So let’s break down some of these “dubious achievements” people love to throw at the Zapatistas. First off, the whole “refusing government aid” argument misses the point entirely. They’re not declining aid because they want to stay impoverished—they’re rejecting the strings that come with it. Accepting aid often means compromising autonomy, becoming dependent on a state that historically hasn’t had their best interests in mind, and losing control over how their communities develop. Instead, they’ve built their own systems for education and healthcare, and while those systems aren’t perfect, they’re trying to solve their own problems without interference. So yes, they’re poorer than if they sold out to the government—but they’re at least in control of their poverty rather than having it dictated to them.
As for “sabotaging national left movements”—give me a break. Their cautious stance toward leftist parties like MORENA is more about protecting themselves from co-optation than about undermining anything. MORENA and other parties have plenty of their own issues and aren’t exactly champions of Indigenous autonomy. Leftists always think they’re great for Indigenous people, but history and contemporary politics around the world shows that settlers, even leftist settlers, need to be dealt with cautiously. Just because the Zapatistas aren’t blindly falling in line with a leftist party doesn’t mean they’re sabotaging it; maybe they’re just refusing to play a game they know is rigged.
Then there’s this idea that they’re somehow “bleeding the youth from the region.” The EZLN’s focus on community involvement isn’t about trapping young people; it’s about empowering them to be part of something that isn’t just another cog in the mainstream system. Sure, opportunities might be limited, and not every young person wants to stay, but they’re offering a path that’s rooted in autonomy and cultural integrity. It may not compete with the economic lure of the cities, but it’s a meaningful alternative in a world where indigenous voices are often marginalized.
And that last bit about “preventing outside examination”—that’s ignoring the reality on the ground. The Zapatistas restrict access not just because of a supposed lack of transparency but as a necessary response to the constant threats they face from both government forces and cartels. They’re located along the border of Guatemala/Mexico, and the cartels are encroaching on their lands, bringing violence, kidnappings, road blocks, robberies, and forced recruitment into the region. Opening their communities wide to “outsiders” in this context isn’t just risky; it could jeopardize their security and survival. So, while it may frustrate people looking for a close-up view, this control over access is a form of self-defense against a very real and immediate danger.
They’re not declining aid because they want to stay impoverished—they’re rejecting the strings that come with it.
Of course, because they want the locals to be dependent on their methods and resources, not another organization’s methods and resources. Or have you forgotten just how much of the Zapatistas’ resources are from international sources, not from internal redistribution of resources?
As for “sabotaging national left movements”—give me a break. Their cautious stance toward leftist parties like MORENA is more about protecting themselves from co-optation than about undermining anything.
Remember when the ELZN advocated against participating in elections in 2006, in which a hotly disputed election saw AMLO cheated out of the presidency because of how close it was? Good times. There’s a reason they lost most of their influence then.
Then there’s this idea that they’re somehow “bleeding the youth from the region.” The EZLN’s focus on community involvement isn’t about trapping young people; it’s about empowering them to be part of something that isn’t just another cog in the mainstream system. Sure, opportunities might be limited, and not every young person wants to stay, but they’re offering a path that’s rooted in autonomy and cultural integrity. It may not compete with the economic lure of the cities, but it’s a meaningful alternative in a world where indigenous voices are often marginalized.
Or, and bear with me here, maybe young folk are capable of making independent and rational choices, and the ELZN simply isn’t offering anything to anyone who isn’t rooted there by poverty and community roots?
And that last bit about “preventing outside examination”—that’s ignoring the reality on the ground. The Zapatistas restrict access not just because of a supposed lack of transparency but as a necessary response to the constant threats they face from both government forces and cartels. They’re located along the border of Guatemala/Mexico, and the cartels are encroaching on their lands, bringing violence, kidnappings, road blocks, robberies, and forced recruitment into the region. Opening their communities wide to “outsiders” in this context isn’t just risky; it could jeopardize their security and survival. So, while it may frustrate people looking for a close-up view, this control over access is a form of self-defense against a very real and immediate danger.
Oh, how very convenient. Is that also why visitors aren’t allowed to ask questions or talk to the locals without a ELZN guide accompanying them?
So let’s break down some of these “dubious achievements” people love to throw at the Zapatistas. First off, the whole “refusing government aid” argument misses the point entirely. They’re not declining aid because they want to stay impoverished—they’re rejecting the strings that come with it. Accepting aid often means compromising autonomy, becoming dependent on a state that historically hasn’t had their best interests in mind, and losing control over how their communities develop. Instead, they’ve built their own systems for education and healthcare, and while those systems aren’t perfect, they’re trying to solve their own problems without interference. So yes, they’re poorer than if they sold out to the government—but they’re at least in control of their poverty rather than having it dictated to them.
As for “sabotaging national left movements”—give me a break. Their cautious stance toward leftist parties like MORENA is more about protecting themselves from co-optation than about undermining anything. MORENA and other parties have plenty of their own issues and aren’t exactly champions of Indigenous autonomy. Leftists always think they’re great for Indigenous people, but history and contemporary politics around the world shows that settlers, even leftist settlers, need to be dealt with cautiously. Just because the Zapatistas aren’t blindly falling in line with a leftist party doesn’t mean they’re sabotaging it; maybe they’re just refusing to play a game they know is rigged.
Then there’s this idea that they’re somehow “bleeding the youth from the region.” The EZLN’s focus on community involvement isn’t about trapping young people; it’s about empowering them to be part of something that isn’t just another cog in the mainstream system. Sure, opportunities might be limited, and not every young person wants to stay, but they’re offering a path that’s rooted in autonomy and cultural integrity. It may not compete with the economic lure of the cities, but it’s a meaningful alternative in a world where indigenous voices are often marginalized.
And that last bit about “preventing outside examination”—that’s ignoring the reality on the ground. The Zapatistas restrict access not just because of a supposed lack of transparency but as a necessary response to the constant threats they face from both government forces and cartels. They’re located along the border of Guatemala/Mexico, and the cartels are encroaching on their lands, bringing violence, kidnappings, road blocks, robberies, and forced recruitment into the region. Opening their communities wide to “outsiders” in this context isn’t just risky; it could jeopardize their security and survival. So, while it may frustrate people looking for a close-up view, this control over access is a form of self-defense against a very real and immediate danger.
Of course, because they want the locals to be dependent on their methods and resources, not another organization’s methods and resources. Or have you forgotten just how much of the Zapatistas’ resources are from international sources, not from internal redistribution of resources?
Remember when the ELZN advocated against participating in elections in 2006, in which a hotly disputed election saw AMLO cheated out of the presidency because of how close it was? Good times. There’s a reason they lost most of their influence then.
Or, and bear with me here, maybe young folk are capable of making independent and rational choices, and the ELZN simply isn’t offering anything to anyone who isn’t rooted there by poverty and community roots?
Oh, how very convenient. Is that also why visitors aren’t allowed to ask questions or talk to the locals without a ELZN guide accompanying them?
K
Yeah, that’s about the response I figured.
For those looking for actual successes in Mexico…