Human Organization, Vol. 70, No.

4, 2011
Copyright €> 2011 by the Society for Applied Anthropology
0018-7259/11 /040323-21 $2.10/1

Malinowski Award Lecture, 2011

The Role ofAnthropology with the Changes and

Challenges of the 21st Century in
Mexico and the World
Salomon Nahmad Sitton
Translated by Martha Rees
Anthropology in Mexico has always been applied, and this often puts anthropologists, indigenous peoples, and anthropological
principals in direct conflict with state policy and the national project. This paper summarizes the history of anthropology and
applied anthropology in Mexico, using my career in the National Indigcnist Institute (INI) and the Indigenous Education Office
(DGEI) of the Education Secretariat (SEP). It illustrates the risks and challenges anthropologists face when they side with
indigenous peoples in favor of their individual and collective self-determination and autonomy.

Key words: applied anthropology, indigenous peoples, development, Mexico

Introduction as well as the Mexican and United States community who

I am honored by this recognition from the Society for Ap
plied Anthropology, named after Bronislaw Malinowski
(1938; Malinowski, de la Fuente, and Drucker-Brown
1982), one ofthe greatest applied anthropologists ofthe 20th
century. In Mexico, Malinowski worked with my professor,
Julio de la Fuente (2005), who I would like to recognize
here since he mentored me and showed me how to use
anthropology to fight for the native peoples of Mexico and
Latin America.
I am overwhelmed in the presence of so many distin
guished colleagues and friends who, over the years, encour
aged and supported me. I especially want to mention Ted
Downing, Martha Rees, Tom Weaver, Phil Dennis. Carlos
Velez, Claudio Esteva Frabregat, Rodolfo Stavehagen, (the
late) Margarita Nolasco, (the late) Guillermo Bonfil, Leonel
Duran, Susana Drucker, James Greenberg, (the late) Sandy
Davis, (the late) Johnny Murra, (the late), and Eric Wolf,
Salomon Nahmad Sitton holdsthetitleofProfesor-Investigador at the
CIESAS (Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antrop-
ologia Social) Pacifico Sur in Oaxaca, Mexico. This is based on the
Malinowski awardspeechpresentedattheannual meeting ofthe Society
for Applied Anthropology, Seattle, Washington, April I, 2011. To this
text have beenaddedhistorical notes, vocabulary, and acronyms. The
author thanks Martha Reesfor hercareful translation of the original
Spanishpresentation, whichfollows the translation.
have used the social sciences to build a peaceful future that
maintains and reproduces cultural diversity for all peoples.
I was mentored by many wonderful professors—Roberto
Weitlaner (1977; Weitlaner and Hoppe 1964); Juan Comas
(1964); Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran (1973, 1982); Alfonso
Caso, Silvio Zavala, and Moises Gonzalez Navarro (1973);
John Murra (1972); Eric Wolf (1975); and Angel Palerm
(1986, 2006). They led the way to a theory and practice
of social and cultural change with justice, dignity, equity,
and full, autonomous participation and self-determination
for the native peoples of our countries. I also want to
recognize professors and researchers at the University of
Yucatan—Gabriela Vargas-Cetina, Steffan Igor Ayora-
Diaz, and Francisco Fernandez Repetto—who, together
with my colleagues from CIESAS (the Social Anthropol
ogy Research and Advanced Study Center), headed by
Virginia Garcia, promoted my candidacy for this award. I
thank Allan Burns, since it is during his presidency of the
SfAA, that I was awarded this important prize, as well as
the warm words of my colleague Margarita Dalton and the
support of my colleagues in Oaxaca, Miguel Bartolome,
Alicia Barabas, and Marcos Winter. I especially want to
thank my beloved wife, Ximena Aveilaneda, for her support
during the good times and bad and in all my professional
activities. I am grateful to my sons Daniel, David, Yuri,
and Alejandro and my granddaughters Anita, Natalia, and
Nina for joining us tonight.

VOL. 70. NO. 4, WINTER 2011 323


Figure 1. Ximena Avellaneda and Salomon Nahmad
Background
My fieldwork experiences enabled me to see profound
contradictions in the Mexican assimilationist indigcnist
project that grew out of the nation-building stage of post-
revolutionary Mexico (1910). Many development projects
conflict with and contradict other national policies, which
often dooms them to failure. Anthropologists often find
themselves in direct conflict with powerful regional and
national interests.
The over 12million indigenous peoples of Mexico have
been the center of my ethnographical and ethnological work
ever since I began as a social work student in Tonanzintla
and Chipilo, Puebla in 1956 (Nahmad 1956). They taught
me about the incredible importance of their collective rights
in the face of the intense exploitation, exclusion, and racism
that they have experienced throughout that long night of
colonialism and neocolonialism: they have never stopped
struggling to be recognized as peoples and to be included in
the national project but without success.
Applied anthropology aims for the full individual and
collective, social, and cultural rights of the people we work
324
with, just like everyone else. Anthropological research has
drawn attention to the very discrimination and racism that it
works to eliminate. This commitment puts anthropologists at
risk, as I—and surely many of my colleagues who are here
tonight—can attest. That is why I want to remember some
of these events here.
Applied Anthropology in Mexico
In 1948. the Institute) National Indigenista(National In
digcnist Institute or INI) began as an autonomous government
agency with its own budget and administration. Its principles
were influenced by the work of Manuel Gamio (1979): Othon
de Mendizabal (1946): Alfredo Barrera Vasquez (1980);
Moises Saenz (1982); and Alfonso Caso, Silvio Zavala,
and Moises Gonzalez Navarro (1973). Caso was the first
director, followed by Aguirre Beltran. a physician trained
in anthropology by Melville Herskovits. Anthropological
principals have long influenced the selection of tasks for the
Centra Coordinadores Indigenistas (Indigenist Coordinating
Centers or CCI).
The INl's initial goal was to improve the standard of
living in indigenous communities and to break down internal
colonialism by building roads, schools, health clinics, and
community centers and by improving animal and agricultural
production. Coordinating centers were opened in indigenous
regions throughout the country to train anthropologists, ad
ministrators, and the indigenous themselves.
Anthropologists working in the INI were bound by the
national ideology of integration. They were called on to
manage development projects that functioned to articulate
indigenous groups into the nation and reinforced their po
sition in the dependent capitalist project. Aguirre Beltran
(1982. 1967. 1979) used acculturation theory, following
Herskovitz (1938). to justify the Mexican national project.
Neither acculturation theory nor the ENAH's integration-
ist line could conceive of ethnicity as its own, autonomous
project. Our role as social scientists was to promote the state
project, not that of ethnic groups. Once again, external ideas,
in this case, from United States cultural anthropology, were
treated as gospel.
Anthropology was institutionalized as public policy in
the Instituto National de Antropologia e Historia (National
Anthropology and History Institute or INAH), the Escuela
National de Antropologia(National Anthropology School or"
ENAH)—where its intellectuals were trained (Montemayor
1971), in the INI (now CDI—Comision National para el
Desarrol/o de los Pueblos Indigenas) and in the subsecre-
lariats of Indigenous Education and Popular Cultures of the
Education Secretariat. The Creole elites who controlled the
government wanted anthropologists to modify local struc
tures without realizing that this would necessarily lead to
changes in national structures and the related geopolitical
order. Social and ideological change could not take place
without concomitant change in dominant economic, social,
and political power structure.
IUMAN ORGANIZATION
 In the late 1950s. I was Roberto Weitlaner's research
assistant in the INAH. He had always opposed the official
indigenist policy. He respected Alfonso Caso, but he didn't
agree with the Mexican model of assimilation and integra
tion. He had lived among a number of ethnic groups, and he
loved and respected them—he spoke Otomi and was study
ing Chinantec. His position brought me up sharply against
Alfonso Caso's indigenist philosophy.
Then in 1961, I started working in the INI after my
research in Ciudad Sahagun (Nahmad 1961). Alfonso Caso
had offered me a job when I went with a group of students
to ask him to pay our registration fees for the International
Congressof Americanists(ICA) (see INI 1962).Ricardo Po-
zas encouraged me to accept, saying that there were excellent
people working there and that it would be an important step
in my professional career.
I accepted the entry-level position of anthropological
researcher and was given a research project in the Montana
de Guerrero (highlands of Guerrero). While the project was
being organized, Julio de la Fuente introduced me to the INI.
He was a serious and profoundly critical man who thought
Alfonso Caso's model of dealing with the indigenous was
elitist and paternalistic. (However, Caso, a lawyer and well-
known archaeologist and politician, was one of Mexico's
intellectual sacred cows.)
One day, Julio de la Fuente invited me to his modest
apartment in the Colonia Juarez in Mexico City and told me
that Caso was going to give a speech for the Day oftheIndian.
He gave me some notes and asked me to write the speech. This
was my first test on indigenist policies. As I read de la Fuente,
I learned about the complexity of interethnic relations and
howanthropologyconfronted the political system.The basic
work at that time was Proceso de Aculturacion by Gonzalo
Aguirre Beltran (1982)—former rector of the University of
Veracruzand a federal deputy for the PartidoRevolucionario
Institutional (Institutional Revolutionary Party or PRI), the
then state party. Thanks to de la Fuente, I learned about the
conflicts between the people of San Cristobal de las Casas,
Chiapas, and the aristocratic caciques (political bosses),
who, in alliance with the state government, had a monopoly
on alcohol sales. He showed me a secret report about alco
holism that he had written and that has only recently been
published—"Monopolio delAguardiente y elAlcoholismo en
los Altos de Chiapas" (de la Fuente Chicosein 2009).
Research in the Mixe
Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran returned to the INI in 1963,
and that is when I got to meet him and ask him for help with
my research on the Mixe. On my limited per diem, I went to
Mitla, Oaxaca, and started my survey of the Mixe. Juventino
Sanchez, a youngMixefrom SantaMariaHuitepec, wentwith
me as guide and informant. He was a thoughtful intellectual
andactivist from the region whohad migrated to Mexico City
and joined the Partido Popular Socialista(Popular Socialist
Party or PPS). He was a close friend of Alejandro Gascon
VOL. 70, NO. 4, WINTER 2011
Mercado (Secretary of the PPS), who had recommended
him to me. Alejandro was the private secretary to Vicente
LombardoToledano, socialist political philosopherfor (Gen.
Lazaro) Cardenas(president of Mexico, 1934-1940, famous
for his nationalization of natural resources), founder of the
Confederation de Trabajadores de Mexico (Confederation
of Mexican Workers or CTM)—the largest confederation
of unions in Mexico, and direct kin with Alfonso Caso—his
wife, Maria Lombardo, was Vicente's sister. A large number
of socially conscious mid-level officials were moved into
the INI on Vicente Lombardo's recommendation. So, with
Juventino Sanchez and Jaime Olivera—a muleteer and Za-
potec merchant from Mitla, I went to each municipalityand
many Mixe communities.
Juventino and Jaime—members of two distinct Oaxacan
ethnicgroups—became close friends. Wediscussedthe prob
lems of the Mixe and Zapotec peoples for hours, and what
emerged from this was the idea ofSoviet-style national minori
ties. This conflicted with the Mixe Project, a proposal by two
local political bosses, Daniel Martinez and Luis Rodriguez,
to create an autonomous alliance of Mixe municipalities and
communities in the state of Oaxaca. Internal confrontations
and divisions between two dominant geopolitical centers of the
region, Ayutla and Zacatepec (that had displaced Totontepec),
kept this plan from ever coming to fruition.
The thoughts, needs, and demands of indigenous Mixe
leadersand their inclusion in the regional development project
were seen as a sign of their greater openness to the outside
world. The economic aspects ofour research described the re
lationbetweenMixe marketsand Zapotectravelingmerchants
and intennediaries in the concentration and accumulation of
coffee—the main international commodity. Structurally,they
were integrated into the world capitalist system as primary
producers in a neocolonial structure, a reinforced and con
solidated version of the colonial system.
My conversations with Juventino were fruitful and
stimulating. We analyzed the characteristics of his society,
its articulation with capitalist society, as well as topics such
as social class—which, for him, was basic. This conversation
would not have been possible in the central offices ofthe INI,
whose theory was clearly defined by Alfonso Caso. Back
in Mexico City, while writing my report, I discussed these
issueswith Julio de la Fuente—theonly one there who could
carry on an academic discussion. We analyzed indigenous
migrants as participants, observers, and analysts of their
own reality. He maintained that educated and acculturated
members of ethnic groups were no longer indigenous and
that there was no such thing as a majority ethnic identity. On
the other hand, community identity, he said, did exist, using
the example of Yalalag, a Zapotec regional center in the
northern sierra. Our discussions were rich, but these ideas
did not come out in my report, which as Julio suggested,
became my BA thesis. I presented my report to Aguirre
Beltran. who accepted it immediately. Caso was also aware
of my research activity and also had a positive reaction.
However, in 1963, the INI was focused on the construction
325
of our new central office building in Mexico City, so the
demandsof the Mixe were never analyzed or discussed. Since
there was no budget, opening a new coordinating center in
the region was delayed.
I had never been involved in politics, nor was I a member
of a political party. My interest in anthropology arose from
my initial studies in social work, and I thought I would find
fulfillment in serving the dispossessed classes in my country.
I had lived in Orizaba, Veracruz, as the child ofan immigrant
merchant from Syria. I had lived a bicultural, bilingual life.
This, plus the fact that because ofmy Jewish ethnicity I didn't
belong to the Catholic majority, made me sensitive to the
Nahua indigenous habitus in Orizaba, a Creole, Hispanic city.
My schoolmates in primary school were mostly indigenous,
with last names that were as difficult to pronounce as my own.
These facts made me aware of difference and discrimination.
Later,thanks to my collaboration with Eric Fromm (1977) and
Michael Maccoby (1970) on the psychology ofworking class
mothers in Mexico City, I understood even more, and because
of this, I decided to work for and with minority indigenous
groups. I found many problems and conflicts in my work.
One important event illustrates INI employees' corrup
tion and collusion with local and state power groups over
funds designated for indigenous communities. The Catmis
sugar mill and the Santa Rosa Hacienda in Yucatan had
been abandoned by their owners, the Medina Alonso, who
refused to turn it over to neighboring communities so they
could work the land. These large landholders were compa-
dres (co-godparents) with former President MiguelAleman.
They were also the feared leaders of the National Union of
Sugarcane Producers. Indigenous and mestizo workers in
the two plants demanded the expropriation and concession
of theselandsin accordance withagrarian law, buttheirpeti
tions were rejected.
We assigned the lawyer of the INI coordinating center
to support their petition beforethe state and federal agrarian
offices. Oncethe requestseemed likelyto succeed.Governor
Luis Torres Mesias calledon metostopsupporting andtoget
the indigenous to drop their petition, which we refusedto do.
In retaliation, they arrested two community elders (hmen in
Maya), who had to pay a bond of$25,000 pesos ($2,040) in
order to get out. We consulted with our INI executive board,
and they approved a loan to the community from the Coor
dinating Center's linefor supportof indigenous communities
to pay the bond. Dr. Caso supported my position. Once the
bond was granted, however, the secretary treasurer of the
CCI, the landowners, and the state government got so furi
ous that relations between the INI and the state government
were strained. In response, the state of Yucatan developed a
plan for landownersto export vegetablesto the UnitedStates
and, through the PLAN CHAC (PLAN DE DESARROLLO
CHAC PARA YUCATAN), to developfruit exports. Seeing
how serious things had gotten, Alfonso Caso decided to come
to Meridaand, in a quiet meal with the governor, negotiated
the expropriation of part of the lands in favor of the com
munities, as long as I left Yucatan.
326
Cattle and Lumber Interests vs. Indios
The same thing happened while I was director of the
Cora-Huichol and of the Purepecha (Tarasco) coordinating
centers. I was convinced that the indigenous had to organize
pressure groups andtraintheyoungergeneration. I hadmany
discussions with Huichol leader, Pedro de Haro, who clearly
and objectivelydescribed his life-longstruggle to defend his
people, stories about his years in jail in Tepic, and his pro
posed organization of Huichol cattlemento confront Tehua-
ris (mestizo) cattle organizations. The Governor of Jalisco,
Francisco Medina Ascencio, defended cattle interests who
invaded Huichol lands, while the Governor of neighboring
Nayarit, on the otherhand,supportedthe ideaof an indigenous
organizationto defend their rights against external aggression
(Nahmad 1996).
When I was director of the Tarasco coordinating center
in Cheran, Michoacan, I could see how weak Caso's com
munity development policy was because he applied it to a
single community—Turicuaro, Michoacan—and presented
it to the delegates of the 5th Interamerican Indigenous Con
gress in P&tzcuaro in 1968. So, I decided to redirect funds
to a project that had regional and structural implications: the
comuneros ofTanaco wanted a sawmill controlled by private
interests in Patzcuaro. This caused a violent confrontation
in the INI and in the region when the Purepecha (Tarasco),
used their own funds from the Fondo National de Fomento
Ejidal (National Fund of Ejidal Development) to buy and
take over lumbering their own forests and the sawmill. Their
youth started managing the marketing, distribution, and sale
of lumber in the national market. This caused a huge uproar.
In response, lumber contractors leaned on their connections
with federal forestry authorities, Michoacan politicians, and
some even used the figure ofGeneral Cardenas (President of
Mexico from 1934-1940and former governor ofMichoacan,
famousfor nationalizingMexican industries)in their attempt
to hold on to their privileges.
The indigenous later came to be subsumed under the
rubric, "marginalized peoples." In 1976, under President
Jose Lopez Portillo, Education Secretary Porfirio Mufloz
Ledo supported naming an anthropologist to head up a
change in indigenist policies, but the president-decided
instead to merge the INI under a general program aimed
at marginal peoples, including ethnic groups, called Coor
dination General del PlanNational deZonas Deprimidas
y Grupos Marginados (National Plan Coordinator for
Depressed Zones and Marginal Groups or COPLAMAR)
under Ignacio Ovalle (former President Luis Echeverria's
private secretary and later, Secretary of Budget and Pro
grams). In his inaugural address, Lopez Portillo begged
the forgiveness of marginal peoples for having abandoned
them. At the same time, anthropologists were passing
around an article by Lopez Portillo that reflects the ideol
ogy of many in the government. La incapacidad del indio
(Indian Incapability) describes his theory of indigenous
ethnic groups of Mexico:
HUMAN ORGANIZATION
 Indianculture was crippled from birth, it lacked precisely
that which is most delicate in all cultures. The Indian intel
lectual cannot appeal to...reason, but has to act as priest,
as witchdoctor.... Indian languages are as mixed up and
complicated as their pantheon. They are mixed...with
surprising and imprecise syntax. They are the...product
of incomplete mental concepts.... But such an advanced,
if crippled,culture is dark and cruel in its origins, and this
deeply affected its followers.... The sad thing about the
Indian doesn't come from three centuries oflberian domi
nation. It is the natural product of millennia of famine and
darkness that turned death and suffering into destiny....
[PJoverty [and] misery have characterized it ever since it
firststepped ontoAmericansoil. The Indian is resignedto
atavism.... [Mjany generations must pass before...racial
memories get erased from their minds; so new languages
can be introduced as native to their brains, so that the
dark clouds of horror that make up their hunger, their
own complicated culture, and the conquest, would clear
up and dissipate. The Indian has a lot to forget in order to
learn.... Unthinking "indianists"... try to resuscitate dead
languages... [that are] totally inappropriate for current con
ditions, [they] only manage to postpone the moment when
the Indian, liberated from the.. .unconscious memories of
a painful past,.. .assumes an active role in the new culture
that attempts to incorporate him.... We will help the Indio
forget the old, the pain, the death, and learn the new....
Our acts will, therefore, have this noble, unselfish, goal,...
that will... pay off the debt we carry from our conqueror
and colonial ancestors. (Lopez Portillo 1944:159-162).
These paragraphs represent the contradictions in Mexi
can society with respect to national minorities. In recent
years, the political discourse has recognized the concept of
plurality, but conditions have not changed. Mexico moved
from basic racism to "saving" marginal peoples by wiping
out indigenous languages and imposing Spanish. COPLA-
MAR had a generous budget, but it mainly increased the
ranks of the bureaucracy. An emergent indigenous organi
zation, the Consejo National Pueblos Indigenas (National
Indigenous Peoples Council) was manipulated and cor
rupted. Francisco Salas (Ovalle's private secretary) com
mented, "In order to keep the Indians calm and ordered, we
have to grease their palms with money and treat them like
lap dogs." Negotiations between anthropologists and the
executive wing were not successful in changing this policy.
As the assistant director of the INI, I continued to attempt
to change the course of the indigenist project, drawing up
action plans and bringing theoretical principals in line with
practical applications. However, COPLAMAR neutralized
indigenous demands and tied them into a system of control
and manipulation. While confrontations with Ovalle were
nuanced by the official discourse of participation, and, in
some programs, indigenous workers ran programs of ethnic
and linguistic pluralism. Then, in 1977,1 was promoted out
of the INI to be General Director of Indigenous Education
in the SEP, which kept me from interfering in the power of
the indigenous coordinating centers of the INI and isolated
me from indigenous leaders. I was replaced in the INI by
Francisco Rojas, a lawyer and business administrator who
had worked for Philips Corporation. Indigenous policy was
VOL. 70. NO. 4, WINTER 2011
immediately reversed: administrators took over and the
general director became a figurehead who promoted his
own political career.
Inspiteof my friendship at that time with IgnacioOvalle,
contradictions in both institutions (INI and SEP-Indigenous
Education) flourished. In spite of this, we took up the task of
strengtheningthe cadres of bilingualteachers and substituted
bilingual and bicultural education forthe Spanish-only policy.
We confronted the out-dated schemes ofVasconcelos, a revo
lutionaryphilosopher of public education,and union control
of bilingual teachers. Wesupportedthe trainingof indigenous
ethnolinguists and bilingual teachers. Wepublished textbooks
and manuals in indigenous languages without the Instituto
Linguistica de Verano (Summer Institute of Linguistics or
SIL), a Christian literacy organization. We cancelled our
agreement with the SIL and made it our goal to create quality
indigenous education.
In their political campaigns. Presidents Lopez Portillo
(1974-1980) and Miguel de la Madrid (1980-1988) delivered
demagogic discourses when they visited indigenous com
munities, saying that the INI was going to recognize them as
national minorities and indigenous nations, give them more
autonomy, allow them to actively participate in indigenous
agencies, and give them self-management. The Government
Secretariat, through sociologist Hugo Castro Aranda (private
secretary to the Secretary), asked the INI to draw up a new
geopolitical plan. It was all hot air. Those who tried to comply
with these promises to the indigenous were thrown in jail.
An example of this constant struggle is that of the Ya-
qui peoples of Sonora. the owners of one of the most fertile
regions of Mexico, traversed by the Yaqui River, one of the
largest rivers in Mexico, whose waters turn the desert into an
oasis. Their invaluable lands have been the cause of furious
attacks against this embattled people, including war with
the Mexican army and with surrounding populations. Today
there are almost 20,000 Yaquiin Mexico and another 5,000 in
the United States. Mexico has tried more than once to break
them up and wipe them out with bloody wars—the last of
which was in 1929, which is why some Yaqui took refuge
among the Papago (O'odam) ofArizona. Today they live in
both countries. Peace with the Mexican government was not
declared until 1939, through a presidential agreement that
recognized their rights to land on the right bank ofthe Yaqui
river and to 50 percent of its flowing and dammed waters.
They were also granted self-government.
However, the new landholding bourgeoisie kept control
of 500,000 hectares of irrigated land. The Yaquis were only
given 20,000 hectares of land, which was managed by the fed
eral Banco Rural. They have gotten less than halfofthe water
to which they have rights. Their petitions have consistently
been rejected. In response, the Yaqui have shut themselves
in: the government ofthe eight Yaqui pueblos is* closed to the
dominant society, they do not accept outsiders meddling in
municipal affairs, and they will not negotiate with the state,
only with the federal government. Even so, their agreements
with the federal government have not been fulfilled.
327
 At the end of 1982,1 was named director of the INI. My
career path until then was based on using anthropological
perspectives andcriteria to change theasymmetrical relations
betweenindigenouspeoples and the national state. In the INI,
I decided to step up the rate of change in indigenous policy
from assimilation to self-development and ethnic autonomy,
called ethno-development by anthropologists in my genera
tion. I thought that a project with the Yaqui (studied by our
colleague Edward Spicer [1970, 19890, 2002]) would be a
good place to begin the transformation from indigenist pater
nalism and protectionism to grassroots autonomy. In 1983,1
attempted to turn over control of the INI's Yaqui indigenous
coordinating center to them. Yoreme, or Yaqui, authorities
and their young intellectuals, drew up, after three months of
internal discussion, their own IntegratedDevelopmentPlan
of the Yaqui Tribe (Yaqui 1983), agreed upon by all their
communities. On June 1, 1983, we took this document to the
President ofMexico, Miguel de la Madrid, for him to execute
so the Yaqui people could enter into an equal relationship
with Mexican society. He agreed to their demands, but four
months later, I fell victim to repression and was thrown in
jail for this. I was arrested by more than 100 federal judicial
police from INTERPOL and given a summary sentence. My
attempt to change the INI's direction resulted in political
repression. They charged me with criminal action and held
me injail for five months. The Mexican government has still
not complied with its own agreement, signed by President
Lazaro Cardenas, promises made over 70 years ago.
Yaqui response has been to resist and await future
developments. Their historical memory is not diluted by
paternalism. They resist economic inequality, the penetration
of capitalism, renting their irrigated and pasture land, the
sale offish from their cooperative, and clearing their forests.
The Yaqui of Arizona and Mexico are allied in networks of
exchange andmutual support. Young college-educated Yaqui
are rewriting their history and proposing a Utopian plan for
groupunification of all the indigenous peoplesofArizonaand
Sonora.A commondemand is the recoveryoftheir territorial
land and natural resources. Yaqui demands for political and
economic autonomy, and evensuccession, are a clearsign of
what Darcy Ribeiro (1984) called the future ethnic wars of
Latin America. Relations between mestizos and Creoles (yori)
andtheYaqui (yoremes) aretenseandhostile. TheYaqui have
such a strongsenseof ethnocentric loyalty that anyone with
strong ties outside the community may be expelled, which
is onereason thedominant elites have reacted insuch an ag
gressive, racist manner.
My arrest caused an indignant response from the indig
enous of Mexico,my colleagues,as well as my protectors in
the prison. I was a political prisoner. The General Procura
tor (Attorney General), the District attorneys, and the judge
contradicted each other. It was a politicaltrap, I was told by
prison authorities from whom I got preferential treatment.
This caused a crisis in Mexican anthropology. International
scientific communities and development agencies supported
me. The indigenous supported and protected me personally.
328
Therewere demonstrations rejectingthe state positionand in
support of me,including taking overthe INI, which increased
pressure on the president and resulted in a series of secret
negotiations. Inthe end, I wasfined$ 100,000 pesos($8,165),
in 1984, for "damage to the national heritage."
The Church is another institution that has aimed at con
trol of indigenous peoples ever since the conquest in 1521.
The Church has attempted to control indigenous religiosity.
Under the guise of liberation theology, they have become
increasingly sophisticated in the continuous campaign of
so-called religious enculturation orspiritual conquest. This
is just another way of assimilating indigenous peoples into
a Greco-Roman ideology that aims to eliminate indigenous
religious ideologies—past or present—including their com
munity ideology.
I always respected the wixarika or huichol religion,
which brought me into direct conflict, when I was .Director
of the Cora-Huichol Coordinating Center (1968-1971), with
the Franciscan Bishop who was evangelizing the Huichol,
the Cora, and the Tepehuano. As part of their religious prac
tice, the Huichol bathe the images of Jesus and the Virgin
of Guadalupe in deer or bull blood. The resident nuns were
horrified and took the images away and put in new ones. So,
the Huichol came to talk to me and asked me to intervene
with the church so that they could get their saints back. If
not, they threatened to burn the mission down and kick all
the nuns out. A Franciscan priest, Father Loera, who had
studied anthropology in the United States, agreed that the
nuns had no cause to interfere in the life of the community,
but the Bishop was opposed. Loera, who built the Huichol
museum in Guadalajara, managed to return the sculptures to
the Huicholes and avoided a bigger conflict. But I got into
big trouble over this. The governor complained, and guess
what? I was thrown out of Nayarit.
Another important aspect of the assimilationist policy
is imposition of the ideals of western democracy—political
parties and elections—on the systems of community and
municipal cargos (unpaid community service) in indigenous
regions. The goal, at the national and state levels, is to make
the community and its collective forms of governance dis
appear and exchange them for participation by individual
vote—in direct oppositionto the collectivepoliticalidentities
of Mexico's indigenous communities. My experience in the
Mixe region of Oaxaca in 1963 motivated me to take their
proposal for a Leyde usosy costumbres (Uses and Customs
Law) (to respect community forms of organization and as
sembly) to the Mexican Senate and some state governors. In
Oaxaca, this system operates in more than 400 indigenous
municipalities—theygovern themselves through the system
of cargos. not political parties, which poses a threat to those
very parties, who struggle to eliminate this community form
of organization.
Colleagues in my generation, including my great friend,
Guillermo Bonfil (1987, 1996), redefined Alfonso Caso's
(ideologue and first director of INI) "indio." Bonfil's is
the most representative of the change in social relations in
HUMAN ORGANIZATION
Mexican society. Hesaid,"Within the system as a whole, the
colonized is single and plural {Indian and Indians), form
ing a single category that homogenizes dominated peoples.
Internally, it disaggregates them into multiple local units
that weaken their ancient loyalties [and converts them into]
parochial identity" (Bonfil 1996). Bonfil (1972:110)goes on
to say. "Indio is a supraethnic category that has no specilic
content interms of the groups that it refers to, but rather refers
to the specific relation between them and the other sectors
of the global social system of which the indios form a part.
The category of indio denotes the condition of colonized
and necessarily references the colonial relation." These new
definitions are reflected in the statements of international
institutions, such as the International Labor Organization,
the United Nations, and the World Bank—all of which have
been influenced by applied anthropology.
The World Bank (2011) states that "because of the
varied and changing contexts in which Indigenous Peoples
live and because there is no universally accepted defini
tion of Indigenous Peoples, this policy does not define the
term....but rather... a modern understanding of this term
based on a variety of characteristics—self-identification at
the individual level and accepted by the community as their
member; historical continuity with precolonial or presettler
societies; a strong link to territories and surrounding natural
resources; a distinct social, economic, or political system; a
distinct language, culture, and belief's; individuals that form
non-dominant groups of society; and those that resolve to
maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and
systems as distinctive peoples and communities."
In the indigenous community, tradition is the other face
of modernity, even though the clash between these two has
brought changes intastes, language, and formsof organization
in some communities. On the one hand, traditional systems
contradict many elements of modern capitalist economies.
On the other hand, modern capitalist systems interfere with
community life. To understand and accept contemporary in
digenous reality,development projects in indigenous regions
must take the ethnic dimension into account.
The History of the Native Peoples in Mexico
Mexican neoliberal capitalist society is dependent on
the dominant macroeconomics, and at the start of the 21st
century, continues trying to forge one homogeneous, single
ethnicgroup into a national cultural project. To me, this is not
feasible because there is a huge contradiction between national
society and the diverse cultures that make it up. There is no
way to resolve this contradiction until the nation resolves
thesebasicstructural contradictions with constitutional change
and geopolitical restructuring. Research that addresses these
contradictions began in 1910 with the work of Manuel Gamio
(Nahmad and Weaver 1990). Indigenist policy was based on
anthropological knowledge, and that is why anthropology has
playeda key role in nationalpolitics foralmost 100 years,ever
since Gamio turned the archaeological site of Teotihuacan into
VOL. 70. NO. 4. WINTER 2011
Figure 2. Negotiations with the Seri, 1974
a national heritage center, an applied anthropology project that
proposed breaking up the power relations between the state
and the original peoples of Mexico and building an intereth-
nic, symmetrical, and egalitarian society. Anthropologists
and everyone else who commits their specialized knowledge
to changing the asymmetrical relations between state institu
tions and indigenous peoples are allies in this struggle. Ever
since Malinowski, Durkheim, and Gamio, anthropological and
social science research has contributed to improving the living
conditions and social relations of human beings.
All state, private sector, church (Christian, Catholic, or
evangelical), and NGO actions share the assimilationist proj
ect, even though indigenous peoples do not fully participate
in the national project, and not just because of their position
as colonized, subjugated, and discriminated peoples, but also
because they are the subjects of this exclusionary project.
Indigenism in Mexico was able, over the course of 100years.
to overcome some of these conditions and to pave the way
for some of the changes achieved. However, the structure of
asymmetrical neocolonial relations has not changed. Today,
indigenous peoples are the most marginal and the poorest
people in Mexico, Latin America, and the world.
Appliedsocial research reveals the effects of global poli
cies, for example at the meetings of the Society for Applied
Anthropology, which aims at expanding its influence in order
to bring about change. The recently approved (2007) United
Nations Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples is
an example of a huge achievement.
Today, indigenous peoples have lost control over and ac
cess to much of their own natural resources and even to their
own work force. This has caused the transfer of much of their
production and labor to the market—precisely the reason that
the global phenomena of generalized and extreme poverty ex
ists. The loss of the best land, soil erosion, loss of irrigation,
over-exploitation of forestry reserves, and the conversion
of fertile land to the production of goods for national and
international markets have caused malnutrition and the loss
of systems of self-sufficiency that have existed for hundreds
329
of years.The indigenousregions of Mexico have becomethe
poorest of the poor. Even though the data do not distinguish
between indigenous peoples and others, it is easy to see that
the states of Oaxaca, Chiapas, Guerrero, Hidalgo, Yucatan,
etc.—the states with the highest percentages of indigenous
peoples—are the poorest. Rural indigenous zones are the
poorest; indigenous communities have the highest rates of
poverty and the lowest levels of public and private invest
ment. The World Bank and the Interamerican Development
Bank have begun special projects to help slow the deteriora
tion of subsistence agriculture in thousands of indigenous
households. However, many people migrate with the hope of
being able to get a job. This aggravates urban problems, not
just in Mexico, but also in many cities in the United States.
Indigenous Peoples and their Human and
Cultural Rights: Ethnic Diversity and the
Nation-State
According to liberal political philosophy, the citizen is
a private, not a community, actor. This is not the case of the
native peoples of Mexico. Minority rights must coexist with
humanrights and not be limited by the principles of individual
liberty,democracy, and social justice. This philosophy is the
basis of a system of cultural and ethnic diversity that creates
a human society that is intercultural and socially inclusive.
Aside from the common rights of all citizens, we need a
differentiated citizenship, according to which the state is
obliged to adopt "special measures" to articulate the differ
ences between ethnic groups. This policy could be stated as
symmetrical interethnic relations. As I understand it, there
are three forms of differentiated rights with respect to ethnic
group membership:(1) rights to self-government or autonomy
(the delegationof powers to the original peoples, the national
minorities through some kind offederalism), (2) multiethnic
rights (financial supportand legalprotection for certainprac
ticesassociated withspecific ethnicgroupsor native peoples),
and (3) special rights to guarantee representation in national
chambersfor native peoples or ethnic groups.
Human evolution is a general process of development
and social transformation. Every human society changes,
and in its own way. Their characteristics make up universal
humanity, with the specificities and cultures of each, but
each has to permit the development of all of its cultural and
linguistic parts. This society of the future, seen from a lineal,
homogeneous social evolutionist perspective, culminates in
the disappearance of ethnic and cultural plurality, falling into
the same error as neoliberal capitalism. That is why I think
that the anthropological theory ofmultilinear evolution is the
answer to the demands of peoples and ethnic groups in our
nation(s). In this sense, the long-termhistoricalprojectof hu
man unitycannot be to build one flat and uniformsociety,but
a dynamic and multifaceted society, with different faces and
ways of being and living. Respect for this plurality and this
multilineal evolution (Steward 1955) should be our solution
to the social groups that make up humanity.
330
Mexico's national project is not isolated, but it is inserted
into the projects of other nations of the globe, but its diversity
cannot, in spite of violence and repression, be eradicated.
Human experience in other regions of the planet shows us
that ethnic groups continue their struggle to reconquertheir
own spaces of territorial and political autonomy. That is why
integration and the construction of national identity have to
include original peoples and ethnic groups, not annihilate
them, which would only cause serious disturbances and
misalignments in the social structure of the country and the
world. We also think that those countries that offer ethnic
groups the possibility of multilineal development will be
able to count on their support. Those who oppose this and
proposeassimilation, destruction, and annihilation (ethnocide
or genocide)of culturalpluralitywill be met by resistance and
rebellion. This is how, I think, that the Utopian project of the
original peoples of each country will come closer to fruition.
It will not be easy to build a multiethnic nation with mul
tiple evolutionary lines. Initially, restructuring and national
reconstruction, is complicated. Once there is geopolitical
and administrative change with economic equality and the
abolition of exploitation, the basic wound that ethnic groups
feel, the construction of a real society can begin; one that
is more objective, more human, and more in line with the
context of the peoples who make up nations such as Mexico.
It will not look like a homogeneous state, like we pretend to
have today, but made up of parts, including the more than 60
Mexican indigenous peoples who have resisted colonialism
and neocolonial aggression in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Without considering group, and not just individual,
rights, we will not achieve justice. A more just global society
will have to respect and recognize the dignity that all original
and minority peoples deserve, especially the native peoples
ofnations built around them, because, in the case of Mexico,
we will not understand our history if we do not include the
participation and contributions that all ethnic groups have
made through the different historical periods—colonial,
independence, revolution, and modern Mexico. We must
recognize and practice plurality in the design of our politi
cal and social systems, in education, administration, justice,
economic development, and wealth distribution, in social
security, and in dominant cultures in order to build a society
on real foundations, not on neoliberal or neodemocratic
Utopias alien to the makeup of its peoples. Our goal in the
21st century should be to wipe out open and hidden forms of
colonialism. We cannot continue our colonial and neocolonial
systems with active or passive identities alienated from their
cultural environment. I think that projects of incorporation,
assimilation, integration, or homogenization are, at bottom,
ethnocentric and racist policies that intend to maintain the
status quo of exploitation, domination, and submitting the
original peoples and ethnic minorities.
The indigenous peoples ofMexico have contributed their
intelligence, resources, and their work to the construction of
modern society and have contributed their culture to show
the world the real Mexico. They struggle to achieve a deco-
HUMAN ORGANIZATION
localization that gives them a place in national society and
fully recognizes their right to cultural and linguisticplurality.
This requires autonomy andparticipation intheeconomic and
political development of the nation. At the beginning of the
21st century, Mexico faces one of the biggest crises of her
history:the search for a new national project that can resolve
the contradictions between a society identified as western and,
at the same time, built on a profound Mesoamerican civiliza
tion. This new project should be imagined and designed to
include indigenous peoples and cultural diversity in general.
The failure of previous polities should show us how to build
the future, by recognizing and ratifying the rights histori
cally removed from these peoples, by accepting ethnic and
linguistic plurality and rebuilding the national geopolitical
structure based on this multiethnic and multicultural reality,
by modifying the judicial structure based on these, and by
redistributing national income among all the peoples who
make it up.
Anthropological Ethics and the Defense of
Native Peoples in Mexico
Anthropology rejects the idea of a fixed and eternal hu
man nature. Applied social anthropology is basically a critical
science of cultural models. There is no human society that
does not seek a better life. Anthropology is profoundly tied
to humanist ethics and. with that, to universal philosophy.
In writing these words, my early experience was a critical
analysis of the ethics of my own existencebased on psycho
analysis,due to my early social work studies with Eric Fromm
(1957), and later, ethnology andanthropology. Anthropology,
as the science of humankind, is part of the ethical human
ist tradition in which knowledge is used to establish norms
and values that help keep the peace and establish equality
between all peoples and cultures. With this central tenet,
anthropology, as I understand it, attempts to explain human
diversity—individual, social, and cultural—and from this
to achieve human growth and development of humans. The
minimum ethical position is freedom of speech and a voice
for all stakeholders in decisions related to social programs.
This is the role that applied anthropology should play in re
search—formulating criteria basedonjustice and solidarity,
respect for the autonomy of every human as a person, every
family as a basic unitofsociety, of eachcommunity or pueblo
or ethnic group. Thisbasicethictreatsall human beings as we
treatourselves. This minimumprinciplerecognizes all human
beings as validpartners and is expressed by recognizing the
rights of stakeholders. It becomes a practice of deliberative
democracy, a form of dialogue for radical and participative
democracy.
Mostof all, becausewe are speakingof transforming the
culturesof violence,of war, of exploitation, of marginal iza-
tion and exclusion by other cultures, the goal of anthropo
logical action is to achieve peace among the peoples of the
world. The firststep is mutual recognition between all humans
and groups, based on autonomy, justice, and solidarity. This
VOL. 70. NO. 4, WINTER 2011
is how we honor our commitment to our own communities,
languages, cultures, and belief systems.
The idea of an ethic of applied anthropology should be
based on the argument that human beings, even when they
act as a group, or in conflict situations, can act and behave
humanly when they are influenced by so-called rationality,
empathy, and nonviolent philosophy. The historyof relations
between politics and anthropology, from this point of view,
is the history of the ongoing attempt to moralize politics by
creating situations and institutions that limit and reduce the
use of violence as a resource and that favor using dialogue,
equitable social commitment, and the peaceful solution to
conflicts.
Three important developments in this direction are: (I)
the increase in the number ofdemocratically organized nation-
states, even though with varying success, in which political
struggle is conducted through dialogue, and not suppression;
(2) the creation of the United Nations as a governing body
based on fundamental human rights; and (3) the practice,
on a large scale, of methods of nonviolent struggle, derived
from those used by the working classes in the struggle with
capital and from those practiced by Gandhi, Martin Luther
King, Nelson Mandela, and many more in the struggle for
independence or for basic human rights.
Finally, we see today the negative consequences of the
use of violence to settle conflicts between states and ethnic
groups. The use ofviolence, including the most serious of this
century in Afghanistan and Bolivia, for example, counteract
anthropological work and democraticmovementsto empower
people and develop projects that permit strengthening human
coexistence through nonviolent, democratic methods.
The call for papers for this 71st annual meeting of the
SocietyforAppliedAnthropologysets out the challengesthat
anthropologists and social researchers face in their search for
alternatives in buildingthe futureby pointingoutthe changes
that humanity needs. We should continue to seek new methods
and concepts to solve problems in societies such as Mexico,
as I have indicated in this presentation. My experience has
shownthatwe haveto seek theseanswersfrom the indigenous
peoples of Mexico and the rest of the world. As they achieve
full autonomy, we will have fewer conflicts and be able to live
a humane and diverse life. This will be our most important
contribution as applied anthropologists to humanity.
EI papel de la antropologia en los cambios
y retos del siglo XXI en Mexico y el mundo
globalizado
Resumen
La antropologia social mexicana siempre ha tenido una
orientation aplicada. Este hecho ha colocado frecuentemente
a los antropologos y a los principios antropologicos que se
alinean junto con los pueblos indios, en conflicto directo
con las politicas del estado y el proyecto nacional. Este arti-
culo presenta una reflexion de la historia de la antropologia
social y aplicada en Mexico, basada en mi experiencia y en
331
la trayectoria profesional en el INI, y en la DGEI de la SEP.
A traves de estas reflexiones se exponen los riesgos y retos
que enfrentan los antropologos cuando se comprometen con
los pueblos indigenas a favor de su auto-determinacion y
autonomia individual y colectiva.
PALABRAS CLAVES: Antropologia aplicada,
Mexico, indigenas, desarrollo
1. Agradecimientos
Es para mi un alto honor recibir este reconocimiento de
la Society for Applied Anthropology que lleva el nombre de
B. Malinowski (1938, 1982), quien fue uno de los grandes
impulsores de la antropologia aplicada y al mismo tiempo
uno de los cientificos sociales del siglo XX que trabajo en
distintas regiones del mundo. En Mexico lo hizo al lado de mi
maestro Julio de la Fuente (2005), a quien deseo recordar en
este articulo, ya que el me oriento y distinguio con su amistad
para luchar desde el campo de la antropologia a favor de los
pueblos originarios de Mexico y de America Latina.
Me siento muy emocionado de estar con ustedes esta
tarde, con tan distinguidos colegas y amigos que a lo largo de
los afios me han estimulado en el trabajo de la antropologia
aplicada. En especial, quisiera mencionar a Ted Downing, a
Martha Rees, a Tom Weaver, a Phil Dennis, a Carlos Velez,
Claudio Esteva Fabregat, Rodolfo Stavehagen, Margarita
Nolasco, Guillermo Bonfil, Leonel Duran, Lourdes Arizpe,
Susana Drucker, James Greenberg, Sandy Davis, Johnny
Murra, Erick Wolf, y en fin, a una comunidad cientifica de
Mexicoy Estados Unidos que ha reflexionadoy sigue reflex-
ionando por el futuro de la humanidad, desde la perspectiva
de un conocimiento de las ciencias sociales que ayuden a con-
struirun mundo donde la diversidad cultural se mantengay se
reproduzca en el contexto de una paz humana indispensable.
De mis maestros como Roberto Weitlaner (1964, 1973),
Juan Comas (1964), Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran (1973, 1982),
AlfonsoCaso (1973), John Murra (1972), Eric Wolf(1975),
Angel Palerm (1986, 2006), y muchos otros, recibi orient
ation y me abrieron el camino en la biisqueda de una teoria
y una practica para el cambio social y cultural con justicia,
dignidad y equidad, para que estos pueblos originarios par-
ticipen plenamente con autonomia y autodeterminacion en
un Mexico incluyente.
Tambien quiero reconocer a los Profesores e Investiga-
dores de la Universidad de Yucatan como Gabriela Vargas-
Cetina, Steffan Igor Ayora-Diaz y Francisco Fernandez
Repetto quienes amablemente promovieron mi candidature
para recibir este reconocimiento junto con el apoyo de mis
colegasde las distintas sedes del CIESAS, encabezados por
Virginia Garcia.
Agradezco a Allan Burns, ya que durante su presidencia
se me otorga este importante reconocimiento y asimismo las
palabras afectuosas de mi colegaMargarita Dalton y el apoyo
de mis colegas de Oaxaca Miguel Bartolome, Alicia Barabas
y Marcos Winter.
332
Quieroagradecer la presenciade mi queridaesposa Xi-
menaAvellaneda por su acompaflamiento durante todos los
momentos felices y en todos los momentos de problemas y
dificultades que hemoscompartido juntos y tambienentodas
mis actividades profesionales.Agradezco la presenciade mis
hijos Daniel, David, Alejandro y Yuri, de mis nietas Anita,
Nataliay Nina,por estaren esta ceremonia y a todos los que
integran mi familia.
2. Antecedentes
El trabajo de campo que realice para mis diversas in-
vestigaciones antropologicas, me ha permitido recapacitar
y deliberar el trasfondo del proyecto indigenista rnexicano
injertado en los programas de la Revolution Mexicana como
parte del Estado, lo que dio origen a muchas contradicciones
profundas. Por esta razon, muchos de los proyectos especifi-
cos presentados al gobierno nacional, por los antropologos,
entraron en conflicto y contradiction con los politicos del
sistema, lo que motivo que fracasaran y que una gran parte
de nosotros los antropologos nos enfrentaramos a los grupos
de poder regional y nacional, generando una profunda crisis
en las estructuras sociales confrontadas entre los pueblos
indigenas con el Estado y la sociedad nacional.
Los pueblos indigenas de Mexico han sido el centro de
mi actividad etnografica y etnologica, desde mis primeras
incursiones en el trabajo de campo en Tonanzintla (1961) y
Chipilo en el estado de Puebla (1956). De estos pueblos, he
aprendido la inmensa importancia que tienen sus derechos
colectivos frente a las grandes formas de explotacion, exclu
sion y racismo a que han sido sometidos en la larga noche
del colonialismo y del neocolonialismo interne Han luchado
permanentemente por ser reconocidos como pueblos y de
ser incluidos en el proyecto nacional, sin que esto se haya
logrado a cabalidad.
Lo que la antropologia aplicada ha pretendido, desde sus
initios, es que los sujetos de sus estudios sean considerados
plenamente como seres humanos con derechos sociales,
culturales, tanto individuals como colectivos, al igual que
el resto de los pueblos del mundo. Se trata de buscar las vias
para una vida justa que elimine todas las formas de discrimi
nation y racismo que todavia se mantienen en Mexico y que
a partir de los estudios etnologicos y antropologicos se han
visibilizado. Precisamente es la biisqueda de estos objetivos
centrales lo que coloca al antropologo en los riesgos que
representa este compromiso y que yo vivi en mi experiencia
y que seguramente muchos de los colegas que estan presentes
tambien han vivido, por ello quisiera recordar esta noche
algunos de estos eventos.
3. Complejidad y riesgos de la antropologia aplicada
en Mexico
En 1948 el Instituto Nacional Indigenista fue creado
como una agenda autonoma del gobierno, con presupuesto
y administration propios. Influidos enormemente por los
HUMAN ORGANIZATION
trabajos previos deManuel Gamio (1979), Othon de Mendiza-
bal (1947), Alfredo Barreda Vazquez (1980), Moises Saenz
(1980) y Alfonso Caso, quien fue nombrado primer director,
seguido a su vez por Aguirre Beltran un medico entrenado
en la antropologia por Melville Herskovits (1952). Posteri-
ormente, la influencia de los antropologos en esta agenda
continuo dando la orientation antropologica a las tareas de
los Centros Coordinadores Indigenistas (1962).
Este Institute desde sus initios, tuvo como objetivo la
introduction de programas que elevaran las condiciones de
vida de las comunidades indigenas y que pudieran quebrar
el colonialismo interno; esto se pretendia lograr mediante la
construction de carreteras, escuelas, centros de salud, centros
comunitarios y el mejoramiento en las tecnicas del cuidado
de los animates domesticos y de la agricultura. Se abrieron
Centros Coordinadores en varias partes del pais con el fin de
entrenar tanto a los antropologos, administradores como a
los propios indigenas.
Asi, se delego en los antropologos la funcion de refor-
zar la ideologia nacionalista de corte integracionista y de
servir como medios para normar los programas de desar-
rollo, para articular y reforzar a los pueblos etnicos en el
proyecto capitalista dependiente de las nuevas metropolis.
Bajo el esquema teorico de la aculturacion, como tesis
central de la antropologia dominante expuesta por Gon
zalo Aguirre Beltran. y por el proyecto de la integration
nacional como ideologia dominante en la cual habiamos
sido formados en la Escuela de Antropologia, no podia-
mos percibir el fen6meno etnico como proyecto propio y
autonomo. Precisamente, nuestra funcion como cientificos
sociales era trabajar en favor del proyecto estatal y no de
los grupos etnicos. El esquema de la aculturacion expuesto
por Herskovits en 1939 era el modelo perfecto para justifi-
car el proyecto del nacionalismo rnexicano, planteado por
Aguirre Beltran en el proceso de aculturacion (1982). Nue-
vamente los esquemas externos, procedentes de la escuela
culturalista norteamericana, Servian de molde y por ello
eran sancionados positivamente en el mundo academico
international. A partir de este esquema, los politicos de
Estado y los antropologos organicos institucionalizaron
la antropologia como parte de las politicas publicas del
Estado, a traves del Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e
Historia y su agencia formadora de dichos intelectuales,
la Escuela Nacional de Antropologia, Felipe Montemayor
(1971), el Instituto Nacional Indigenista (actualmente
CDI), y las direcciones de Culturas Populares y de Edu
cation Indigena de la SEP.
La esperanza que tuvieron y tienen estas elites criollas de
que la antropologia lograra modificar las estructuras micror-
regionales, sin pensar que el cambio en dichas estructuras
en las regiones interetnicas implica tambien el cambio de la
estructura misma de la sociedad national y del orden geo-
politicoemanado de esta relation. Se plantean modificaciones
sociales en los niveles ideologicos sin que estas afecten los
intereses economicos, politicos y sociales de los grupos de
poder dominantes.
VOL. 70, NO. 4, WINTER 2011
Ingrese al Instituto Nacional Indigenista en el aflo de
1961 a mi regreso al Distrito Federal, despues del trabajo
que realice en Ciudad Sahagiin (Nahmad, 1961). Despues
de una oferta que me habia hecho el Maestro Alfonso Caso,
cuando un grupo de estudiantes lo fuimos a ver para pedirle
apoyo para asistir al Congreso de Americanistas. Consulte
con el Mtro. Ricardo Pozas, y sin titubear me sugirio que
entrara al InstitutoNacional Indigenista,ya que ahi trabajaban
excelentes elementos y seria una importante experiencia para
mi carrera profesional.
Acepte el puesto de investigador antropologo con un
limitado ingreso y fui asignado a trabajar en el proyecto de la
Montaflade Guerrero. En tanto se organizaba dicho programa,
Julio de la Fuente se encargo de orientarme en el conocimiento
de la institution. Siempre fue un hombre serioy profundamente
critico, disentia del esquema y del modelo que seguia Alfonso
Caso en el trato con los indigenas, y consideraba su actitud muy
elitista y patemalista, lo cual se reflejaba en el esquema teorico
y aplicado de la antropologia. Desde su perspectiva de abogado
y con un enorme prestigio como arqueblogo y politico (Caso
constituia una gran "vaca sagrada" en el campo intelectual,
asociado organicamente al campo politico).
Un dia, Julio de la Fuente me cito en su modesto depar-
tamento de la colonia Juarez y me indico que Caso daria un
discurso durante la celebration del Dia del Indio; el me daria
unas notas y yo escribiria el discurso. Me enfrento de lleno
al tema de los indios y de la politica indigenista. Me probo
como antropologo y conocio asi mi position con respecto
a este tema. Anteriormente habia sido asistente de Roberto
Weitlaner en el INAH, quien siempre se habia mostrado en
contra de la politica indigenista oficial; respetaba mucho a
Caso personalmente, pero no estaba de acuerdo con el modelo
rnexicano de integration y asimilacion. Habia convivido de
cerca con varios grupos etnicos y aprendio a amarlos y res-
petarlos, hablaba el otomi y estaba estudiando el chinanteco;
su postura me confronto de inmediato con las tesis sobre el
indigenismo de Alfonso Caso.
Juliode la Fuentereleyoel manuscrito que prepare en una
o dos semanas y constituyo el motivo para revisar criticamente
el proyecto indigenista, asimismo me previno de los graves
problemas por los que atravesaba la institution. Tambien
habiamos de los riesgos del indigenismo y de la necesidad
de perfilar un esquema teorico, asi como su aplicabilidad en
el campo. Me relato los graves conflictos que habian tenido
lugar en el Patrimonio Indigena del Valle del Mezquital con
Lauro Ortega y con el general Corona del Rosal; tambien los
incidentes que el y Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran habian tenidoen
la Direction General de Asuntos Indigenas, cuando el presi-
dente Avila Camacho habia desintegrado el Departamento
Autonomo de Asuntos Indigenas para transformarlo en una
Direction de la Secretaria de Education Publica y los habia
nombrado para dirigirlo. Mas tarde, al regresar de un viaje a
un congreso en Europa, al que asistieron los dos, ya habian
sido sustituidos por maestros de filiation asimilacionistas y
articulados a la corriente Vasconcelista del SindicatoNacional
de Maestros (SNTE).
333
 Al leer sus articulosy sus libros empece a profundizaren
la complejidad del tema de las relaciones interetnicas y de las
corrientes antropologicas enfrentadas alsistemapolitico. El libro
basico en ese momento era el del Proceso de Aculturacion de
Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran, quien habiasido rectorde la Univer-
sidad Veracruzana y entoncesera diputado federal del Partido
Revolucionario Institutional. Fue a traves de Julio de la Fuente
que comence a informarme de los gravesconflictos que habia
tenidoen Chiapas con la poblacion de San Cristobaly con los
caciques aristocratas que mantenian el monopolio del alcohol
y sus alianzas con los gobemadores. Asimismo, me confio un
documentosecretoacercadel alcoholismoque el habiarealizado
y que hastarecientementefue publicado"Monopolio del Aguar
dientey el Alcoholismo en losAltos de Chiapas" del antropologo
Julio de la Fuente, que fue publicado hasta el afio 2009.
Estudio de la zona mixe
Gonzalo Aguirre Beltran habia regresado al INI como
subdirector general y, en esa ocasion, tuve la oportunidad de
conocerloy solicitarle su orientation en el estudio al que habia
sido comisionado. Con recursos limitados para la realization
de este me traslade a Mitla, Oaxaca, y desde ahi emprendi el
recorridopor toda la region mixe. Me acompanaba como guia
e informante el companero Juventino Sanchez, unjoven mixe
del pobiado de Santa Maria Huitepec, inquieto intelectual y
politicode la region que emigro a la ciudad de Mexico y se
habia enrolado en las filas del Partido Popular Socialista;
mantenia una estrecha amistad con Alejandro Gascon Mer-
cado, quien lo habia recomendado para proporcionarme in
formation.Alejandroera en ese entoncessecretarioparticular
de Vicente Lombardo Toledano, ideologo del socialismo en
la epocade Cardenas, fundadorde la CTM y ligadopor par-
entesco directo con Alfonso Caso, ya que su esposa, Maria
Lombardo, era hermana de Vicente. Conviene recordar,
tambien, que un grupo numeroso de funcionarios medios con
mayorconcienciasocial fueron incorporadosal INI por reco-
mendaciones deVicente Lombardo. ConJuventino Sanchezy
con Jaime Olivera, arriero y comerciante zapoteco de Mitla,
recorrimos durante tres meses cada uno de los municipios y
gran parte de las comunidades y poblados mixes.
Durante este tiempo se desarrollo una estrecha conviven-
cia con los miembros de dos etnias diferentes de Oaxaca.
Reflexionabamos conjuntamente losproblemas de lospueblos
mixey zapoteco, y durantemuchashorasemergiaen nuestras
conversaciones la idea de una minoria nacional. La presencia
y arbitrariedades de dos lideres-caciques de la region, Daniel
Martinez y Luis Rodriguez, agudizaban el replanteamiento
del proyecto mixe y su relation con la sociedad nacional y
regional;ellos formulaban un nivel de aglutinacion etnica de
todos los municipios y comunidades, asi como una action
politica de autoafirmacion y de reconocimiento de un nivel
de autonomia frente al gobierno estatal. Las confrontaciones
intemas y las divisiones por la hegemonia de los centros
geopoliticos, Ayutla y Zacatepec, que habian desplazado a
Totontepec, no permitian la consolidation del proyecto.
334
Las reflexiones sostenidas con las autoridades mixes y
la catalogacion de sus necesidades y demandas, asi como
su inclusion en el proyecto de desarrollo regional integral,
fueron aceptadas como una expectativa de apertura mayor al
exterior. Losaspectoseconomicos del estudionos permitieron
definir el sistema interno de intercambios economicos y su
articulation con el sistema zapoteco de comercio ambulante,
estos como intermediarios del sistema de concentration y
acumulacion del principal producto de intercambio,el cafe,
que estaba asociado al mercado international. Estructural-
menteestaban integradosal sistema capitalista mundialy solo
se les concebia como productores primarios en un. modelo
neocolonial, ya que el sistema creado en el periodo colonial
solo se reforzo y se consolido.
Las platicas con mi compafiero mixe eran fructiferas y
estimulantes: analizamos conjuntamente las caracteristicas
de su sociedad y la articulation a la sociedad capitalista, asi
como el tema de las clases sociales, el cual, para Juventino,
envoi via todo el planteamiento. Esta conversation no cabia
dentro de las oficinas centrales del INI, el proyecto estaba
definido muy claramente por Alfonso Caso. A mi regreso
y durante el trabajo de gabinete y de redaction, Julio de la
Fuente fue mi constante interlocutor y el unico con quien
podia sostener una discusion academica. Analizamos el rol
de los emigrados indigenas y su papel como observadores
y analistas de su propia realidad y de su participation en
el proyecto. Recuerdo muy bien su planteamiento de que
los miembros de grupos etnicos ya educados y aculturados
dejaban de ser indigenas, asi como el concepto de que la
identidad etnica mayoritaria no operaba y si en cambio la
identidad comunitaria, para ello exponia el caso de Yalalag.
Las discusiones fueron fecundas, pero no me quedaban
muy tiaras en la exposicion de mi informe, en el cual por
sugerencias del propio Julio serviria como tesis profesional.
Al concluir la preparation de mi informe lo presente ante
Aguirre Beltran y fue aceptado de inmediato. Caso estaba
enterado de mis actividades como investigador y los reportes
le parecian positivos.
En ese afio de 1963 el interes se centraba en la termi
nation del edificio para las oficinas generales, de tal manera
que las demandas que traia de la region mixe ni siquiera
fueron analizadas o discutidas. No habia presupuesto y solo
en el futuro se preveria la apertura de un nuevo Centro Co-
ordinador para esta region.
Nunca antes habia estado yo ligado directamente a mo-
vilizaciones politicas ni habia participado en ningiin partido.
Mi interes por la antropologia habia surgido de mis estudios
iniciales de trabajo social y siempre pense realizarme en
servir a las clases desposeidas de mi pais. Habia vivido toda
mi infancia en la ciudad de Orizaba, Veracruz,y siendo hijo
de un comerciante inmigrante de Siria habia experimentado
siempre la vivencia bicultural y el bilingilismo. Este hecho,
aunado al de no compartir la religion mayoritaria catolica
sino judia, me hizo percibir afectivamente el entorno indi
gena nahua de esta ciudad dominada por la sociedad criolla
e hispana; mis companeros de la primaria habian sido en
HUMAN ORGANIZATION
su mayoria indigenas con apellidos tan dificiles de pronun-
ciar corno el mio. Estos hechos biograficos me permitieron
tener una dimension de compromiso frente a lo diferente y
lo discriminatorio del sistema social. Mas tarde, gracias a mi
participation en los trabajos de investigation sobre psicologia
profunda entre las madres obreras del D.F., que dirigia el
doctor Eric Fromm (1970, 1977), comprendi el fenomeno
de fondo y por ello decidi trabajar para y por los grupos mi-
noritarios indigenas. Sin embargo, me encontre con muchos
conflictos y problemas en este labor.
Considero importante relatarun grave episodio sucedido
en la misma epoca, para ilustrar hasta que grado llegaba la
corruption e involucramiento de los empleados del INI en
contubernio con los grupos de poder locales y estatales, a
costa de los recursos legitimamente destinados a las comu
nidades indigenas. Diez aflos atras, el ingenio de Catmis y
la hacienda de Santa Rosa habian sido abandonados por sus
duenos, los Medina Alonso, quienes sin embargo se oponian
a entregarlas a las comunidades que deseaban dedicarlas a la
agricultura. Esta familia de terratenientes estaba encompa-
drada con el expresidente de la Republica, Miguel Aleman,
de donde obtenian su apoyo, ademas de ser los dirigentes de
la Uni6n Nacional de Productores de Cafia de Aziicar, razon
por la cual eran temidos localy regionalmente. Los indigenas
de las dos unidades y los trabajadores demandaban la repar
tition de las tierras de acuerdo con el codigo agrario, lo cual
era denegado permanentemente.
Asignamos al abogado del centra la responsabilidad de
promovery agilizar los tramites ante la delegation agraria en
el estado y ante el Departamento Agrario. En vista de que se
empezaba a mover el expediente y de la factibilidad de una
resolution favorable, el gobernador del estado, Luis Torres
Mesias, me cito para que dejara de apoyar a los indigenas y
hacerlos desistir en sus propositos, a lo cual nos negamos.
Por nuestra firme conviction de persistir hasta las ultimas
consecuencias, el gobierno del estado moviliz6 a la policia
judicial, detuvo a dos de los lideres ancianos (hmen) de la
comunidad y los consigno ante el Ministerio Publico. Para
poder obtener su libertad se requeria en aquel entonces de
una fianza de 25 000 pesos y, dado que en el presupuestodel
centra existia una partida para la ayuda a las comunidades
indigenas, consultamos ante el consejotecnicoy este aprobo
ladecision deotorgar un prestamo a lacomunidad paraliberar
a sus lideres. El Dr. Caso apoyaba mi gestion.
AI otorgar la fianza, el enojo del secretario tesorero, de
los hacendadosy del gobierno estatal llego a sus limitescon
el consiguiente endurecimiento de las relaciones interinsti-
tucionales. Grandes inversiones se daban a los hacendados
para el plan de exportation de verduras a los Estados Uni-
dos y a traves del Plan Chac para el desarrollo fruticola de
exportation. Finalmente, despues de una larga lucha interna
y con el gobierno del estado, este amenazo con detenerme
y ponerme fuera de Yucatan. Ante la gravedad del asunto,
Alfonso Caso decidio venir a Merida y en una comida intima
con el gobernadorse negocio la entrega de parte de las tierras
a las comunidades y mi salida de Yucatan.
VOL. 70,NO. 4, WINTER 20II
Ganaderos y madereros vs. los indios
Durante mi gestion como director de los Centros Coordi
nadores Cora-Huichol y el purepecha de Cheran, Michoacan,
los hechos se fueron repitiendo. Fui madurando la creencia de
que la unica forma de luchar era la organization politica de los
indigenas como grupos de presion, asi como la preparation
continua de las nuevas generaciones en la clarification del
problema. Mis discusiones con el lider Huichol Pedro de Haro
y su conception clara y objetiva, confrontada con la lucha en
la que se vio enfrentado durante toda su vida en defensa de
su pueblo, y sus relatos durante los afios pasados en la carcel
de Tepic, para proponer la organ izaci6n de los ganaderos hu-
icholes como una fuerza que enfrentara a las organizaciones
ganaderas de los tehuaris (mestizos). El enfrentamiento fue
directo con el gobernador del estado de Jalisco, Francisco
Medina Ascencio, quien asumio la defensa de los ganaderos
invasores del territorio huichol; por el contrario, el gobierno
de Nayarit apoyo la idea de impulsar la organization de los
indigenas y que ellos asumieran su propia defensa frente a
las agresiones cotidianas del exterior.
Cuando estuve en la direction del Centra.Coordinador
Tarasco en 1969 constate nuevamente la fragilidad de los
proyectos de desarrollo de la comunidad impulsados por
Caso, los cuales se habian realizado en Turicuaro como
parte de la exhibition que se ofrecio a los delegados al V
Congreso Interamericano Indigenista, celebrado en 1968 en
Patzcuaro, Michoacan. Por ello decidi que cambiaramos el
proyecto hacia la organization de los comuneros de Tanaco,
para controlar el aserradero que los caciques de Patzcuaro
tenian en su explotacion; a causa de esta decision el enfrenta
miento fue violento al interior del INI y a nivel regional,
ya que los indigenas purepechas, con sus propios fondos
comunales depositados en el Fondo Nacional de Fomento
Ejidal, asumieran la explotacion de sus propios bosques y la
administration de su aserradero que estaba en manos de los
madereros regionales de Patzcuaro. Sus jovenes iniciaron el
manejo comercial, la distribution y venta de la madera en el
mercado nacional. Estos sucesos causaron gran efervescencia
regional y los contratistas se ampararon en sus conexiones
con las autoridades federales forestales y con los politicos
michoacanos, algunos hasta usaban la figura del general
Cardenas para mantener sus privilegios.
Despues, los indigenas se volvieron marginados. En
1976,cuando Jose Lopez Portillo tomo posesion como presi-
dente de la republica, habia que decidir a quien nombrar en
el cargo de director del INI; el recien nombrado secretario
de Education, Porfirio Mufloz Ledo, apoyaba la designation
de un antropologo que representara un cambio en la politica
indigenista, pero el presidente opto por aglutinar el INI en un
proyecto dirigido a los marginados del pais, donde situaba a
los grupos etnicos, llamado COPLAMAR; de esta manera,
a partir del INI se conformaria el nuevo organismo para
el cual fue designado como director Ignacio Ovalle, quien
habia sido secretario particular del presidente Luis Echever-
ria y secretario de Programacion y Presupuesto al final de
335