Better lives for our children’s grandchildren · by some friends

Posting 1. to General (no specific category), by George Salzman, Correspondence with James Herod
 
Subject: Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Evo Morales, and Indigenism
From: George Salzman <>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:25:29 -0600
To: James Herod <>

Oaxaca, Saturday, February 11, 2006

Hi James,

      As I wrote you yesterday, “… your alert on Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz’s article on Evo Morales just came. I’ll look at it. First glance raises a question for me. More later.” Now, after reading the whole article, and some other items on Morales, my reaction remains negative. The link to her article, “The Role of the International Indigenous Movement and What the Left is Missing: What Brought Evo Morales to Power?”, is www.counterpunch.org/ortiz02102006.html.

She begins:

What has been left out of reports and analysis in both the mainstream press and among anti-imperialists and leftists about the triumph of Evo Morales’ election as President of Bolivia is the role played by the three-decade international indigenous movement that preceded it. Few are even aware of that powerful and remarkable historic movement, which springs from generations of grassroots organizing.
 
      If the left, particularly the Latin American left, misses this point, it’s a shame, as mistrust of and racism against the indigenous nations has been the Achilles heel of previous revolutionary movements in Latin America (as well as North America).
 
      Indeed, some indigenous activists and organizations in the Andean region are wary of Evo Morales because of his left politics and alliances, for the very reason that the Latin American left has so consistently either ignored indigenous issues and aspirations, or used the indigenous and tossed them aside (recall that the liberation armies of Bolivar and San Martin and the independence movement and 20th century revolution in Mexico, as well as the recent Guatemalan revolution, were made up of indigenous foot soldiers).
 
      The burden is on the American (and I mean Western Hemisphere) left to catch up with what has been going on with the indigenous movement in order to understand the victory of Evo Morales, which is a victory for the indigenous peoples of the world AND for anti-imperialism/anti-capitalism. If there is ever to be socialism and just societies in the Americas, the leadership and form of it must come from the indigenous peoples.

 
      James, I think her entire article is of very questionable validity. Its heavy focus on the work in which she was involved in Geneva as an accredited specialist during part of the period 1972-1982 shows clearly her acceptance of the concept “indigenous” as basic to understanding Morales’ electoral victory some 30 or so years later. It’s another example of “identity politics”, the politics of single issues. Of course it’s true that people readily identifiable as coming from a conquered group are almost always treated very badly, but the inherent fuzziness in trying to focus on their being “indigenous” is brought into sharp relief by the tremendous effort the commission felt it had to make to define an “indigenous person.”

      For example, she writes in one place,

The first issue dealt with was definition. The definition of indigenous populations was analyzed in terms of ancestry, culture, religion, the fact of living under a tribal system, membership of an indigenous community, dress, livelihood, language, group consciousness, acceptance by the indigenous community, residence in certain parts of the country, legal definitions, change in status from indigenous to non-indigenous and vice versa, registration and certification, and the decision-making authority in deciding who is and who is not indigenous. The report also dealt with population, both composition and statistical trends, although the analysis was superficial and incomplete.

 
      I don’t criticize her for working in the framework of the UN, given that we are all living in a world governed by nation-states, and the UN is an institution they set up to serve the interests of the most powerful nations. The UN has churned out a ton of documents, and they are cited again and again by well-informed intellectuals arguing for what ought to be done, as e.g. in the longstanding conquest-in-progress of the Palestinians, and ignored by powerful states when they choose. I’m pretty sure that the principles set down by the sub-commission Dunbar-Ortiz worked on for how nation-states should treat indigenous peoples is followed in not a single nation. I think she is mistaken in believing that her UN-based work 30 years ago was a significant part of “that powerful and remarkable historic movement”, “the three-decade international indigenous movement that preceded” Morales’ electoral victory, as her over-concentration on her own efforts in Geneva strongly indicate. Put bluntly, I think she’s tooting her own horn more loudly than is warranted.

      I was about to remark that Dunbar-Ortiz would do well to read your essay on Indigenism, and then thought I ought to reread it, which I’ve now done. It is brilliant, James! She was clearly working within the trap of identity politics. And I won’t pursue her any more for the moment. But her essay did impel me to “review” my attempted tentative evaluation of Evo Morales. The articles I looked at are:
————————————————————————————–
www.counterpunch.com/petras02042006.html
February 4 / 5, 2006
A Bizarre Beginning in Bolivia
Inside Evo Morales’s Cabinet
By James Petras
————————————————————————————–
news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=cc38e0d688c4aacaffbc2961a15ceb85
Bolivia’s Morales Deftly Keeps Enemies at Bay While Pushing Reforms
Commentary/Analysis, Roger Burbach,
New America Media, Feb 09, 2006
————————————————————————————–
www.berkeleydaily.org/article.cfm?issue=01-24-06&storyID=23276
Friday, February 10, 2006
News Analysis: Evo Morales and the Roots of Revolution, by Roger Burbach, Pacific News Service, Cochabamba, Bolivia —The inauguration of Evo Morales as the first . . .
————————————————————————————–
democracyctr.org/blog/
Jim Shultz Blog from Bolivia (based in Cochabamba)
————————————————————————————–
      Roger Burbach’s article of the 9th in New America Media is totally at odds with James Petras’ very negative appraisal. Burbach’s shorter item in the Berkeley Daily on the 10th has little information. And Jim Shultz is mainly trying to dope out what the U.S. is up to. So I’m still in the dark, not knowing how much weight to give to always-pessimistic but well-informed Petras.

      I’m struck by what seems to me the futility of putting so much effort into trying to understand what the supposedly important people (Bush, Chaney, Morales, Chavez, etc.) are up to. I don’t mean to include Dunbar-Ortiz’s article in that category, because it’s really an article about herself and her work in Geneva, using Morales as a “hook” for her to tell her story. Focussing on “the important people” instead of what ordinary people are trying to do locally, it seems to me, is also very discouraging. The most inspiring experience for me in the past few days was to interact a little with some of the young people in the NarcoNews group, and a few of the musicians who came with them. They are full of enthusiasm for the work they are doing, confident that the Other Campaign is very significant and that their contribution — what Al refers to as the Other Journalism — to informing the world is much needed. Compared to all my middle class (or pseudo middle class) friends and acquaintances, these young people are burning with life and energy — and hope. If anything, they are totally relevant to the struggle we all ought to be in, young and old alike. So, I’ve been up and down. Right now a sizeable group of folks are visiting here, a good number of them from Ann Arbor. They are kind people who think of themselves as “people who care.” But I doubt that that “caring” will translate into anything very effective in the larger picture.

Best,
George
P.S. Have you considered sending in your essay on Indigenism to Counterpunch? It could serve to leaven the so-called “analysis” of the significance of Evo Morales’ election.

---

Subject: Why We Fight
From: James Herod <>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:23:01 -0500
To: George Salzman <>
 
Monday, Feb 13, 2006
 
Hi George,
 
      Thanks for your careful analysis of Roxanne [Dunbar-Ortiz]’s essay. I hadn’t read it all the way through. I rarely send you anything anymore though that I haven’t read through carefully, but this one I hadn’t. But even after I realized that it wasn’t much about [Evo] Morales, I saw it was about indigenous movements, and I thought you would be interested, seeing that there are such movements near you in Oaxaca. When she was at the [Lucy Parsons Center] bookstore a couple of months ago I did raise the issue about indigenism with her, stating my objections to the concept, and mentioning that it was being used as a substitute for class analysis. I can’t recall in detail what she said, although I remember I was dissatisfied with it. She dodged the issue, by picking up on my mention of class analysis, and affirming her belief in it, and somehow managed to not answer my objections. There was no opportunity at the time to really get into a debate about it. I pretty much had to accept her answer while they moved on to the next question.
 
      I haven’t sent the Indigenism essay out because it needs some work. I need to add a few paragraphs at least about Ward Churchill. It ends weirdly with that brief discussion of territory and Edward Said. There is at least one factual error: I think: it’s possible I’m wrong about there still being Turkish speaking people in Algeria, so I have to check that out. The continuity is bad is places, and so forth.
 
      I went to see the movie Why We Fight Saturday night. Here is a write up from my letter this morning to Scott.
 
      I went to see Why We Fight Saturday night. It opened in 200 theaters across the country. If it does well it may make it into the mainstream movie complexes. It’s being distributed by Sony Picture Classics, which I understand is a really good thing. There is not a radical voice in it, however — only Gore Vidal, Chalmers Johnson, Karen Kwaitkowski, some guy from the Carnegie Endowment for Peace, and so forth. The word capitalism is mentioned exactly twice, both times by Charles Lewis of the Institute for Public Integrity, who is a conservative, but nevertheless gave some of the most trenchant commentaries in the film. The first mention was sort of off-handed. The second was in a statement saying that democracy and capitalism were often in conflict, and that capitalism was winning. But this is not an anti-capitalism view, only a complaint that democracy and capitalism have gotten out of balance. The film presents the liberal critique of empire, that is a critique of US foreign interventions which never once mentions capitalism or takes it into account. There is one statement which comes close, which talks about corporate profits driving policy. Nevertheless, it is a powerful movie, and exceptionally well done for a documentary. It is actually an analysis of the rise of the military-industrial complex, and is framed throughout by Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation in which he warns against this. Originally Eisenhower had been planning to say military-industrial-congressional complex. But the final draft left out the congressional part. The film though drives this home, that Congress is a partner. It also highlights a fourth, new partner that has emerged in the past few decades — think tanks. Actually, it’s proper name would be: military- industrial (corporate)- government- media- university- foundation- think thank- intelligence agency complex. It’s too bad they can’t take the final step and call the beast by its real name — capitalism. Personal stories are interwoven throughout the film, with lots of historical footage too. There is even a brief section which enumerates US interventions overseas, and points them out on the map. All in all it’s a pretty remarkable film to be showing in the locked down hegemonic capitalist culture of the US. I thought it ended well, with Karen Kwaitkowski’s statement: “Why do we fight? Because not enough people are standing up and saying: I’m not doing this anymore.”
. . .
      Thanks for sending your correspondence with Scott.
. . .
      Most of the analysts I read seem agreed that the Bush Criminal Syndicate is going to attack Iran with nuclear weapons next month. It’s a really horrifying prospect. I wish there were something we could do to stop them. Demonstrations certainly won’t. How can I even think of just going on with my ordinary, daily, inconsequential life, when they are talking openly about “nuking” an entire nation? I even heard a local cop say this the other morning in the Mass Ave Cafe. Everyone says that if they do this there will be uprisings throughout the world. I don’t believe it. Nothing will happen.
 
      I’ve got so much to do, so bye for now.
 
James

---

Subject: Re: Why We Fight
From: George Salzman <>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2006 11:54:23 -0600
To: James Herod <>
CC: Scott Pinkleman <>,
       Vicki Lindsay <>,
       Richard Stahler-Sholk <>,
       Laurie White <>,
       Jack Stanzler <>
BCC: Adam Sacks, Chris Herz, John Spritzler, Jonathan Treat, Marsha Steinberg, Maurice Bazin, Nancy Davies, Richard Mandel, Saurabh Asthana, Scott Campbell, Wayne Cooke
 
Oaxaca, Wednesday, February 15, 2006

Hi James,

      I understand your desire to have your essay (on Indigenism, currently available only at http://site.www.umb.edu/faculty/salzman_g/Strate/GetFre/21.htm) both well-written and with absolutely not a single error before you submit it for publication (on Counterpunch) or elsewhere. But I urge you not to be such a perfectionist. Imagine Joe Bageant. Do you think he sweats it out? No way. Your analysis is so excellent that if some jerk decides to check out whether there’s still a Turkish-speaking community in Algeria and discovers that you were in error, it won’t matter. In fact, you could just insert a caveat, saying that you believe it to be so. Your main points are desperately lacking in the current discourse, including right here in the state of Oaxaca, and I believe, throughout Latin America.

      Personally, I refuse to sink myself into the “will they, won’t they” destroy Iran morass. Here again it’s a bunch of second-guessers trying to understand and not tackling the mammoth and urgent task of turning history around. The latest piece from Wallerstein argues, quite logically, “What’s the big deal about Iran’s supposed effort to develop nuclear weapons?” and says not a word about the looming threat to the dollar if Iran begins to demand euros for its oil, which other knowledgeable intellectuals see as the real concern of the drivers of the American Empire. Enlightenment (without accompanying action) is not a worthy goal, but I doubt if all the attempted analysis is even very enlightening.

      The people who “have it right” are you, the Zapatista base-support communities, the people in Russell, Massachusetts who are organizing to assert their autonomy to protect their LOCAL life, liberty and pursuit of happiness against the corporate-government mega-monster, Wayne Cooke in Graham, Washington organizing locally in his community, and on and on, in many parts of the world (I believe). I don’t know of any other analysis that comes close to yours, in Getting Free and in your supplementary essays (though I believe you’re wrong to downplay the significance of greed). So I think your stuff ought to be out and widely circulated. Lecture completed!

      I’m going to hoof it over to the office of the CIPO-RFM folks in Colonia Santa Lucia del Camino (about an hour and a quarter walk for me, one-way) and see if I can get one or several of them to make a presentation at the so-called Lending Library where our Oaxaca Study-Action Group had its second public event yesterday, an open discussion of the Zapatista Other Campaign that just left Oaxaca last weekend for the State of Puebla. I think both of our events at the library were quite successful, with many people coming to thank me for having organized them and some asking if anything is planned for next week, mistakenly thinking, since I moderated yesterday’s discussion, that it was my effort rather than that of our whole group. Luck was with us because on Sunday Nancy and I met Vicky Lindsay, a friend of Richard Stahler-Sholk, who was in Oaxaca a few days visiting Laurie White and Jack Stanzler (who had introduced us to Richard two years ago) and agreed to delay her departure for Chiapas a day in order to take part in the open discussion. She’s doing educational work with indigenous (pardon the adjective) people, and enriched the discussion immensely. We have nothing set right now, but there’s an obvious interest on the part of a good number of older people who are here as “part-time oaxaqueños” and who have not got much understanding of the whole Zapatista movement. So far, although we call ourselves a Study-Action Group, the only “actions” we’ve managed are the two public events. The first one (I’ll put the announcement in just below) was a stunning success, ending up with standing room only, probably a total of 50-60 people. Of course these folks are not going to go back to Minneapolis or Ann Arbor and block the highways with burning tires — some of them have all they can do to hobble down to the library with their canes and walkers, but many of them are very alarmed at what’s happening al norte.

---

Inside the Zapatista Communities
Richard Stahler-Sholk*
Associate Professor of Political Science
Eastern Michigan University

an informal talk and discussion
on Thursday, February 2, 2006 at 5:00
at
Oaxaca Lending Library
Pino Suarez 519, Colonia Centro
 
sponsored by the Oaxaca Study-Action Group
free and open to the public
 
Richard’s Blog, at http://richinchiapas.blogspot.com/, begins
From the mountains of the Mexican southeast

      I’m on sabbatical leave from Eastern Michigan University, doing research in Chiapas, Mexico on the Zapatista autonomy movement.

*Richard is bilingual

---

      If we are able to get a presentation by the CIPO-RFM folks (Consejo Indigeno Popular de Oaxaca-Ricardo Flores Magnon) we’ll have to get it translated for the people who don’t know enough Spanish to follow without help. So it goes. I’m very interested in the study on money you proposed, and will welcome info.

All the best,
George

P.S. I’d like to try to get our Discussion-Action Network a little more active, and will send this e-mail to the members, as well as to Scott Pinkleman (from whom a good note just came in this morning) and the several folks mentioned who were helpful with yesterday’s open discussion. And will add part of your e-mail from Monday here, which I think is of general interest.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, February 15th, 2006 at 10:56 am and is filed under General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.