Campesinos: An integral Part of Latin Americas History and Future.

The campesinos of Latin American have been one of the most marginalized and vilified groups in Latin American history. Campesinos, or peasant farmers which are often merely referred to as farmers, have helped to shape not only the agricultural landscape, but the political and social landscape of Latin American history. Modern machinations such as colonization, modernization, and globalization have sought to uproot campesinos from their cultures and traditions; it is those traditions in spite of these modern elements that strengthen individual cultures and have shaped national identities.

The success of any culture is strongly related to the level at which agricultural success is maintained and supported in agrarian economies. In Latin America, agriculture is as diverse as the landscape and the people from which it provides sustenance. Like many great civilizations, Mesoamerican societies have risen and fallen from its agricultural successes and failures. However, at the time of the Encounter, permanently sustainable forms of agriculture were in practice that supported large empires as well as small communities of indigenous tribes. Agricultural methods were strategically adapted to the varying environments of Latin America. The most notable agricultural advancements of crop production included the Aztec chinampas, or platform gardens, terraced landscapes on the mountain tops of the Incan empire, and shifting cultivation used by semi-sedentary tribes such as the Tupi (Chasteen 31-32).

Since the Encounter, agriculture has been the driving force for development and progress in Latin America. Colonization by Iberian settlers for the sake of exploitation of the land and its inhabitants had few positive outcomes for indigenous tribes. The Iberians brought tools such as axes and livestock such as horses and pigs, but they also inadvertently brought disease. Many of

the indigenous societies after the Encounter were wiped out from varying diseases. Furthermore, indigenous campesinos were forced into agricultural labor and mining and were relegated to encomiendas which provided tribute to the crown and to indoctrinate indigenes (Pilcher 34). What disease failed to do in eliminating the indigenes, these agents of Spanish exploitation nearly completed by virtually wiping out the entire population of an encomienda. Those that were able to survive disease were able to adjust to the new demands via transculturation where they assumed many of the new Iberian customs as means for survival, and yet also retained, sometimes secretly, many of their pre-Colombian customs (Chasteen 57).

During colonization, hegemonious rule and systematic segregation had transformed many of the traditionally agrarian societies into subjugation. Campesinos existed in small, communally organized societies that served as tribute labor to large haciendas comprised of once considered indigenous land for the commercial productions of crops such as wheat. Agricultural production of wheat, a profound fixture of the European diet and a Catholic necessity, was not only produced to feed market demand, but also acted as an avenue of further indoctrination of indigenes by the ruling class. Despite Iberian efforts, campesinos still preferred the most important crop associated with Latin America: maize (Pilcher 36).

Centuries of agricultural advancement developed maize into a versatile and hardy crop capable of growing in varied soil conditions and climates resulting in many varieties of maize. It was a far more prolific crop to produce than wheat, and as such, maize served as supplemental income to subsistence campesinos. Maize became the most culturally significant crop in Latin America in terms of traditional native societies as well as multiracial societies. Maize signified a cultural heritage and unifying force for all subjugated groups during colonization. The seed is

something pure, something sacredfor our people the seed is very significant, as quoted by Rigoberta Menchu to describe the importance of maize in the ebb and flow of the enduring patterns of everyday life (Menchu et al 50).

While cultural heritage is characterized in many different ways, it is more evident in the national cuisines of Latin America. Culinary dishes derived from maize such as corn tortillas, tamales, enchiladas, and quesadillas long considered food cuisine of the campesinos were the unifying forces in post colonial nations. During this time, campesinos comprised of many different classes including indigenous Indians, mestizos, and multiracial peoples. Relics of colonial caste systems resulting in continued hierarchies of status and race reflected deep social divisions between campesinos and the elite, but popular culture and traditional culinary dishes forged a common identity on the road to modernization (Pilcher 46).

Modernization was the gateway between post colonialism and industrialization of which many Latin American countries were striving to attain. The lack of resources that resulted from independence left many Latin Americans relying on subsistence agriculture (Chasteen 135). Furthermore, political struggles within these developing nations and lack of any real social reform allowed for a prolong period of traditional agriculture among indigenes and campesinos alike. Many traditional cultures were energized following independence, and internal governmental strife did little to form allegiances between all ethnicities. However, the need for change would soon find campesinos at the cusp of transformation.

The rise of authoritarian governments insensitive to the need for social reform resulted in the transformation of traditional agriculture. Campesinos were no longer considered part of a national identity that was prosperous and progressive; even more so, maize was seen as inferior

and had no place in modernization. Sweeping liberal reforms undid centuries of farming practices that were built on geographical and cultural frameworks. Even social concepts of kinbased labor sharing, fiestas, and diverse social relationships common in campesinos communities would become challenged in the social and economic transformations of urban industrialism. Moreover, progress also challenged religious constructs which adversely effected campesinos (Chasteen 155, Pilcher 84).

The European ideology of progress permeated every facet of Latin American culture, and authoritarian governments were riding the coat tails of economic growth. Neocolonialism laid waste to agrarian communities. Foreign capitalism left rural communities extremely impoverished which created a greater social divide between the elitist and the middle class and campesinos. Developmentalist ideologies with goals of incorporating campesinos into national life proved to be challenging (Pilcher 85). However, modernizations worst influence would prove to be the biggest attack against campesinos and specifically indigenous Indians; that is, racism.

With the advent of urban industrialism, immigration was increasing in many Latin American countries. European immigration was viewed as the key to the success of modernization by the ruling class and elite. With the influx of millions of Europeans, also came the increase in racial and class biases against the poor. At the turn of the century many societies were still highly stratified both socially and racially. As a result, public consciousness began to change from issues of national identity to the national issue involving the social question (Stepan 37).

European ideologies and hegemonic values were energized by a new foreign influence: science. As early as the mid nineteenth century, the emphasis on the study of genetics through works by Darwin, Weismann, and Mendal were influencing social laws of heredity long before reaching Latin America. As such, science was embraced by the elite as a form of progressive knowledge and recognized as essential to Western material and cultural authority. The modern, secular elite associated these new intellectual machinations of racism, known as eugenics, as the cure for the modern ailments of peasantry (Pilcher 41).

Campesinos and the poor majority met the turn of the twentieth century with the worst social climate since the fight for independence. Massive immigration, eugenics programs, and rampant disease excluded many of them from opportunities otherwise afforded to the new white middle class. Agricultural programs and public health organizations continually undermined any advancement of campesinos and the majority. Fortunately for the underrepresented, social discourse was ringing in a new era for conservatism among campesinos (Stepan 40-42).

The agrarian revolution pursued many reforms in countries across Latin America as a result of low crop prices in some regions of Latin America and food shortages in others. Mexican agriculture saw resurgence where collectively owned and individually farmed ejidos insured economic modernization and political stability. Commercially profitable crops for export coupled with subsistence income created a dual system that mimicked the colonial divisions. Clear delineations existed between wheat and corn production. Agricultural science provided hope for improvements in agricultural productivity (Pilcher 112-113)

Unfortunately, campesinos were once again on the losing end of agribusiness as agricultural science circumvented campesinos and subsistence farming for large agriconomies. Most campesinos were underrepresented and lacked access to governmental extension agents who were capable of providing the resources and education necessary to take advantage of burgeoning agrarian enterprises. Bold initiatives, termed the Green Revolution, which included chemicals and innovative technologies, were only available to wealthy farmers who produced crops for urban markets. These new agricultural policies may have supported urban industrialization, but campesinos suffered the worst decline both in terms of economics and culture as a result (Pilcher 114).

Campesinos, displaced by technology and foreign investment, caused the greatest increase in migration to urban areas during the latter half of the twentieth century. The influx of desperate workers depressed an already struggling industrial climate despite government supported food programs that supported industrialized food production. Many campesinsos have been forced to abandon their traditional lifestyles by working on plantations and commuting to large cities for employment. Furthermore, globalization and exploitation of natural resources have displaced many campesinos and indigenes in many areas of Latin America.

In the case of Rigoberta Menchu and many indigenous Indians across Latin America, the burden of progress initiated and reinforced by European and U.S. influences has had negative impacts on culture with respect to their communities and traditions. Indigenes have resisted progress by violent and non-violent resistance and protests, but the cost of progress has eroded Indian identity. Systemic abuses by multinational corporations and biases by governmental entities have done little to secure traditional ways of life for many indigenous groups in Latin

America. Most campesinos and indigenes have been forced to comply as globalization has swept Latin America.

By the turn of this century most affects of globalization have had adverse consequences on these cultures, but one positive affect is in the influx of technology particularly the internet and the influence of media on popular culture. The plight of campesinos and indigenous Indians from many areas of Latin America has come to the forefront on an international level. Human rights groups and international entities are increasingly recognizing the evils of industrialization and exploitation of these underrepresented populations. Many governments, as a result, have backed away from more strategic modes of compliance and indoctrination. International companies have also had to be more accountable for the abuses of natural resources, and have begun to mitigate the damage caused by resource extraction. More work needs to be done through changes in attitudes and meaningful reform that recognizes the rights of not only indigenous groups and campesinos but also underrepresented groups throughout Latin America.

Campesinos represent a diverse culture strong with tradition and the virtues of hard work. Not only do they represent the different ethnic identities and indigenous groups, but have greatly influenced the national identities of countries throughout Latin America. Like the campesinos of Mesoamerica, they are just as important to the future of Latin America has they have been to its history.

References

Burgos-Debray, Elisabeth ed. IRigoberta Mench; An Indian Woman in Guatemala. London: Verso, 1987.

Chasteen, John. Born in Blood and Fire. New York: W.H. Norton and Co., 2001.

Pilcher, Jeffrey M. Que Vivan los Tamales!: Food and the Making of Mexican Identity. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1998.

Stepan, Nancy L. The Hour of Eugenics: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America. New York; Cornell University Press, 1996.