Written for January 11, 2010

On Monday, we had breakfast in Barranca Fierro with the families who were graciously hosting us. For some, that included an hour of tortilla-making on a griddle over an open fire. At a time that was originally 10 am, but ended up being closer to 11, we met at the town square with our host families and 80-100 others from the town for the meeting arranged by Donaciano Garcia, the president of the NGO Generacion Barranca. WDA first met Donaciano last spring, when he presented to us at the Mexican consulate about the work he’s already done in his hometown. He was born in Barranca Fierro, but left at age 12 or 13 to find work in the city, eventually moving to the US. He is now a successful mortgage broker, and married to a US citizen, but he has recently begun returning to his hometown to start development projects. His personal story and his hopes for his home community bring up some interesting points about immigration, but first, here’s what happened at the meeting:

Today, Donaciano presented his proposal to build a community kitchen with a library and public computer room above it. Earlier this year, he told us that he hopes to convince the municipal or state government to extend an internet connection to the town, after they see that computer resources are already in place. The meeting was Donaciano’s opportunity to convince the town to agree to provide the tequio, or communal labor, and some funding for the project. Through a Mexican governmental program called “3 for 1″, the funds raised by the town and Generacion Barranca would be matched by the municipal, state, and federal governments (quadrupling the resources available). He also invited several government officials, the supervisor of the local zone of education, the local “autoridad”, or elected authority, of the community, and the leaders of Generacion Barranca from Barranca Fierro. Everyone, including us, gave a short speech introducing themselves to the community sitting on the cement steps in the shade of the town square. This took several hours, especially since some of it was translated into English by Bethany Loberg, the CAUSA leader. However, the most important results of the meeting were decided in the last 15 minutes, when Donaciano presented the document for the authority of the village to sign. He met with all the men of the community separately to discuss it, and eventually agreed. The municipal government representative also signed it, completing the first step of the approval process which begins at the municipal level and continues at the state and federal level. (Update: on Wed, Donaciano met with Rene Ruiz, who delivered the application to the state office.)

The meeting was also attended by a PhD research student, Julia, who had heard of Barranca Fierro through the websites of Generacion Barranca and WDA. She gave a speech representing the Oaxacan NGO, “Libros para Pueblos” (books for villages). The organization provides a library of 300 books in Spanish to villages that can provide a space and shelving and contribute 15000 pesos (US equivalent $1210). The community center, when built, will provide the space for these books. Donaciano offered to raise half the money through his organization, while the presenter offered to raise the rest herself.

Donaciano appears to have found representatives for his NGO, Generacion Barranca, separate from the traditional authority selected by the town. This is a different leadership structure than Santa Maria Tindu. I’ve been reading a research book written about the other hometown association we’re working with, Santa Maria Tindu. It’s a very helpful resource, written in 2006 by a researcher from the University of Mexico. He studied the effectiveness of the transborder community of Tindu, and gave some copies of his book to the secondary school teacher, who gave a copy to us. I think it’s amazing that someone has studied the very community we’re working with, although Tindu’s engineering accomplishments and the close community organization they have maintained on both sides of the border are unique and deserve research. Anyway, the book describes the leadership structure of the home town association, which includes a president, a secretary, a treasurer, and several other supporting members, all in the US. They communicate with the elected authority of the community in Oaxaca, who is also recognized by the Municipal government as the official authority of the community. This authority position, called a cargo, is a duty undertaken by a new person every year, who returns to their home village to serve the term. In contrast, Donaciano’s organization has two presidents, one in Portland and another in Barranca Fierro. At the meeting, Donaciano introduced each speaker, and before the local, Barranca Fierro president of Generacion Barranca spoke, he explained, ” it’s important to have continuity, so even though we have a local authority, the position changes every year, and we need this local committee, too.” His comments suggest that there might be some discord or competition between the local committee and the elected authority.

The local committee members of Generacion Barranca spoke briefly about the challenges of working in their rural community. Bartolome Cruz remarked that it is difficult to stay in contact with the group in the US, since the only available communication is through pay-by-the-minute telephones. He also mentioned that he and the other local committee members were volunteers, and that working on the committee was difficult since they did not have the steady income of a job (a result of living in Barranca Fierro, rather than the US). Eloy Cruz, the local president, added that he appreciated the presence of everyone, and that he hoped the meeting would not be in vain.

Donaciano also invited Lic. Rene Ruiz Quiroz, director of the Institute for Migration Concerns for the State of Oaxaca (IOAM), to the meeting. He is in charge of approving 3 for 1 applications at the state level. However, he is also a cousin of the governor of Oaxaca, Ulises Ruiz, whose state government is considered the most corrupt of any in Mexico. At a May, 2008 conference in Eugene on the contributions of Oaxacan immigrants to development, Rene Ruiz Quiroz attended as a representative of the government. However, he abruptly left after the audience raised critical questions about the role of the state government oppression in forcing Oaxacans to migrate. Several Oaxacan professors who presented at the conference had been tortured and detained by the government of his cousin, Ulises Ruiz, during the state-led oppression of the social movement of Oaxaca in 2006. Many others had “disappeared”, been assassinated, or forced to leave the country. However, when faced with these questions, Rene refused to address them and abruptly left the conference room. Source: (http://vientodecomunicacion.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/migrantes-cuestionan-presencia-sigilosa-de-funcionario-oaxaqueno-durante-conferencia-sobre-migracion-en-eu/)

Despite these criticisms, Donaciano invited Quiroz to come to Oregon to attend the first Oregon Guelaguetza in November of 2009. (This event was a celebration of indigenous dances from the many different regions of Oaxaca - read our November blog posts for more details.) Donaciano explained to attending WDA members that he believed it was important to include the Oaxacan government in the festival, because development projects cannot happen without its support. His pragmatic view wasn’t shared by all the Oaxacan Oregonians; several hometown associations in the Oregon area refused to collaborate with the Donaciano when they realized that the Oaxacan government would be invited.

Ruiz Quiroz arrived at the meeting in a brand new Ford Explorer, wearing an expensive suit and accompanied by a young secretary. In his speech to the community, he recounted Donaciono’s invitation to attend the Oregon Guelaguetza, which included sending a Mercedes Benz to his hotel in Portland. Quiroz proudly recounted, “ I asked Garcia where he rented such a nice car, and he replied, ‘it’s not rented, I own it.’” This, he explained, was an example of the success Oaxacan immigrants could achieve through immigration. Clearly, he’s an odd person to oversee the concerns of immigrants, especially since he valued Donaciano’s American material wealth more than the development projects he has undertaken to improve his own community.

Frankly, I was embarrassed that I had been so friendly and uninformed when I first met Quiroz, at the Oregon Guelaguetza. It’s raising a lot of questions for us about the importance of political advocacy versus project success for these small towns. At least Quiroz’s support for Donaciano, and therefore his projects to help Barranca Fierro, will probably be indispensable to their funding and completion. Even so, we all wondered if working with Quiroz was sacrificing Donaciano’s credibility with the more left-leaning teachers and other potential partners in his projects, maybe even members of his own community.

The municipal secretary of Sedesol, or Social Development, also attended. All of the official government representatives expressed thanks for being invited to the meeting, and emphasized the importance of a community building for improving the futures of Barranca Fierro’s children. Through better schooling, they would improve their economic futures, as Lic. Rene Ruiz Quiroz implied. After Quiroz’s speech, Donaciano modified this idea. He amended that education is the key to success, but success doesn’t mean becoming a millionaire – rather, education opens minds and helps in becoming a better person.

These ideas weren’t unexpected for me. In fact, I fully believe in the value of school, not only for its enlightening effect on your mind, but also as the best way to improve one’s chance of economic success in a competitive job market. That’s the American dream, right? (Especially as indicated by the name of the educational funding bill for young immigrants to attend college in the US, “The DREAM Act). Donaciano’s NGO, Generacion Barranca, also believes in the power of education to economically empower people. They write in their mission statement, “We want the children of Barranca Fierro Mixtepec to become doctors, lawyers, teachers, and engineers…” To this idea, he adds the hope that children who stay in school in Oaxaca will not choose to immigrate to the United States, either as students or adults. Instead, he hopes they will remain loyal to Barranca and return to transform it into a self-sustaining community. He said, “Then, if you need a doctor, you can stay here in Barranca to find one. If there are legal problems about the land, lawyers will be here to defend our cases. We will have teachers in our own community to teach the schools.”

I listened to these ideas enthusiastically, but several teachers shared a different point of view , both at the meeting and during a conversation with the primary school teachers of Barranca the following day. The teachers argued that a focus of educating children to be professionals should not be the first priority, while other problems were ignored in marginalized, indigenous communities such as Barranca Fierro. I think these concerns are especially important for us to hear. The next speeches at the meeting were a prying critique of the ideas expressed by the previous speakers.

Arnulfo Martinez, superintendent of the local zone of education (I need to check that title), was the first to speak. Martinez pointed out that the economy of Oaxaca cannot support professionals even at their current levels, and many doctors, lawyers and engineers who go to the city of Oaxaca cannot find work. He said that teachers, especially, lack employment opportunities because their students are frequently taken out of school to travel north with their families for work. This seasonal migration also hurts students, who are held back when they attend the schools in northern Mexico. In his opinion, the most important priority for improving the region is creating jobs, for which he asked for help from the government. Only with local employment could families remain in the village year-round and send their children to school. He emphasized the dangers of immigrating (a topic that most successfully returned immigrants never talk about). He continued,”we have all the resources, but we lack the cooperation of the government. It’s priority must be to offer technical and financial assistance to communities. Additionally, we must teach people to subsist on what they can make themselves, so that they do not depend on jobs for money.

Martinez also prioritized valuing the traditional culture of indigenous peoples, even over educating children to become professionals. “By studying how people have lived before, we can support them in this chapter of change.” He said, “The power is here. The culture and traditions need to be preserved. As teachers, we must continue to teach our students the language and traditions of our culture.” Martinez implied that immigration and government agendas often devalue traditional culture.

Mardonio Juarez, a teacher who had formerly lived and worked in Barranca Fierro, also spoke in support of creating jobs to prevent migration. He said that each day, Oaxacans die as they try to cross the border to work in the US. However, he also strongly supported the community center, since it would bring the possibility of internet access. He pointed out that internet access would allow children to contact their family in the US and learn about the world even from remote, rural villages.

I don’t think Martinez and Juarez meant to criticize Donaciano’s previous work in improving education, such as giving students bicycles to travel to school. I think he directed his speech to Lic. Rene Ruiz Quiroz, whose powerful government position means that he could, if he wished, channel funds into rural development. However, it’s clear that Quiroz’s priorities are very different from Donaciano’s goal of giving people “the right not to immigrate.”

On the other hand, during our meeting the next day, the village’s primary school teacher challenged Donaciano directly after we met with her class. All of the fourth and fifth grade students had just shared with us their dreams for the future: “to work in an office, to be an athlete, to be a doctor, to be an attorney”. Señora Maria looked directly at us and said, “It’s a shame that none of the students were brave enough to say that they want to become good fathers and mothers, supporting their children. That is a noble career, too.” She said that it’s important for students to learn that their own families and traditions (which rarely include working towards higher education) are also valuable.

The teachers of the Zapoteco region in which Barranca Fierro is located were educated at a new teacher’s college that trains them to teach Spanish and indigenous languages. This means that Barranca Fierro students learn to read and write their first language, Zapoteco, in school - how cool is that? Additionally, the college focuses on preserving and teaching traditional culture. In Oaxaca, teachers have always played a crucial role in representing rural communities, sine they are often the only highly-educated person living in an indigenous community. The Social Movement of 2006 was begun by the annual teachers’ strike, in which teachers requested better resources for their communities. So, at the little meeting in Barranca Fierrro, we had both ends of the polarized Oaxacan political spectrum: Ruiz Quiroz, cousin of the very conservative governor of Oaxaca, represented one end and the teachers who attended represented the other.

Development projects are complex and political - a lesson we’ve learned over and over during this project. However, I’m really grateful for today’s opportunity to hear diverse opinions. It can only help us understand the needs and problems of Barranca Fierro. I guess it’s always complicated, but worth trying to understand.

Thanks for staying updated,

Kristen

PS: More on the conference in Eugene and Raul Ruiz Quiroz at:

(http://vientodecomunicacion.wordpress.com/2008/11/25/migrantes-cuestionan-presencia-sigilosa-de-funcionario-oaxaqueno-durante-conferencia-sobre-migracion-en-eu/)

Written January 9, 2009

We were in Oaxaca today, visiting Monte Alban and a women’s weaving
cooperative. We were feeling a little guilty about leaving the blog posts to see a tourist attraction, but as John said, “I don’t think we’ll be coming around these parts again soon,” so we went to see the Zapotec ruins on the mountain above the city of Oaxaca.

The massive foundations on the top of Monte Alban were begun in 80′0 BC, and are evidence of the incredible Zapotec civilization that lived there until about 200 AD. A guide pointed out that they couldn´t have been completed without a different worldview, of less self-interest and more interest in the collective, reinforced by religious beliefs (as well as a very hierarchical society with many lower-class workers available). I don´t know how much of that thought system was inherited by modern Zapotec communities, but in Barranca Fierro (the Zapotec village we´ll visit), the community collectively decides to take on projects, then uses a system of tequio to require every male member to contribute labor to communal projects.

The womens weaving cooperative visit was part of the CAUSA delegation schedule, not WDA related, but I think we learned some important lessons from this successful nonprofit group, especially about organizing change from the bottom up.

A little history: eleven years ago, women in the small community needed to supplement their household income, although they rarely left the house. The group began when eight women rented a sewing machine and began embroidering traditional shirts to sell. Very early, they received help from a professor in international development. She advised them to seek out financial support from civil and governmental organizations, which was difficult since many of the women had never been to the city, a half hour away. The first time they had to walk through the busy downtown of Oaxaca, they held hands out of fear. Even when organizations agreed to lend them money, the women faced pressure from their families and communities to remain in the home, caring for their children. However, as they began to earn money that benefited their families, and to undertake projects that helped the entire community, those critical voices calmed down. Eventually they grew to sixteen members, who create beautiful handwoven pieces - rugs, hangings and bags - all using traditional dyes.

This is the part that applies to WDA´s work in Tindu: the professor´s help and those loans
and grants from Oaxacan city organizations were crucial for the cooperative´s growth. These women didn’t magically brainstorm ideas without any outside help - they were aided by the professor in finding the help that was already there. Also, their community location put them geographically close enough to the city to make accessing these official resources possible. Ted said that the Mexican government is often criticized for not sharing information about the social programs it provides. I wonder if there are governmental programs that Santa Maria Tindu is not aware of – should WDA be venturing, like the coop, into the city to get more connections for them? Are there experts whose help we should solicit? I feel that we´ve barely scratched the surface of NGOs here in Oaxaca, which might help Tindu with the long term needs for an income source for elderly people, and ongoing clinic supplies.

Here´s another lesson from the womens cooperative: they do all the preparation for weaving collectively, carding, spinning and dyeing the wool together. At the coop, they enjoy the social benefits of leaving the house and meeting with other women.Then the actual weaving projects are undertaken by individual women, who work on them at home and received 100% of the selling price. As a student group, WDA could try the same thing: try to give individuals more creative, pay-back projects, which reward self-directed work. We should also continue to do the boring or more nerves-inducing work (making cold phone calls) together, and also make sure that we value leaving time to build friendship within the group. (Well, ok, I think we have that one covered pretty well, at least.)

One more lesson from the coop: In the monthly meetings, every woman is required to speak, and to give her opinion of the progress of the cooperative. There´s a subtle difference between, ¨Any questions?¨and ¨What do you (addressed to each individual) think?¨ I think it´s really important that our little student group follow the women´s coop example, where the norm is for everyone to voice their opinion. Having more minds involved is helpful, of course, but even more importantly, a project in which everyone has a voice is one in which everyone feels invested.

Obviously the womens cooperative was successful because of its members determination.
it seemed like the leadership and example set by women like the president (who spoke with us), Pastora Gutierrez had been especially important. Her confidence and vision was obvious, especially her leadership in creating community-based projects such as ecological stoves and native species reforestation. However, the group was also successful because of their methods, attitudes and connections to other organizations. I’m not sure that all of their experience is completely applicable to WDA and our future work, but I think they are a group worth learning from.

Tomorrow we´ll head out to Barranca Fierro Mixtepec, and meet with some other organizations for development: Donaciano Garcia´s American-style NGO, as well as the traditional Zapotec community authority in his hometown. Thanks for staying updated.

Take care,
Kristen

This is the continuation of the post I published yesterday, on Mexico’s economic history. It can be found here.

The North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA), which went into effect on January 1, 1994, basically wrote many of the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) into law. Not surprisingly, international corporations had a large hand in crafting the legislation, and when NAFTA was ratified and all final foreign investment restrictions were stripped away, it created the largest contiguous free trade zone in the world. In Mexico, it scrapped Article 27 of the Constitution, paving the way for the sale of community-owned land. How did Clinton, Salinas, and Cartier sell this plan? They claimed by phasing out trade barriers and encouraging private investment, NAFTA would allow each country to do what it did best, with jobs and a rise in standards of living for everyone. For Mexico, this was said to be factory production, though the indigenous farmers of Oaxaca certainly disagree. Clearly, NAFTA wasn’t for them, or any other Mexican farmers for that matter: Mexico lost two million jobs (NAFTA created an estimated 800,000, though many of these have since moved to cheaper Asian labor markets) and corn farmers saw a 70% decrease in income from 1998-2008! In the same period agri-giant Cargill’s net income went up 660%! In reality, NAFTA has done little for Mexico except cement rising inequality and push the poorest even deeper into poverty: the richest 1/5 of the population receives over 50% of annual income while the bottom 1/5 of the population receives only 3.5%.

And since 9/11, U.S. led foreign policy has seen the convolution of economic and security policy in the name of keeping us safe. There is no better example than the Security & Prosperity Partnership (SPP), commonly called NAFTA plus, comprised of the executive powers of the three member nations and the North American Competitiveness Council (NACC), a group of 30 CEOs from some of the largest corporations in each country. This partnership marks a disturbing trend of militarization to protect economic interests along with the characterization of economic problems like migration as security issues. The largest policy initiative to come from the SPP has been the Meridia Initiative, which provides 1.6 billion in military aid over three years to Mexico for “counterterrorism, counternarcotics, and border security.” However, a concurrent jump in human rights abuses and the Mexican government’s usually brutal repression of social movements, occurring often in Oaxaca, point to another reality altogether, one in which the symptoms of failed economic policies are violently swept under the rug in the name of security. Indeed, every day since we’ve arrived here we’ve seen los federales driving around in shiny new Ford 150s, with three soldiers in full riot gear and M16’s standing in the bed (they also drive Dodge Chargers). And I can’t help delving into this a little bit here, but don’t believe for a second that any of the Meridia Initiative’s designers actually expect this aid to help win the drug war; it’s based on the same failed model as the Columbia Plan (supply-side only), and no one really wants to win the war on drugs anyway, it employs too many people and injects too much money into the economies of both countries. This lack of sincerity on the part of the plan’s architects only further reveals its true intention to protect the economic interests of corporations, like the government’s disturbing use of force to break up Oaxacans peaceful blockading a polluting mine owned by Canadian giant Fortuna Silver Mines. I highly recommend the linked article on this story; it’s hard to doubt any of this once you find out what’s really going on on the ground down here.

Tomorrow we will be leaving for Barranca Fierro Mixteca, but we should have a post up on our second day in Santa Maria Tindu before we go.

–John