Copyright ©2008, Journal of World-Systems Research, Volume XIV, Number 1, Pages 22-49 ISSN 1076-156X CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS: A CASE STUDY OF THE MAYA 1 Stephanie M. Teixeira Department of Sociology and Anthropology North Carolina State University Stephanie_Teixeira@ncsu.edu Keri E. Iyall Smith Department of Sociology Suffolk University kiyallsmith@suffolk.edu ABSTRACT How do indigenous peoples relate to the core over the longue duree? In this paper, we explore the implications of colonialism from a world-systems perspective, examining interactions in the economic and political structures in addition to the effects of landlessness for indigenous peoples in one case: the Maya. After reviewing world-systems theory and applying it to indigenousness, we discuss Ragin’s (1992) conceptualization of cases and the comparative historical method. Then we introduce the relational concept, a tool that allows us to employ both the comparative historical method and world-systems theory in our analysis of the Maya and their relationship to the state of Mexico. We then present our data, which consist of the economic and political conditions, along with the cultural implications of landholding across time among the Maya and in Mexico. We analyze these data using the relational concept to understand the consequences of colonialism and globalization for the Maya people. Indigenous peoples have been marginalized by the processes of globalization, as many noted on the commemoration of Columbus’s journey to the Americas. Yet more recently these communities, many of which lie in the periphery of the world-system, have become vocal opponents of globalization and agentic members of a community seeking change in the world- 1 A previous draft of this manuscript was presented at the Southern Sociological Society’s annual meeting in New Orleans, LA (2006). We would like to thank the audience at this conference and the reviewers and editors of this manuscript for their thoughtful comments on this research. We would also like to thank Bonnie Troupe, Kathleen Conroy, and the Stonehill Undergraduate Research Experience program for supporting this research. Direct correspondence to Stephanie M. Teixeira, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, North Carolina State University, P.O. Box 8107, 1911 Building, Raleigh, NC 27695-8107. Phone: (919) 515-0443. Fax: (919) 515- 2610. E-mail: Stephanie_Teixeira@ncsu.edu. 23 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH system. How do indigenous peoples relate to the core over the longue duree? In this paper, we explore the implications of colonialism from a world-systems perspective, examining interactions in the economic and political structures in addition to the effects of landlessness for indigenous peoples in one case: the Maya. Throughout the paper, we will be using the terms Maya and Zapatistas deliberately. “Maya” is used to refer to the indigenous group, or to indigenous peoples of Mayan descent. “Zapatistas” is used to refer to the broader movement composed of Maya people, peasants, and others who are aligned with this movement for autonomy and democracy. The Zapatistas movement has a unique history, utilizing the tools of globalization to promote rights for indigenous peoples, particularly the Maya people, and peasants. Although not solely an indigenous community, we focus on the indigenous aspect of the movement here to analyze the conflict between the Maya and three structures: the Spanish colonial empire, Mexico, and the emerging global political structure. After reviewing world-systems theory and applying it to indigenousness, we discuss Ragin’s (1992) conceptualization of cases and the comparative historical method. Then we introduce the relational concept, which is a tool that allows us to employ both the comparative historical method and world-systems theory in our analysis of the Maya and their relationship to the state of Mexico. We then present our data, which consist of the economic and political conditions, along with the cultural implications of landholding across time among the Maya and in Mexico. We analyze these data using the relational concept to understand the consequences of colonialism and globalization for the Maya people. This analysis of the relationship between the core and periphery over time allows us to begin to understand the relationship between indigenous peoples and the core political structure. Our conclusion reviews the findings, considers the weaknesses of our study, and explores potential future analyses to better understand the role of indigenous peoples and other periphery groups in the world-system. WORLD-SYSTEMS THEORY World-systems analysis is a method of study with a specific unit of analysis: the world-system, which is an historical social system that encompasses the entire globe (Wallerstein 2000). World- systems research is historic and systemic. Capitalism is the economy of the world-system. In the world-system, there are three structural positions: core, periphery, and semi-periphery. Wallerstein (2000) describes each of these three positions. Countries in the core of the economic structure are generally more sophisticated industrially, diverse in agricultural production, and specialize in skilled labor, using wage-labor to control labor. Countries in the periphery of the economic structure tend to specialize in agriculture (especially grains, cotton, sugar, or wood) and bullion production, which favor harsh labor controls such as slavery and cash crop labor. Countries in the semi-periphery of the economic structure tend to specialize in high-cost industrial products, credit, and specie transactions using share cropping and minimizing of exports to control labor. Entities other than countries can also fall under the three economic positions in the world-system, such as international regions or sub-state regions. Anti-systemic movements are working within the state and international systems while attempting to shape an alternate framework for attaining political power within the State and internationally (Wallerstein 2000). The world-system is currently in a structural crisis, and is moving into a period of transition (Wallerstein 2002). It is unknown what form the new system will take. CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 24 Several researchers have applied world-systems theory to indigenous peoples. Fenelon (1997) studies how periods in the world-system, namely “[…] the 19th century semi-peripheral domination over the Lakota by the U.S. government, and the 20th century imposition of internal colonialism, especially with the B.I.A. and modern tribal councils” (Fenelon 1997:259) impact the identities of Lakota-Sioux. Dunaway (2000) applies world-systems analysis to another indigenous case, the Cherokee. She explains that Cherokee women are both economically and politically disempowered and, as a result, lose their voice. Ward, Stander, and Solomon (2000) also apply world-systems analysis to indigenous women; they uncover several reasons for alcohol abuse among Cheyenne women, including “[…] conquest, forced assimilation, suppression of important integrative cultural traditions and spiritual activities, and political oppression” (Ward et al. 2000:229). Instead of applying world-systems analysis to a specific indigenous case study, Friedman (1999) uses world-systems analysis to illustrate that although indigenous peoples live in a globalized world and utilize international media, they are not necessarily globalized. Ayres (2004) also argues that indigenous peoples do not engage in globalization; he explains that indigenous peoples, like the Zapatistas, participate in anti-globalization movements. Hall and Fenelon (2008) argue that these anti-globalization movements are not new. Instead, they contend that these are just old movements utilizing Transnational Social Movements tools: “Rather than seeing the Zapatistas as recent joiners of the anti-globalization movements, might we better see them as a recent manifestation of half a millennium of resistance to Spanish, later Mexican, and now global onslaughts” (Hall and Fenelon 2008:4). Hall and Fenelon (2004) examine the past, present, and future resistance of indigenous peoples against global capitalism and globalization. Specifically, they argue that indigenous peoples’ survival represents resistance against global capitalism and globalization. Hall and Fenelon (2005) characterize indigenous peoples’ survival and movements promoting indigenous peoples’ survival as inherently antisystemic. They explain that indigenous peoples and movements “promote the legitimate right of groups of humans to organize and live their lives in ways other than those permitted or favored by the practices encapsulated under the term capitalist” (Hall and Fenelon 2005:206). Despite their continued resistance against global capitalism and globalization, indigenous peoples and ethnic minorities remain vulnerable in the world-system, particularly due to the core’s repression (Dunaway 2003). Similar to Hall and Fenelon (2004), Buttel and Gould (2004) examine the future of anti- globalization movements – concluding that these movements will decide either to emphasize restructuring, crippling the globalization movement, or to reduce economic inequalities through a global social justice movement. Our research follows these studies of indigenous groups within the world-system. Like Ayres (2004) and Fenelon and Hall (2008), we examine the resistance of indigenous peoples against capitalism, imperialism, and globalization. Dunaway’s (2000, 2003) work identifies the peripheral status of indigenous groups. We also recognize the role of indigenous groups from within the periphery of the world-system structure. However, we agree with Buttel and Gould (2004) that anti-globalization movements are a powerful force within the world-system. Here, we seek to explore the role of indigenous groups, representative peripheral groups, in disrupting the hierarchical structures of the world-system. Beyond being another case study of indigenous groups from a world-systems perspective, with this research we offer an analysis of the role of the periphery within the world-system. We focus on the ways that the periphery challenges the core 25 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH and the response to these challenges. Thus, our examination of an indigenous case is also an examination of the periphery in general. INDIGENOUS The concept “indigenous” is a social and historical construct with high stakes politically, socially, and economically. Definitions of indigenous in international governing organizations (IGOs), in indigenous communities, and in the academic literature are highly contested. Corntassel (2003) cites definitions from the World Bank and the International Labor Organization (ILO) as influential in the IGO community. The World Bank’s definition (quoted in Corntassel) includes: close attachment to ancestral territories and the natural resources in them; presence of customary social and political institutions; economic systems primarily oriented to subsistence production; an indigenous language, often different from the predominant language; and self-identification and identification by others as members of a distinct cultural group (2003:86). The ILO’s definition (quoted in Corntassel) follows: tribal peoples in independent countries whose social, cultural, and economic conditions distinguish them from other sections of the national community…regarded as indigenous on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or colonization…retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions (2003:88). Note that the definitions written by IGOs are fairly broad, including cultural and social practices. They allude to tradition and both include a discussion of the relationship between indigenous peoples and territory. While the World Bank’s definition does not mention the relationship between indigenous peoples and the dominant group, the ILO does note that indigenous peoples are distinct from others in the country. The ILO also mentions both conquest and colonialism, both of which are excluded from the World Bank’s definition. Self-identification policies in some IGOs allow indigenous peoples to define themselves as indigenous. States contest this as too open, but a stricter approach is generally rejected because it risks disregarding reality, does not permit a dialogue between indigenous and non-indigenous peoples, and would obstruct the process of community building (Corntassel 2003). The International Work Group on Indigenous Affairs (IWGIA) and the World Council of Indigenous Peoples (WCIP) are two organizations working to reconceptualize the meaning of indigenousness. The IWGIA defines indigenous peoples as: The disadvantaged descendants of those peoples that inhabited a territory prior to the formation of state. The term indigenous may be defined as a characteristic CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 26 relating the identity of a particular people to a particular area and distinguishing them culturally from other people or peoples (cited in Corntassel 2003:89-90). The WCIP definition states that: indigenous peoples shall be people living in countries which have populations composed of different ethnic or racial groups who are descendants of the earliest populations which survive in the area, and who do not, as a group, control the national government of the countries in which they live (cited in Corntassel 2003:90). Indigenousness, as defined by indigenous peoples, focuses on the relationship with the community in which they live. In each definition the distinction between the communities is cited. Both definitions also highlight the relationship of indigenous peoples to the power structure within the state, noting that indigenous groups are disadvantaged or lack control. Territory is also essential in the definitions. Being indigenous is about “continuity of habitation, aboriginality, and often a ‘natural’ connection to the land” (Clifford 1997[1994]:287). In the cosmology of Native Hawaiians, the land is an ancestor who gave birth to Hawaiians (Trask 1999). Thus, the relationship to the land is a form of kinship. There is a sense of stewardship and of duty to not only use the resources that the land gives for sustenance, but to do what each generation can to perpetuate the health and fertility of the land. Academic definitions of indigenous can be found in the work of Alfred (1999), Wilmer (1993), and Anaya (1996). Academic definitions focus on the following elements of indigenous identity: living in tradition-based cultures, having political autonomy prior to colonialism, and seeking to preserve cultural integrity in the present (Corntassel 2003). They also recognize the role of land to indigenous peoples—noting that they are descended from inhabitants of the land they occupy (Corntassel 2003). Hall and Fenelon use the term indigenous “to refer to people who ‘were in that place’ when some others came and usurped some or all of their political control and power and their economic resources” (2004:163). They also note that indigenous communities are evolving, and thus their culture is not static (Hall and Fenelon 2004). The assertion that indigenous communities are evolving is essential to protect groups from being dubbed non- indigenous due to assimilationist policies imposed on them by the state. Combining definitions, Iyall Smith (2006) defines indigenous peoples as follows: living descendants of the pre-contact (generally contact by Europeans) aboriginal inhabitants (Anaya 1996; United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations 1994), who were living in tradition-based autonomous communities (Guibernau 1999). Indigenous nations are culturally distinct (Anaya 1996; Guibernau 1999), and often live as internal colonies, “engulfed by settler societies born of the forces of empire and conquest” (Anaya 1996:3; United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations 1994). In the present day, indigenous nations have incorporated elements of the outside society, while remaining rooted in local traditions (United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations 1994). Indigenous peoples are “indigenous because their ancestral roots are imbedded in the lands in which they live, or would like to live” (Anaya 1996:3; see also Clifford 1997[1994]). Under the saltwater thesis, indigenous is defined by transoceanic relationship. The colonial power exercises control over a distant, external indigenous group. As it is defined here, 27 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH indigenous includes European ethnic groups (such as the Basques, Irish, or Welsh) in addition to New World indigenous nations (such as the Native Hawaiians, Tamils, or First Nations of Canada). Limiting the application of indigenous to the conventions of the saltwater thesis can oversimplify the term, which is general enough to apply beyond the saltwater limitation. This definition of indigenous calls for a broader application of rights due to indigenous peoples that already exist within the international governing system: for example, mechanisms for the attainment of sovereignty. Instead of watering down its meaning, asserting the breadth of indigenous brings out the more technical expression of the term. Indigenous peoples occupy a political position, in relation to states. Indigenous communities should not be confused with minority groups, because their status is not dependent upon the number of people in the community (Trask 1999). Instead, it is rooted in a political relationship to the outside society, based upon treaty or negotiated relations which existed in the early colonial era. Additional freedoms, within the state apparatus, are often granted to indigenous groups because of their historical and contemporary ties to the land. For instance, the United States federal government provides legal rights to indigenous peoples – including legal rights relating to gaming, hunting and fishing, and selling commodities without charging state taxes (Hall and Nagel 2006; see also Fenelon 2006; Hall and Nagel 2000). Indigenous groups and the state share a relationship of clashes and compromises. Because they rarely meet on equal footing, indigenous peoples tend to find themselves disadvantaged in the negotiations. As non-capitalist societies or communities that value the collective over the individual, indigenous groups differ greatly from the state. Their status as numerical minorities or disadvantaged disempowers indigenous groups in their negotiations with the state. Thus, the indigenous-state relationship is dominated by the influence of the state. Tension results with indigenous groups seeking freedoms from the state, disputing land rights, and using the weight of morals to motivate the state. However, some authors suggest that the state structure might also enable indigenous groups to attain freedoms and rights. Indigenous groups clash with the state over the use of territory. For states, territory defines the physical boundaries and is an economic resource. There are important symbolic and tangible powers given to the state that governs its own territory: most indigenous nations lack these powers. Territory shapes group identity and difference, in particular for indigenous peoples who are defined in part by their relation to territory. Indigenous nations without political power watch as the meaning of land shifts to match the will of the outsiders. Legal, conceptual, and normative objections exist between the state and indigenous peoples. Indigenous claims against the state call into question moral, legal, or political theory (Poole 2000). Thus, the claims of indigenous peoples potentially weaken the state by illustrating the weaknesses of the dominant culture and political structure. Moral claims come from the usurpation of land via force and deception (Poole 2000). The continuation of this usurpation only strengthens claims, yet the state can use forced evictions as evidence that indigenous peoples are no longer tied to lands. Appropriate compensation to indigenous peoples could rectify the injustice, but the compensation must be sufficient – beyond the exchange of commodities (Poole 2000). Indigenous peoples prefer to regain access to the land, even when financial incentives are offered by the state (Hall and Fenelon 2004). Liberal political theory must figure out a way reconcile with the past historical wrongs (Poole 2000) which recognizes the contemporary culture and lifeways of indigenous peoples. Calling upon the liberal value of equal freedom, indigenous peoples can attain their cultural rights as individuals and as collectives (Ivison 2003). CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 28 METHODOLOGY This project explores the social phenomenon of indigenousness using a case-study approach. In identifying a conceptual map for cases, Ragin (1992) identifies four understandings of cases. Cases are: found (specific-empirical), objects (general-empirical), made (specific-theoretical), or conventions (general-theoretical). Cases that are found “are empirically real and bounded, but specific” (Ragin 1992:9). If a case is an object, it is also empirically real and bounded, but does not require verification “because cases are general and conventionalize” (Ragin 1992:9-10). In the third instance, cases that are made, researchers “see cases as specific theoretical constructs which coalesce in the course of the research” (Ragin 1992:10). Finally, cases are conventions when cases are examined “as general theoretical constructs, but nevertheless view these constructions as the products of collective scholarly work and interaction, and therefore as external to any particular research effort” (Ragin 1992:10). In this project we use the Maya, specifically the Zapatistas organization, as a case to make analytical contributions to the study of indigenous groups around the world. This project exemplifies a process of casing as exemplified by the notion that cases are found and made. The Maya are a relevant group to study because they have a clear history of ties to the land and they possess all aspects of the definition of indigenousness. The Maya are living descendants of pre-contact aboriginal inhabitants who were living in tradition-based autonomous communities. The Maya are culturally distinct and now live as an internal colony in a Mexican society born out of the Spanish empire and conquest. They have incorporated elements of the Mexican society, yet the Maya remain rooted in their local traditions. The history of the Maya people illustrates this as a case of an indigenous group that is empirically real and bounded, but specific. We also examine the Zapatistas movement, a political group that is made up of, and advocates for the Maya people, peasants, and landless people in Mexico. Their embodiment of the definition of indigenousness emerged through the course of research on the history and present day experiences of the Maya people. This research is presented in greater detail in our analysis of the political conditions, economic conditions, and landholding. We also use comparative logic to explore the breadth of indigenousness and the potential application for this research. This technique involves first identifying historical sources and texts. Then we analyze the sources, to gain perspective on the relations between the state and international governing bodies. And then we step back from the case study to compare and contrast what different scholars observe about the relationships (Skocpol 1988). This enables us to begin to understand indigenous groups as they related to other governing bodies. THE RELATIONAL CONCEPT Indigenousness is in part reliant upon the relation to another power or body in order to be established. Being colonized is about being taken advantage of, about losing freedoms: it is an invasion. As a result of the colonial experience, lands were stolen, cultures were assimilated, the language was nearly lost, the right to self-govern was taken, and people now live in the shadow of what they once were. To understand the ways that indigenousness relates to the core, we employ the relational concept, which is developed by Iyall Smith (2006) to analyze the concept of indigenous and human rights for indigenous peoples (Iyall Smith 2006; Iyall Smith forthcoming). 29 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH There are three key ways that indigenous is a relational concept: Indigenous to Newcomers, Internal Colony to the Settler State, and Indigenous to “In Formation” (see Figure 1). These relationships can be described as three different systems. In the first system, indigenous and newcomers both have reciprocating directional arrows to indicate some level of reciprocity between the two. In the second system, the internal colony and the settler state have a less egalitarian relationship, which is illustrated by a dotted arrow running from the internal colony to the settler state and a solid arrow running in the opposite direction. In the final system, the indigenous and “in formation” are again opposing each other in an unequal relationship, but this time there is a solid arrow running from indigenous to “in formation” and a dotted arrow running in the reverse direction. All of the systems exist within a setting of the capitalist world economy. The first system is during the era of mercantilism and primitive accumulation, which separates people from the means of production (Robinson 2004). Classical capitalism and the rise of corporate (monopoly) capitalism are dominant in the second system (Robinson 2004). In the third system the economy is globalized (Robinson 2004) and is in a state of transition. Each system exists in an era dominated by one type of political body: for the first system this is the empire, an expansion of political conquest via colonial rule, with a powerful center. For the second system the liberal state, the bordered power container (Giddens 1994[1985]) guided by democratic principles, is dominant. In the third system, the empire and the liberal state merge to form the liberal empire, a political structure that is expansive with a powerful center or core that is guided by democratic principles. When system one becomes politicized it shifts to a relationship as described in system two. When system two becomes globalized it shifts to a relationship as described in system three. The colonial period began with the shifting of populations around the world following the explorations of the 1400s. There was not a concept of indigenous in advance of European expansion. Prior to this experience, indigenous groups were independent nations, tribes, or bands, Indigenous Internal Colony Indigenous Newcomers Settler State In Formation System 1 System 2 System 3 System 1 exists within a setting of empires, during the 1400s to the late 1700s. System 2 exists within a setting of liberal states, during the 1700s to the middle 1900s. System 3 exists within an age of systematic transition, from the middle 1900s to present. Figure 1. The Relational Concept: Three Systems CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 30 and did not share a collective identity such as Pan-Indian or indigenous. In the early days of interaction between Europeans and Indians, neither side identified any difference within the population of the outsiders (Wilmer 1997[1993]). That is, Indians did not recognize the different nationalities of the explorers, and the explorers did not recognize different tribal identities among the Indians. Since then, pan-European and pan-Indian subconscious has become a source of identity in the global context (Wilmer 1997[1993]). This is a relational concept: between the original peoples of the land since recorded history, to the later arrivals to the land – now the colonial powers (Maaka and Fleras 2000). Following the initial era of colonialism, the majority of indigenous peoples live as internal colonies. They are citizens of the state, but this state is the creation of the settler societies that formed as a result of colonialism. It is in many ways a foreign state that grew up around them. The colonial era continues, with both internal colonies. The indigenous peoples-settler state relations “confirms indigenous policy as a ‘contested domain’ involving the struggle of opposing interests for definition and control” (Maaka and Fleras 2000:96). For indigenous peoples their context, internal colonies living within settler states, illustrates another relational aspect of indigenousness. This is an interesting time to be in the core, periphery, or semi-periphery of the world- system. Many other indigenous nations find themselves in the periphery of the world-system, as they most likely embraced capitalism later and experience oppression that inhibits their achievements. While this is a disadvantage in the capitalist world economy as it exists today, indigenous nations may emerge in a different position following the age of transition. Embracing pluralism, an increasingly international voice, along with a distinct worldview might enable indigenous nations to navigate the conflict with success. Exactly what structure indigenous groups will find themselves in relation to at the end of the crisis is still in formation. The relational concept merges the comparative historical method with world-systems theory to systematically analyze the relationship between indigenous peoples and the different political bodies that are dominant in the world-system at varying time points. This model might also be useful for analyzing other core-periphery relationships within the world-system (e.g. Iyall Smith 2006; Iyall Smith forthcoming). Here, we assemble the political, economic, and territorial histories of the Maya. Then we apply the relational concept to these data. In doing so, we analyze the relationship between the Maya people and the three political systems that they confront: the colonial empire, the state, and the emerging global liberal empire. POLITICAL CONDITIONS: THE MAYA After the Mayan conquest, the Spanish forced the Maya to pay tributes and engage in migratory and slave labor (Higgins 2004; Lusk 2003). On November 20th, 1542, Spanish Emperor Charles V signed the New Laws, which “forbade future enslavement of Indians” (Womack 1999:64). Despite this, the Spanish continued to enslave the Maya. Then in 1824 Chiapas seceded Guatemala and sought Mexican statehood (Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Stephen 1997). By 1910, the Spanish “had effectively deprived most native communities of their land, transformed many highland families into lowland fieldhands, and compelled Indians who remained in their towns to pay rent and the capitación [poll tax]” (Wasserstrom 1983:151-152). In the 1920s, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) took power. The PRI maintained this power for the 31 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH next 70 years by bribing officials and by utilizing exemptions for themselves (Wager and Schulz 1994). PRI rule coincided with political murders, arbitrary detentions, torture, disappearances of activist campesinos, and fraudulent elections (Ross 1995; Russell 1995). Finally in 1983, the Maya formed the Ejército Zapatista de Liberación Nacional (EZLN) and rebelled against this inhumane treatment (Burke N.d.; Clarke and Ross 1994; Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Earle and Simonelli 2005; Halleck 1994; Hayden 2002; Holloway and Peláez 1998; Larson 2001; Marcos 1995, 2001a, 2001b; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; “The Maya Civilization” N.d.; Midnight Notes 2001; Nadal 1998a; Neumann 2001; Ross 1995, 2000; Rus, Castillo, and Mattiace 2003; Russell 1995; Stephen 1997; Stephensen 1995; “Timeline” N.d.; Wager and Schulz 1994; Weller 2000; Womack 1999; “Zapatista Timeline” N.d.). The 1400s to the Late 1700s In 1517, the Spanish conquistadors traveled to the Americas. Upon meeting the indigenous people, the Spanish forced them to relinquish their lands and to engage in migratory labor (Womack 1999). Soon, the Spanish became more aggressive toward the indigenous people; the Spanish captured many Maya and brutally murdered them by beating them with clubs or by throwing them in lakes with weights tied to their feet (Marcos 2001a). Then in 1524, the Spanish began the official Mayan conquest (“Mayan Archaeological” N.d.). During this conquest, the Spanish divided highland Chiapas into “[…] small, warring principalities or petty states, called provincias in early accounts” (Wasserstrom 1983:9). After separating the Chiapas region into petty states, the Spanish implemented the encomienda and repartimiento systems in order to further control the indigenous people. The encomienda system forced the indigenous to pay tributes to the Spanish. When the indigenous people could not pay the steep tributes, the repartimiento system permitted the Spanish to enslave the indigenous and make them engage in hard labor (Higgins 2004; Lusk 2003). On November 20th, 1542, Spanish Emperor Charles V signed the New Laws which “[…] forbade future enslavement of Indians, ordered all officials to give up their encomiendas, prohibited the grant to officials or private subjects of any new encomiendas, and barred the transfer of current grants, including by inheritance” (Womack 1999:64). The Spanish in the New World strongly opposed the New Laws. In fact, the Spanish rebelled against these laws; they continued to require the indigenous to pay tributes, to enslave those unable to pay the tributes, and to restrict their rights (Wasserstrom 1983). The Late 1700s to the Middle 1900s In 1824, Chiapas seceded from Guatemala and sought Mexican statehood. Because of this late unification with Mexico, the Mexican government never allowed the Chiapas region to reap the benefits of political and economic reform (Stephensen 1995). Although Mexico did not offer reforms in Chiapas, the state did offer them. In 1849, the Chiapas state legislature forbade excessive forced indigenous labor. Unfortunately, this measure did not decrease forced labor in Chiapas; indigenous tenants had to work for their landlords in order to survive (Wasserstrom 1983). By 1910, the Spanish “had effectively deprived most native communities of their land, transformed many highland families into lowland fieldhands, and compelled Indians who CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 32 remained in their towns to pay rent and the capitación [poll tax]” (Wasserstrom 1983:151-152). On October 30, 1914, General Jesús Agustín Castro executed the Ley de Obreros to right the inequities between the Spanish and the indigenous people. The Ley de Obreros “[…] abolished debt servitude and tiendas de raya, established a minimum wage, and granted finca workers the right to medical benefits, vacations, and free education” (Wasserstrom 1983:158). In the 1917 Constitution, Article 27 promoted land redistribution and protected indigenous properties from sale or privatization. However, these reforms did not reach Chiapas (Earle and Simonelli 2005; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; Midnight Notes 2001; Ross 1995; Stephensen 1995; Wasserstrom 1983). In the 1920s, the PRI took power. The PRI maintained this power by bribing officials and by utilizing exemptions for themselves (Wager and Schulz 1994). In 1924, Plutarco Elías Calles won the presidency. After Calles’s term expired, he chose successors that he knew he could manipulate. Thus, although Calles was not formally in office, he still ruled Mexico. In 1934, Calles picked Lázaro Cárdenas to become the next presidential candidate. Unfortunately for Calles, Cárdenas was not intimidated. After winning office, Cárdenas arrested and deported Calles and many of his associates (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007a, b). Then Cárdenas implemented sweeping reforms; he promoted land redistribution, started a federal bureau of Indian Affairs, nationalized the oil and railroad industries, and created unions such as the National Peasant Confederation (CNC) and the Confederation of Mexican Workers (CTM) (Rus et al. 2003; Womack 1999). Although many believe that Cárdenas was Mexico’s most progressive president, others contest that Cárdenas utilized the unions to oppress indigenous workers and peasants. Unions linked indigenous people to the government. In this corporate-like structure, the government directed the redistribution of land to the indigenous people. Thus, in essence, the government controlled the indigenous people (Rus et al. 2003). Later, the government interfered with indigenous government structures. Traditionally, an elder governed the indigenous communities. However, the government assigned a “young bilingual Indian scribe” to work alongside the elder in the presidency (Higgins 2004) – thereby threatening the indigenous communities’ sovereignty (Fenelon 2002). Besides changing the indigenous governmental structure, the government also involved the indigenous people in politics as the proletariat (Higgins 2004). The Middle 1900s to the Present As the Spanish continued to repress the indigenous, the indigenous people sometimes rebelled. For instance, the Spanish imposed repartimientos on the indigenous. In 1963, the indigenous people revolted against these repartimientos and killed Manuel de Maisterra, the province’s judge. In another example, a pastor demanded that indigenous people work for him without receiving pay. The indigenous people refused to do so and forced the pastor out of the community (Wasserstrom 1983). As the 1988 presidential election approached, PRI members sought to buy votes; “[…] the government suddenly raised the guaranteed price it would pay for corn by 32 percent – but only in the northern states, where several gubernational races were closely contested” (Collier and Quaratiello 1994:126). This not only upset the northerners who thought the PRI was bribing them, but also upset the southerners who did not receive the price increase (Collier and Quaratiello 1994). Besides utilizing bribes in the 1988 election, PRI members also employed electoral fraud. The PRI removed polling places from settlements, registered PRI voters six to 33 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH seven times and did not register opposition voters at all, burned ballots and stole identification cards from people voting for the opposition, and fiddled with ballot tallies (Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Ross 1995; Russell 1995). Not surprisingly, PRI candidate Carlos Salinas de Gortari defeated opposition candidate Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas (Ross 1995). In the last sixth months of 1992, the “[…] independent organizers and the groups they represented in Chiapas experienced five assassinations, violent evictions from two ranches, the destruction of an entire peasant town, and fifty-nine kidnappings” (Collier and Quaratiello 1994:78-79). Although peasants committed a few of these crimes, ranchers, paramilitaries, and public officials committed most of them (Collier and Quaratiello 1994). After experiencing this oppression, the marginalized peasants decided to protect themselves; ejidos worked together to organize self-defense squads and immediately began to fight back against the ranchers, the paramilitaries, and the government. As communities built alliances, the roots of the EZLN formed (Hayden 2002; Marcos 1995). The Department of Social Development, the Center for Research and Security, and the State Security Council all secretly distributed resources and money to paramilitary groups (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; Nadal 1998a). Along with governmental organizations, the caciques utilized paramilitary groups to provide protection and to enhance control (Russell 1995). Both the government- and cacique-employed paramilitaries used similar tactics; They stole, imposed taxes, ransacked and burned the homes of peasants that fled, shot at the homes of incompliant peasants, and even murdered incompliant peasants (Nadal 1998a). According to a report by the Miguel Agustin Pro Human Rights Center, Chiapas had the most human rights violations in Mexico; “the sector most affected was the Indian peasant. The most frequent violations were assaults and injuries, followed by arbitrary arrest, threats, torture, and murder” (Russell 1995:12). For example, soldiers raped indigenous women and beat indigenous men (Ross 1995). In a more horrifying example, when indigenous women gave birth at hospitals, the doctors either made them leave without their babies or told them that their babies were dead when they were not. Then the doctors gave the babies to the generals who sold them for sex or for their organs (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). Initially, the penalty for participating in a political movement was a jail sentence for up to 60 years. However, the state legislature changed the sentencing law, reducing the penalty for joining a political movement (Womack 1999). Although the state legislature progressed in regards to this law, it also moved back in regards to the mass protest law. Under the new legislation, mass protest was a criminal offense. By implementing this law, the government legally subdued all opposition (Russell 1995). It is no wonder why six states in Mexico exhibited both a high marginalization level and a high indigenous population (Marcos 2001a). In 1992, President Salinas reformed Article 27 of the Constitution, ending land redistribution. Salinas further suppressed the indigenous population when he squashed indigenous economic and health programs (Autonomedia 1994). After clearly provoking the indigenous population, Salinas tried to prevent an uprising; he offered $50 million in National Solidarity Program (PRONASOL) aid to Chiapas (Womack 1999). Unfortunately, local leaders stole the PRONASOL funds and, thus, the funds never reached the peasant communities (Autonomedia 1994; Ross 1995). In addition to doling out PRONASOL funds, the government also offered Program of Direct Rural Support (PROCAMPO) funds. In essence, PRI members gave voters PROCAMPO assistance in exchange for PRI votes (Autonomedia 1994; Stephen 1997). CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 34 Then in 1993, the EZLN adopted the Mayan principle of “command obeying” which means having direct democracy and the ability to revoke commanders (Midnight Notes 2001; Holloway and Peláez 1998) – thereby reasserting its sovereignty (Fenelon 2002). Under this new model, the EZLN elected the CCRI, but retained the power to impeach them. Because of this structure, the EZLN community became a polis or political community (Holloway and Peláez 1998; Midnight Notes 2001). In December of the same year, the EZLN announced its Revolutionary Laws. The Labor Law asked for a wage equal to that of international workers, while the Social Security Law encouraged children under thirteen and the elderly to receive protection and food (Autonomedia 1994). On January 1, 1994, the EZLN offered its First Declaration of the Selva Lacandona. This document announced that the EZLN was declaring war against the Mexican government (Clarke and Ross 1994; Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Earle and Simonelli 2005; Hayden 2002; Marcos 2001a; Nadal 1998a; Ross 1995, 2000; Rus et al. 2003; Russell 1995; Stephen 1997; Weller 2000; Womack 1999). The EZLN realized that the declaration of war was a “last – but just – resort” (Marcos 2001a:15). In fact, the EZLN utilized Article 39 of the Mexican Constitution to justify their actions. This article gave citizens the right to change the government’s structure (Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Marcos 2001a; Womack 1999). Through “military repression and the limitation of press coverage,” the Mexican government tried to contain the war to Chiapas (Holloway and Peláez 1998). Mexico was not the only country to regulate media exposure of the conflict; the United States also regulated it to minimize coverage of Mexico’s role in the counterinsurgency (Hayden 2002). Although Mexico and the United States restricted media coverage, the EZLN spread their voice via the Internet, e- mail, and fax. Since the EZLN used emerging technology, they reached a global audience and received international support (Holloway and Peláez 1998). Thus, the United States Congress and the European Parliament had to address the Chiapas rebellion. Both parties denied playing an active role in the counterinsurgency and questioned Mexico’s call for First World membership (Hayden 2002; Ross 1995). Because of international demonstrations in countries like the United States, Spain, Canada, and Germany, the Mexican government called for a cease-fire and initiated peace talks (Clarke and Ross 1994; Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Earle and Simonelli 2005; Hayden 2002; Marcos 2001a; Nadal 1998a; Ross 1995, 2000; Rus et al. 2003; Russell 1995; Stephen 1997; Weller 2000; Womack 1999). The following day, Salinas broke the cease-fire when he had the army advance on an EZLN unit in the community of Carmen Pataté in Ocosingo (Autonomedia 1994). In late January, the EZLN kidnapped General Absalón Castellanos Domínguez who “[…] was responsible for 153 political murders, 692 arbitrary detentions, 503 cases of torture, and 327 disappearances of activist campesinos” (Ross 1995:158; Russell 1995). Because of these offenses, the EZLN charged General Domínguez with engaging in crimes against humanity. After trying him and finding him guilty, the EZLN sentenced General Domínguez to a life of servitude (Autonomedia 1994; Ross 1995; Russell 1995). However in February, the EZLN and the Conciliator decided to make an exchange: General Domínguez for “all the Zapatista combatants and civilians unjustly imprisoned since the war began on January 1st” (Ross 1995:184). Later that month, the EZLN followed through with their previous agreement and released General Domínguez (Ross 1995; Russell 1995). Directly following General Domínguez’s release, EZLN 35 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH member Aaron publicly denounced the General’s actions on television. Since public dissent was not allowed on Mexican television, this unique event caused mass attention (Ross 1995). In March of 1994, the EZLN announced its 34 demands. Two of these demands were the center of much debate: returning to the version of Article 27 from the 1917 Constitution and granting autonomy to indigenous communities (Autonomedia 1994). In regards to autonomy, the EZLN pleaded for internal governance and organization, recognition of their culture, and rights to the natural resources on their lands (Midnight Notes 2001; Rus et al. 2003). The EZLN justified their demand for autonomy by citing the International Labor Organization’s Convention Number 169 that the president signed in 1991; “As defined in articles 7 and 15, the treaty states that in the case of developmental plans, the interested pueblos have the right to decide for themselves their own priorities and have the right to control economic, social, and cultural development” (Earle and Simonelli 2005:192). In the Second Declaration, the EZLN proposed the creation of a National Democratic Convention (CND). The purpose of this convention was to peacefully change the governmental structure of Mexico. Specifically, the CND was aimed at creating democracy, liberty, and justice for all people, including marginalized people (Marcos 2001a). Shortly after proposing the CND, PRI candidate Eduardo Robledo ran against opposition candidate Amado Avendaño for the governorship of Chiapas. Unlike in other elections, the opposition was the clear favorite to win. However right before the election, an unmarked trailer-truck smashed into Avendaño’s Suburban, critically wounding him. Despite this incident, Avendaño refused to withdraw from the election. Shortly after, the EZLN sensed heightened military activity and went on Red Alert. In spite of this, the elections went smoothly in their territories and the EZLN claimed that Avendaño definitely won. However, the PRI claimed that Robledo won the election. As Robledo prepared to take office, the EZLN announced that Robledo’s inauguration would coincide with an EZLN- initiated bloodbath (Ross 1995). In February of 1996, the government and the EZLN signed the San Andrés Accords on Indian Rights and Culture. This agreement consisted of four documents: an agreement on a range of points, a statement of legislative changes that the federal government needed to enact, a similar list detailing the legislative changes that the state government needed to enact, and an addendum listing the demands that the government rejected (Ross 2000). Soon after, President Zedillo retracted the Accords (Burke N.d.; Earle and Simonelli 2005; Hayden 2002; Holloway and Peláez 1998; “The Indigenous Rights Law” N.d.; Marcos 2001a; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; Midnight Notes 2001; Nadal 1998b; Rosen 1996; Ross 2000; Rus et al. 2003; “Zapatista Timeline” N.d.). After this, the EZLN hosted the meeting “For Humanity Against Neoliberlism” which was also called the Intergaláctica (Holloway and Peláez 1998; Ross 2000). While participating in this meeting, countries defined the term “Zapatista”. The EZLN utilized a network of resistance and communication (Marcos 2001a). Through this network, the EZLN proclaimed that their struggle was not only against the Mexican government, but also against neoliberalism. The EZLN claimed that the proliferation of neoliberalism would hurt indigenous communities, because it would exaggerate the economic disparities between the rich and poor (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). Subcomandante Marcos also explained that global corporations tried to control markets. By doing so, nation-states became “mere departments of the corporate order”; thus, the EZLN needed to defend nation-states in order to defend against the global corporations and neoliberalism (Hayden 2002:270). CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 36 Since the EZLN applied a global concern to the struggle, the struggle became international in scope (Marcos 2001a; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). Because international organizations could relate to the conflict, they now took an active role in protesting against it (Marcos 2001a). In fact, many organizations supported the EZLN: “Amnesty International, Americas Watch, Global Exchange, Mexico Solidarity Network, the National Commission for Democracy in Mexico – USA, Pastors for Peace, Humanitarian Law Project, Doctors of the World, Bread for the World, Doctors without Borders” (Marcos 2001a:197). Conversely, some organizations worked against the EZLN: the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations. For instance, the United Nations attacked Amparo Aguatinta, beating the community’s children and imprisoning the community’s people (Marcos 2001a). ECONOMIC CONDITIONS: THE MAYA Chiapas is rich in natural resources, such as “oil, electricity, timber, cattle, corn, sugar, coffee, and beans” (Collier and Quaratiello 1994:16). Business people remove these resources from Chiapas in order to make a profit. After doing so, they do not replenish the Chiapas economy (Marcos 2001a). For this reason, only two percent of Mexico’s population controls the majority of Mexico’s wealth. Meanwhile, 70 percent of the Chiapan Maya live below the poverty line (Marcos 2001a; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). On top of this, the business people exploit the indigenous laborers; they only pay the Maya four or five pesos per day. If the Maya do not finish their assignments, they do not receive any payment (Midnight Notes 2001). Globalization is on the horizon. President Zedillo believes globalization will create economic prosperity in Chiapas. However, this idea is faulty because “[n]eoliberal integration of Mexico in NAFTA, will deepen the regional inequalities, by prioritizing areas with a competitive edge, neglecting less favorable regions and thereby the gap between marginal and prosperous regions” (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004:293). The 1400s to the Late 1700s In 1524, the Spanish began the official Mayan conquest (“Mayan Archaeological” N.d.). During this conquest, the Spanish divided highland Chiapas into “[…] small, warring principalities or petty states, called provincias in early accounts” (Wasserstrom 1983:9). After separating the Chiapas region into petty states, the Spanish implemented the encomienda and repartimiento systems in order to further control the indigenous people. The encomienda system forced the indigenous people to pay tributes to the Spanish: “At first, they [provisional governors] simply demanded that indigenous communities pay their tribute in commodities such as cacao, cloth, or corn; when such imposts were not met, these officials paid themselves with funds from local cajas de comunidad” (Wasserstrom 1983:43) or enslaved the indigenous people, making them engage in hard labor (Higgins 2004; Lusk 2003). The Late 1700s to the Middle 1900s The Spanish continued to economically oppress the indigenous population; they forcibly seized indigenous lands to raise cattle and to produce sugar. By doing so, they forced the indigenous 37 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH people into the mountains. Meanwhile, the Spanish still expected the indigenous people to pay a tribute in cacao, chickens, and maize. The indigenous people were also repressed in other ways. They had to pay a tribute of up to seven pesos per year to the Crown and, in addition, had to pay a tithe to the Church (Wasserstrom 1983). In the 1917 Constitution, Article 27 promoted land redistribution and protected indigenous holdings from sale or privatization. Although Article 27 promised reforms, few actually reached Chiapas; greedy Spanish landowners and ranchers prevented indigenous people from occupying their newly awarded land. As before, the indigenous people remained repressed (Earle and Simonelli 2005; Marcos 2001a; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; Midnight Notes 2001; Ross 1995; Stephensen 1995; Wasserstrom 1983; Womack 1999). Land distributions that did occur at this time were strategic, given to buy loyalty to the state and divide indigenous communities (Collier and Quaratiello 1994). In 1934, President Lázaro Cárdenas started a program of “oil nationalization, land reform and industrial expansion” (“Timeline” N.d.). Cárdenas designed the land reform to redistribute ejidos to indigenous people. Despite his efforts, the indigenous livelihood suffered; rich landowners now forced indigenous people off their lands and pushed them deep into the Lacandón jungle (Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Ross 1995). The Middle 1900s to the Present Chiapas is rich in natural resources, such as “oil, electricity, timber, cattle, corn, sugar, coffee, and beans” (Collier and Quaratiello 1994:16; Rus, Castillo, and Mattiace 2003; Russell 1995). Business people remove these resources from Chiapas in order to make a profit. After doing so, they do not replenish the Chiapas economy (Marcos 2001a); “In Chiapas, the national oil company Pemex sucks out enormous quantities of barrels of petroleum and cubic feet of gas every day. They take away the petroleum and gas, and in exchange leave behind the mark of capitalism – ecological destruction, agricultural plunder, hyperinflation, alcoholism, prostitution, and poverty” (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004:28). For this reason, only two percent of Mexico’s population controls the majority of Mexico’s wealth. Meanwhile, seventy percent of the Chiapan Maya live below the poverty line (Marcos 2001a; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). Benjamin offers a great explanation of this phenomenon: Chiapas is rich, in fact – rich in fertile farmlands, pastures, and forests; in coffee, cattle, cacao, and petroleum; and in productive enterprises owned by a few families. Yet most Chiapanecos remain very poor despite the wealth of the land, the reforms of the Mexican Revolution, and the modernization policies of successive state and federal governments. Natural plenty, of course, does not necessarily create social plenty. Modernization and reform need not lead to progress for all. That is the paradox of Chiapas, a rich land of poor people (1989:xiii). On top of this, the business people exploit the indigenous laborers; they only pay the Maya four or five pesos per day. If the Maya do not finish their assignments, they do not receive any payment (Midnight Notes 2001). CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 38 In 2003, the EZLN developed the Caracoles and the Good Government Juntas. These committees distributed economic support to the indigenous communities (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). Around the same time, the EZLN proclaimed that their struggle was not only against the Mexican government, but also against neoliberalism. The EZLN claimed that the proliferation of neoliberalism would hurt indigenous communities, because it would exaggerate the economic disparities between the rich and poor (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). The spokesperson of the EZLN, Subcomandante Marcos, also explained that global corporations tried to control markets. By doing so, states became “mere departments of the corporate order”; thus, the EZLN needed to defend nation-states in order to defend against the global corporations and neoliberalism (Hayden 2002:270). Globalization is on the horizon. President Zedillo believes globalization will create economic prosperity in Chiapas. However, this idea is faulty because “[n]eoliberal integration of Mexico in NAFTA, will deepen the regional inequalities, by prioritizing areas with a competitive edge, neglecting less favorable regions and thereby the gap between marginal and prosperous regions” (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004:293). LANDHOLDING: THE MAYA There is political power attached to territory: it is the base of power and the container for the State (Giddens 1994[1985]). Territorial boundaries establish the boundaries of State sovereignty. The government oversees relations that take place on its soil: political power is attached to boundaries and the territory within. Land is a source of power for the State: as it defines itself and as it enables the State to have a strong economy. For the indigenous, land has spiritual and symbolic meaning: it is the root of their community, and sometimes a member of the community. There is a sense of stewardship and of duty to not only use the resources that the land gives for sustenance, but to do what each generation can to perpetuate the health and fertility of the land. Land has value for its spiritual importance and the resources it yields. Territory and the construction of unique historical roots empower and authenticate both states and nations. Community and territory interact to create a sense of place that is important to many groups, cultures, and individuals. The homeland is invented, yet the status of the territory can have real consequences (Anderson 1991). For states, territory defines the physical boundaries and is an economic resource. There are important symbolic and tangible powers given to the State that governs its own territory: nations without States lack these powers. For Nations territory holds symbolic, sometimes familial, and religious meaning. Territory shapes group identity and difference, because groups are defined as Nations in part by their relation to territory (Oommen 1997). States and Nations have different types of claims to the physical boundaries and the resources within. Indigenous Nations without political power watch as the meaning of land shifts to match the will of the outsiders. Territory can become politicized when there are disputes over the right of access to sites, the use and management of the land, or the power to govern the territory. After the Mayan conquest, the Spanish claimed the most arable indigenous lands. Although the indigenous people fought to reclaim their lands, the Spanish subdued them each time (Collier and Quaratiello 1994). Then Article 27 of the 1917 Mexican Constitution guaranteed the redistribution of land to indigenous peasants. Unfortunately, Spanish and Mexican landowners and ranchers prevented the indigenous people from occupying their newly awarded 39 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH land (Earle and Simonelli 2005; Marcos 2001a; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; Womack 1999). Then in 2003, the EZLN reasserted their landholding rights and political independence by forming Good Government Juntas (Burke N.d.; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). The 1400s to the Late 1700s The Maya have an uncontested indigenous heritage; the Maya trace their history to the beginning of history (Hayden 2002; “The Maya Civilization” N.d.). The Mayan civilization grew and, finally, reached its peak from the second to ninth century. To our knowledge, Columbus was the first to challenge Mayan sovereignty in 1493 (Higgins 2004). Upon his arrival in the Americas, Columbus claimed indigenous lands by presenting deeds of possession. Then in 1517, Mayan sovereignty was again challenged; Hernández de Córdoba led the Spanish to the Yucatán (“Maya Civilization” N.d.) and Diego de Mazariegos began colonizing the Chiapas region (Wasserstrom 1983). During this colonization, the Spanish imposed taxes on the indigenous people, seized their lands, and enslaved them (Higgins 2004). In 1524, the Spanish defeated the Maya in the battle of Xelahuh, beginning the official conquest of the Maya (“Mayan Archaeological” N.d.). During this conquest, the Spanish claimed the most arable indigenous lands. The Maya fought to protect their way of life and their dignity. They rebelled against the Spanish in 1532 and 1534 to no avail (Russell 1995). Then in 1712, the Spanish raised tribute demands. Fearing further oppression, the Maya mounted their first major rebellion. Despite Mayan efforts, the Spanish subdued them (Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Hayden 2002; Higgins 2004; “Maya Civilization” N.d.; Ross 1995; Russell 1995; Womack 1999). The Late 1700s to the Middle 1900s During the era of state formation, Chiapas was initially drawn within the boundaries of Guatemala as a part of the United Providences of Central America (existing from 1828-1832). Guatemala was the core of this organization until it disbanded. In 1824, Chiapas seceded from Guatemala (Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Stephensen 1995), becoming a part of Mexico. During the early history of Mexico, there were multiple redistributions of land. In 1910, Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa fought for land reform (Hansen and Marcos 2001; Hayden 2002; “The Maya Civilization” N.d.; “Timeline” N.d.). Four years later, the first reforms occurred; General Jesús Agustín Castro “[…] promulgated the Ley de Obreros, a far-reaching measure which abolished debt servitude and tiendas de raya, established a minimum wage, and granted finca workers the right to medical benefits, vacations, and free education” (Wasserstrom 1983:158). As mentioned above, the 1917 Constitution also brought reforms. In particular, Article 27 of the Constitution promoted land redistribution and protected indigenous holdings from sale or privatization. Although Article 27 promised reforms, few actually reached Chiapas; greedy Spanish landowners and ranchers prevented indigenous people from occupying their newly awarded land. As before, the indigenous people remained brutally repressed (Earle and Simonelli 2005; Marcos 2001a; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; Midnight Notes 2001; Ross 1995; Stephensen 1995; Wasserstrom 1983; Womack 1999). Land distributions that did occur at this time were CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 40 strategic, given to buy loyalty to the state and divide indigenous communities (Collier and Quaratiello 1994). In 1934, President Lázaro Cárdenas started a program of “oil nationalization, land reform and industrial expansion” (“Timeline” N.d.). Cárdenas designed the land reform to redistribute ejidos to indigenous people. Despite his efforts, the indigenous livelihood suffered; rich landowners now forced indigenous people off their lands and pushed them deep into the Lacandón jungle (Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Ross 1995). The Middle 1900s to the Present In 1994, the EZLN called for economic, social, and political equality. The EZLN made two demands regarding land: the right to own land and the redistribution of landholdings (Autonomedia 1994; Clarke and Ross 1994; Hayden 2002; Marcos 2001a; Ross 1995, 2000; Russell 1995; Stephensen 1995; Wager and Schulz 1994; Womack 1999). Then in 2003, the EZLN reasserted their landholding rights by forming Good Government Juntas (Burke N.d.; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). The EZLN implemented several measures to protect land: They worked to end tree removal and prevent forest fires. They took redistributed land and machinery to poor indigenous people in order to facilitate cultivation (Holloway and Peláez 1998). In addition, they sought to protect the cultural and historical meanings and linkages to land (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). FINDINGS Assembling the political, economic, and territorial histories of the Maya produces a database that can be applied to the relational concept. These data allow us to apply the relational concept to the Maya across time. It also allows us to begin to understand how this peripheral group interacts with the core, how they might now be shaping the core of the future. The sections below consider each of the three institutions: political, economic, and landholding in detail. Political In System One (see Figure 2), the indigenous and the newcomers have an unequal relationship; as mentioned above, the newcomers dominate the indigenous by stealing their lands and enslaving them (Higgins 2004; Lusk 2003; Womack 1999). After the Mayan conquest, the Spanish forced the Maya to pay tributes and engage in migratory and slave labor (Higgins 2004; Lusk 2003). On November 20th, 1542, Spanish Emperor Charles V signed the New Laws, which “forbade future enslavement of Indians” (Womack 1999:64). Despite this, the Spanish continued to enslave the Maya. A dotted arrow illustrates the influence of the indigenous on the political structure and a solid arrow illustrates the influence of the newcomers on the political structure. In System Two, the internal colony and the settler state still have an unequal relationship. The settler state controls the distribution of land and, thus, decides whether to give the internal colony the resources necessary to survive (Autonomedia 1994; Earle and Simonelli 2005; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; Midnight Notes 2001; Ross 1995; Stephensen 1995; Wasserstrom 1983). The settler state also tries to change the governmental structure of the internal colony by 41 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH assigning a bilingual scribe to share the internal colony’s presidential responsibilities with an elder (Higgins 2004). By 1910, the Spanish “had effectively deprived most native communities of their land, transformed many highland families into lowland fieldhands, and compelled Indians who remained in their towns to pay rent and the capitación [poll tax]” (Wasserstrom 1983:151- 152). In the 1920s, the PRI took power. The PRI maintained this power for the next 70 years by bribing officials and by utilizing exemptions for themselves (Wager and Schulz 1994). PRI rule coincided with political murders, arbitrary detentions, torture, disappearances of activist campesinos, and fraudulent elections (Ross 1995:158; Russell 1995). Finally, the Maya formed the EZLN and rebelled against this inhumane treatment (Burke N.d.; Clarke and Ross 1994; Collier and Quaratiello 1994; Earle and Simonelli 2005; Halleck 1994; Hayden 2002; Holloway and Peláez 1998; Larson 2001; Marcos 1995, 2001a, 2001b; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; “The Maya Civilization” N.d.; Midnight Notes 2001; Nadal 1998a; Neumann 2001; Ross 1995; Ross 2000; Rus et al. 2003; Russell 1995; Stephen 1997; Stephensen 1995; “Timeline” N.d.; Wager and Schulz 1994; Weller 2000; Womack 1999; “Zapatista Timeline” N.d.). A dotted arrow illustrates the influence of the internal colony on the political structure and a solid arrow illustrates the influence of the settler state on the political structure. In System Three, a transition is occurring. The indigenous and the “in formation” are engaging in globalization. For instance, the indigenous are spreading their voice via an international network of resistance and communication. This network gives their struggle a global scope (Marcos 2001a; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). The Zapatistas are both a part of globalization and a part of anti-globalization protests seeking the development of a new system of Indigenous Internal Colony Indigenous Newcomers Settler State In Formation System 1 System 2 System 3 Newcomers dominate the indigenous by stealing their lands and enslaving them. Introduce foreign political structure. State controls land resources, political structure. Mexican state is formed and corrupt political elections continue to prohibit the Maya from participating. Bilingual scribes share governing power in local communities. Globalization allows the Zapatistas to spread their message, indigenism–a global indigenous movement–emerges. Global media allows Mexico to be more closely watched by outsiders, states weaken due to international governance. Figure 2. The Relational Concept: Political Application CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 42 governance. Hall and Fenelon discuss these anti-globalization protests: “Legal, socioeconomic, and cultural factors driving mountain indigenous peoples to take up arms are perfectly representative of how world-systems affect microeconomic relations, especially when hegemonic decline changes their positions and the activities of dominating elites” (2005:218). Generally speaking, when nation-state systems are in hegemonic decline, indigenous movements have opportunities to create new political relationships that are more favorable for indigenous peoples. Although the hegemonic decline of nation-states provides opportunities for indigenous peoples, nation-states may further oppress indigenous peoples if they take advantage of these opportunities. Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty, autonomy, and minority status may influence their experiences of hegemonic transitions (Hall and Fenelon 2005). A dotted arrow running from the indigenous to the “in formation” and a dotted arrow running from the “in formation” to the indigenous illustrate this relationship. Economic In System One (see Figure 3), the indigenous and newcomers oppose one another in an unequal relationship; the newcomers implemented systems to control the indigenous people. After the Maya conquest, the Spanish implemented the encomienda and repartimiento systems to control the indigenous people. The encomienda system forced the indigenous to pay tributes to the Spanish. When the indigenous people could not pay the steep tributes, the repartimiento system permitted the Spanish to enslave the indigenous and make them engage in hard labor (Higgins 2004; Lusk 2003). A solid arrow illustrates the transfer of resources from indigenous to newcomers and a dotted arrow illustrates the transfer of resources from newcomers to indigenous. In System Two, the internal colony and the settler state again oppose one another in an unequal relationship. The settler state controls the redistribution of land and threatens the economic livelihood of the indigenous people. Article 27 of the 1917 Constitution promoted land redistribution and protected indigenous holdings from sale or privatization. Although Article 27 promised reforms, few actually reached Chiapas. As before, the indigenous people remained brutally repressed (Earle and Simonelli 2005; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; Midnight Notes 2001; Ross 1995; Stephensen 1995; Wasserstrom 1983). Then in 1934, President Lázaro Cárdenas started a program of “oil nationalization, land reform and industrial expansion” (“Timeline” N.d.). Cárdenas designed the land reform to redistribute ejidos to indigenous people. Despite his efforts, the indigenous livelihood suffered; rich landowners now forced indigenous people off their lands and pushed them deep into the Lacandón jungle (Ross 1995). A solid arrow illustrates the transfer of resources from the internal colony to the settler state and an arrow without a line illustrates the lack of transfer of resources from the settler state to the internal colony. In System Three, a transition occurs; the indigenous people are fighting against globalization and neoliberalism. In 2003, the EZLN developed the Caracoles and the Good Government Juntas. These committees distributed economic support to the indigenous communities (Burke N.d.; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). Around the same time, the EZLN proclaimed that their struggle was not only against the Mexican government, but also against neoliberalism. The EZLN claimed that the proliferation of neoliberalism would hurt indigenous communities, because it would exaggerate the economic disparities between the rich and poor (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). Subcomandante Marcos also explained that global corporations tried to control markets. By doing so, nation-states became “mere departments of the corporate 43 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH order”; thus, the EZLN needed to defend nation-states in order to defend against the global corporations and neoliberalism (Hayden 2002:270). Globalization is on the horizon. President Zedillo believes globalization will create economic prosperity in Chiapas. However, this idea is faulty because “[n]eoliberal integration of Mexico in NAFTA, will deepen the regional inequalities, by prioritizing areas with a competitive edge, neglecting less favorable regions and thereby the gap between marginal and prosperous regions” (Marcos and Vodovnik 2004:293). A dotted arrow illustrates the transfer of resources from indigenous to “in formation” and the absence of an arrow illustrates no transfer of resources from “in formation” to indigenous. Land In System One (see Figure 4), the indigenous and newcomers have an unequal relationship; the newcomers claim indigenous lands. In 1493, Columbus arrived in the Americas and claimed indigenous lands by presenting deeds of possession. Then in 1517, Diego de Mazariegos began colonizing the Chiapas region (Wasserstrom 1983). During this colonization, the Spanish imposed taxes on the indigenous people, seized their lands, and enslaved them (Higgins 2004). Although the indigenous fought to reclaim their lands, the Spanish subdued them each time (Collier and Quaratiello 1994). A solid arrow illustrates the transfer of land from the indigenous to the newcomers and the absence of an arrow illustrates no transfer of land from the newcomers to the indigenous. Indigenous Internal Colony Indigenous Newcomers Settler State In Formation System 1 System 2 System 3 Trade between explorers and Maya, capitalism enters. Newcomers implement systems to control the Maya. Mayan land and resources taken without compensation, first by the colonial powers and then by the Mexican government. Economic inequality develops and deepens, leaving Maya impoverished. Poverty continues to plague Maya people. Good Government Juntas communities develop, community-based economy is slowly emerging. Zapatistas protest NAFTA, economic globalization. Figure 3. The Relational Concept: Economic Application * ____________________ *The arrows do not necessarily indicate an agentic choice–in some/most cases there was a usurpation of land and resources. CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 44 In System Two, the internal colony and the settler state still have an unequal relationship. The settler state restricts the redistribution of land to the internal colony. Both Article 27 of the 1917 Constitution and President Cárdenas promised land reforms. However, these land reforms actually exacerbated the indigenous condition (Earle and Simonelli 2005; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004; Midnight Notes 2001; Ross 1995; Stephensen 1995; “Timeline” N.d.; Wasserstrom 1983). A solid arrow illustrates the transfer of land from the internal colony to the settler state and a dotted arrow illustrates the transfer of land from the settler state to the internal colony. In System Three, a transition is occurring; the indigenous people are reasserting their landholding rights. In 1993, the EZLN made 34 demands to the Mexican government. Among other things, the EZLN demanded the right to own land and the right to have political independence. Then in 2003, the EZLN developed the Caracoles and the Good Government Juntas. These committees distributed economic support to the indigenous communities (Burke N.d.; Marcos and Vodovnik 2004). By doing so, the EZLN is rejecting the power of the Mexican government to control landholding. A dotted arrow from indigenous to “in formation” and the absence of an arrow from “in formation” to indigenous illustrate this relationship. CONCLUSION Indigenous peoples have been marginalized by the processes of globalization, as many noted on the commemoration of Columbus’s journey to the Americas. Yet more recently these communities, many of which lie in the periphery of the world-system, have become vocal opponents of globalization and agentic members of a community seeking change in the world- Indigenous Internal Colony Indigenous Newcomers Settler State In Formation System 1 System 2 System 3 Colonial forces begin co-opting indigenous lands. Illness, technology, and other factors limit the ability of the indigenous communities to defend their territory. Continued co-optation of lands by colonial powers and then the Mexican state. Some land reform, but this is weak. Zapatistas reassert land-holding rights and political independence, form Good Government Juntas. Figure 4. The Relational Concept: Land Application * ____________________ *The arrows do not necessarily indicate an agentic choice–in some/most cases there was a usurpation of land and resources. 45 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH system. How do indigenous peoples relate to the core over the longue duree? In this paper, we explored the implications of colonialism from a world-systems perspective, by examining interactions in the economic and political structures in addition to the effects of landlessness for indigenous peoples in one case: the Maya. After reviewing world-systems theory and applying it to indigenousness, we discussed Ragin’s (1992) conceptualization of cases and the comparative historical method. Then we introduced the relational concept, a tool that allowed us to employ both the comparative historical method and world-systems theory in our analysis of the Maya. We then presented our data, which consist of the economic and political conditions, along with the cultural implications of landholding across time among the Maya and in Mexico. We analyzed these data using the relational concept to understand the consequences of colonialism and globalization for the Maya people. Our findings suggest that indigenous peoples, although disadvantaged by their peripheral location within the world-system from the late 1400s to the middle 1900s, are able to successfully challenge the powerful core and are beginning to take back political and economic power and reassert their rights to land. Peripheral protests against the hierarchical distribution of power within the world-system are experiencing success and gaining powers to influence a shift in the shape of the world-system. Our study utilizes the comparative historical methodology, which has several limitations. First, the comparative historical methodology is difficult to employ because of its logic. Second, this method misleadingly assumes that cases are independent of one another (Skocpol 1988). Moreover, the comparative historical methodology “is no substitute for theory” (Skocpol 1988:39). One must utilize theoretical concepts and hypotheses in order to employ the comparative historical methodology. Despite these limitations, the comparative historical methodology is the best method to utilize: it allows researchers to compare and contrast across multiple cases and to qualitatively evaluate historical phenomena. Along with having methodological limitations, our study is limited in scope; we focus on a particular case: the indigenous Maya. To further this discussion, researchers can focus on other cases. By doing so, future researchers can gain a better understanding of both indigenousness and the core-periphery relationship. Other types of peripheral communities might be analyzed in the future to understand both what it means to be indigenous in the world-system and the core- periphery relationship. In spite of these weaknesses, this analysis of the relationship between the core and periphery over time allows us to begin to understand the relationship between indigenous peoples and the core political structure. This expands the analysis of indigenousness within world-systems theory literature. Our research also contributes to a body of world-systems literature that analyzes the role of the indigenous periphery, which has been resisting the core and global capitalism for centuries (Hall and Fenelon 2008). According to world-systems analysis, the world-system is currently in a structural crisis, and is moving into a period of transition. After applying the relational concept of world-systems analysis to the Maya, we discover that our findings supported this assertion. The first and second systems are marked by unequal relationships, however the third system is marked by a period of transition. Politically, a transition occurred when the Maya utilized a global movement; economically, when the Maya protested against globalization and neoliberalism; and culturally, when the Maya reasserted their landholding rights. Communities on the periphery are beginning to shake up the core, producing a transition to a political structure that will be more egalitarian than the existing liberal empire. These findings highlight the role of CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 46 periphery groups within the contemporary world-system. Indigenous peoples hold an influential position within the world-system, a position that might be occupied by other types of periphery communities, bringing radical change to the world-system. REFERENCES Alfred, Taiaiake. 1999. Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous Manifesto. Ontariao, Canada: Oxford University Press. Anaya, S. James. 1996. Indigenous Peoples in International Law. New York: Oxford University Press. Anderson, Benedict. 1991. Imagined Communities. London, UK: Verso. Autonomedia. 1994. Zapatistas: Document of the New Mexican Revolution (December 31, 1993- June 12, 1994). Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia. Ayres, Jeffrey M. 2004. “Framing Collective Action Against Neoliberalism: The Case of the ‘Anti-Globalization Movement’.” Journal of World-Systems Research 10:11-34. Benjamin, Thomas. 1989. A Rich Land, a Poor People: Politics and Society in Modern Chiapas. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Burke, Garance. N.d. “How a Hot Rebellion Turned Into an Ongoing Low-Intensity Conflict.” Frontline World. Retrieved May 30, 2005 (http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/ fellows/mexico0803/timeline.html). Buttel, Frederick H. and Kenneth A. Gould. 2004. “Global Social Movement(s) at the Crossroads: Some Observations on the Trajectory of the Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement.” Journal of World-Systems Research 10:37-66. Clarke, Ben and Clif Ross. 1994. Voice of Fire: Communiqués and Interviews from the Zapatista National Liberation Army. Berkeley, CA: New Earth Publications. Clifford, James. 1997 [1994]. “Diasporas.” Pp. 283-90 in The Ethnicity Reader: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Migration, edited by M. Guibernau and J. Rex. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Collier, George A. and Elizabeth L. Quaratiello. 1994. Basta! Land and the Zapatista Rebellion in Chiapas. Oakland, CA: Institute for Food and Development Policy. Corntassel, Jeff J. 2003. “Who is Indigenous? ‘Peoplehood’ and Ethnonationalist Approaches to Rearticulating Indigenous Identity.” Nationalism and Ethnic Politics 9:75-100. Dunaway, Wilma A. 2000. “Women at Risk: Capitalist Incorporation and Community Transformation on the Cherokee Frontier.” Pp. 195-210 in A World Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous People, and Ecology, edited by T. D. Hall. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. _____. 2003. “Ethnic Conflict in the Modern World-System: The Dialectics of Counter- Hegemonic Resistance in an Age of Transition.” Journal of World-Systems Research 9:3- 34. Earle, Duncan and Jeanne Simonelli. 2005. Uprising of Hope: Sharing the Zapatista Journey to Alternative Development. New York: AltaMira Press. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2007a. “Lázaro Cárdenas del Río.” Retrieved July 30, 2007 (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9020286/L%C3%A1zaro-C%C3%A1rdenas). 47 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH _____. 2007b. “Plutarco Elías Calles.” Retrieved July 30, 2007 (http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9018698/Plutarco-El%C3%ADas-Calles). Fenelon, James V. 1997. “From Peripheral Domination to Internal Colonialism: Socio-Political Change of the Lakota on Standing Rock.” Journal of World-Systems Research 3:259-320. _____. 2002. “Dual Sovereignty of Native Nations, the United States, & Traditionalists.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 27:106-45. _____. 2006. “Indian Gaming: Traditional Perspectives and Cultural Sovereignty.” American Behavioral Scientist 50:381-409. Friedman, Jonathan. 1999. “Indigenous Struggles and the Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie.” Journal of World-Systems Research 5:391-411. Giddens, Anthony. 1994 [1985]. “The Nation as Power-Container.” Pp. 34-5 in Nationalism, edited by J. Hutchinson and A. D. Smith. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Guibernau, Montserrat. 1999. Nations Without States: Political Communities in a Global Age. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Hall, Thomas D. and James V. Fenelon. 2004. “The Futures of Indigenous Peoples: 9-11 and the Trajectory of Indigenous Survival and Resistance.” Journal of World-Systems Research 10:153-97. _____. 2005. “Indigenous Peoples and Hegemonic Change: Threats to Sovereignty or Opportunities for Resistance?” Pp. 205-25 in Hegemonic Decline: Present and Past, edited by J. Friedman and C. Chase-Dunn. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Press. _____. 2008. “Indigenous Movements and Globalization: What is Different? What is the Same?” Globalizations 5:1-11. Hall, Thomas D. and Joane Nagel. 2000. “Indigenous Peoples.” Pp. 1295-1301 in The Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. 2, revised edition, edited by E. F. Borgatta and R. J. V. Montgomery. New York: Macmillan Reference. _____. 2006. “Indigenous Peoples.” Pp. 2278-83 in Encyclopedia of Sociology, vol. V: He-Le, edited by G. Ritzer. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Halleck, Deedee. 1994. “Zapatistas On-line.” NACLA Report on the Americas 28:30-2. Hansen, Tom and Subcomandante Marcos. 2001. “Zapatista Timeline.” Retrieved May 30, 2005 (http://wwwpersonal.umich.edu/~lormand/agenda/ 0107/zaptimeline.htm). Hayden, Tom. 2002. The Zapatista Reader. New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books. Higgins, Nicholas P. 2004. Understanding the Chiapas Rebellion: Modernist Visions and the Invisible Indian. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Holloway, John and Eloína Peláez. 1998. Zapatista: Reinventing Revolution in Mexico. Sterling, VA: Pluto Press. Ivison, Duncan. 2003. “The Logic of Aboriginal Rights.” Ethnicities 3:321-44. Iyall Smith, Keri E. Forthcoming. “Comparing State and International Protections of Indigenous Peoples’ Human Rights.” American Behavioral Scientist. Special Issue on Indigenous Peoples. _____. 2006. The State and Indigenous Movements. New York: Routledge. “The Indigenous Rights Law: A Timeline of Events.” N.d. Retrieved May 30, 2005 (http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/americas/mexico/news/349.html). Larson, Vicki. 2001. “Brief Impressions from the Chiapas.” Monthly Review 53:52. Lusk, Daron. 2003. “Repartimiento.” Retrieved August 8, 2005 (http://historical textarchive.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=637). CORE AND PERIPHERY RELATIONS 48 Maaka, Roger and Augie Fleras. 2000. “Engaging with Indigeneity: Tino Rangatiratanga in Aotearoa.” Pp. 89-109 in Political Theory and the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, edited by D. Ivison, P. Patton, and W. Sanders. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Marcos, Subcomandante. 1995. Shadows of Tender Fury: The Letters and Communiqués Of Subcomandante Marcos and the Zapatista Army of National Liberation. Translated by F. Bardacke, L. López and the Watsonville, California Human Rights Committee. Reprint, New York: Monthly Review Press. _____. 2001a. Our Word is Our Weapon: Selected Writings. Translated by J. Ponce de Leon. Reprint, New York: Seven Stories Press. _____. 2001b. Zapatista Stories. Translated by D. Livingstone. Reprint, London, UK: KATABASIS. Marcos, Subcomandante and Žiga Vodovnik. 2004. ¡YA BASTA! Ten Years of the Zapatista Uprising. Oakland, CA: AK Press. “The Maya Civilization: The Time-line.” N.d. Retrieved May 30, 2005 (http://www.mex connect.com/mex-/trval/ldumois/maya/ld/mayatimeline.html). “Mayan Archaeological Timeline.” N.d. Retrieved May 30, 2005 (http://www.isourcecom. com/maya/themaya/timeline.htm). Midnight Notes. 2001. Auroras of the Zapatistas: Local & Global Struggles of the Fourth World War. Brooklyn, NY: Autonomedia. Nadal, Alejandro. 1998a. “Political Cleansing in Chiapas.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 54:20-2. _____. 1998b. “Terror in Chiapas.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 54:18-25. Neumann, Rachel. 2001. “We Make the Road by Walking: Lessons from the Zapatista Caravan.” Monthly Review 53:48. Oommen, T. K. 1997. Citizenship, Nationality and Ethnicity. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. Poole, Ross. 2000. “Justice or Appropriation? Indigenous Claims and Liberal Theory.” Radical Philosophy 101:5-17. Ragin, Charles, C. 1992. “Introduction: Cases of ‘What is a case?’” Pp. 1-18 in What is a Case? Exploring the Foundations of Social Inquiry, edited by C. C. Ragin and H. S. Becker. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Robinson, William I. 2004. A Theory of Global Capitalism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Rosen, Fred. 1996. “Tensions Run High in Chiapas.” NACLA Report on the Americas 30:46-8. Ross, John. 1995. Rebellion From the Roots: Indian Uprising in Chiapas. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. _____. 2000. The War Against Oblivion: Zapatista Chronicles 1994-2000. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press. Rus, Jan, Rosalva Aídia Hernández Castillo, and Shannan L. Mattiace. 2003. Mayan Lives, Mayan Utopias: The Indigenous Peoples of Chiapas and the Zapatista Rebellion. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. Russell, Philip L. 1995. The Chiapas Rebellion. Austin, TX: Mexico Resource Center. Skocpol, Theda. 1988. States and Social Revolution: A Comparative Analysis of France Russia, and China. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Stephen, Lynn. 1997. “Pro-Zapatista and Pro-PRI: Resolving the Contradictions of Zapatismo in Rural Oaxaca.” Latin American Research Review 32:41-70. 49 JOURNAL OF WORLD-SYSTEMS RESEARCH Stephensen, James. 1995. The 1994 Zapatista Rebellion in Southern Mexico: An Analysis and Assessment. Camberley, Surrey: Strategic and Combat Studies Institute. “Timeline: Mexico a Chronology of Key Events.” N.d. BBC News. Retrieved May 30, 2005 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/Americas/country-profiles/1210779.stm). Trask, Haunani-Kay. 1999. From a Native Daughter: Colonialism and Sovereignty in Hawai’i. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii Press. United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Populations. 1994. “Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” Pp. 318-327 in Indigenous Peoples in International Law, by S. James Anaya. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wager, Stephen J. and Donald E. Schulz. 1994. The Awakening: The Zapatista Revolt and Its Implications for Civil Military Relations and the Future of Mexico. Camberley, Surrey: Strategic and Combat Studies Institute. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 2000. The Essential Wallerstein. New York: The New Press. _____. 2002. “New Revolts Against the System.” New Left Review 18:29-39. Ward, Carol, Elon Stander, and Yodit Solomon. 2000. “Resistance Through Healing Among American Indian Women.” Pp. 211-36 in A World Systems Reader: New Perspectives on Gender, Urbanism, Cultures, Indigenous People, and Ecology, edited by T. D. Hall. New York: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Wasserstrom, Robert. 1983. Class and Society in Central Chiapas. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Weller, Worth H. 2000. Conflict in Chiapas: Understanding the Modern Mayan World. North Manchester, IN: DeWitt Books. Wilmer, Franke. 1993. The Indigenous Voice in World Politics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. _____.1997 [1993]. “First nations in the USA.” Pp. 186-201 in The Ethnicity Reader: Nationalism, Multiculturalism, and Migration, edited by M. Guibernau and J. Rex. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. Womack, John Jr. 1999. Rebellion in Chiapas: An Historical Reader. New York: The New Press. “Zapatista Timeline Since January 1994.” N.d. Retrieved May 30, 2005 (http://www.geocities. com/capitolhill/1364/cpage2.htm?200530). Volume14Issue1TeixeiraSmith