July 26, 2004
By Eduardo Stanley, Pacific News Service

FRESNO, California -- Approximately 100 representatives of the Otomí, Mixtec, Zapotec, Catúa, Mayan, Purépecha, Mono, Comanche, Náhuatl, Yaki, Chipúa, Orepago, Keetowah, Paiute, Chumasa, Hochuak, Navajo, and Apache tribes, among others, met on July 10 and 11 in Fresno to discuss the issues of "Culture and Development" and "Territory and Mobility." The meeting was called by the Pan Valley Institute (PVI) of the American Friends Service Committee (AFCS) in conjunction with the Frente Indígena Oaxaqueño Binacional (FIOB), an organization of indigenous peoples residing in the Mexican state of Oaxaca and in the United States. This gathering of well-known and respected indigenous and Native American leaders was the culmination of several months of careful preparation.

"To speak about culture and development is to speak about a model of deficiency: the poor are blamed for their lack of development. Third world countries have to adopt the values of industrialized nations in order to escape from poverty," said Gaspar Rivera, an active member of the FIOB and professor at the University of California at Riverside. “Because of this,” he added, “you still hear expressions like ‘Mexicans are lazy' and ‘Latinos are poor because they have so many children.'”

One only needs to observe Mexican farm workers in the Central Valley to disprove these stereotypes, Rivera pointed out. But, he said, the dominant culture is constantly re-inventing these myths to maintain its stronghold. "Max Weber, one of the founders of modern sociology, wrote that there is something in the Protestant concept of discipline that ascribes a high level of development to certain cultures."

Rivera was referring to the German sociologist Max Weber (1864–1920), professor and antisocialist member of the Prussian military, whose book The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (1905) continues to be influential today. In his book Weber states that societies that are dominated by the Protestant religion—rather than Calvinism or Catholicism—achieve great advances in capitalism, because the Protestant religion creates a rational work ethic aimed at material benefits.

American neo-racism, evident in Victor Hanson's book Mexifornia (2003) and Samuel Huntington's article "The Hispanic Challenge" (2004), re-creates this myth in describing Latino culture as a threat to Anglo-Protestant values. "It isn't laziness," Rivera observed, "but social and economic inequality that impede the economic development of indigenous peoples."

Ron Alec, from the Mono tribe in the Central Valley, cited different strategies based on power that are used to perpetuate divisions among Native Americans. He explained that his own tribe had stripped him of membership, which meant losing access to the land of his ancestors. "Efforts to recuperate the sacred lands of our ancestors clash with the government's bureaucratic demands and indifference," he said. He added that young people no longer speak their native languages, thereby losing one of the last elements of cultural identity.

The concession of Indian casinos to different tribes throughout California was also questioned. "They only help some, but not all, of us, and they are not always used for the common good," asserted Norma Turner, who said that while many tribe members have new cars, tribes that earn money from the casinos "do not invest in the land, in our trees." Turner underscored the relationship of Native Americans with their land. "Desecration of the land and pollution are unacceptable."

"Culture is not limited to dressing up in traditional costume and performing traditional dances," said Rufino Dominguez, coordinator of the FIOB. "Nor do we want to be stereotyped as the ‘poor little Indian.'” Marginalized communities, he said, need to create a culture of participation. "Native peoples are not respected here or in Mexico, and because of this, I believe that we must join together and take action."

Some Western concepts don't address the needs or interests of Native Americans and indigenous groups, according to some attendees. The word sovereignty, for example, ironically causes rifts among different tribes. "We are called ‘nations,' but in reality we are no longer nations nor do we have the infrastructure characteristic of nations," said Fresno resident Marta Frausto. "In the 1930s, the United States government granted us sovereignty—the same kind of sovereignty that was given to Iraq," said Sacramento resident Victor Yellowhawk. "Sovereignty isn't handed out—you either have it or you don't."

The discussion also focused on the arrogance of governments on both sides of the border in determining the fate and even the definition of who is considered indigenous. For the Native American attendees, the issue of immigration is of little significance, because borders were created to represent the interests of the whites. This is why Native Americans do not consider the indigenous peoples of Mexico to be immigrants. But they agreed to continue to discuss immigration issues, which are of vital importance to the thousands of Mixtecs and Zapotecs and members of other indigenous groups emigrating from Mexico to the United States.

The massive migration of people across the U.S.-Mexico border is the product of an economic model—defended by Max Weber—that also put an end to the coexistence of native peoples with the land, according to Mirna Valenzuela, who is of Mayan origin. "In our homeland in Sonora, Mexico, the mining industry caused the soil to dry up, and then they left. They left us nothing."

Indigenous leaders hailed the dialogue as "historic" and said they would be meeting again to form plans that will be presented publicly this coming October 12.