Guatemala and the Pan-Mayan
Activist Movement:
A Struggle for Recognition through the
1996 Peace Accords
by Dawn Bruno
2
Introduction
Guatemala was one of the last nations in Latin America to end its civil war, which
marked the longest-running internal conflict in the region. The nation is battling its past
as it attempts to move forward and establish a place within the international system. A
history of weak political systems, military brutalization and human rights abuses continue
to haunt the nation. Through the diligence and persistence of the Pan-Mayan
revitalization movement, Guatemala is now facing the historic oppression of its
indigenous people. Currently, the indigenous population constitutes over 50% of the total
population in Guatemala, marking the largest concentration of indigenous people in Latin
America. The Mayan population is not homogeneous, but rather is divided throughout
Guatemala among 30 ethnic communities, with distinct language and cultural traditions.
The Pan-Mayan movement seeks to unify these communities, arguing that a ‘unity within
diversity’ approach is necessary to address their lack of representation in the public
sphere. The Mayan movement has played a significant role in promoting a vision of
Guatemala as a culturally pluralist and multilingual, multiethnic state.
This paper will analyze the implementation of the 1996 Peace Accords, which
formally institutionalized the Accord on the Identity of the Rights of Indigenous People. I
will examine the role of the peace accords in establishing a political space for the Mayans
and opposing the assimilationist/integrationist models that have historically characterized
Guatemala’s treatment of this population. I will also discuss the role of the Pan-Mayan
Activist movement in addressing areas that the state has proven delinquent. This paper
highlights the problematic nature of applying cultural relativist and hybridization theories
to indigenous populations because their tendencies towards essentialism are often used to
3
justify cultural domination. In this paper I will explores the cultural theories of hybridity,
drawing from Charles Hale’s work on cultural politics of identity. This paper also uses
Seyla Benhabib’s scholarship on recognition politics to determine how this applies to
Guatemala’s treatment of the Mayan population.
II. Literature Review
A History of Mayan Repression
Guatemala’s characterization and treatment of its indigenous population is deeply
embedded in the violent social and political history of the nation. The Mayan culture is
over 5,000 years old, and developed in what is today the south of Mexico, all of Belize
and Guatemala, and parts of Honduras and El Salvador.1 Oppression and exploitation of
the Mayans in Guatemala dates to the Spanish Conquest in the sixteenth century. The
ladinos, who were colonizers of European descent, continually repressed the indigenous
population. Guatemala gained independence from Spain in the 1820s, but Mayan labor
continued to be critical for the creation of the nation as a primary coffee producer. The
Mayans possessed the largest concentration of land in the country, which the government
appropriated and resold to ladino farmers for use as coffee plantations.
The civil war between the military and the insurgency, which took place from
1954-1986, exacted a considerable toll on Guatemala’s indigenous people. Much of the
fighting occurred in the western highlands, where the Mayan population is concentrated.
An estimated 70,000-100,000 people were killed, and the indigenous people were
disproportionately targeted by the military’s efforts of ethnic genocide.2 The years
between 1978 and 1985 witnessed the worst internal warfare, as the military battled
1
2
Fischer and Brown, 74.
Warren, 52.
4
communism and counterinsurgency. La violencia, as it was termed, had strong ethnic
undertones. Many Mayans felt that the government used the civil war as an excuse to
destroy their populations, and their desire for political participation was considered
political threatening to the military and other rightist groups. Some Mayans joined the
guerrilla movement, while others followed assimilationist policies by adopting ladino
dress and culture in order to avoid military persecution.
By 1984, the civil war ended with military victory, and the first democratic
government in thirty years was elected. In May 1985, the Constitution was revised to
reflect indigenous cultural rights. The 1985 Constitution reconceptualized the Mayan
population through Article 66, titled “Protection of Ethnic Groups”, which formally
recognized some cultural and land ownership rights of the Mayans: “Guatemala is formed
by diverse ethnic groups among which figure the indigenous groups of Maya descent.
The State recognizes, respects, and promotes their lifeways, customs, traditions, forms of
social organization, the use of indigenous clothing of men and women, and languages and
dialects.”3 However, the Constitution did little to effectively target territorial demands,
land ownership, political autonomy, the protection of indigenous languages, restructuring
of the education system, reducing economic disparity or reorienting the cultural policies
of the state.
On December 29, 1996, the president of Guatemala, the high command of the
military and the leaders of the leftist guerilla group known as the Guatemalan National
Revolutionary Unity signed peace accords brokered by the United Nations, ending thirtysix years of civil conflict. Although the war itself ended in 1984, it took another twelve
years to reach a political settlement to end one of the longest insurgent wars in
5
contemporary Latin American history. The Peace Accords produced the ‘Accord on the
Identity of the Rights of Indigenous People’, which was modeled after the International
Labor Organization Convention 169 on Indigenous Rights. However, most Mayans did
not have a voice in the peace process and therefore have experienced little direct power in
shaping their future.
Changing the Constitution in accordance with the peace agreements necessitated
twelve amendments, which were not passed by Congress until 1998 and were then
subject to a referendum in May 1999. The referendum failed to pass because it was
largely opposed by the primarily ladino voting population. Therefore the Mayan
population has not experienced a direct improvement in their rights since the creation of
the peace accords. This has resulted in the mobilization of the Pan-Mayan Activist
movement, which seeks greater social and political representation for the indigenous
people of Guatemala.
The Mayan Activist Movement
Many indigenous movements in Latin America have surfaced since the 1980s, as
military dictatorships shifted to civilian governments. Cultural movements in Latin
America, including the Zapatistas in Mexico and the Mayans in Guatemala, mobilize
around indigenous identity and rebel against the dominant ‘national’ culture, that
perpetuates the myth of a single dominating ethnicity, language and tradition. In
Consumers and Culture, Nestor Garcia Canclini asserts, “In many countries, purity is
invoked as a defense against modern trends that relativize the specificity of each ethnic
group and nation with the objective of creating democratic forms of coexistence,
3
Fischer and Brown, 25.
6
complementarity, and multicultural governability.”4 The Pan-Mayan identity movement
promotes the revitalization of Mayan culture throughout the multiple indigenous
language groups within the country. This movement proposes a multicultural model for
participatory democracy, recognizing the multiple cultures that constitute Guatemalan
ethnography.
Criticisms leveled at the Mayan identity movement assert that it celebrates
separatism, ethnic polarization and focuses on cultural issues instead of material concerns
like poverty alleviation or land access. Critics stress that the Ladino culture also contains
indigenous elements, and “popular culture is seen as erasing the relevance of ethnicbased organizing in favor of blendings in the name of mestizaje and hybridity”5.
Mestizaje is a theory currently en vogue that refers to cultural blending or merging,
stressing the dynamic nature of culture and effectively blurring the boundaries that
separate ethnic groups. In Hybrid Cultures: Strategies for Entering and Leaving
Modernity, Canclini asserts, “intercultural hybrid identities, like that of the mestizo, help
relativize and dissolve the hallowed antinomies of cultural thought such as
tradition/modern, erudite/popular, oppressor/oppressed”6. According to Demetrio Cojti
Cuxil, “The Ladino considers his biological mestizaje (Hispanic and Maya roots) as
evidence of cultural mestizaje, alleging that his culture is unifying, synthesizing and thus
national”7.
The discourse of mestizaje is rapidly gaining popularity in the field of cultural
theory which, according to Charles Hale, “both opens possibilities for moving beyond the
4
Canclini, 78.
Warren, 40.
6
Kapchan, 6.
7
Fischer and Brown, 24.
5
7
racialized, dichotomous, quasi-colonial ethnic relations in Guatemala’s past and signals a
dangerous preemptive closure of the discussion on racism, just when that discussion is
beginning to make a difference”8. While hybridization theory is critical in highlighting
the permeability of culture, this discourse can obscure cultural differences and further
substantiate the state’s claims of national culture that celebrates ladinoization. Critics of
the Mayan movement assert that all Guatemalans share elements of cultural hybridity, an
argument that can delegitimize claims of Mayan cultural difference. This theory also
recalls the assimilationist approach that the Guatemalan government has historically
imposed on the Mayans by blurring the boundaries that separate indigenous and ladino
culture.
An active opponent of the Mayan identity movement is Mario Roberto Morales, a
ladino journalist from Guatemala who resides in the U.S. He argues that there can not be
racism unless the races are distinctive. “Racism presupposes genetic superiority, and here
there is too much mixing (mestizaje) and hybrid identity for anyone to feel sufficiently
certain, when he shakes his genealogical tree, that a conqueror or conquered won’t fall
from it”9. Elsewhere he insists the following:
The cultural policies of a multicultural country, and especially a culturally hybrid
country, should have as their central theme not cultural purisms but rather
mestizaje. . .these policies should provide the impulse for a deepening of this
mestizaje, such that in this country’s future there will be no Indians nor ladinos,
but only Guatemalans10.
For scholars like Morales, indigenous movements embrace cultural essentialism, without
addressing the dynamic function of culture. While it is critical to note the changing nature
8
Hale, 5, 1999.
Warren, 42.
10
Hale, 5. (1999).
9
8
of culture over time, it is equally important to look beyond nationalist movements that
institute a dominant culture at the expense of minority cultures.
Proponents of hybridization theory often fail to take into account the historical
tradition of oppression that marks national and ethnic relations. In the case of the Mayans
in Guatemala, it is through this assertion of difference that they can justify cultural
autonomy. The Mayan population is not homogenous, but rather represents a multiplicity
of languages and traditions that constitute separate cultural identities associated with each
ethnic group. While it is true that indigenous movements run the risk of cultural
essentialism, it is also clear that these populations have been systematically denied rights
and political representation. Therefore it is important to call into question the motives of
those supporting cultural hybridization theories, to ensure that this is not another
argument for eradicating difference in favor of promoting a dominant national culture.
III. Theoretical Framework
Cultural Assimilation, Integration and Multiculturalism
In “Maya Culture and the Politics of Development”, Demetrio Rodriguez Guajan
highlights Guatemala’s main approaches to development in relation to the Mayan
population, identifying the assimilationist, integrationist and pluralist models. Through
these models, the state’s role in the formation and perpetuation of identity politics that
oppress the Mayans becomes strikingly apparent.
The assimilationist approach has been Guatemala’s dominant method of
addressing the Mayan population for over five hundred years. It has used this approach to
justify crimes against its indigenous people, including the military-led genocide during
the nation’s civil war. According to Guajan, “Assimilationists believe that cultural
9
annihilation of Mayan Guatemalans constitutes advancement because it civilizes and
integrates them into a national (Ladino) culture”11. Adherents of this approach herald a
unified national culture, and believe that cultural differences perpetuate fragmentation
and ethnic conflict. However, Mayan culture has remained strong in the face of
eradication and oppression. According to Shelton Davis, “Indigenous people have often
tended to reaffirm their native ethnic identities and cultural traditions, as a collective
defense mechanism, when faced with the loss of large amounts of communal lands”12.
The recent activity of the Mayan identity movement proves these claims, demonstrating
the strength of indigenous cultures in the face of annihilation.
The Guatemalan state has systematically attempted to culturally integrate the
Mayans into ladino society as a minority class, instead of as a distinct ethnic group with
its own rights to representation. Ladino colonialism conceives of integration as
assimilation, and proponents of this paradigm support the ‘mix and stir’ approach to
mitigating cultural difference. Integration necessitates that the Mayans renounce their
cultural traditions and become ‘ladinoized’, by adopting ladino language (Spanish), dress,
attitude and way of life. The integration approach subordinates ethnic and racial
differences in the interest of a national, unified culture. The Pan-Mayan Activist
movement can be characterized as a reaction against the integration/assimilation
paradigms: “Mayanists assert there is a culturally specific indigenous way of knowing: a
subject position no one else can occupy and political interests no one else has to
11
12
Fischer and Brown, 78.
Davis, 18.
10
defend”13. The resurgence of the Mayan cultural identity movement has proven that the
state’s efforts to eradicate this culture have failed.
The pluralist, or multiculturalist, approach has gained popularity in the post-Cold
War era of globalization and blurred state boundaries. In order for this approach to be
effective, state cultural policies must be reoriented to recognize Mayan culture and grant
it the same legitimacy as ladino culture. Pluralism promotes equal access to public space
and participation, while protecting Mayan cultural development and officializing
indigenous languages. This approach supports increased agency for Mayans within all
elements of the public sphere. However, given the weak nature of the Guatemalan
political system, the actual implementation of this approach has proven problematic.
Efforts to institutionalize multiculturalism through judicial and legislative channels have
failed to bring about systematic change. The state attempted to incorporate this approach
through the 1996 Peace Accords. A detailed analysis of the aftermath of these accords
will demonstrate the role of the Pan-Mayan movement in attempting to address the areas
where the state has failed.
IV. Analysis and Findings
The 1996 Peace Process and Mayan Representation
The signing of the 1996 Peace Accords marked the end of a lengthy civil war and
the promise of a sustained dialogue between the Guatemalan government and the
National Guatemalan Revolutionary Union (UNRG), which represented the leftist
guerilla insurgency. This occasion also brought the pledge of peace and democratic rule
to a nation plagued with corruption, weak institutional systems and a tainted history of
violence and repression. One of the most important provisions in the accords was the
13
Warren, 37.
11
‘Agreement on the Identity and Rights of Indigenous People’, which outlines a
framework to establish Guatemala as a multicultural, equitable state. The Accord
contains provisions on the identity of indigenous people and the struggle against
discrimination, as well as cultural, political and economic rights. The Accord also
explicitly recognizes the multicultural nature of Guatemala through the establishment of
five commissions on educational reform; communal lands; sacred places; reform and
participation; and the officialization of indigenous languages. The Accord addresses
necessary judicial reforms, including revising existing legislation to abolish
discriminatory laws.
The ‘Agreement on Indigenous Rights’ was heavily influenced by international
standards, particularly the International Labor Organization (ILO) Convention 169 in
1989, which marked a breakthrough for indigenous claims of autonomy and
representation. The Guatemalan government did not ratify Convention 169 until 1996.
Although the indigenous population hoped that international legal instruments would
ensure their rights to autonomy and land ownership, Congress did not adequately
implement these measures. However, the Mayan identity movement started to gain more
visibility and work directly with the government and other organizations to implement
the tenets of the convention.
The Mayan movement saw the peace process as an opportunity to gain
recognition of their cultural rights and provide a political space for representation.
Because the negotiations were held between the government and guerilla groups, there
was limited Mayan involvement in the process. However, the decision to make
indigenous rights a separate component of the negotiations signaled the state’s
12
recognition of Mayan concerns. Implementation of these accords has involved the
creation of joint Mayan-governmental commissions to make policy recommendations for
constitutional and legislative changes. Mayan organizations have also enjoyed an
increased role in the peace process, especially those that deal with officializing the
Mayan language in schools. According to Kay Warren, “By 1997 Mayanist leaders found
themselves active in a wider range of organizations and political settings than ever
before”14. Without the Mayan movement, the peace process would have done little to
incorporate indigenous concerns into the negotiations.
Throughout the peace process the Mayan identity movement worked within state
and international channels, forging coalitions and building relationships, in order to insert
themselves into the political sphere. As the movement gained increased popularity among
the multiple indigenous groups, it exercised greater agency in the peace process,
highlighting the role of ethnic conflict in the civil war. The movement capitalized on the
increased international attention on Guatemala and its human rights abuses, as well as the
United Nation’s role in brokering the accords. Guatemala found itself in the precarious
position of having to defend its human rights records to the international community, as
well as facing the results of the Truth Commission, implemented by the UN to investigate
military abuses during the war. Impulses towards cultural separatism have been
moderated through alliances with international groups, like the UN, EU, UNICEF, as
well as domestic organizations in Guatemala, which in turn has enhanced the legitimacy
and success of the Mayan movement.
The Result of the Peace Accords
14
Warren, 62.
13
The main impediment to the execution of the peace accords was the failure of the
1999 referendum to pass. The Indigenous Rights Accord has been implemented to the
least degree of all of the peace provisions15. The establishment of the joint commissions
has been the most concrete achievement so far, and they have created a space for
negotiation between the indigenous population and government officials. Successes
include the implementation of bilingual and intercultural education, the proposal for the
official recognition of indigenous languages and the establishment of an office for the
defense of indigenous women. However, the constitutional reform to redefine Guatemala
as a multi-ethnic, multilingual and multicultural state was presented in the reform
package that was not passed in 1999. Even though the peace accords made great strides in
formally recognizing indigenous rights, the nation has a long way to go before it
implements the reforms necessary to grant the Mayan population unrestricted access to
the public sphere.
The peace dialogue largely excluded the Mayan community, which contributed to
the failure to pass the necessary referendum in 1999 to formalize these measures. Certain
structural impediments prevented Mayan participation in the electoral process, including
the long distances to voting centers, the need to show official papers that many
indigenous people have never possessed, and inability to read and sign forms in Spanish.
Much of the information about the referendum did not reach the Mayan population, many
of whom can not read or write, which was reflected in the failure of the measure to pass.
It was in the interests of the ruling elites, who had access to this information, to keep the
Mayan population from voting and passing this referendum.
15
Salvesen, 1992.
14
Although the peace accords have not been successfully instituted, they formally
recognized the rights of the indigenous population as a necessary component of peaceful
coexistence between the Mayans and the state. To situate how this impacted Mayan
political representation, it is important to analyze the reasons why these accords have
failed so far. Although international organizations were involved in the peace process, it
was up to the government to implement most of the accords. Given the weak nature of
the political system and widespread corruption that plagues the Guatemalan government,
it is not surprising that the state failed to establish a political leadership willing to follow
through with these promises. According to Salvesen, “The reforms should have been
passed during the first three months. . .and only those reforms embedded in the peace
accords should have been subject for the referendum”16.
Salvesen also highlights the lack of civil society involvement and ownership of
the process as a main impediment to the success of the peace process. There were
inadequate channels of communication and a general lack of confidence in how the
principal political actors were handling the negotiations. Besides soliciting more
indigenous representation in the process, the actors also should have translated the peace
accords into local languages and used community leaders to communicate the content of
the peace accords to the population. The passage of these accords would have established
Guatemala’s commitment to multiculturalism and ethnic diversity; the failure of these
measures to pass indicate the challenges facing the Pan-Mayan movement in asserting
cultural claims to recognition and representation.
The Politics of Recognition
16
Salvesen, 1992.
15
In The Claims of Culture, Seyla Benhabib analyzes the shift from the politics of
redistribution to the politics of recognition, highlighting the latter in her model of
multiculturalism: “The politics of recognition, instead of leading to cultural separatism or
balkanization, can initiate critical dialogue and reflection in public life about the very
identity of the collectivity itself17. The politics of recognition are a critical lens through
which to analyze the Mayan identity movement and quest for a multicultural state.
Recognition politics seek to rectify social injustices by affirming the recognition of
groups who have been historically denied equal representation. The Mayan movement
has used this notion of recognition to work through the state apparatus and react against
the systematic denial of their cultural and political rights.
Benhabib warns against the tendency towards cultural essentialism and stresses
the fact that boundaries of culture are constructed and therefore ambiguous18. However,
she insists that it is possible to justify a group’s claims of recognition while also
accepting the interdependence of cultures. Therefore the Mayan quest for recognition
need not be regarded as separatist or balkanizing, as some critics assert. This political
recognition is necessary for the development of Guatemala as a multicultural state that
encompasses many ‘national’ cultures. This is not to deny that Mayans and ladinos do
share various cultural elements, but rather to affirm indigenous culture as a critical
contributor in its own right. Essentialism has serious repercussions on participatory
democracy no matter which group is imposing this. According to Hale, it is important to
17
18
Benhabib, 68.
Benhabib, 58.
16
focus on “who is utilizing essentialism, how it is deployed and where its effects are
concentrated”19.
Benhabib supports the “reflexive reconstitution of collective identities”, which
involves a complex cultural dialogue that “allows democratic dissent, debate,
contestation, and challenge to be at the center of practices through which cultures are
appropriate”20. Through the peace process, the Mayan movement has been successful in
enabling this complex cultural dialogue among the ladinos and Mayans. Instead of
working against the state, this movement is attempting to use the mechanisms of the state
to advance their goals. Diane Nelson asserts that “Mayan cultural activists in Guatemala
have found ways to hack out a space within the national political arena, subverting the
tradition-modern dichotomy that has always been used against them”21. What can not be
overlooked in Benhabib’s theory is the “reflexive” aspect of this reconstitution. In order
for this movement to be successful, it must prove the legitimacy of its cause to the ladino
population, the indigenous people and the government. The politics of recognition
necessitate that all of these actors reconceptualize cultural identity and boundaries. The
Mayans and ladinos must actively participate in transforming the way they regard culture
and identity in order for Guatemala to become a multicultural nation.
The Mayan movement strives for what Adam Kuper characterizes “critical
multiculturalism”, which is “outward-looking, organized to challenge the cultural
prejudices of the dominant social class, intent on uncovering the vulnerable underbelly of
the hegemonic discourse”22. In a truly multicultural environment, cultural fragmentation
19
Hale, 578.
Benhabib, 71.
21
Hale, 581.
22
Kuper, 232.
20
17
lacks the negative connotation that critics assign to it. The Mayan movement affirms the
“right to be different and the value of difference”23, without subordinating one cultural
group to another. If Guatemala is to celebrate multiculturalism and incorporate
indigenous culture, it must respect this difference while avoiding cultural relativism or
essentialism.
Moving Towards Multiculturalism
Through the peace process and its aftermath, the Mayan movement has worked
towards the creation of Benhabib’s concept of a “complex cultural dialogue” between the
government, ladino population and international actors. As the peace accords
demonstrate, this dialogue has resulted in the reconstitution of identity politics within the
nation. By asserting their distinct cultural identity through an increased role in the public
sphere, the Mayan and ladino populations are engaging one another in a way that has not
occurred before. As one ladino journalist notes, “The emergence of the Maya movement
plays a very important role not only in its capacity to propose change, but also by forcing
us, as ladinos, to think: How do we create our nation from this diversity?”24. This
movement has been successful in causing Mayans and ladinos to challenge the hidden
logic of these cultural categories25, and confront issues of cultural hybridization and
identity formation. State policies therefore must encourage the integration of the Mayas
into the public sphere while also acknowledging the collective cultural identity of this
population.
Essentially, the politics of recognition argue that a universalist notion of identity,
predominantly in the form of nationalism, is no longer an adequate method of
23
24
Ibid.
Warren, 66.
18
conceptualizing culture. The relationship between the state and citizen has changed,
especially in developing nations dealing with the historical implications of minority
oppression. Cultural critics like Benhabib argue that there never existed a “unitary
citizenship”, and multicultural movements are the natural outcomes of the
transformations taking place on the global stage26. The result of this transformation is
evident within the Mayan movement. Though still not considered equal to ladinos by the
state, the indigenous people are able to express their cultural differences and lack of
access to rights through this movement. However, the Mayan movement will remain
challenged to retain their cultural distinctiveness without lapsing into essentialism.
V. Conclusion
The failure of the 1999 referendum to pass highlights the inequalities between the
ladinos and Mayans in their access to the public sphere. Most of the indigenous
population remains alienated from the political process and therefore were not aware of
how the peace accords would affect them. At the writing of this paper, the Guatemalan
people have still not witnessed the full implementation of the peace accords. They
continue to wait to see whether the peace accords will be carried on into the future or if
they will become another failed attempt to establish peace.
It is clear that Guatemala has a long way to go before it truly becomes a
multiculturalist state. The indigenous population does not share the same rights or access
to representation as the ladinos, and continues to be marginalized. However, the state is
taking steps towards building a pluralist framework that recognizes the cultural identity
of the Mayans. The peace process granted the Mayan population a voice, however small,
25
26
Benhabib, 80.
Benhabib, 181.
19
and a platform to articulate their concerns. Including the Indigenous Rights Act in the
peace accords was fundamental because it demonstrated the link between cultural
equality, recognition politics and peaceful coexistence. This Act also highlighted the
necessary shift from the assimilationist or integrationist approach towards cultural
inclusion, which recognizes difference without lapsing into determinism. By establishing
connections and linkages with international and domestic organizations during the peace
process, the Mayan movement was able to move beyond the ineffective state apparatus to
insert itself into public discourse.
The Pan-Mayan movement in Guatemala is poised to mobilize ladinos and
indigenous people alike to demand a multicultural conception of ethnicity and
nationalism. The movement must now negotiate how it will pressure for the
implementation of the peace accords and maintain a cultural dialogue with the ladino
population. This movement has contributed to the paradigm shift in the way the
international community and ladinos conceptualize Guatemala: “In all its dilemmas and
unfinished business, Guatemala resonates with images of a globalized, postindustrial
world of multiple interacting sites of cultural capital, political urgency and hybrid forms
of stratification, mobility, and cultural distinctiveness”27. In promoting this view of
Guatemala, Mayanists will continue to fight the state doctrine of nationalism. The Mayan
Revitalization movement has perhaps been most successful in introducing the language
of identity politics to Guatemala, which is resulting in the cultural transformation of the
state and a renewed conception of nationalism.
20
Works Referenced
1. Alonso, Ana Maria. “The Politics of Space, Time and Substance: State Formation,
Nationalism and Ethnicity”. Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 23. (1994), pp.
379-405.
2. Amnesty International. “Guatemala: Human Rights Violations and Impunity. 53rd
session of UN Commission on Human Rights. March 1997.
3. Benhabib, Seyla. The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era.
Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. 2002.
4. Canclini, Nestor Garcia. Consumers and Citizens: Globalization and Multicultural
Conflicts. University of Minnesota Press. Minneapolis, Minnesota. 2001.
5. Davis, Shelton H. “The Mayan Movement and National Culture in Guatemala”. The
World Bank Group Conference on Culture and Public Action. 2002.
6. Falla, Ricardo. Quiche Rebelde: Religious Conversion, Politics and Ethnic Identity in
Guatemala. University of Texas Press. Austin, Texas. 2001.
7. Fischer, Edward & Brown, R. McKenna, eds. Mayan Cultural Activism in
Guatemala. University of Texas Press. Austin, Texas. 1996
8. Green, Linda. Fear as a Way of Life: Mayan Widows in Guatemala. Columbia
University Press. New York, NY. 1999.
9. Hale, Charles R. “Cultural Politics of Identity in Latin America”. Annual Review of
Anthropology, Vol. 26. (1997), pp. 567-590
10. Hale, Charles R. “Travel Warning: Elite Appropriations of Hybridity, Mestizaje,
Antiracism, Equality, and Other Progressive-Sounding Discourses in Highland
Guatemala”. Journal of American Folklore. Summer 1999, Volume 112, #445.
11. Harrison, Lawrence. “The Cultural Roots of Poverty”. The Wall Street Journal. July
13, 1999.
12. Inter-American Development Bank. “IDB President Calls for Quicker
Implementation of Guatemala Peace Accords”. February 11, 2002.
www.iadb.org/exr/PRENSA/2002/cp2002e.htm
13. International Labor Organization. Convention No. 169 Concerning Indigenous and
Tribal People’s in Independent Countries. June 27, 1989.
14. Jonas, Susanne. The Battle for Guatemala: Rebels, Death Squads and U.S. Power.
Westview Press. Boulder, Colorado. 1991.
15. Kapchan, Deborah A. and Turner Strong, Pauline. “Introduction: Theorizing the
Hybrid”. Journal of American Folklore. Summer 1999, Volume 112, #445.
16. Kuper, Adam. Culture: The Anthropologists’ Account. Harvard University Press.
Cambridge, Massachusetts. 1999.
17. McCleary, Rachel. Dictating Democracy: Guatemala and the End of Violent
Revolution. University Press of Florida. Gainesville, Florida. 1999.
18. Montejo, Victor D. “Convention 169 and the Implementation of the Peace Accords in
Guatemala”. Abya Yala News. V. 10, No.4 (Fall 1997).
19. Salvesen, Hilde. “Guatemala: Five Years After the Peace Accords: The Challenges of
Implementing Peace”. A Report for the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mach
2002.
27
Warren, 68.
21
20. Warren, Kay B. Indigenous Movements and Their Critics: Pan-Mayan Activism in
Guatemala. Princeton University Press. Princeton, New Jersey. 1998.
21. Zapeta, Estuardo. “Guatemala Peace Talks: Are Maya Rights Negotiable”. Abya Yala
News V.8; N.4 (Winter 1994), 26-37.
22. Zur, Judith. Violent Memories: Mayan War Widows in Guatemala. Westview Press.
Boulder, Colorado. 1998.