340 UNIT 3 MODERN MESOAMERICA
The nation is Indian. This is the truth which first manifests itself with its enormous, sub-
jugating, presence. And yet we know that in Guatemala, as in the rest of America, it is the
mestizo who has the leadership throughout the society. The mestizo: the middle class.
The revolution of Guatemala [reference to the 1944–1954 reforms] is a revolution of the
middle class.... And what an inferiority complex the Guatemalan suffers for his Indian
blood, for the indigenous character of his nation!... The Guatemalan does not want to
be Indian, and wishes his nation were not.As we explain next, the position of the Mayan Indians within the context of
Guatemala’s national politics and culture is dramatically changing in conjunction
with newly emerging forms of “multiculturalism.”Multiculturalism
Multiculturalism, our third type of ethnic and national cultural formations in Mexico
and Central America, refers to the expanded identity movements that are coalescing
across the multiple local native communities of the region. Potentially, these indige-
nous movements threaten the cultural hegemony of the nation states in the region,
as increasingly the native leaders seek to establish pluralist national organizations
whose identities fall outside (or alongside) the so-called sovereign-state nationalisms.
The anthropologist Charles Hale (2002) explains that multiculturalism in the re-
gion is a response to an “extraordinary mobilization of indigenous peoples” beginning
in the 1990s. Native Mesoamericans have been able to expand their indigenous orga-
nizations, laying the groundwork for nexuses between Indians traditionally isolated
within local community settings. This kind of mobilization was on display, and acceler-
ated, by the 500-year “celebration” of the Columbus discovery, the joyous rally around
Rigoberta Menchú, the winner of the l992 Nobel Peace Prize (Figure 8.12), the dra-
matic opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the solid
support for international agreements on Indian rights and human rights in general.
Most important of all for the mobilization of the native Mesoamericans, per-
haps, has been opposition to the ascendancy of neoliberal policies during this period
in Mexico and Central America. Neoliberal political and economic policies have
been generally destructive of the Indians’ position in the market, as well as causing
the loss of communal lands, access to state welfare assistance, political independence,
and traditional Mesoamerican culture. As already indicated, however, the Indians
have reacted strongly to the excesses of neoliberalism, in the process creating mul-
tiple regional and national ethnic organizations and identities. Also, these indigenous
organizations have begun to challenge the political and cultural hegemony of the
nation-states themselves.
Hale (2002:492ff) argues that in the process of this mobilization, the Indians
have pressured neoliberal agents, both national and international, to modify their
agendas by recognizing the validity of multiculturalism. Hence, most governments
and international agencies in Mexico and Central America have adopted this slo-
gan: “We favor a multi-ethnic, pluri-lingual” type of society. Hale cautions, however,
that “neoliberal multiculturalism” has definite limits; it inevitably stops short of the
kind of “empowerment” of Indians that would allow them to challenge the funda-
mental goals of the neoliberal agenda.