the market. This often conflictedwith the interests of the criollos (American-born people of European ancestry) who dom-inated the landed estates and the world ofcommerce; however, this class finally joined

720 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

forces with Liberal Party reformers in theirfight against Church and Indian property. ForLiberal thinkers, indigenous communal insti-tutions were a major hindrance on the roadto progress. As early as 1825, Bolıvar de-creed the privatization of community landand the elimination of traditional commu-nal authorities and obligations. These mea-sures would be maintained in the constitu-tions of the republics resulting from the oldViceroyalty of Peru (Marzal 1993, pp. 50–52); and they would be more explicitly con-firmed in Ecuador by legislation in 1857, andin Bolivia in 1866 and 1874 (A. Ibarra 1992,Rivera Cusicanqui 1985; see Bonilla 1997). Inturn, under the leadership of Benito Juarez,who had grown up in a Zapotec commu-nity in Oaxaca, Mexican Liberals launcheda major offensive against corporate propertywith the Reform Laws (1855–1856) and the1857 Constitution (Gonzalez Navarro 1954,pp. 121–30). Disentailment laws purportedto benefit members of the indigenous com-munities: It was assumed that private prop-erty would be an incentive to increase theirproductivity and competitiveness in the mar-ket, but in fact a great deal of land was ap-propriated by criollos and mestizos. This ex-plains the eruption of caste wars between thelanded oligarchy and the rebellious indige-nous who protested the destruction of theirlivelihood (Reed 1964, Reina 1980, RiveraCusicanqui 1987, Tutino 1986, Bonilla 1991,Reina 1997). As for the “barbarian” Indians,they continued to experience the violence ofthe expanding frontier. In Argentina, the dic-tator Rosas and the presidents Sarmiento andRoca led successive lethal campaigns againstthe Guaranıes in the East and the Arau-canos in the Southwest (Vinas 1982, Helg1990). In southern Chile, in 1866, the gov-ernment created redoubts for the Araucanos(Mapuches), but a great deal of their ancestralterritory was in fact allotted to white settlers,which provoked the 1880 Mapuche rebel-lion. Defeated by the national army two yearslater, the Mapuches suffered the plunderingof most of their land (Berdichewski 1975). In

Northern Mexico, during the dictatorship ofPorfirio Dıaz (1867–1910), the authorities of-fered rewards for killing Apaches and sentrebellious Yaquis to labor camps in Oaxacaand Yucatan. In Brazil, the Imperial regime(1822–1889) showed more humane tenden-cies: It eliminated forced labor, declared thatIndians should be protected “as orphans,” andput Capuchin missionaries in charge of theircatechization and civic instruction; in addi-tion, Emperor Pedro II established new Di-rectors of Indians to regulate the market ingoods and labor; but in 1850 all tribal landswere privatized, a move that expedited theirappropriation by outsiders (Melatti 1973,pp. 235–36).

We may talk of a Liberal type of indi-genismo, which defined the indıgenas as peoplewho lived outside the civilized nation, in theold communities and in the wild frontier, andwould be saved through instruction, privateproperty, and the exercise of civil rights. Thisdiscourse rejected the notion that they werehopeless savages and insisted on their capac-ity for education and improvement. Thus, inImperial Brazil there were progressive writerssuch as Jose Bonifacio de Andrade, or Roman-tic novelists such as Jose de Alencar who cam-paigned for more humane public action to-ward the aboriginal sectors (Maybury-Lewis1992, pp. 102–3). In Peru, Manuel GonzalezPrada denounced the abuses of political bossesand landlords, and in Mexico, FranciscoPimentel insisted on the need to end Indianoppression and segregation (by promoting fu-sion with white settlers) in order to consoli-date an authentic nation “with common be-liefs, ideas and purposes” (both quoted inMarzal 1993, p. 383; see also pp. 421–23;Aguirre Beltran 1973, pp. 69–70). These ideasemerged in the context of a rapidly chang-ing economy that demanded the mobilizationof material and human resources for capital-ist accumulation, and where the market wasconstrued as the tool par excellence of equal-ity and freedom. Obviously, Liberal views,even those tainted by Romanticism, totallyignored indigenous views about their own


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

identity and destiny. Indeed, there was anoppositional indigenous identity. Developedthrough centuries of resistance, this identitycould be seen in the defense of communal landand institutions as well as in myths of a glo-rious past and its imminent return; the cultof pre-Columbian sacred mountains, images,and objects; rejection of tributes and levies;and, particularly in the frontier regions, theethos of the free warrior, willing to die for hispeople (see Ribeiro 1971, chapter 11; FloresGalindo 1987; Bonfil 1989; Silverblatt 1993;Velasco Avila 1997; Florescano 1999). In con-trast, for nineteenth-century nationalism the“imagining” of the national community (seeAnderson 1983) included the total dissolu-tion of indigenous identities in favor of a new,comprehensive matrix, for which the best for-mula was miscegenation. Thus was born the“myth of mestizaje,” the inevitable emergenceand ascent of mestizos as the true citizens ofthe new nations (Gould 1998, de la Pena2002). The mixed-blood sector, present sincethe beginnings of colonization, had grownand prospered throughout the eighteenth andnineteenth centuries, finding accommodationthanks to the expanding demand for small-holding produce, free labor, and urban ser-vices (Morner 1967; Saenz 1970; Lockart &Schwartz 1983, pp. 3l16–19; Rivera Cusican-qui 1987). This sector had even absorbed alarge part of the population of African ori-gin (Aguirre Beltran 1972). The term mestizoor misti (also called cholo) had a strong nega-tive connotation in the Andes, since these peo-ple often played the role of middlemen at theservice of the landed oligarchy; nevertheless,they also symbolized the possibility of uppersocial mobility (Bourricaud 1975, Degregori2002). In Mexico, however, many prosperousmiddle-size ranchers, merchants, urban pro-fessionals, and military officers were identifiedas of mixed blood (see Knight 1990, Mallon1992, Degregori 2002). Mexican mestizos en-hanced their prestige as militants in the Lib-eral Party and as participants in the armed re-sistance against the U.S. invasion (1847) andthe French occupation (1861–67). Two Lib-

eral historians, Vicente Riva Palacio and JustoSierra, presented the course of the Mexicannation as a march toward unification, impelledby the ascent of the mestizos, whose most illus-trious representatives were Benito Juarez andPorfirio Dıaz, the two dominant political fig-ures of the century (Basave Benıtez 1992, pp.33–36; Florescano 2001, chapter 9). But themost important Mexican ideologist of mesti-zaje was Andres Molina Enrıquez, a lawyerand sociologist influenced by Social Darwin-ism. In his book Los Grandes Problemas Na-cionales (1909), he defined the mestizo “race”as the “fittest for survival” in tropical Amer-ica. In contrast, the Indians were irretriev-ably fragmented and weakened by povertyand exploitation, and the criollos had monop-olized the land and become a parasitic lot.Consequently, the solution to national prob-lems lay in the extension of mestizaje to allsocial segments and the consolidation of astrong mestizo rule capable of breaking thecriollo economic predominance through agrar-ian reform (see Brading 1985a, pp. 64–71;Knight 1990; Basave Benıtez 1992). Paradox-ically, this racialization of history and poli-tics did not claim the inherent superiority ofa given race: Following contemporary pos-itivist geographers (such as Elisee Reclus),Molina Enrıquez conceived of “race” as be-ing determined by climate and the evolutionof social and economic forces, and he reck-oned that racial divisions, particularly thosebetween indios and mestizos, were extremelyfluid. Whereas other social thinkers of the pe-riod were writing against racist theories, inMexico, as in Latin America at large, racistideas were widespread, and the official cen-suses continued to classify people in terms of“race,” which in the case of “the Indians” wasdefined not only by perception of phenotypebut also by dress, language, and occupation(Klein 1982, Knight 1990).

If the policies inspired by Liberal indigenis-mos were attempting to “de-Indianize” therural population through education and themarket economy, they had only limited suc-cess: Many villages remained without schools,

722 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

communal institutions persisted in the formof ritual organizations under the guidanceof elders, and the expansion of the latifun-dios or great landed domains maintained asystem of indebted labor (colonato in Peru,Colombia, and Bolivia; peonaje in Mexico andCentral America; concertaje and huasipungo inEcuador, for example) through sharecrop-ping contracts and hacienda stores (see de laPena 1994). In Central America and SouthernMexico, despite official statements aboutequality, the distinction between the commu-nal indigenous and the nonindigenous cultureand identity, expressed in the bipolar opposi-tion between indios and ladinos (non-Indians),was explicitly reinforced to ensure cheap laborfor the plantations (Taracena Arriola 1998).There were also less depressing situations. InNorthern Mexico, the temporary return of re-ligious missions at the end of the nineteenthcentury contributed to a relative decrease inviolence, and several local governments cre-ated tentative development programs for in-digenous peoples. And in Brazil, after the fallof the Empire, the rulers of the “Old Repub-lic” (1890–1930) actually founded a special-ized indigenista agency in 1910: the Servicio deProteccion a los Indios (Service for the Protec-tion of the Indians) (SPI), which lasted until1966. Thanks to the prestige of its founder,Candido Rondon, the SPI was supported byinnovative legislation that forbade the use ofviolence against Indians and recognized theirrights not only to full citizenship and educa-tion, but also to residence in their hamlets andterritories, collective possession of the land,and maintenance of their customs (Melatti1973, pp. 236–39; Maybury-Lewis 1992,pp. 104–7). The methods of the SPI werereminiscent of those used by the Jesuit mis-sions. A station or Puesto Indıgena was es-tablished in the vicinity of indigenous settle-ments by members of the Service, who pro-ceeded to clear the forest and plant orchards,to which the neighboring people had free ac-cess. Useful gifts were left on paths in the area.Once friendly communication had been es-tablished, sometimes after months of indif-

SPI: Service for theProtection of theIndians

ference and/or open hostility, select tribes-men were invited to live near the stationand organize their own agricultural settle-ments (Ribeiro 1971, pp. 95–104; see May-bury Lewis 1988). The SPI was in manyways incredibly effective: It pacified, settled,and protected a significant number of groups,all in a period when rubber collectors, cat-tle ranchers, and agricultural settlers still feltthemselves entitled to kill “savage Indians.”But its resources were always inadequate—only a small part of the indigenous habitatcould be covered—and it lacked the meansto protect pacified people from subsequentland invasion and forced labor recruitment oragainst the devastating epidemics introducedby newcomers. During the first half of thetwentieth century, the Amazonian jungle be-came open territory for fortune hunters, aswell as for Catholic and Protestant Missions,acting outside state control (Melatti 1973, pp.239–40). Even though many religious groups,in concert with the SPI, attenuated the nega-tive effects of outside forces, Darcy Ribeiro(1971, pp. 65–67), a leading anthropologistwho spent many years with the SPI, reck-oned that the number of indigenous groupsor tribes decreased from 230 in 1900 to 143in 1957 (see also Davis 1977).

THE RISE OF POPULISTINDIGENISMO AND THECONGRESS OF PATZCUARO

The strategy of the SPI did, nevertheless, pro-vide some inspiration for the developmentof what might be called populist indigenismo.The first populist regime in Latin Americaemerged in Mexico, as a consequence of thesocial revolution that broke out in 1910. After1920, the language and agenda of populismcharacterized many parties and governmentsin the region, in the context of the “oligarchic”state in crisis, aggravated by the world-wide economic crisis of 1929 (see Carmag-nani 1984; Cordoba 1973; Hennessy 1969;di Tella 1973; de la Pena 1994, pp. 405–7).Populist discourse emphasized the alliance


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

between a nationalist political leadership andthe grassroots movement. Included in this al-liance were other “progressive classes” (themodern industrial bourgeoisie, the bureau-cracy) who joined in the struggle to displaceboth the “regressive classes” (the traditionallanded oligarchy, the moneylenders) and theimperialist forces in order to usher in a newera of modernity and social justice. In Mexico,the 1917 Constitution instituted agrarianreform—the return of land to dispossessedagrarian communities and the distribution oflarge landholdings to landless peasants—andthe recognition of rights for salaried workersas key elements in the populist pact. The in-digenous peoples, however, were conceived ofas being not simply an integral part of the dis-possessed masses, but also as bearers of a valu-able culture that should enrich the nationalpatrimony. A positive valuation of the indige-nous world had been previously articulated instatements by enlightened, anti-Spanish criol-los at the time of independence. Similarly,Porfirio Dıaz had used Aztec emblems as sym-bols of his regime. But the reference had beento the “glorious” pre-Columbian period (seeVilloro 1950, Brading 1985b, Ochiai 2002).In contrast, anthropologists of the MexicanRevolution were interested in the contempo-rary Indian as a source of national identity.Led by Manuel Gamio, their intellectual toolwas the Boasian concept of culture: a coher-ent ensemble of ideas, values, norms, symbols,and practices, which in principle deserved re-spect because it represented the basic equip-ment of a collectivity for human survival andprogress in a given habitat. In his writings,Gamio defended the virtues of contemporaryindigenous cultures—artistic abilities, agri-cultural wisdom, communal solidarity, hos-pitality, physical courage, and endurance—aswell as the validity of their claims, put forwardby Emiliano Zapata’s program for the devolu-tion of land to the communities.

Gamio had been a student of Boas atColumbia University and his assistant at theInternational School of American Archeologyand Ethnology in Mexico City. However, he

had important differences with his mentor inthat he was also influenced by positivist andnationalist ideas through Molina Enrıquez,his teacher at the National Museum of Mexico(Brading 1988, de la Pena 1995). In his firstbook, Forjando Patria (1916), Gamio laid outhis ambitious project of “forging the father-land” by “incorporating” the indigenous peo-ples into the modern national matrix, while atthe same time introducing their virtues intothe wealth of national culture. But this taskrequired careful, state-sponsored research, todistinguish “positive” from “negative” aspectsin vernacular cultures and to find the beststrategies for their gradual transformation.In 1918 Gamio was appointed Director ofAnthropology, a position tailored specificallyfor him, in the federal Ministry of Agricul-ture, He used this position as a platform fromwhich to launch a multidisciplinary programof regional research in the Teotihuacan Val-ley, the area surrounding the most importantarcheological site in the country. Gamio, aprofessional archeologist, conducted the ex-cavation and restoration of the emblematicpyramids as well as an ethnographic survey,and designed the main lines and methods ofresearch for a multidisciplinary team of his-torians, geographers, lawyers, linguists, edu-cators, and even a painter and a cinematog-rapher. The local school became the centerfor intensive courses in Spanish and for work-shops on ceramics, carpentry, stone carving,and other crafts, as well as providing civic in-struction for children and adults. There wasalso a communal field to be used for agricul-tural experiments. The collective results werepublished in La Poblacion del Valle de Teoti-huacan (1922), which aroused great interest ingovernment circles and became a model forapplied anthropology. Meanwhile, the Min-istry of Education had established a Depart-ment of Indigenous Education and Culture,which also set up a new type of school inthe villages, called Casas del Pueblo (Houses ofthe People). Teachers were expected to orga-nize workshops for adults and children, pro-mote communal cooperation, and develop a

724 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

new pedagogy where local knowledge wouldbe the starting point. Concomitantly, theMinistry launched the Misiones Culturales,which organized mobile volunteer brigades ofurban intellectuals, artists, and university stu-dents to teach in the Casas del Pueblo (CoronaMorfın 1963). Another innovation was theopening in 1928 of a House for IndigenousStudents in Mexico City, where young menreceived room and board while engaged inhigher education (Loyo 1996).

Jose Vasconcelos, the founder of the Min-istry of Education in 1921, coined the term“the cosmic race” to refer to the mestizos. Butfor him, as for Gamio, mestizaje now had afundamentally cultural and social content (seeVasconcelos 1960). Their ideas found echoesin other Latin American essayists who un-dertook their own critique of liberalism. InPeru, Dora Mayer wrote extensively in de-nunciation of the endless abuses of landown-ers and authorities, and the absence of ef-fective labor legislation; she was one of thefounders of the Asociacion Pro-Indıgena, whichforced the Congress to debate indigenous is-sues (Marzal 1993, pp. 423–25). The 1920 Pe-ruvian Constitution—promoted by PresidentLeguıa (1919–1930), who sought the supportof the highland communities, while simul-taneously courting the emergent industrialbourgeoisie and opening the doors to for-eign capital—recognized the legitimacy andinalienability of communal property and theobligation of the state to foster the devel-opment of indigenous communities in accor-dance with their particular needs. This was aradical step, and it allowed for the recoveryof village holdings expropriated by previouslegislation, as in Mexico. Leguıa also abol-ished forced labor and created a Bureau ofIndigenous Affairs and a Council of the In-digenous Race, although the actions of theseinstitutions were blocked when they becametoo independent (Davies 1970; Mallon 1983,pp. 234–43). But the most important con-tribution of Peruvian indigenismo came fromthe radical left, which advanced the the-sis that indigenous communities carried the

seeds of socialist transformation. This the-sis was upheld with particular zeal by JoseCarlos Mariategui, the founder of the Com-munist Party of Peru, and by HildebrandoCastro Pozo, a lawyer with socialist lean-ings. Mariategui’s Seven Interpretative Essaysof Peruvian Reality (originally published in1928) coincides with Molina Enrıquez’s de-nunciation of the “feudal” hacienda as the ma-jor obstacle in the development of a mod-ern, fair economy, and with his definitionof “the Indian question” as “the land ques-tion”; but he sees the solution not in con-verting the Indians into mestizos, but ratherin reinforcing and modernizing their commu-nal organizations that, thanks to ideologicaleducation, would become socialist coopera-tives (Mariategui 1980). Castro Pozo beganhis career working for the Ministry of Agri-culture. His direct experience of rural realitiesallowed him to write ethnographic essays onindigenous culture and to become a consul-tant for the 1920 Constitution, and then headof the Bureau of Indigenous Affairs (until hewas exiled in 1923). His major work, issuedin 1933, is entitled From the Ayllu to SocialistCooperativism (ayllu being the Quechua namefor indigenous community). Again, his pointof departure is the great value of the com-munal ethos, the basis on which independentcooperatives of production could be devel-oped, in association with credit and market-ing cooperatives and a program of agriculturalschools. To this end, he developed a detailedmethodology (Marzal 1993, pp. 25–32). In1929, the Ministry of Public Instruction cre-ated a special Direction for Indigenous Edu-cation, which established schools in the high-lands. In 1933, a new constitution confirmedthe 1920 provisions for indigenous communi-ties, but also allowed for the partition of ha-ciendas if required by the common good. Andin 1939, a Program of Cultural Brigades, in-spired by the Mexican Cultural Missions, be-gan operation across the country (Favre 1988,pp. 120–21).

In spite of legislative and educationalimprovements, Peruvian indigenismo moved


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

DAAI: DepartamentoAutonomo de AsuntosIndıgenas

slowly, in the context of successive gov-ernments dominated by the oligarchy. Themain opposition force to emerge during thisperiod, the Alianza Popular RevolucionariaAntiimperialista Party (founded in 1924), witha distinct populist orientation, was in favor ofmestizaje but cared little about agrarian reformor indigenous culture—and was soon pro-scribed. In Mexico, however, indigenista poli-cies had become a significant part of the stateapparatus. Moises Saenz, another alumnus ofColumbia University, had been influenced byBoas and Dewey, and as Vice-Minister of Ed-ucation committed himself to the reform ofrural schools. Aware of the very limited ef-ficacy of mestizo or white teachers, who didnot understand the indigenous languages, hepromoted applied research for bilingual ed-ucation, with the assistance of the SummerLinguistic Institute, a U.S. religious institu-tion that translated the Bible into indige-nous languages and had also developed in-novative methods of literacy instruction. LikeGamio, Saenz organized a multidisciplinaryteam and conducted regional research inMichoacan, where he encountered the hos-tility of political bosses who had been usingthe agrarian reform program for their ownbenefit (Saenz 1936). He therefore insistedon the need to invigorate communal politi-cal structures against manipulation by the newcaciques (see Friedrich 1986). In his view, in-digenismo should rely not on “incorporation”but rather on “integration” policies. The im-plication was that without active participationfrom the grassroots, the “forging of the na-tion” would become an authoritarian impo-sition (Saenz 1939). He therefore designeda new institution, the Autonomous Depart-ment for Indigenous Affairs (DAAI: Depar-tamento Autonomo de Asuntos Indıgenas), cre-ated by President Lazaro Cardenas in 1935, tobring together anthropologists, linguists, andeducators charged with carrying out a type ofregional applied research that would take intoaccount communal initiatives and actors. TheDAAI teams also organized Regional Indige-nous Congresses where ethnic representatives

presented economic, social, and cultural de-mands, as well as an Assembly of Philologistsand Linguists, which promoted a Council ofIndigenous Languages. One example of theDAAI orientation and activities was the Taras-can Project, which developed a method of lit-eracy instruction in the vernacular and de-signed an Academy of Tarascan Language andCulture with the participation of indigenousscholars (Heath 1972, pp. 117–19; AguirreBeltran 1973, pp. 166–71). Another salient ex-ample was the research on the Yaquis. Theywere an old frontier group who maintaineda strong social organization, originating fromthe Jesuit missional redoubts, and an opposi-tional identity, which allowed them to makea significant contribution to the revolutionagainst Dıaz’s dictatorship. Under the aus-pices of the DAAI, anthropologist Alfonso Fa-bila collected extensive historical and ethno-graphic information, taking into account hisinformants’ perspectives, and presented a de-tailed description of the efficient function-ing of the Yaqui system of government insupport of their demand for formal recog-nition by the Mexican state (Fabila 1940).Most DAAI members were leftist sympathiz-ers or members of the Communist Party; theircontribution to a new discussion on the na-ture of indigenous groups in Mexico was in-spired by the Soviet model of autonomous“nationalities.” In this model, nationalitieswere defined as human collectivities with acommon territory, history, language, culture,and psychology, and therefore entitled toself-government.

Saenz visited several Latin American coun-tries, often as an official consultant. Hewrote reports on the indigenous question inGuatemala, Peru, and Ecuador (see AguirreBeltran 1970). Convinced that indigenismoshould become a well-structured continentalmovement and a key form of international co-operation, he was one of the main organiz-ers of the 1940 First Interamerican IndigenistCongress, hosted by the DAAI in the city ofPatzcuaro— a symbolic site, founded by Vascode Quiroga, the sixteenth-century bishop who

726 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

applied Thomas More’s utopian ideas to in-digenous communities. Over 200 delegatesfrom 19 countries attended the Congress(countries not attending were Canada, theGuyanas, Haiti, and Paraguay), includingofficial government representatives, aca-demics, and 47 members of indigenous groupsfrom the United States, Mexico, and Panama.In his inaugural address, President Cardenaspraised the role of scientific research in thedevelopment of social policies and declaredthat the aim of his government was “to Mex-icanize the indigenous” and not “to indian-ize Mexico” (Primer Congreso Indigenista In-teramericano 1940, pp. 7–12). Sessions weredivided into four sections: economics, biol-ogy, education, and law. In the general conclu-sions most delegates agreed on (a) the adop-tion of the terms indıgena and indigenismorather than indio and indianismo; (b) the prin-ciple of “total respect” for “the indigenousdignity and personality” without prejudice totheir citizen rights or the unity of the na-tion; (c) the creation of an indigenista govern-ment agency in each country, with a direc-tor of ministerial rank; (d ) the creation of anInteramerican Indigenist Institute jointly sup-ported by all governments; (e) a policy of grad-ual integration—neither the model of “incor-poration” nor the U.S. model of reservations.In the economics section, discussion centeredon the destructive effects of the latifundios andthe virtues of communal nature of the indige-nous economy (Primer Congreso IndigenistaInteramericano 1940, pp. 35–48). In conse-quence, the resolutions of the Congress in-cluded an urgent call to implement agrarianreform programs in all countries and to fostercooperatives. The biology section discussedthe extreme vulnerability of indigenous ar-eas to epidemics and chronic illnesses, andrecommended biomedical research and san-itary campaigns as well as recourse to tra-ditional medical practices if they proved tobe effective (Primer Congreso Indigenista In-teramericano 1940, pp. 40–43). The discus-sion on education was perhaps the most radi-cal, since most participants defended not only

the teaching of literacy in the vernacular, butalso called for the revitalization of indigenouslanguages and stressed the utility of indige-nous languages for expressing and adaptingscientific and philosophical concepts (PrimerCongreso Indigenista Interamericano 1940,pp. 28–34). These positions, in some-what moderate terms, were included in theCongress’ resolutions. As for the legal section,its results were much more timid: Full citizen-ship for indigenous individuals was reiterated,but any consideration of communal govern-ment or customary rights was rejected (PrimerCongreso Indigenista Interamericano 1940,pp. 44–48).

The Congress was a conceptual water-shed: the Liberal dismissal of “the Indianquestion” was abandoned; government rep-resentatives accepted the value of indigenouscultures, languages, and collective organiza-tions; the indigenous capacity for full citi-zenship was recognized; land devolution anddistribution was put on the public agenda to-gether with special programs of economic andsocial development. However, although thedelegates rejected the paternalistic notion of“incorporation,” the distinction between the“positive” and the “negative” elements (de-fined as such not by the indigenous peoplesbut by the indigenista officers) remained, forinstance, in relation to medical practices andlegal and political institutions. In practicalterms, a major achievement was the foundingof the Interamerican Indigenist Institute (withSaenz as its first Director, but he died suddenlyand was replaced by Gamio), which startedpublication of America Indıgena, a respectedacademic journal, and a monograph series. Yetafter the excitement of the Congress, populistindigenismo lost its initial impetus, which hadoccurred in the context of a generalized cri-sis of “the oligarchic state” in Latin Amer-ica (Carmagnani 1984). Even in Mexico, theDAAI experienced a terminal illness whenPresident Avila Camacho followed Cardenas.In the context of Mexico’s entry into WorldWar II, indigenistas were often accused of be-ing dangerous agitators against national unity.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

INI: InstitutoNacional Indigenista

When a new institution, the Instituto Na-cional Indigenista (INI), was created in 1948,the idea of cultural unity as a prerequisitefor national formation returned as one of itsplatforms.

ACCULTURATION POLICIESAND THE CHALLENGE OFINDIGENOUS MOVEMENTS

At the time of the foundation of the INI, therewas already a wealth of anthropological re-search on the indigenous societies of LatinAmerica, undertaken by the indigenistas, byuniversities in the region, and by academic in-stitutions in the United States and Europe (ofwhich the Smithsonian was perhaps the mostimportant, but the Universities of Chicago,Columbia, Yale, Paris, among others, werealso significant). A more careful considerationof the definition of the indıgena within the na-tional society was thus possible (see Melatti1973, pp. 35–42). Definitions based on racewere seen as imprecise (is there really an “In-dian race”?) and carried a negative connota-tion. Culture (an index favored by Gamio) hadthe drawback of the very real difficulty af-ter centuries of contact in distinguishing “In-dian traits” from “European traits,” even withthe Indians on the old frontiers (see Foster1960). In any case, culture could no longerbe regarded as a homeostatic entity. The lin-guistic criterion was more precise and reli-able, but there were groups who, having lostthe old language, maintained their commu-nal institutions and assumed an indigenousethnic identity. In order to overcome theseproblems, the Second Inter-American Indi-genist Congress, which met in Cuzco, Peru in1949, chose a definition based on “social con-science,” i.e., on self-identification and iden-tification by others as members of an eth-nic indigenous group with a distinct historyand culture. Most countries nowadays usethe index of language in their census ques-tionnaires, but many also include questionson self-identification. In Chile, an additionalindex is the surname.

However, Alfonso Caso, the founding di-rector of the Mexican INI, and GonzaloAguirre Beltran, its leading theorist, sought toput this definition in the context of a process ofchange. Caso, trained both as a lawyer and anarcheologist, equated self-identification withmembership in a community recognized as in-digenous. (The assumption was that the lo-cal community, not a larger collectivity, wasthe relevant unit). This added a necessarysocial dimension to the analysis, since thesubject of transformation by indigenismo wasnot the isolated individual but the commu-nity. The concepts expressing this transfor-mation were “acculturation” and “communitydevelopment” (Caso 1971). Acculturation, aterm already widely used by anthropologistsin the United States (e.g., Linton 1940, Tax1952, Adams 1957), implied the interactionbetween two or more groups bearing differ-ent cultures, which resulted in their recip-rocal influence and modification. The typeof acculturation envisaged for the indige-nous community was one that would gener-ate modernization and development, i.e., anew type of organization conducive to eco-nomic growth and generalized welfare, as wellas a mestizo culture, by combining endoge-nous and exogenous forces. In turn, AguirreBeltran, a physician also trained in anthro-pology by Herskovits at Northwestern Uni-versity, added a further consideration of dif-ferential power and a regional dimension tothis analysis. He argued that the locationof the indigenous communities was not ran-dom; they had survived in “regions of refuge”(a term taken from ecology), where the im-pact of the modernizing state had not yet beenfelt. These regions were not culturally ho-mogeneous, but “intercultural,” i.e., the in-digenous culture could be understood onlyin terms of its relation with a dominant mes-tizo (or ladino) culture. Typically, the dominantsector lived in an urban center that exertedeconomic, political, and cultural dominationover the indıgenas living in rural communi-ties. Economic domination was related to landmonopoly and the persistence of precapitalist

728 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

relations of production; political domination,to coercion and the control of governmentinstitutions; cultural domination, to exclusionof the communities from schooling, healthand communication services, strategic knowl-edge, and national identity. In consequence,interaction between the dominant and thesubordinate sectors resulted not in mesti-zaje but in a distorted type of acculturationthat reinforced differential power. “To be In-dian” meant to be stationed in a subordi-nate position, as in the colonial caste system.Therefore, indigenista actions should be di-rected toward breaking up the asymmetricalintercultural system (Aguirre Beltran 1958,1975).

On the basis of this model, the INI de-signed a precise plan of action. It beganwith the creation of a Coordinating Cen-ter in the urban nucleus of the interculturalregion, with a permanent program of re-gional research and diagnosis. With the back-ing of diverse government agencies, the Cen-ter would promote land distribution. It wouldmake agricultural extension, marketing fa-cilities, literacy programs, health campaignsand clinics, and schooling available to thecommunities. Prevention of mistreatment ofindigenas would require intervention in the ad-ministration of justice. And the INI would en-courage indigenous organization and partici-pation in municipal politics. The first Centerwas created, in 1952, in San Cristobal de lasCasas, Chiapas, by Aguirre Beltran himself. In1970, there were 12 Centers where multidis-ciplinary teams, usually under the direction ofprofessional anthropologists, managed coop-eratives, clinics, and boarding schools.

The model was extended to other coun-tries through the Inter-American IndigenistInstitute, which was officially linked to theOrganization of American States in 1953, inthe context of an increasing U.S. influencein Latin America (see Adams et al. 1960).In Ecuador, for instance, the Instituto Indi-genista Ecuatoriano (INE) was founded in1943 under the directorship of Pıo Jaramillo,a social historian who had attended the

INE: InstitutoIndigenistaEcuatoriano

IIP: InstitutoIndigenista Peruano

Patzcuaro Congress (Moreno Yanez 1992, pp.38–41). The INE promoted research, pub-lished a journal (Atahualpa), and contributedto the formation of a cadre of scholars whosework could profit from ideas coming out of theMexican INI (see Rubio Orbe 1956, Burgos1970, Villavicencio 1973); however, its di-rect participation in public programs was lim-ited to government consulting. In 1945, thenew Ecuadorian Constitution decreed as astate obligation the education of the indige-nous population by means of bilingual meth-ods of instruction. After 1953, a policy ofcommunity development was implementedin Ecuador by the Andean Mission (fundedby the United Nations), with the collabo-ration of the Summer Linguistics Instituteand the U.S. Peace Corps (A. Ibarra 1992,pp. 17–25). Similarly, the Peruvian delegatesto Patzcuaro founded the Instituto IndigenistaPeruano (IIP) in 1946, which started somecommunity development programs and in1951 signed an agreement with the Univer-sity of Cornell by which the latter became theadministrator of a large hacienda,Vicos, witha resident population of over 2000 Quechua-speaking natives. Vicos was, on the one hand, aproject pioneering modern agricultural tech-niques and on the other, a laboratory for an-thropological research on social change. Of-ficially, it was rated a huge success in thatthe tenants were able to buy the haciendafrom its owner (a government agency) in 1962(see Holmberg 1960; Marzal 1993, pp. 467–69). The Andean Mission was also estab-lished in Peru in 1953; and in 1959, the IIPlaunched the National Plan for the Integra-tion of the Aboriginal Population, which in-cluded intervention by international agenciesand the U.S. Peace Corps in the task of indige-nous “acculturation” (Barre 1983, pp. 51–52).In Colombia, where the old Indian resguardos(communal property) had been legally recog-nized since 1890, the Institute of Ethnologybegan research in the early 1940s, but an in-digenist agency, the Division of IndigenousAffairs, was created as late as 1960. It wasintended to work in close relationship with


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

ILO: InternationalLabor Organization

MNR: MovimientoNacionalRevolucionario

IIN: InstitutoIndigenista Nacional

the Colombian Agrarian Reform Institute,which faced strong resistance and politicalopposition from the landowners (Fals Borda1975; Barre 1983, p. 76). Throughout the1950s and 1960s, the Andean Mission waspresent in the countries throughout the re-gion, promoting productive cooperatives andpolicies of resettlement and education. In1957, the U.N. International Labor Organi-zation (ILO), in its Convention 107 on In-digenous and Tribal Populations, followed thesame principles of the Patzcuaro Congress(Favre 1996, pp. 90–91).

The effectiveness of indigenismo was de-pendent on its linkages to agrarian policies, asMariategui had foreseen. The relative successof the agrarian reform programs in Mexico(1920–1940), Bolivia (1952–1970), Ecuador(1964–1976), Colombia (1966–1976), Peru(1968–1975), and Venezuela (1970) allowedfor some improvement in the lot of indigenouspeoples, but not even in Mexico were the indi-genista agencies directly involved in the oper-ation of those programs (see de la Pena 1994).The Venezuelan, Ecuadorian, and Colom-bian programs were rather moderate—theland marked for redistribution was mainlyunused or lying fallow—and had the bless-ing of the United States (through the Al-liance for Progress), whereas the Bolivianand the Peruvian models were directed to-ward the expropriation of haciendas. In Bo-livia, an official Instituto Indigenista Boli-viano had been created in 1941, but it wassuperseded by the 1945 National IndigenousCongress, convoked by the populist PresidentVillarroel, and then by the 1952 revolution.The Movimiento Nacional Revolucionario(MNR), in power from 1952 to 1964, decreedthe effective distribution of large landhold-ings among indigenous and mestizo landlesspeasants, as well as the recognition of commu-nal property. The Third Inter-American Indi-genist Congress took place in Bolivia in 1954and it was devoted to the indigenous agrar-ian question; however, the main interest forthe MNR was the creation of a national, cul-turally homogeneous peasantry (Patch 1960;

Barre 1983, pp. 40–42). There was a sim-ilar goal in the Peruvian Agrarian Reform,launched in 1969 by the populist military gov-ernment of Velasco Alvarado, which decreedthat Indigenous Communities should be re-named Peasant Communities (and thereforethe Office for the Integration of the Abo-riginal Population ceased to exist). Haciendaswere not partitioned but were converted intocooperatives, which, in the highlands, alsoabsorbed community land (see McClintock1981).

There were two countries with signifi-cant indigenous populations where agrarianreforms were aborted: Guatemala and Brazil.In Guatemala, the Ubico dictatorship had re-fused to comply with the Patzcuaro resolu-tions, since “there was no Indian problem,”but in 1944 Arevalo’s populist revolutionfounded the Instituto Indigenista Nacional(IIN). From 1949 to 1954, under the direc-torship of anthropologist Joaquın Noval, theIIN developed a vast plan that included fieldresearch, publication of indigenous alphabets,translation of official documents into indige-nous languages, building of schools and clin-ics, and promotion of traditional crafts as wellas the design of programs of bilingual edu-cation, rural credit, and employment (Adams2000). In 1952, President Arbenz, Arevalo’ssuccessor, began a program of agrarian reformdirected at partitioning large landholdings,and the formation and empowerment of ru-ral unions and agrarian village committees. Atthe same time, partisan political activism wasspreading, and the opportunities for new typesof leadership to emerge were creating ten-sions and internal rivalries in the communities(Murphy 1970, Handy 1990). In contrast toBolivia, where the revolutionary governmentreceived technical assistance and loans fromthe U.S. government, in Guatemala agrarianactivism conflicted with the interests of Amer-ican companies. In 1954, a U.S.–backed mil-itary coup brought land distribution and in-digenist activities to a violent end. The IINthen became a part of the Seminario de In-tegracion Social Guatemalteca, an academic

730 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

institution. In Brazil, Goulart’s reformistgovernment (1961–1964) seemed to be insympathy with the idea of thorough-goingagrarian reorganization, as it was pushed bythe Peasant Leagues in the Northeast, butagain a military coup intervened. However,indigenous land continued to be under for-mal protection by the same law that had cre-ated the SPI in 1910. In 1967, a new agency,the National Foundation for the Indian(FUNAI), took the place of the SPI, and in1973, the military government promulgatedthe Indian Statute, which put the tribes underthe direct tutelage of the state and charged theFUNAI with the task of delimiting and regis-tering indigenous territories, but without rec-ognizing the collective property of indigenouspeoples. On the contrary, indigenous personscould acquire private holdings, as could colo-nizers, “for reasons of national security” (seeB.G. Ribeiro 1987, pp. 162–71). In practice,under the military government (1964–1982),the FUNAI was no more effective than itspredecessor had been in preventing indige-nous displacement and killings, and was eveninstrumental in allowing increasing penetra-tion by agribusinesses into the tropical forests(Maybury-Lewis 1988, pp. 267–88; MayburyLewis 1992; Sierra 1995).

After 1970, indigenismo became the tar-get of a number of attacks. From the polit-ical left, its policies were accused of playinginto the hands imperialist agencies as well ascausing divisions and confusion among dif-ferent segments of the working class—notto mention being highly incompetent, inas-much as indigenous groups continued to bethe poorest of the poor. In Brazil, two an-thropologists who had worked for the SPI,Darcy Ribeiro (1970) and Roberto Cardosode Oliveira (1964), in a thorough critique ofthe concept of acculturation, showed that thereal alternatives for indigenous cultures, giventhe violent impact of the dominant culture,were disappearance or resistance, both activeand passive. They argued that cultural changewas often a strategy for preserving indigenousidentity—and it was therefore a form of re-

FUNAI: NationalFoundation for theIndian

sistance (see Adams 1996). In Mexico, rad-ical anthropologists denounced the INI forits complicity with the authoritarian rulingparty, its persisting paternalism, and its rolein reproducing a situation of “internal colo-nialism” (Bonfil et al. 1970). The First Bar-bados Conference, convened by the WorldCouncil of Churches in 1970 and attended byanthropologists and indigenous leaders, usedthe term “ethnocide” to describe the assim-ilative programs implemented by indigenistaagencies (Colombres 1975). However, para-doxically, the most incisive critics came froma category of people who were themselvesthe result of acculturation policies: the newindigenous intellectuals. An important strat-egy of the Mexican indigenista programs aswell as similar programs in Latin Americahad been the recruitment of young Indiansinto higher education to train them to be-come cultural brokers and eventually to con-stitute a new type of leadership in their owncommunities. Similarly, the Church had beenpreparing young people as catechists and se-lected the most promising to train as lay dea-cons. In Mexico, the INI hired these peopleas bilingual teachers and cultural promoters,and some who completed university programsbecame academics, civil servants, or indepen-dent professionals (Gutierrez 1999). Manyalso became involved in radical student pol-itics or participated in peasant and migrantmovements. In the 1970s and 1980s manyemerged as leaders or ideologists of organi-zations and social movements of a new, eth-nic type. As Xavier Albo (1991) has pointedout, Indians, who rarely participated in pol-itics except in the role as migrants, peas-ants, rural laborers, casual urban workers,etc., suddenly became political actors in theirown right. Many explanations have been ad-vanced for this phenomenon: the erosion ofclass identities in the context of transnationalcapitalism, the slowness of agrarian reform,the ineffectiveness of social policies in gen-eral and indigenismo in particular in endingracist exclusion, and the fact that a sizablenumber of indigenous people were no longer


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

peasants or manual workers, among oth-ers (Bonfil 1981, Albo 1991). The influenceof international declarations on human rights,ecological protection, decolonization, andcultural entitlements was also important.

What is obvious is that ethnic movementsare now demanding new spaces for a digni-fied, differentiated participation as citizens intheir national societies. In the 1974 Indige-nous Congress of San Cristobal de las Casas,indigenous spokesmen protested against theimplicit racist assumption of the superiorityof Western religion, medicine, or law over“non-Western culture.” The 1973 TiwanakuManifest, to which several Bolivian and Pe-ruvian organizations subscribed, rejected thecondition of being “foreigners on their ownland” to which they were condemned bypolicies of assimilation (LeBot 1988). TheBolivian Katarista movement (named afterTupac Katari, a rebel against Spanish colo-nialism), founded in La Paz in the 1970s byAymara students and workers, combined mil-itancy in a radical labor union with the recov-ery of ethnic identity, and pioneered the de-mand for a multicultural state (LeBot 1988,Rivera Cusicanqui 1987). In Ecuador, theConfederacion de Nacionalidades Indıgenasdel Ecuador represented indigenous groupsthroughout the country in their strugglefor land, fair economic policies, culturalrecognition, and political representation; andtheir collective power has been demonstratedin several strikes and road blockages thatbrought the country to a standstill (Zamosc1994, Araki 2002). One should also mentionthe Consejo Regional Indıgena del Cauca inColombia, which for many decades defendedtheir land, culture, language, and forms ofgovernment (Gros 1988); and the organiza-tions of the Atlantic Coast of Nicaragua, withtheir successful project for multiethnic au-tonomous regions (Barre 1989). In Mexico,in addition to the controversial Ejercito Za-patista de Liberacion Nacional in Chiapas,there are a number of strong organizationssuch as the Union de Comuneros Emil-iano Zapata and the Organizacion Nacion

Purhepecha in Michoacan; the CoalicionObrero Estudiantil del Istmo—a major polit-ical force in Oaxaca; the Consejo de PueblosNahuas del Alto Balsas in Guerrero, whichstopped construction of a dam that wouldhave flooded 35 communities–and many lo-cal groups striving to recover specific aspectsof their traditional culture and forms of self-government (de la Pena 2002). In all these ex-amples, “indigenous peoples” appear as dy-namic realities: They are no longer confinedto regions of refuge; they have multiple andvaried demands and are a presence on the na-tional as well as the international scene. Theirnew leaders should not be idealized (for in-stance, a part of the indigenous elite that be-gan to emerge in Guatemala during the 1950ssupported the repressive military governmentin the 1970s and 1980s; see Arias 1990). Thepoint is, however, that by the end of the twen-tieth century the logic of indigenismo had beensubverted: The state can no longer “name” theindigenous subjects or define their destiny; onthe contrary, indigenous peoples are definingtheir own aspirations and forging a new typeof nation where they would not be forced tochoose between oppressive marginality andassimilation.

MULTICULTURAL POLITICS: ANEOLIBERAL INDIGENISMO?

As in any hegemonic discourse, populist in-digenismo gave rise to a “language of con-tention” (Roseberry 1994): Categories suchas acculturation, mestizaje, community devel-opment, and region of refuge became com-mon currency for its critics and opponentsalike. This language began to change af-ter 1970. New categories—human rights,ethnodevelopment, multiculturalism, culturalrights, participatory research, autonomy—originating in documents issued by interna-tional institutions, are now being articulatedin official statements in the context of a newhegemonic negotiation (Stavenhagen 2000).The recent transformations of Mexican indi-genismo may be illustrative of a more general

732 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

process. In the 1970s, the Mexican govern-ment responded to protests against the INIby increasing its budget, creating many newcoordinating centers, and co-opting lead-ers. Accusations of paternalism were met byfashioning new corporatist “Indian” associ-ations, controlled and funded by the rulingparty. But these associations proved inca-pable of rallying extensive support or quietingdiscontent. The existing national structureof political mediation was crumbling underthe weight of a major economic crisis. In-digenous grievances were not isolated. The1970s witnessed a series of independent so-cial movements both in the countryside andin the cities, followed by widespread protestsagainst scarcity and political authoritarian-ism in the 1980s and 1990s. After 1982, thedownturn in international oil prices reducedthe heavily indebted government to virtualbankruptcy. As a result, public expenditureon social programs had to be cut, economicprotectionism came to an end, and the corpo-ratist system of control became too expensiveto maintain. Like other federal institutions,the INI modified its structure by transfer-ring functions to NGOs as well as to indige-nous organizations. The lack of viability ofthe old system of political control allowed foran incipient democratization, and as groupswithin the society at large have taken ongreater visibility, indigenous movements haveemerged to claim their right to participate.

Mutatis mutandis, other countries in LatinAmerica have followed a similar course: debt,crisis, economic adjustment, democratization.In the context of an open, global econ-omy, states have less space for maneuver andhave become dependent on powerful inter-national financial agencies, which determinetheir policies. The meaning of the term “so-cial policies” has changed drastically. Whereonce intertwined with development policiesand implying intervention by an authoritar-ian state that mobilized people and shapedthe economy, social policies came to be as-sociated with a measure of compensation tosegments of the population lacking the ca-

pacity to compete in the marketplace. Withsuch policies, the state claims relief from allother responsibilities for the economic vi-ability of these disadvantaged groups; theyhave to become self-reliant through “ethn-odevelopment” (i.e., muddling through withtheir own cultural resources) (see Favre 1996,pp. 119–24). However, contemporary indige-nous movements are much more than the re-sult of neoliberal manipulation. Growing outof the struggle for land rights, expanding inthe fight against racism and violation of theircivil rights, they soon discovered that defenseof their civil rights implied the rejection ofa definition of indigenous identity as inferioror anomalous. They therefore demanded therecognition of indigenous culture, social or-ganization, and forms of government as validand valuable (Albo 1991). The overwhelm-ing majority of indigenous movements are notclaiming political independence or artificialisolation but are demanding an inclusive def-inition of the nation where the right to cul-tural diversity is an essential aspect of citizen-ship. When there is genuine, strong politicalindigenous representation, social policieswould not be formulated on the basis of oneor other version of indigenismo, but instead bydemocratic negotiation.

The new language of contention is alsopart of the globalization process. The draftof the Declaration of Indigenous Rights, pro-duced by the WGIP in 1989, was acceptedby the U.N. for preliminary discussion in1993. Convention 169, a new ILO documentthat replaced Convention 107 and that adoptsa firm position in favor of cultural diver-sity and indigenous empowerment, was ap-proved in 1989 and subsequently ratified byseveral Latin American governments. Thesedocuments, along with statements from othermultilateral organizations, have influencedchange in several national constitutions thatnow recognize the multicultural nature oftheir respective countries, as well as the rightsof indigenous peoples to cultural distinc-tiveness, sustainable development, politicalrepresentation, and limited self-government


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

(Assies et al. 1999, Van Cott 2000, Sieder2002). For instance, indigenous resguardos inColombia have been confirmed as rightfulowners of large territories and their bodiesof authority are entitled to the same bene-fits as any local government; in addition, twoseats in the senate are reserved for Indianrepresentatives. Similarly, Ecuador, Peru, andBolivia, as well as Mexico, modified their con-stitutions to define their nations as multi-cultural and/or pluriethnic and to accept thelegitimacy of indigenous jurisdiction and cus-tomary law. Nicaragua was a pioneer in theofficial creation of pluriethnic autonomousregions; but later Mexico also adopted theterm autonomy to characterize the nature oflocal indigenous governments. In turn, bothBrazil and Chile recognized the legal exis-tence of indigenous communities and theirlands. Even if most legislative changes arestill too general, they imply a radical rupturewith the previous situation of constitutionalvoid.

Although indigenous peoples are beingbadly hit by international economic forces,with many workers often forced to move awayfrom their communities in search of jobs, po-litical recognition is the vital prerequisite forthem if they are to avoid a future in whichall they can expect is to wait for handoutsfrom a reluctant state. That is why “indige-nous people” cannot simply be equated withother terms redolent of colonialism (such asnative or primitive) and essentialism, as someanthropologists advocate—e.g., Adam Kuper,in the polemical article cited above. The is-sue is not whether the definition of the termcould be improved (as it certainly could be),but rather whether it would provide a right-ful political personality to human groups whohave been previously excluded and subordi-nated. In this sense, the appropriation of theconcept by grassroots movements can becomea weapon in their quest for social justice andequitable national belonging in the years tocome.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams RN. 1957. Cultural Surveys of Panama, Nicaragua, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras.Washington, DC: Panam. Sanit. Bur., Sci. Publ., No. 33

Adams RN. 1996. Etnias en evolucion social. Estudios de Guatemala y Centroamerica. Mexico City:Univ. Auton. Metrop., Unidad Iztapalapa

Adams RN. 2000. Joaquın Noval como Indigenista, Antropologo y Revolucionario. Guatemala City:Ed. Univ.

Adams RN, Holmberg AR, Patch RW, Wagley C, Lewis O. 1960. Social Change in Latin AmericaToday. Its Implications for United States Policy. New York: Vintage Books

Aguirre Beltran G. 1958. El Proceso de Aculturacion. Mexico City: Univ. Nac. Auton. Mex.Aguirre Beltran G, ed. 1970. Antologıa de Moises Saenz. Mexico City: Ed. OasisAguirre Beltran G. 1972. La Poblacion Negra de Mexico. Mexico City: Fondo Cult. Econ.Aguirre Beltran G. 1973. Teorıa y Practica de la Educacion Indıgena. Mexico City: Secr. Educ.

PublicaAguirre Beltran G. 1975. Regions of Refuge. Washington, DC: Int. Soc. Appl. Anthropol.Albo X. 1991. El retorno del indio. Rev. Andina 9(2):299–366Anderson B. 1983. Imagined Communities. London: VersoAraki H. 2002. Movimiento indıgena y estado plurinacional. El caso ecuatoriano. See Yamada

& Degregori 2002, pp. 147–60Arias A. 1990. Changing Indian identity: Guatemala’s violent transition to modernity. See

Smith 1990, pp. 230–57

734 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

Assies W, van der Haar G, Hoekema A, eds. 1999. The Challenge of Diversity. Indigenous Peoplesand the Reform of the State in Latin America. Amsterdam: Thela—Thesis

Barre MC. 1983. Ideologıas Indigenistas y Movimientos Indios. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Ed.Barre MC. 1989. La presencia indıgena en los procesos polıticos contemporaneos de Cen-

troamerica. Cuad. Am. (Nueva Epoca) 3(6):120–46Basave Benıtez A. 1992. Mexico Mestizo. Analisis del Nacionalismo Mexicano en torno a la Mestizofilia

de Andres Molina Enrıquez. Mexico City: Fondo Cult. Econ.Bataillon C, Favre H, LeBot Y, Gros C, Santana R, et al. 1988. Indianidad, Etnocidio e Indigenismo

en America Latina. Mexico City: Inst. Indig. Interam./Cent. Etudes Mex. Centram.Bonfil G, Warman A, Olivera M, Nolasco M, Valencia E. 1970. De Eso que Llaman Antropologıa

Mexicana. Mexico City: Nuestro TiempoBonfil G. 1972. El concepto de indio en America: una categorıa de la situacion colonial. An.

Antropol. 7:105–24Bonfil G, ed. 1981. Utopıa y Revolucion. El Pensamiento Polıtico de los Indios Latinoamericanos.

Mexico City: Nueva ImagenBonfil G. 1989. Mexico Profundo. Una Civilizacion Negada. Mexico City: GrijalboBonilla H, ed. 1991. Los Andes en la Encrucijada. Indios, Comunidades y Estado en el Siglo XIX.

Quito: FLACSO/Abya-YalaBonilla H. 1997. Estructura y articulacion polıtica de los Andes centrales con sus estados

nacionales. See Reina 1997, pp. 93–108Bourricaud F. 1975. Indian, mestizo and cholo as symbols in the Peruvian system of stratifi-

cation. In Ethnicity: Theory and Experience, ed. N Glazer, P Moynihan, pp. 350–87. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Brading D. 1985a. Prophecy and Myth in Mexican History. Cambridge: Cambridge Lat. Am.Miniat.

Brading D. 1985b. The Origins of Mexican Nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge Lat. Am. Miniat.Brading D. 1988. Manuel Gamio and official indigenismo. Bull. Lat. Am. Res. 7(1):75–90Burgos H. 1970. Relaciones Interetnicas en Riobamba. Mexico City: Inst. Indig. Interam.Carmagnani M. 1984. Estado y Sociedad en America Latina, 1850–1930. Barcelona: Ed. Crıt.Caso A, Zavala S, Miranda J, Gonzalez Navarro M, Aguirre Beltran G, et al. 1954. Metodos y

Resultados de la Polıtica Indigenista en Mexico. Mexico City: Inst. Nac. Indig.Caso A. 1971. La Comunidad Indıgena. Mexico City: Secr. Educ. PublicaColombres A, ed. 1975. Por la Liberacion Indıgena. Documentos y Testimonios. Buenos Aires: Ed.

SolCordoba A. 1973. La Ideologıa de la Revolucion Mexicana. La Formacion del Nuevo Regimen. Mexico

City: Ed. EraCorona Morfın E. 1963. Al Servicio de la Escuela Popular. Mexico City: Secr. Educ. PublicaCorrigan P, Sayer D. 1985. The Great Arch. English State Formation as Cultural Revolution.

Oxford: BlackwellDavies TM Jr. 1970. Indian Integration in Peru: A Half Century of Experience. Lincoln: Univ.

Neb. PressDavis S. 1977. Victims of the Miracle. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. PressDegregori CI. 2002. Identidad etnica, movimientos sociales y participacion en el Peru. See

Yamada & Degregori 2002, pp. 161–78de la Pena G. 1994. Rural mobilizations in Latin America since c. 1920. In The Cambridge

History of Latin America, ed. L Bethell, 6(Part 2):379–482. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.Press


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

de la Pena G. 1995. Nationals and foreigners in the history of Mexican anthropology. InThe Conditions of Reciprocal Understanding, ed. JW Fernandez, MB Singer, pp. 276–303.Chicago: Univ. Chicago Cent. Int. Stud.

de la Pena G. 2000. Continuidad y cambio en la polıtica social hacia los indıgenas. In LasPolıticas Sociales de Mexico al Fin del Milenio, ed. R Cordera, A Ziccardi, pp. 555–75. MexicoCity: Miguel Angel Porrrua/Univ. Nac. Auton. Mex.

de la Pena G. 2002. El futuro del indigenismo en Mexico: del mito del mestizaje a la frag-mentacion neoliberal. See Yamada & Degregori 2002, pp. 45–64

de Oliveira JP. 1999. Ensayos en Antropologıa Historica. Rio de Janeiro: Univ. Fed. Rio de Janeirode Oliveira RC. 1964. O Indio e o Mondo dos Brancos. Sao Paulo: Difus. Eur. Livrodi Tella TS. 1973. Populismo y reformismo. In Populismo y Contradicciones de Clase en Lati-

noamerica, ed. G Germani, TS di Tella, O Ianni, pp. 38–82. Mexico City: Ed. EraEriksen TH. 1993. Ethnicity & Nationalism. Anthropological Perspectives. London/Chicago: Pluto

PressFabila A. 1940. Las Tribus Yaquis de Sonora. Su Cultura y Anhelada Autodeterminacion. Mexico

City: Dep. Auton. Asun. Indıg.Fals Borda O. 1975. Historia de la Cuestion Agraria en Colombia. Bogota: Ed. RoscaFavre H. 1988. Capitalismo y etnicidad: la polıtica indigenista en Peru. See Bataillon et al.

1988, pp. 113–28Favre H. 1996. L’Indigenisme. Paris: Presses Univ. Fr.Florescano E. 1999. Memoria Indıgena. Mexico City: TaurusFlorescano E. 2001. Memoria Mexicana. Mexico City: TaurusFlores Galindo A. 1987. Buscando un Inca. Identidad y Utopıa en los Andes. Lima: Ed. Horiz. Inst.

Apoyo Agrar.Foster GM. 1960. Culture and Conquest. America’s Spanish Heritage. New York: Wenner Gren

Found. Anthropol. Res.Friedrich P. 1986. The Princes of Naranja. An Essay in Antro-historical Method. Austin: Univ. Tex.

PressGamio M. 1916. Forjando Patria: Pro-nacionalismo. Mexico City: Secr. Educ. PublicaGamio M, ed. 1922. La Poblacion del Valle de Teotihuacan. Mexico City: Talleres Graf. Nac. 3

Vols.Gonzalez Navarro M. 1954. Instituciones indıgenas en Mexico independiente. See Caso et al.

1954, pp. 113–69Gould JL. 1998. To Die This Way. Nicaraguan Indians and the Myth of Mestizaje. Durham, NC:

Duke Univ. PressGraham R, ed. 1990. The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870–1940. Austin: Univ. Tex. PressGray A. 1997. Indigenous Rights and Development. Self Determination in an Amazonian Community.

Providence/Oxford: Berghahn BooksGros C. 1988. Una organizacion indıgena en lucha por la tierra. See Bataillon et al. 1988,

pp. 235–58Gutierrez N. 1999. Nationalist Myths and Ethnic Identities. Indigenous Intellectuals and the Mexican

State. Lincoln/London: Univ. Neb. PressHale CA. 1972. Mexican Liberalism in the Age of Mora, 1821–1853. New Haven: Yale Univ.

PressHandy J. 1990. The corporate community, campesino organizations, and agrarian reform:

1950–1954. See Smith 1990, pp. 163–82Heath SB. 1972. Telling Tongues. Language Policy in Mexico. Colony to Nation. New York: Teachers

Coll. Press

736 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

Helg A. 1990. Race in Argentina and Cuba, 1880–1930: theory, politics and popular reaction.See Graham 1990, pp. 37–70

Hennessy A. 1969. Latin America. In Populism. Its Meanings and Nacional Characteristics, ed.G Ionescu, E Gellner, pp. 28–61. London: Weidenfeld & Nicholson

Holmberg A. 1960. Changing community attitudes and values in Peru: a case study in guidedchange. See Adams et al. 1960, pp. 63–107

Ibarra A. 1992. Los Indıgenas y el Estado en Ecuador. Quito: Abya-YalaIbarra H. 1992. La identidad devaluada de los “modern Indians.” In Indios. Una Reflexion sobre

el Levantamiento Indıgena, ed. I Almeida, J Almeida, L Macas, I Perez Arteta, G OrtizCrespo, et al., pp. 319–49. Quito: Abya-Yala

Karlsson BG. 2003. Anthropology and the “indigenous slot.” Crit. Anthropol. 23(4):403–23Klein H. 1982. Bolivia. The Evolution of a Multi-Ethnic Society. New York: Oxford Univ. PressKnight A. 1990. Racism, revolution, and indigenismo: Mexico, 1910–1940. See Graham 1990,

pp. 71–113Kuper A. 2003. The Return of the Native. Curr. Anthropol. 44(3):389–402LeBot Y. 1988. Extranjeros en nuestro propio paıs: el movimiento indıgena en Bolivia durante

los anos 70. See Bataillon et al. 1988, pp. 221–34Linton R, ed. 1940. Acculturation in Seven American Tribes. London: Appleton-Century Co.Lockart J, Schwartz SB. 1983. Early Latin America. A History of Latin America and Brazil.

Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. PressLoyo E. 1996. La empresa redentora, La Casa del Estudiante Indıgena. Hist. Mex. 46(1):99–

132Mallon F. 1983. The Defense of Community in Peru’s Central Highlands. Peasant Struggle and

Capitalist Transition, 1860–1940. Princeton: Princeton Univ. PressMallon F. 1992. Indian communities, political cultures, and the state in Latin America. J. Lat.

Am. Stud. 24(Quinc. Suppl.):35–53Mariategui JC. 1980. Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality. Austin: Univ. Tex. PressMarzal MM. 1993. Historia de la Antropologıa Indigenista: Mexico y Peru. Barcelona: Anthro-

pos/Mexico City: Univ. Auton. Metrop.Maybury-Lewis D. 1988. The Savage and the Innocent. Boston: BeaconMaybury-Lewis D. 1992. Una cronica Amarga: el Brasil y los Indios. In De Palabra y de Obra

en el Nuevo Mundo. 2. Encuentros Interetnicos, ed. M Gutierrez Estevez, M Leon-Portilla,G Gossen, J Klor de Alva, pp. 97–120. Madrid: Siglo Veintiuno Esp. Junta Extremad.

McClintock C. 1981. Peasant Cooperatives and Political Change in Peru. Princeton: PrincetonUniv. Press.

Melatti JC. 1973. Los Indios de Brasil, Mexico City: Secr. Educ. Publica. (Col. Sep-Setentas, 60)Metraux A. 1949. Jesuit missions in South America. In Handbook of South American Indians,

ed. J Steward, pp. 645–54. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst., Bur. Am. Ethnol.Moreno Yanez S. 1992. Antropologıa Ecuatoriana. Pasado y Presente. Quito: Col. Prim. Cult.

QuitoMorner M, ed. 1965. The Expulsion of the Jesuits from Latin America. New York: KnopfMorner M. 1967. Race Mixture in the History of Latin America. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.Murphy B. 1970. The stunted growth of campesino organizations. In Crucifixion by Power. Essays

in Guatemalan Social Structure, ed. RN Adams, pp. 438–78. Austin: Univ. Tex. PressOchiai K. 2002. Forjando patria: identificacion de lo social con lo cultural en el Mexico mod-

erno. See Yamada & Degregori 2002, pp. 65–82Parry JH. 1966. The Spanish Seaborne Empire. London: HutchinsonPatch RW. 1960. U.S. assistance in a revolutionary setting. See Adams et al. 1960, pp. 108–76


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

Primer Congr. Indig. Interam. 1940. Educacion Revista Mensual de Pedagogıa y Orientacion SindicalIV. Spec. issue

Reed N. 1964. The Caste War of Yucatan. Stanford: Stanford Univ. PressReina L. 1980. Las Rebeliones Indıgenas en Mexico, 1819–1906. Mexico City: Siglo VeintiunoReina L, ed. 1997. La Reindianizacion de America, Siglo XIX. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno

Ed./CIESASRibeiro BG. 1987. O Indio na Cultura Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: UNIBRADE/UNESCORibeiro D. 1962. A Polıtica Indigenista Brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Minist. Agric.Ribeiro D. 1970. Os Indios e a Civilizacao. Rio de Janeiro: Ed. Civiliz. Bras.Ribeiro D. 1971. Fronteras Indıgenas de la Civilizacion. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Ed.Ribeiro D. 1995. O Povo Brasileiro. A Formacao e o Sentido do Brasil. Sao Paulo: Cıa. Let.Rivera Cusicanqui S. 1985. La expansion del latifundio en el altiplano boliviano. In Orıgenes

y Desarrollo de la Burguesıa en America Latina, 1700–1955, ed. E Florescano, pp. 357–86.Mexico City: Nueva Imagen

Rivera Cusicanqui S. 1987. “Oprimidos pero no Vencidos. . . .” Luchas Campesinas entre los Aymaray Quechua en Bolivia. Geneva: UN Res. Inst. Soc. Dev.

Roseberry W. 1994. Hegemony and the language of contention. In Everyday Forms of StateFormation, ed. G. Joseph, D Nugent, pp. 355–66. Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press

Rubio Orbe G. 1956. Punyaro. Estudio de Antropologıa Social y Cultural de una Comunidad Indıgenay Mestiza del Ecuador. Quito: Casa Cult. Ecuat.

Saenz M. 1936. Carapan. Bosquejo de una Experiencia. Lima: Libr. Imprenta Gil.Saenz M. 1939. Mexico Integro. Lima: Imprenta Torres AguirreSaenz M. 1970. Aspectos globales del problema del indio. See Aguirre Beltran 1970, pp. 59–89Service ER. 1955. Indian-European relations in colonial Latin America. Am. Anthropol. 57:411–

25Sieder R, ed. 2002. Multiculturalism in Latin America. Indigenous Rights, Diversity and Democracy.

London: Palgrave MacmillanSierra MT. 1995. Los indios en el Brasil de hoy. In Etnia y Nacion en America Latina, ed H Dıaz

Polanco, pp. 337–63. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las ArtesSilverblatt I. 1993. El surgimiento de la indianidad en los Andes del Peru central: el nativismo

del siglo XVII y los muchos significados de “indio.” In De Palabra y de Obra en el NuevoMundo. 3. La Formacion del Otro, ed. GH Gossen, M Gutierrez Estevez, M Leon Portilla,J Klor de Alva, pp. 459–82. Madrid: Siglo XXI Esp./Junta Extremad.

Smith CA, ed. 1990. Guatemalan Indians and the State, 1540–1988. Austin: Univ. Tex. PressStavenhagen R. 2000. Los Derechos Humanos de los Pueblos Indıgenas. Mexico City: Com. Nac.

Derechos Hum.Sweet D. 1992. Misioneros jesuitas e indios “recalcitrantes” en la Amazonia colonial. In De

Palabra y de Obra en el Nuevo Mundo. 1. Imagenes Interetnicas, ed. M Leon-Portilla, MGutierrez-Estevez, J Klor de Alva, GH Gossen, pp. 261–92. Madrid: Siglo XXI Esp.Junta Extremad.

Taracena Arriola A. 1997. Invencion Criolla, Sueno Ladino, Pesadilla Indıgena. La Antigua,Guatem: Cent. Investig. Reg. Mesoam.

Tax S, ed. 1952. Acculturation in the Americas. Chicago: Univ. Chicago PressVan Cott D. 2000. The Friendly Liquidation of the Past. The Politics of Diversity in Latin America.

Pittsburgh, PA: Univ. Pittsburgh PressVasconcelos J. 1960. La raza cosmica. Mexico: Espasa CalpeVelasco Avila C. 1997. Sociedad, identidad y guerra entre los Comanches. See Reina 1997,

pp. 317–39

738 de la Pena

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

AR254-AN34-34 ARI 25 August 2005 15:16

Tutino J. 1986. From Insurrection to Revolution in Mexico. Social Bases of Agrarian Violence, 1750–1940. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press

Villavicencio G. 1973. Relaciones Interetnicas en Otavalo, Ecuador: ¿Una Nacionalidad India enFormacion? Mexico City: Inst. Indig. Interam.

Villoro L. 1950. Los Grandes Momentos del Indigenismo en Mexico. Mexico City: Col. Mex.Vinas D. 1982. Indios, Ejercito y Frontera. Mexico City: Siglo Veintiuno Ed.White LA, Bernal I, eds. 1960. Correspondencia de Adolfo F. Bandelier. Mexico City: Inst. Nac.

Antropol. Hist.Wolf E. 1956. Aspects of group relations in a complex society: Mexico. Am. Anthropol. 58:1065–

78Yamada M, Degregori C, eds. 2002. Estados Nacionales, Identidad y Democracia en America Latina.

Osaka: Japan Cent. Area Stud., Natl. Mus. Ethnol.Zamosc L. 1994. Agrarian protest and the Indian movement in the Ecuadorian highlands. Lat.

Am. Res. Rev. 29(3):37–68Zavala S, Miranda J. 1954. Instituciones indıgenas en la colonia. See Caso et al. 1954,

pp. 29–112


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Contents ARI 12 August 2005 20:29

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 34, 2005

Contents

FrontispieceSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � xvi

Prefatory Chapter

Comparisons: Possible and ImpossibleSally Falk Moore � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Archaeology

Archaeology, Ecological History, and ConservationFrances M. Hayashida � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �43

Archaeology of the BodyRosemary A. Joyce � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 139

Looting and the World’s Archaeological Heritage: The InadequateResponseNeil Brodie and Colin Renfrew � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 343

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Biological Anthropology

Early Modern HumansErik Trinkaus � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 207

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

The Ecologies of Human Immune FunctionThomas W. McDade � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 495

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Linguistics and Communicative Practices

New Directions in Pidgin and Creole StudiesMarlyse Baptista � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33

Pierre Bourdieu and the Practices of LanguageWilliam F. Hanks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �67

Areal Linguistics and Mainland Southeast AsiaN.J. Enfield � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 181

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Cultural Politics of Body SizeHelen Gremillion � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �13

Too Much for Too Few: Problems of Indigenous Land Rights in LatinAmericaAnthony Stocks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �85

Intellectuals and Nationalism: Anthropological EngagementsDominic Boyer and Claudio Lomnitz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 105

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


An Excess of Description: Ethnography, Race, and Visual TechnologiesDeborah Poole � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 159

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

The Anthropology of the Beginnings and Ends of LifeSharon R. Kaufman and Lynn M. Morgan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 317

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Caste and Politics: Identity Over SystemDipankar Gupta � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 409

The Evolution of Human Physical AttractivenessSteven W. Gangestad and Glenn J. Scheyd � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 523

Mapping Indigenous LandsMac Chapin, Zachary Lamb, and Bill Threlkeld � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 619

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Enhancement Technologies and the BodyLinda F. Hogle � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 695

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Surfacing the Body InteriorJanelle S. Taylor � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 741

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Theme 1: Race and Racism

Race and Ethnicity in Public Health Research: Models to ExplainHealth DisparitiesWilliam W. Dressler, Kathryn S. Oths, and Clarence C. Gravlee � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 231

Communicability, Racial Discourse, and DiseaseCharles L. Briggs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 269

Immigrant Racialization and the New Savage Slot: Race, Migration,and Immigration in the New EuropePaul A. Silverstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

The Archaeology of Black Americans in Recent TimesMark P. Leone, Cheryl Janifer LaRoche, and Jennifer J. Babiarz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 575

Interrogating Racism: Toward an Antiracist AnthropologyLeith Mullings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 667

Theme 2: Indigenous Peoples

The Effect of Market Economies on the Well-Being of IndigenousPeoples and on Their Use of Renewable Natural ResourcesRicardo Godoy, Victoria Reyes-Garcıa, Elizabeth Byron, William R. Leonard,

and Vincent Vadez � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 121

Recent Ethnographic Research on North American IndigenousPeoplesPauline Turner Strong � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 253

Will Indigenous Languages Survive?Michael Walsh � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Autochthony: Local or Global? New Modes in the Struggle overCitizenship and Belonging in Africa and EuropeBambi Ceuppens and Peter Geschiere � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 385

Through Wary Eyes: Indigenous Perspectives on ArchaeologyJoe Watkins � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 429

Metabolic Adaptation in Indigenous Siberian PopulationsWilliam R. Leonard, J. Josh Snodgrass, and Mark V. Sorensen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

Indigenous Movements in AustraliaFrancesca Merlan � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 473

Indigenous Movements in Latin America, 1992–2004: Controversies,Ironies, New DirectionsJean E. Jackson and Kay B. Warren � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 549

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.


Linguistic, Cultural, and Biological DiversityLuisa Maffi � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 599

Human Rights, Biomedical Science, and Infectious Diseases AmongSouth American Indigenous GroupsA. Magdalena Hurtado, Carol A. Lambourne, Paul James, Kim Hill,

Karen Cheman, and Keely Baca � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 639

Social and Cultural Policies Toward Indigenous Peoples: Perspectivesfrom Latin AmericaGuillermo de la Pena � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 717

Indexes

Subject Index � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 757

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 771

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 26–34 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 774

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology chaptersmay be found at http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

Contents xi

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 200

5.34

:717

-739

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

ity o

f T

oron

to L

ibra

ry o

n 10

/27/

14. F

or p

erso

nal u

se o

nly.

Social Cultural Policies Indigenous Peoples LA Perspectives

Documents

Transcript of Social Cultural Policies Indigenous Peoples LA Perspectives