Throughout the western world, indigenous cultures have been fetishized by the ancestors of their past colonizers for their costumes and fashion. As a result, some groups have decided to take legal action to protect their life’s work from corporate mass-production–or at least find a way to earn profits stolen from them. The most recent development has come from Guatemala, where Maya women have made significant strides in their attempt to receive trademark protection for their textile designs–known as huipiles–so that they are not undercut by government-supported industrial fabric production meant to increase the country’s tourism appeal.

The fight began in May 2016 when the Asociación Femenina para el Desarrollo de Sacatépquez (AFEDES)–an indigenous grassroots organization that supports Guatemalan women and their families–brought a motion to the Constitutional Court asking for constitutional protection for their indigenous textiles. Under Guatemala’s constitution, the government guarantees it will “recognize, respect, and promote [indigenous] forms of life, customs, traditions.” AFEDES also cited the International Labor Organization’s Convention 169–which says that governments and companies must consult indigenous people prior to any projects that impact their culture or territory.

“Although from a Western perspective the act of producing our own clothes … is synonymous to backwardness or poverty, for us it constitutes the road to free self-determination of our communities,” said Angelina Aspuac, an AFEDES organizer, during a Constitutional Court hearing.

Prior to the lawsuit, not much had been done to uphold that portion of the country’s governing document. Guatemalan designers had been getting away with utilizing indigenous designs and clothing in their catalogs for years. In 2011, the traditional clothing of the male spiritual leaders of the K’iche’ Maya highland town of Chichicastenango was used for Miss Guatemala in the Miss Universe beauty pageant.

“We are appalled and outraged, because of the misuse of our cultural possessions that follow and are sacred and bequeathed by our ancestors, therefore they are not objects for display and contamination,” wrote representatives of indigenous authorities in a statement.

María’s Bags–a high-end designer handbag company–currently uses indigenous weavings in its products sold for hundreds of dollars in the United States, Europe, and Guatemala. To add insult to the appropriation, María is a commonly-used derogatory word to refer to all Mayan women, though the name was created before the bag designs were approved.

Even with all of this supporting evidence, AFEDES members began to wonder if they would receive the support they so desperately needed in court. They decided that the best course of action would be to make changes to the laws in place. In November 2016, the grassroots organization proposed legislation that would recognize the notion of collective intellectual property and acknowledge indigenous peoples as collective authors of their cultural heritage. If passed, the law would protect Maya weavers from plagiarism and allow them to receive royalties for the commercial use of their designs. The bill was officially accepted for debate on July 3 and currently awaits Congress’ consideration

The progress this legislation has made is unprecedented because history has shown that treatment of indigenous populations domestically–and internationally–has ranged anywhere from purposefully ignorant to downright horrific. In Guatemala, the country has refused to recognize collective intellectual property, even though an estimated 51 percent of the country’s population belongs to the Maya group. The Mayan population also suffered the most during the country’s civil war when over 80 percent of the 200,000 people killed were indigenous.

Around the world, indigenous communities have organized to challenge the use of sacred designs for the sake of fashion. In 2011, for example, the Navajo Nation sued Urban Outfitters for millions of dollars for the appropriation of its name for a clothing line. The tribe lost the two lawsuits, with the court claiming that the tribe’s trademark was used as a style description, and not as a reference to the tribe. In 2016, Canadian design collective Dsquared2 released a line of stereotypical aboriginal outfits called #Dsquaw–a name based on the term “squaw” which is used as a derogatory word toward indigenous women. While the company did issue an apology, it was still awarded with the Team Canada Rio 2016 clothing contract.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Maya Women Fight to Protect Indigenous Textiles from Appropriation appeared first on Law Street.

On October 26, Jimmy Morales defeated former first lady Sandra Torres in a runoff election, taking 67.4 percent of the vote to become Guatemala’s president-elect. Scheduled to take office in 2016, little is known about Morales’ plan for his government other than that he is a conservative who believes in minimal government interference.

The general election was held as scheduled despite the resignation of President Otto Perez Molina a few days before after he was indicted on corruption charges that had claimed his prior vice-president and numerous members of his cabinet.

Despite the fact that he lacks any former political experience aside from a failed mayoral run in 2011, read on to understand the making of Morales’ rise to the presidency.

The Guatemalan Civil War (1960-1996) and Aftermath

In order to understand Guatemala’s recent election, it’s crucial to first discuss the country’s history of conflict and the connection to its recent corruption challenges. During the 1940s and early 1950s, elections in Guatemala brought popular, leftist leaders into power. In 1954, a United States-backed coup, headed by Carlos Castillo Armas, brought a military regime to power. In the 1960s, conflict between left-wing guerrilla groups and the military sparked a civil war that lasted for decades. In the 1970s, military rulers began a campaign to eliminate guerrilla leaders, causing approximately 50,000 deaths. Numerous atrocities, including genocide and forced disappearances, were committed largely by government forces. The state-sponsored atrocities killed an estimated 200,000 civilians during the nation’s civil war.

Despite the signing of peace accords in 1996, Guatemala continues to face issues like extreme poverty, illiteracy, and racism against indigenous peoples. Political tension has remained a constant, as shown by the recent turbulent election of a television comedian to the office of president. Numerous ex-government officials and landowners who assisted paramilitary groups have been convicted for their roles in the atrocities during the civil war. The internal debate over whether acts of genocide were actually committed continues, and was disputed by former president Molina.

The Road to Morales (1996-2015)

As suggested above, the transition period from civil war to peacetime democracy was slow and rocky and may still be underway. In late the 1990s and early 2000s, the government focused on cracking down on crime and protecting the human rights of civilians victimized by the past wartime governments. However, the post-war government was challenged with high crime rates, corruption, and violence directed at human rights groups and journalists.

Efrain Rios Montt, a former military leader, was permitted to run for president in 2003 despite a constitutional rule that prevented anyone who had attempted to overthrow the government from running for election. Montt had become the national leader in 1982 following a coup and oversaw the escalation of violence in the countryside. He lost the 2003 election to Oscar Berger, who later allowed the United Nations to help create the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). The group was tasked with assisting national law enforcement prosecute organized crime and drug trafficking.

Otto Perez Molina was elected president in 2011, a position that he held until earlier this year. In April, the CICIG released a report implicating numerous members of Molina’s government of corruption, most notably Vice-President Roxana Baldetti. The scandal, which became known as La Linea, revolved around officials taking bribes from importers in exchange for tariff reductions. The tactic dates back to the civil war, when military officials used payoffs finance their counter-insurgency operations. In a protest that was largely organized through social media, tens of thousands of people came out in the streets of the capital urging Baldetti to resign. After a few days, she complied.

Since Baldetti’s resignation, the corruption case has claimed more than 20 government officials, including members of opposition parties. On August 21, the CICIG issued a report which presented further evidence putting former Vice-President Baldetti and President Molina at the head of the La Linea operation. Guatemalans once again took to the streets, demanding Molina’s resignation. On September 1, the Guatemalan congress voted unanimously to withdraw the president’s protection from prosecution and two days later, Molina resigned and was arrested. On September 7, the general election was held with Morales the clear favorite heading into the runoff.

The election was held despite concerns that the La Linea scandal polluted the lead-up to the election with accusations against the candidates. Others insisted that the election should go ahead to avoid a power vacuum.

Jimmy Morales and the Election

With the slogan “Neither corrupt, nor a thief” and waning voter enthusiasm, Morales won the election. Nearly half of Guatemala’s 7.5 million registered voters did not cast ballots. Of those who did, many cited a lack of satisfaction with the current government and low expectations for any future regime. Morales’s victory is likely due to the fact that he is a political outsider who could present a contrast to the officials claimed by the La Linea scandal. He had 13 opponents in the general election but won with a plurality of the vote. Because neither of the three leading candidates met the 50 percent threshold, a runoff election was held shortly after the general. Morales’ won the runoff with around 68 percent of all votes cast.

Manuel Baldizon was considered the front-runner in the election as recently as April, but his association with the established government hurt his campaign after the scandal came to light. He finished in third place in the general election but quit the race prior to the runoff election leaving Morales and Sandra Torrez as the two remaining options.

Morales’s dominant victory in the runoff has been viewed as a rejection of the status quo by voters. However, it must be noted that Morales’s party, the National Convergence Front (FCN) only claimed 11 of the 158 available seats in Congress. Despite his landslide victory, he now faces an uphill battle as he will need to establish a coalition in the among legislators in order to advance his policy agenda.

What to Expect

Although Jimmy Morales was elected with around 68 percent of the vote, his campaign did not offer many specifics about his plans for the country. As BBC notes, his campaign manifesto is just six pages long and contains few details about policy positions beyond fighting corruption.

His campaign website emphasizes his interest in strengthening three areas: employment, education, and public health. His political ideology appears to be strongly influenced by Reaganism and a desire for minimal government interference–in fact, the “about” section of his website features a long quote from Ronald Reagan.

Expectations heading into Morales’s presidency are low given the lack of support he’ll have in Congress on day one. While his specific policy positions remain unclear, reports highlight his emphasis on religion and small government. He has stated his opposition to abortion, same-sex marriage, and the legalization of recreational drugs. Women’s rights and gay rights groups have come out against of Morales for his views, and his controversial characters in a popular sketch comedy show raised questions about his position on social issues.

Another notable area of concern is his Party’s ties to military leaders during the civil war, whom many associate with violence and corruption. In response to criticism, Morales defended his Party by issuing a clarification on his website, which noted that much of the Party leadership was replaced when he joined in 2013.

Morales has said that will not be able to make Guatemala’s economic and government problems disappear on his own. While he touted his inexperience and background to win an election that claimed many old guard politicians as victims, those virtues may now act as limitations as he attempts to build a governing coalition.

In the meantime, interim President Alejandro Maldonado has voiced support for the protesters and has backed the charges against former President Molina. Maldonado hopes that the recent developments will help the country deal with its corruption issues as it transitions to a new government. He will serve as the interim President until Morales takes office in January.

Conclusion

On the surface, the results of the Guatemalan election may appear curious, but the reality is that the election of former comedian Jimmy Morales is the result of deeply seeded distrust in the political system. Despite his background in comedy, Morales hails from a conservative party with ties to controversial leaders during the civil war. While he has not given many specifics about what his presidency will look like, it is clear that Guatemalans chose him as an alternative to the status quo. Yet, despite his landslide victory on election day, voter turnout was particularly low, indicating a general dissatisfaction with the current system.

The people of Guatemala are desperate for any form of change, rejecting established political elites for an inexperienced but popular comedian. The populace remains split between those who a cynical of any Guatemalan government and those that remain cautiously optimistic for real change.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala

Additional

The Washington Post: The ‘Donald Trump of Guatemala’ was just Elected President

The Washington Post: Guatemalan President Resigns After Judge Orders Him to Face Corruption Charges

Reuters: No joke: Guatemalan Comedian Wins Presidency in Landslide

BBC: Guatemala election: Jimmy Morales Elected President

BBC: Timeline: Guatemala

New York Times: Jimmy Morales is Elected New President in Guatemala

CNN: Guatemala election: Presidential Runoff set for October; Comedian is Frontrunner

LA Times: Guatemala Presidential Candidate Quits Party, Drops Out of Race

Victoria Sanford: Victory in Guatemala? Not Yet

Jimmy Morales: Campaign Website

Regina Bateson: How Local Institutions Emerge from Civil War

Daniel Schloss: Elusive Peace, Security, and Justice in Post-Conflict Guatemala: An Exploration of Transnational Justice and the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG)

Vox: Guatemala’s Crisis, Explained: Why the President Just Resigned

John Oliver: Guatemala’s Election

Al Jazeera: Talk to Al Jazeera: Showdown in Guatemala: Ending an Era of Impunity?

Journeyman Pictures: An American Genocide: Guatemala

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Guatemalan Elections: How a Comedian Became President appeared first on Law Street.

Last Friday, July 25, 2014, three Central American leaders  — Presidents Juan Olando Hernádez of Honduras, Otto Pérez Molina of Guatemala, and Salvador Sánchez Cerén of El Salvador — convened at the White House to discuss with President Obama the recent wave of Central American immigrants, specifically unaccompanied minors, to the United States.

“Washington must understand that if you have a Central America with violence because of the drug traffic crime, a Central America without opportunities, without growth in the economy, it is going to always be a problem for the United States,” said President Hernández of Honduras. The root causes, Hernández went on, are not America’s lax border polices, but rather the demand for illegal drugs in North America, which fuels violence in Central America, causing migrants to flee their homes. In a joint statement on Friday, President Obama and the three Central American leaders pledged to address the “underlying causes of immigration by reducing criminal activity and promoting greater social and economic opportunity.”

What this estimation overlooks, though, are the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. What causes them to submit to a perilous exodus, vulnerable to a harsh desert climate, drug violence, and personal injury crossing rivers and fences, all at the likelihood of being detained by U.S. border security, and possibly being sent back? Drug violence may very well be a cause for the flight of immigrants, but I am skeptical to hear this from leaders of governments who have vested interests in the economic exploitation, and repression of their citizens. Rather, we should listen to the people.

In Central America, graffiti is a voice for a voiceless people: the agrarian peasants and the urban poor. Graffiti is an alternative medium of communication that broadcasts messages that corporate media outlets such as radio and television fail to incorporate. It is an open forum of dissent, writ large on the side of a government building, or across a freight car, traveling throughout the region. More importantly, graffiti is a vantage point from which we can discern the perspective of Central American immigrants, and the pressures behind their flight.

Ciudad de Juárez, the capital of Oaxaca, Mexico, six hundred miles from the Guatemalan border, is home to the Assembly of Revolutionary Artists of Oaxaca (ASARO). Comprised of multiple graffiti crews and independent artists, ASARO was forged in the summer 2006 following the violent state-oppression of teachers demanding better pay and working conditions. Forty-five hundred federal police forcibly removed the teachers from the streets, injuring 92 protesters and killing 17, including an American news correspondent. The brutal government crackdown on protests mobilized disparate activist groups against the government, which they saw as a common cause of their plights, and ASARO emerged as a visual amplification of their dissent through the streets of Ciudad de Juárez.

“Arte Del Pueblo y Para el Pueblo” (Art of the People for the People) courtesy of ian m via Flickr

What is more interesting, though, in regard to immigration to the United States, is the political motive and content of the ASARO graffiti. In their images and slogans, we find the root cause of strife afflicting the people in Mexico and Central America, and ultimately the systemic causes for the massive waves of immigration to the U.S. over the last five years.

“The assembly of revolutionary artists arises from the need to reject and transcend authoritarian forms of governance and institutional, cultural, and societal structures, which have been characterized as discriminatory for seeking to impose a single version of reality and morality[.]” – ASARO Manifesto

In Oaxaca, where 80.3 percent of the population lack sanitation services, street lighting, piped water, and paved roads, ASARO illuminated institutional prejudices against ethnicity, class, and sex, keeping eight out ten people in extreme poverty. Their graffiti critiqued the violence of the Mexican government in the 2006 uprising, but also demanded  equal rights for disenfranchised groups like farm workers, indigenous people, and women, as well as exposing the hypocrisies and corruption of the ruling elite. Slogans such as “Todo el Poder al Pueblo. Colonos en Pie de Lucha” (All the Power to the People. Neighbors on our feet to fight!) incited reflection and fiery debates on issues ranging from the privatization of public goods, to gender equality, democratic participate, and Indigenous rights. Moreover, images of the Oaxacan governor labeled “Cynic, Thief, Autocrat, Repressor, Murders,” and “End Fascism in Mexico!” rallied protesters against the government.

Courtesy of natarén via Flickr

“Todo el poder al pueblo. Colonos en lucha” (All Power to the people. Neighbors, on their feet for the fight). Courtesy of nataren via Flickr.

In addition to social struggles in Mexico, ASARO’s political graffiti illustrate issues that affect Central America broadly, such as the economic exploitation of natural resources and labor by transnational corporations, as well as documenting the physical and emotional trauma of immigration. ASARO’s political graffiti critiqued the extraction of oil and minerals from Oaxacan land, which is exported by the Mexican government at an exorbitant profit, without benefit to the Oaxacan people. One ASARO poster featuring a barefoot peasant tilling the land read, “La Tierra es de queen la Trabaja” (The earth belongs to those who work it); a wood-cut block print depicted Uncle Sam under an eagle drinking from an oil can, kicking miniature figures with guns, who represent the Mexican people.

These critiques of foreign exploitation not only speak to conditions in Mexico and Central America, but suggest a system of global colonization by transnational corporations. A block print called Body Parts on Railroad (2010) documents the perils of immigration. Body parts litter train tracks leading to the U.S.: a leg labeled “Salvador,” a finger labeled “Mexico,” a hand “Honduras,” and a head “Guatemala.” Similarly, another block print depicts small animals standing at the opening of a sewer drain like those used by some immigrants to enter the U.S., that runs under a border fence replete with police and an American flag.

In all, the political graffiti of Oaxaca, Mexico demonstrates that there is much more to the immigration debate than just the quips of politicians. In order to understand the root cause of the recent wave of unaccompanied child immigrants, and in order to address this crisis adequately, discussions must include the perspectives of the immigrants themselves. Drug violence is not the only cause for immigration from Central America; but rather a host of systemic issues force immigrants to travel to the U.S. Government corruption and economic exploitation are, perhaps, the most intolerable conditions for the people, as evidenced by the ASARO graffiti. Only from the oppressed can we fully understand their oppression; graffiti is the voice of the subaltern.

 —
Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

 Featured image courtesy of [Fabricator77 via Flickr]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Graffiti Describes the Struggle of Immigrants and Undocumented Minors appeared first on Law Street.