In ‘Ethnicity and Culture amidst New Neigbors’(1999), Theodore Macdonald Jr chronicles changes in the lives and culture of an indigenous group named the Runa whose traditional land lies within the Amazonian region of the nation state of Ecuador. The book outlines the Runa’s more ‘traditional’ way of life prior to major European colonization of their area and the factors that left them more untouched by colonial pressures, allowing them to maintain this pattern of life and maintain their belief system even after extensive Spanish colonization of the Amazon region. The book focuses particularly on the Runa’s various and changing responses to colonization and modernization that threatened them with loss of land and culture and impeded their self-determination as they battled for control over their lives and for their cultural survival in a changing social and political environment. Macdonald (1999) documents predominantly their shift from passive tolerance of colonizers and acceptance of modernization to an active social movement which led to the creation of strong political organisation and with it the emergence of new pan-Indian ethnicity.
Macdonald (1999) first gives a broad overview of ‘traditional’ Runa life, explaining Runa social organization, kinship, ritual practice and indigenous ideas of territory and land use. He also examines Runa cosmology, including ideas about how the world should be ordered and the nature of interpersonal relationships. These beliefs guide social norms and provide a framework for interpreting and understanding the world and their place in it, especially in regards to non-Indians. The expected social norm is that Runa are “considerate, sensitive, and respectful” (Macdonald 1999: 34) and Runa culture demands a “submissive and empathetic attitude to ‘others’ ” (Macdonald 1999: 35). Additionally, within Runa culture there are deep rooted patterns of reciprocity and the belief that knowledge is gained through intimate, face-to-face relationships; all cultural factors which undoubtedly influenced their initial response to the new colonisers.
The Runa maintained their traditional way of life as well as retaining their unique cultural beliefs right up into the mid-twentieth century simply due to the degree of isolation that history afforded them. Their location in the Upper Napo, to some extent, remained out of reach and slightly less dramatically affected by early colonial pressures. Nonetheless, the Runa are of course not ‘untouched’ by the effects of European colonialism. In some ways they would have surely felt the consequences of the massive rubber boom of late 19th century, the extensive missionization of the region and present day resource extraction on their land. However, since Runa territory historically occupied land that was further away from the busy hub at the mouth of the Amazon, they managed to somewhat avoid the enslavement and forced labour that numerous other indigenous groups experienced under the colonial regime, a remoteness also afforded them a degree of protection from early missionization. Furthermore, the indigenous groups in these areas also actually benefitted from the colonizers presence; both historically and contemporarily. During the height of the rubber boom Runa men collected rubber for non-indigenous patrons in exchange for valued trade goods. More recently, oil drilling and resource extraction on Runa territory provided them with the opportunity for short-term wage employment. Since this work was only temporary it did not having any major lasting impacts of the pre-existing social and economic organizations. They still continued in a mostly traditional way and this maintained a degree of self-determination by carefully managing their involvement in colonial affairs.
It was the rubber boom in particular that that created the nature of early inter-ethnic relationships in the Amazon. For many indigenous peoples, involvement with a patron was their primary interaction with Europeans. These patrons, always of European or mestizo background arrived in the Upper Napo region bearing inexpensive gifts for indigenous peoples in return for cheap labour, an exchange that commonly locked indigenous peoples into a cycle of debt servitude. Although these relationships were a form of social control and indebted workers were often exploited, the Runa were not just however helpless victims of this practice. They frequently entered into these relationships willingly and they were well thought out strategic decisions with specific patrons being specially picked to meet the needs of an individual or the group (Macdonald 1999:52). Although asymmetrical, these relationships were in some nature reciprocal; the patrons used and exploited indigenous workers for their own ends, yet to some degree they also relied on them. Alternatively the Runa also used the patrons for their own needs. The reciprocal nature of the relationship was vital when the Runa were confronted with any kind of legal issue; they sought the assistance of the patrons. Furthermore, the patrons became an integral as cultural brokerage between Indian and Non-Indian society. The reciprocal aspect of these relationship, albeit asymmetrical and the face-to-face nature worked for the Runa since they fit into a pre-existing cultural framework. These relationships dictated the nature of inter-ethnic relationships for centuries. However, this all began to change with the separation of church and state and increased government intervention aiming to put an end to Indian abuses in the region. Faceless governments and institutions began to assert more control over the Runa’s lives; their changing policies regarding land use and government sponsored colonization programs resulted in a wave of settlers into Runa territory.
At first the Runa did not see these early colonisers as a threat. They had originally settled on land that lay between Runa territory and that of their hostile neighbours, the Huaorani. Since the Runa hoped then that the location of the new settlement would act as a buffer thus protecting them from future Huaorani attacks, they passively accepted the colonists (Macdonald 1999: 61). In fact, during the early stages of settlement the Runa even went so far as to openly embrace the colonists ‘modern’ farming practices. It was the Runa themselves who drove the shift to cattle ranching and involvement in the commercial market as a new means of subsistence. Prior to the colonists arrival, the Runa like many other Amazonian groups traditionally practiced slash and burn, or swidden horticulture, an ancient and ecologically viable adaptation to the limiting conditions of the neotropics that has been “practiced for at least 5,000 years in Amazonia” (Macdonald 1999: 16). Slash and burn horticulture refers to small plots of land that are cleared within a forest, through clearing vegetation (the ‘slash’ aspect) and then completely cleared using carefully managed fires to remove the remaining shrubbery (the ‘burn’). The remnants of the fire will be left and constitute highly valuable fertilizer, adding greatly needed minerals to the agriculturally poor soils, a method of farming that is often seen as primitive, backwards and the antithesis of modernization.
The arrival of the colonists marked a shift from traditional horticulture towards an adoption of cattle ranching and a greater involvement in the commercial, national market on the part of the Runa. Although the presence of the settlers did change traditional subsistence practices it did not function to eradicate their culture, but instead served the opposite; to served to create a strong and distinct sense of boundaries and cultural identity where it previously been absent. The Runa had not previously had a need to think about ethnicity since “to a large extent history allowed them a degree of isolation in which they focused more on each other than on other groups, in a sense, they [had] placed their ideas and concerns with ethnicity in the background” (Macdonald 1999: 44). However, this situation began to change as more and more settlers arrived and attempted to gain land titles to traditional Runa land. The concept of property ownership did not exist within indigenous Runa culture, it instead understood land as more communal with unstated rules about land use and who had access to what territories, all of which was “governed” through traditional social organizations. For the Runa community land did have defined boundaries, they were just not explicitly stated. Colonization obviously changed all this, since it brought with it European ideas of land ownership. A major issue was that traditional slash and burn horticulture mimics the natural biodiversity of the forest with farmers carefully managing the landscape, however to Europeans the forest appeared to be unused and uncultivated and therefore unoccupied (Macdonald 1999: 15-16). Consequently, plots were cleared and land was parceled out into individual lots. The Runa’s formally passive attitude towards the settlers changed when they realised they were in grave danger of losing their traditional land. In response the Runa first approached missionaries to assist them in claiming land titles to their ancestral land. They were surprisingly and uncommonly successful in their goal for the time and location, and most adult men managed to claim title to one of these plots.
Then came the major threat to their self-determinism; the Agrarian Reform Laws of 1973. This new government policy intended to increase agricultural productivity in Ecuador, but as a result the Runa found themselves pressured by the government to increase the agricultural output of their land or have all “uncultivated” land expropriated. Uncultivated in this sense, to the government, meant a shift to modernization and a greater reliance on cattle ranching. During this time the Runa gained access to new capital in the form of wages and bank loans with which they were encouraged to buy cattle. The Runa’s shift from slash and burn horticulture to the adoption of cattle ranching can perhaps be seen as adaptation, a means of survival maybe, “viewing local change as a response to current national policies” (Macdonald 1999: 72). The new sources of income as well as shifting cultural practices facilitated many young Runa to leave their traditional forest communities to attend universities in the cities. As a result these indigenous youths were exposed to more frequent inter-ethnic interactions and relationships and university introduced them to various theories pertaining to the general status of indigenous peoples in Latin America, the political and economic processes which lay at the root of their ascribed subordinate status, the concept of “dependency theory”, the unequal nature of powerful countries and third-world dependents from whom they extracted infinite resources, all of which created a greater sense of self and a better understanding of their unequal status and inherent human and indigenous rights (Macdonald 1999: 85)
All these factors combined to create a unique situation for the Runa. Faced with this new and greater threat to their ancestral land due to the Agrarian Land Reform Laws and armed with the knowledge and understanding of their situation the Runa responded with a change of tactic. So “in sharp contrast to the Runa’s previous responses to their subordinate status the region became the earliest setting for a social movement that has now proliferated and evolved throughout much of Latin America” (Macdonald 1999: 6). Following in the footsteps of their neighbours the Shuar, the created a major socio-political movement to fight the issues of colonization from within and at its core lay a heightened sense of unique ethnic identity. After deliberation, the Federation of Indian Organizations of Napo (FOIN) was created, a name which was chosen to re-affirm a sense of ethnic identity and captured the broader goals of the organisation.
Initially FOIN did not gain much support from the government or the church alike; they were met with government red tape along their way and relied primarily on the funding of donors. They had wanted to further Runa causes and win land claims cases, but were met with numerous blockades. Additionally, various failed attempts at cultural programs like the forest management program all hindered their progress and support. In response the Runa realised that they had to put their individual and local goals aside in favour of a broader pan-Amazonian Indian identity and a broad recognition of traditional indigenous rights (Macdonald 1999: 88).They banded together with other groups and organisations in similar positions to create a strong national political movement. Their organisation began to gain legitimization on the international level thus governmental support and major titles to their land (Macdonald 1999: 99). These major political ethnic federations facilitated Runa self-determination and were based on “three primary concerns: 1) to defend their member communities’ rights to land and resources 2) to expand and strengthen their organizations 3) to maintain their unique ethnic identity” (Macdonald 1999: 90). The Runa fought hard and made the decision to involve themselves in the legal and political sphere in order to maintain their rights, their cultural identity as a distinct people and the ability to self-determination over their own lives without interference from national governments.
Shannon Turner-Riley
ANTH 391: Indigenous Peoples of the Amazon
Instructor: Dr Peter Stahl
Book Report 2
Friday 2nd November, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment