More languages
More actions
This essay is a work in progress. I REALIZE THAT I AM NOT COVERING THE FULL STORY AND NEED TO MAKE CHANGES
This is a long, complicated history.
For indigenous nations of so-called "Latin America", approaching a study of Marxism is an obstacle course.
Chicanismo Is anti-indigenous revanchism
Mexico is the global south country with a large population of people with native american ancestry that borders the most brutal imperialist country the world has ever seen. Its politics are sure to be interesting. Step into any online space on this topic, and prepare to be overwhelmed!
In this essay, I will not be referring to 'chicanos' as a synonym for Mexican American, which I think ultimately benefits Chicanismo as a kind of free advertising to their revanchist ideology, and Chicanismo would want is to absorb all Mexican Americans, as we shall soon see. For my purposes, it only makes sense to analyze in this way.
There are at least 3 groups of Mexicans in the US with conflicting goals and origins, who might self-identify as or be called chicano:
- The Mexican-American who genuinely identifies as native to this continent (from the material circumstances that molded a native consciousness that drive this identification); this group may be referred to as a Chicano, but really isn't;
- The Chicano nationalist (The true Chicano); the subject of this essay whom I will proceed to critique
- The northern native people (north of the border) who get called Mexican and Chicano, due to their proximity to Mexicans or Mexico itself;
There may even be some overlap in certain individuals, but these basic currents are the foundational ones. The primary contradiction between all the groups who are labeled as chicano, is between the Chicano nationalists and the Mexican-Americans who identify as native.
Chicano is a politically charged word at its root, it really implies a Mexican nationalism based in the US, it is a borrowed Mexican nationalist politics, which many labeled chicanos may not even align with. It's a bit like being associated with Zionism by virtue of being a Jew, in my opinion. Obviously not all Mexican Americans have Chicano nationalist politics, most currently don't. In fact, these politics have been in steady decline. And that's good, because Chicano nationalism ultimately comes into conflict with indigenous people, both of the territory the US gained from the Treaty of Guadalupe, and all indigenous people south of the US-Mexico border. Chicano nationalists may engage in some borrowed superficial aesthetic, especially of the 'Aztecs', just like their Mexican nationalist cousins. In the same way that confused Europeans identify with 'Nordic' aesthetics, of course. And it makes sense because from my investigations, Chicanismo is tightly rooted in mestizaje going all the way back, the ideal Chicano is mestizo not native, for them native people are all dead and they believe a 'new nation' was born from the Treaty of Guadalupe, and could not give a care about native people.
Some native-identifying Mexican Americans might grab the term Chicano without knowing its full history & meaning, because they want a label, but this is before they have been indoctrinated into Chicanismo. Those people are simply confused because they have lost their connection to an indigenous culture.
Latinidad within Latin American Marxism
In the "Latin American" context, the thing I think can be a misunderstanding when studying Marxism is that we use the term nation instead of ethnicity. It is confusing because nationalism and national identity in the sense that is commonly used in Latin America is not the same as what Marxists are talking about when they say nation. Actually, certain anti-indigenous biased Latino Marxists have failed to notice this distinction. Can anyone truly say "Mexico" is a nation? Of course not. It is a prisonhouse of nations. There are 68 recognized indigenous languages in Mexico. Many indigenous cultures have preserved their traditional governments in spite of everything.
Principled Marxists would label these types of nationalism (Latino nationalism, Mexican nationalism, Hindu nationalism, Great Russian nationalism, Japanese nationalism) reactionary bourgeois nationalisms. So you can really see how entities such as the American imperialists and their agencies have a vested interest in Latinidad and anti-indigenous chauvinism in "Latin America".
Because of the correctness, Marxists decrying anti-indigeneity are saying a lot of the same things as indigenous Mexican Liberals, only that we're not coming from a Liberal perspective about it and we vary somewhat in our terminology, as well as what is the primary contradiction or resolution to the agreed-upon problem. Liberals tend to be fatalistic about the future of indigenous Mexicans, and of the possibility to work with outsiders. Marxists, on the other hand, believe in the unity of the proletariat.
However, Marxists familiar with the chauvinism of Latinidad are not that common, usually they are indigenous themselves. This gives off the impression that it is only indigenous people, specifically those living in the villages and speaking the language, who can truly be trusted, and that Marxism is yet another aspect of the culturally imperialist outside world. To an extent, this is true, but is not the fault of Marxism rather it is the Marxist practitioners themselves who are colonialist. And where real principled indigenous Marxists diverge is that we can see that the truth isn't absolute or eternal; it is relative to the present conditions and that the cause is imperialism. This situation won't last forever, and people on the outside can raise their consciousness, by engaging in class struggle alongside indigenous Mexicans. Principled Mexican Marxists who want to be in solidarity with the oppressed nationalities of Mexico should stop defaulting to Latinidad, and keep indigenous oppressed nationalities at the forefront of your conscientization about "Latin America". That's the bare minimum, and we will be watching whether words align with actions. Because so long as indigenous communities and people of the outside world in general associate Marxism with Latinidad, then indigenous peoples of so-called "Latin America" will find Marxism about as appealing as spoiled milk. (To say nothing of course, about the bad reputation that Maoism has brought, but that is a separate issue.) Or, the risk may be to split the working class movement in ways that isolate the indigenous peoples, but either way doesn't look good.
Aside from the obvious differences in that all Latino Marxists oppose the capitalist imperialism happening to their countries, anti-indigenous biased Latino Marxists have certain commonalities with Latino Liberals, Gringo labor Americans (a play on "labor Zionism"), Patsocs, and Settler Socialists of the north. That is, they don't have any plans to end the caste system introduced by settler colonialism. For indigenous nationalities they have no solutions, only consolation prizes at best. Which leads me to wonder things like: Is that why Trotskyism is so common among all of them? Is that why the Soviet model was seen as too authoritarian? There is something in that. But I digress.
I had a suspicion that the reason that "Latin America" has not achieved socialism (with the exception of Cuba) is because socialism will not be achieved as "Latin America". Latinos will be there, but Latinos will not be in the forefront. Indigenous people will be in the forefront. Latino nationalism has nothing to stand on, and is mainly aggravated by Yankee aggression. Until indigenous people rise to the forefront of the revolution, then it's only ever going be a social democracy at best that is achieved: pink waves and right wing reactions, back and forth, back and forth. Until "Latin America" faces its colonial legacy.
While the Anglos and Hispanos struggle with each other over these lands, indigenous peoples find no space for themselves. Because Latinidad and Mestizaje and all that nonsense inherently privileges the Latinos/Mestizos and Spanish people and hispanohablantes, it's always going to be about these people having all the wealth and capital, so socialism is impossible in those conditions. For indigenous peoples, Latinidad is destined to be bourgeois. Fascists know this, and that is why the Hispanistas exist. That is also why Jose Vasconcelos was a Nazi admirer.
Mexicanidad (Mexican nationalism) is Latinidad (Latino nationalism) for Mexico. Chicanismo (Chicano nationalism) is Mexicanidad (Mexican nationalism) in the United States.
To the Mexicans and others who claim indigeneity as an aesthetic:
Many Latinos engage in cultural appropriation of Indigenous and Black peoples for entertainment and as part of a "Latino" identity; Chicano nationalists are no different except they want a restoration of the borders before the Treaty of Guadalupe was enacted. Of course, that would make them Mexican citizens again. It won't make them indigenous just because they have antagonism with the U.S. This antagonism with Yankee imperialism is their sole moral high ground, but excuses them not for the indigenous erasure they engage in. By the way, criticism of Latinidad and any of its cousins is usually met with reactions that we are siding with the Yankee imperialists. See how the sides get played?
Indigenous peoples of the US and Canada have not always been the most discerning when it comes to comprehension of other cultures in the global south, and Latinidad is an example that hits close to home, geographically. For all the geographical closeness we have with each other, the incomprehension stays. Latinidad has infiltrated northern native cultural spaces for many years. All representation of "indigenous" cultures south of the Mexican-US border is, without fail, Latino appropriated culture. Sometimes, I feel like no one cares. All that is shown is "Aztec/Mexica" aesthetics, and maybe some "Inca". And even in the most remote reservations, there are pow wow gatherings with "Aztec/Mexica danza" included in the event, sometimes even advertised on the flyer.
There is also a certain racialization specific to US natives and the US perspective on race in general, which is obsessed with blood fractions or "blood quantum". They think that since they have the blood, then that is enough to given them a license to do whatever. But that is not how belonging to an indigenous community works. And nowhere in the world is a nation based on race or blood, did you ever see Stalin mention that in his five characteristics of a nation? Of course not. Stalin makes it clear that the cultural connection is a significant aspect of the national question. And so Chicanismo, and its cousins Mexicanidad and Latinidad, have no historical-material basis (except a modernization of the Spanish caste system) and will forever be anti-communist.
The truth is going to hurt some people's feelings, but to be indigenous is more than a mere idea or fantasy, and it's not about your skin color or the shape of your nose. There is a genetic component to ethnicity often times of course, because it is a sign of descendancy. That's the physical or environmental side, and every culture has its social reality which is kept alive not by physical traits but by cultural production.
You can have physical traits and still be the farthest thing from an identity, so descendancy is not enough. I will interpret in a Marxist way the position advocated by indigenous Mexican Liberals who remain integrated within their communities. To be indigenous, one has to be part of an indigenous culture. In order to be part of a specific culture, one has to interact with their culture in an organic way, such that other members will recognize themselves in you and claim you as one of them, integrated into the living community. In Marxist terms, that organic interaction is a form of social reproduction. Even in diaspora communities, the community is preserved to experience connection to the culture away from one's homeland. These attempts of diaspora to retain their identities may or may not be successful, but they are sincere and authentic. Lineage can be a motivation to reconnect, but it can't be an entitlement to membership, as all must engage in the very same social reproduction in accordance with the needs of the nationality as a whole. And as a new or returning member, even if you have done everything possible to participate and earn recognition of membership, there may still be some individuals who will see you and even your children as at least partially outsiders. But if you have gone this far, you didn't do it for the external validation. You didn't do it for the label.
When Latinos, whether descendants or not, attempt to claim an indigenous identity, without doing the work explained above, they are promoting indigenous erasure. Just like Frida Kahlo, who with her husband Diego Rivera were the artistic icons of Mexicanidad in the 1950s. They wear the indigenous label like a costume. Just like Juan Guaído declaring himself the president of Venezuela. Indigenous peoples are real, living peoples and the identity must also be kept alive through labor.
Many of those who flirt with the idea of being indigenous (but not its reality) also engage themselves in New Age, as they are not organically interacting with the culture they say they are part of (if they even specify one) but rather they are engaged in a panindigenist subculture that hardly resembles the appropriated culture. They especially have no intentions of connecting in an authentic way. This results in a BIPOC version of hippy subculture and such people engaged in the feaux indigenous subculture are referred to as 'hippies' and 'chicanos' and so on. There may even be an attachment to hallucinogenics, just like the original hippies. The bandwagon has its own celebrities and high status people where the native aesthetic is flaunted - and it is nothing more than an aesthetic. It's mestizaje again, in indigenous regalia, and it's romanticizing of indigenous peoples this time instead of villifying. American exceptionalism is also a common attitude.
I'm seeing a whole generation of self-identified native Mexicans who have wandered into these contradictions, and it is pure chaos. They have been urged to reconnect -- the right way -- but will they do it? Many are without support and have the wrong kinds of influences. To them, I say, reconnection is possible but it requires work, and if you are doing the work of being properly integrated within the nation you descend from then the process will happen naturally. Respect is the key word. And you may not even be fully accepted by everyone, but you're working backwards if all you wanted was a label. Ask the nation you descend from for advice and always seek permission.
Marxists have to work towards the creation of conditions favorable to the reconstitution of indigenous nations, by solving the problems that lead to the breakdown of their memberships in the first place. This will be discussed in another essay.