[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.As land was readily available especially during the early colonialperiod, the focus of colonial Indian policy was clearly on labor even thoughland gained in importance towards the end of the period.This changedespecially after Independence, when land had become scarcer and therewas thus much more of a competition for it.Floris identifies the post-Inde-pendence era as the second stage of Indian Policy and states that  from1821 to 1910, after Independence but before the Mexican Revolution, theIndian was officially considered a citizen equal to all others in the eyes ofthe law. 120 However, as seen, there was often a considerable gap betweentheory and practice and ideas about citizenship furthermore did not neces-sarily conform to the modern notion of equal rights.I thus hold that over-all strictly speaking and in contrast to colonial rule there has been noIndian Policy as such in post-Independence Mexico, at least not until thepresidency of Lázaro Cárdenas after the Mexican Revolution.Until thenpolicies were mainly directed at peasants and more often than not pretendedthat Indians did not exist as a discernable population, rather as if hopingthat the  problem would disappear if ignored.To all practical effects, how-ever, this amounted to an Indian Policy in disguise.Under colonial rule matters had been different as indigenous peoplesstill held a discernable legal status, which they proceeded to lose with Inde-pendence (even though there was some backtracking on the issue now andthen in the face of reality).In the colonial period it was thus comparativelyeasy to discern policies directly aimed at the indigenous population.Thiswas not the case in independent Mexico anymore which had eliminatedthe category of the Indian, supposedly in an attempt to integrate them intoMexican society (something that had also been proclaimed as a long-termgoal of colonial Indian Policy).However, this does not mean that post-Independence Mexico had no policies which were primarily geared towardsthe indigenous part of the population but rather that these were frameddifferently.Most of these measures were aiming to integrate regional IndianIndian Policy in Mexico 105populaces (and their lands) into Mexican society, albeit probably as a sub-servient labor force, and thus to eliminate Indians practically as had alreadybeen done legally.These measures are much harder to identify, mainly dueto the absence of a legal definition of what it meant to be  Indian. Alongwith indigenous peoples themselves, Indian policy remained hidden yetomnipresent at the same time, and amounted almost to a people disownedand a policy disguised.Floris claims that in the third period, namely  since 1917, a new formof guardianship has evolved.This new policy, conceived as temporary, isbased on increasing anthropological knowledge and is relatively free ofWestern feelings of superiority toward the Indians. 121 This policy has beenaccompanied by the inclusion of multiculturalism in the Mexican Constitu-tion in 1992.122 However, as seen even the post-Revolutionary period hasbeen far from uniform, with Cárdenas Indian policy being the exceptionmore than the rule.And even his ultimate goal was the Mexicanization ofthe Indians.This Mexicanization, I hold, post-Independence and especially post-Revolution was very much part of one of the two central themes of Mexi-can Indian Policy.It has come in different guises and the meaning of termslike integration, assimilation, and later  Mexicanization has changed overtime.Yet the remnants of the colonial vision of two separate republics hasnever been completely abandoned and at times the integration and assimi-lation of the Indians would probably have envisaged them as a subservientlabor force rather than as full citizens, in spite of all rhetoric to the contrary.So in a sense,  Mexicanization (as well as integration and assimilation) wasand is just a new label for the intended exploitation of Native labor andthus not all that dissimilar from colonial and post-Independence tactics.This phenomenon post-Revolution was less pronounced under Cárdenasbut became more apparent under most of his successors, as it had beenprevalent under his predecessors.Yet while this trend has remained a con-stantly dominant one, the means used to achieve it have varied over time,ranged from coercion over violence to education attempts mainly focusingon language and vocational training.Yet while colonial attitudes envisioned a complete surrender of indig-enous identities and lifestyles, later times and especially the twentieth cen-tury came to be more tolerant of these.It would be fair to assume thata number of earlier proponents of measures like the laws about terrenosbaldíos, the various educational programs, or of the reforms of Article 27may have been genuinely interested in the Indians well-being and may havefelt that these and other measures were in the best interest of the Natives,but others would have been under no such delusions and would only have106 Indigenous Peoples in the United States and Mexico, 1620 2000seen their own potential profit.At no time so far have Indians been allowedto remain Indians.And while the colonial regimes had been willing topermit the Natives time to adapt to the new Spanish way of life this wasmuch less the case later on.At all times, however, were non-indigenousways of life considered to be superior, no matter how much Native wayswere romanticized or even to an extent supposedly embraced.Especiallypost-Independence, Native legal status or rather the absence thereof gavea clear signal of what was expected of indigenous peoples.And even in theinstances that definitions were created, Native opinions and self-identifica-tion were usually ignored.Just like the special status they had held in colo-nial times, Indians were supposed to disappear post-Independence, to letthemselves be integrated into mainstream society and preferably as lowlycampesinos.As a consequence thereof,  Indian Policy in Mexico has oftenbeen aimed at peasants, probably the most  indigenous group in the coun-try.(However, government policies also to an extend work(ed) on defeatingtheir own goal, as Gabbert has shown when looking at reasons to self-iden-tify as indígena.)123In each of the stages identified by Guillermo Floris Margadant theregimes failed to live up to their own rhetoric, claims, and ideologies regard-ing the Natives, signaling through many different Indian policies that therewas no place for Indians in Mexico.Still, the various rhetorics used over timeto this day have managed to distort and obstruct the real and unchangedcentrality of issues of land and labor within Mexican Indian Policy.Chapter SevenThe Will to EndureIf the history of the Delawares was one of movement and accommodation,the history of the Yaquis is one of adaptation, standing firm, and deter-mined resistance to external tension.While this does sound like the Yoeme,as they refer to themselves, were decidedly more likely to succeed in theirstruggle for land and tribal autonomy, they, too, came to the verge of beingovercome in their attempt to remain Yaquis [ Pobierz caÅ‚ość w formacie PDF ]