Ethnic Politics

There is a distinct difference between movements for the sake of socioeconomic equality and movements for the sake of ethnic or racial equality, although the two often get lumped together. Whether this is an attempt to mute the voice of people of color or just a way of trying to tackle both issues at the same time, it is hard to tell.

Post-election here in the U.S, we are seeing the two movements split in a way we have not for a very long time, as rural white Americans living in poverty showed up at the polls in astounding numbers to vote for one candidate while people of color showed up for another. This is not to say that all rural, white Americans are living in poverty or that all people of color are, but statistics show that poverty is more prevalent in these groups than in others. So now we are asking the question, why is there a split between the two if they seem to be fighting for similar things? And HERE is where there is a misconception. The fight for ethnic and racial equality is quite different from the fight for economic or class equality, because the oppression of racial and ethnic groups is rooted in who they ARE, not how much money they make. Now let’s contextualize this issue a little better and pan over to the same issue in Latin America.

There is no doubt that living in poverty comes with an unbelievable number of challenges. However, living in a system that oppresses based on skin color is a whole different problem, as people are stereotyped and silenced based on a piece of their identity, not based on the paycheck they bring home. In Bolivia, indigenous groups have been silenced by the government for years, their ethnicity keeping them from having a say in political issues and more. This is quite literally insane to think about because the national majority identifies as indigenous (Van Cott 2010). Why would the largest group in terms of population have so little say in the governance of a country? Up until the election of Evo Morales, who identifies as Aymara, in December of 2005, Bolivia never had a president identify as indigenous. In 2011, Peru also elected their first indigenous president, Ollanta Humala. And now, indigenous groups finally have a voice in politics and social issues, but it should not have taken this long.

If 11% of the total population in Latin America is indigenous, why is there so little representation in government? This is not an uncommon theme, as the U.S. experiences a similar issue, with almost 30% of the population non-white, and still experiencing such clear systematic oppression. Perhaps this goes back to the conquest of the Americas by European whites, killing and displacing thousands of natives for the sake of their own agenda. Historically, the voices of ethnic minorities have not been valued in the Americas, and this translates very directly into current politics.

It would be unfair to say that progress has not been made, since questions regarding ethnicity are being added to the census, indigenous movements are becoming more common and much stronger throughout the region, and there are more indigenous people in positions of leadership than ever before. Pride for indigenous ethnicity has also become a common theme in countries where before it was something seen as “lesser than”, making it clear that change is happening even if only in small strides. Making an indigenous man president does not fix hundreds of years of ethnic divides, but it does muster a sense of hope for a more progressive future for many people.

This leaves us with the question of how to continue moving forward without furthering the divide, a question being mulled over by countries across the Americas and even the world. However, it is important to remember the gruesome history of Latin America’s conquista, and the potential after-effects of that. A history of ethnic and racial tensions can bleed deep into a nation’s identity and should not be considered as a minor and easily-fixed issue.