NATIONALISTS MAY FOCUS ON CULTURE
rather than economic or political issues for tactical
reasons. But it is not tactics that drives them to distance
themselves from the traditional Left, whom they consider as
culturally imperialistic as the Right. Before 1984 no Guate-
malan Left organization supported Maya territorial or politi-
cal autonomy. In fact, the received Left wisdom was that
Maya did not qualify for the status of “nation” because they
were so fragmented and divided.*
Severo Martinez Peliez, exiled member of Guatemala’s
orthodox communist party (PGT) and a major intellectual
leader of the modern Left. put forward the revolutionary
position on Maya/Indian culture in especially stark form in
his 1971 book Lapatria del criollo. He introduced the notion
that the Maya died with the Conquest and the servile “Indi-
ans” of the modem era are creatures of Guatemala’s colonial
past.
What’s more, he argued, because of their divisive colo-
nial culture-separate unintelligible languages, restricted
marriage communities, community-distinct dressing-and
because they see Ladinos as their oppressors, regardless of
class, Indians are the cause of the country’s continued
backwardness. The revolutionary task, he concluded, is to
*In 1984, a splinter group from the Guerrilla Army of the Poor
(EGP)-Revolutionary October (OR)-did call for territorial au-
tonomy. Indeed, rumor has it that OR broke from the EGP (whose
cadre were mainly Maya but whose leadership was mainly Ladino)
precisely over such issues. Influenced by Nicaragua’s proclamation
of regional autonomy for Indians, the OR statement emphasized
cultural rights while underplaying economic and political rights-as
did the Sandinista autonomy platform.
eradicate the colonial barriers dividing Guatemalans, such as
the community-specific clothing styles imposed on Indians
by their Spanish overlords. His line of reasoning implies
Indians will be freed from their chains when they unite
behind the battle fatigues of the guerrillas.
The issue of Indian clothing is a classic way in which
Marxists have devalued the cultural symbols of the Maya. It
is true that Ladino weavers produced the skirt cloth that
Indian women wore after the Conquest, possibly as part of
the colonial version of counterinsurgency strategy. But Maya
women continued to weave much of theirclothing, with each
generation elaborating new patterns within the tradition.
Fifty years ago, moreover, Indian weavers (mainly from
Totonicapin) took over Indian skirt weaving, reintroducing
the brilliant color combinations emblematic of Maya artistry
and culture. The constant elaboration of weaving design
among contemporary Maya is an authentic expression of
Maya art that continues to evolve as a living tradition, not
frozen in a timeless pattern that is either classic Maya or
colonial.
Modern Maya women wear their woven garments with
pride as a statement that they belong to particular Maya
communities-into which they were born and into which
they will marry. When such women put on Ladino garb, they
are stating that they are available as women for the conquer-
ors rather than for the men of their own community. Given
the powerful statements that clothing makes about class,
community, identity, art, and sex, it is hardly surprising that
“modern Maya” find Martinez’s interpretations of “modern
Indian” culture, which is widely assigned in Guatemalan
secondary schools, insulting. It is, indeed, instructive that his
“Marxist” analysis fits as comfortably in the curriculum of
schools under right-wing governments as into required read-
ing for left-wing study groups.
Menu
