National and Indigenous Movements

[NorthStarRepublicML]

i posted in the thread Nationalism yay or nay as to wither national movements (such as black nationalism, or kurdish nationalism) are in any way different then indigenous movements (EZLN) and thought i would start a new thread to discuss this topic.


here is the revelant section of the post:



I'm sure that some people here support the Zapatistas and other "indigenous" movements, somehow these movements are accepted without addressing the national question by way of semantics, seemingly calling it an "indigenous" movement instead of a national movment.

now i'm not saying that this has been expressed by anyone here, but would anyone like to argue the diffrences between "indigenous" movements and nationalist movements?

why would someone support "indigenous" movements if they oppose nationalism?


i would also add that i am much more familiar with national movements then i am with indigenous movments, thus anyone with a good definition of the theory behind a indigenous movment would be encouraged to post here .....

to sum up:

Are there any diffrences between national and indigenous movements? why is an indigenous movement not called associated with nationalism? and if so why would you support an indigenous movment and not a national movment?

[Avtomat_Icaro]

To me there are no real differences between these movements besides the nametag. For that same reason I wont go "nay" against nationalistic movements. For some reason people identify themselves more with nationality, "race" or ethnicity than with class. Which is in my opinion one of the reason why "internationalism" as figures such as Che Guevara tried to achieve failed. If you look at the Vietnamese war for independence or even the Cuban Revolution, you will see that these were nationalistic conflicts, not great communist proletarian rebellions in which the mighty and oppressed proletariat freed themselves from the evil oppressing bourgeoise in an Apocalyptic Struggle in order to create their own Paradise on Earth. (yes communism, for all its anti religion rethoric still seems to have to religious aspect. in it in my humble opinion)

Nationalism, or indiginism (is that the correct word) are therefor in my opinion not things we should ignore or dismiss because they might not fit in the communist ideal of personal identification solely based on class rather than nationality, race or ethnicity.

[Organic Revolution]

One word: ideology.

Indigenous struggles usually center around taking back land and for their identity, while national struggles usually have some coattail of religion or authoritarian politics.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Some nationalist movements and most indigenous movements are reactions to colonialism and imperialism and seek freedom from foreign domination. Some nationalist movements seek the domination of foreign territory and people, like the international relations current followed by the United States, the UK, Nazi Germany, and many others.

What defines nationalism is the presence of a political cause involving one nation as a whole against another nation. It can have either an authoritarian or libertarian character depending on the aforementioned goals of the movement.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Well, I may be incorrect when I say this, so I am open for critique.

In the case of the Zapatistas, they are an indigenous movement that is armed for the preservation of the communal tradition that the peasants have had in the Chiapas region for centuries; they are a movement that spontaneously arised after the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed, which forced millions of corn farmers to compete with foreign investors that indiscreetly pushed cheap mass-produced agricultural products down the throats of these agarian workers, which damaged the delicate social fabric of collective farming with this intergration with the globalized market economy. It was the pushing the capitalist relations in agricultural production on these campesinos, who were not accustomed to their crumbling income and standard of living, which naturally reacted to the collapse of their way of life. I don't think you could reduct this situation to the 'indigenous' people of Chiapas rebelling for the sake of 'national independence', considering that there is not a distinct tribe in this locality, and that it is more based around the introduction of the capitalist mode of production to their agarian mentality of collective farming.

A 'nation' is the political construct of the bourgeoisie; it was founded to make the flow of capital smoother and relaxed, to introduce the capitalist state in order to manage the exploitation of wage-labor by the upper stratum of society. I don't think that it is comparable to indigenous movements, considering that one is a reaction to a shift in social relations, while another is the bourgeoisie instituting itself in the position of the state power.

[NorthStarRepublicML]

Indigenous struggles usually center around taking back land and for their identity, while national struggles usually have some coattail of religion or authoritarian politics.


A 'nation' is the political construct of the bourgeoisie; it was founded to make the flow of capital smoother and relaxed, to introduce the capitalist state in order to manage the exploitation of wage-labor by the upper stratum of society. I don't think that it is comparable to indigenous movements, considering that one is a reaction to a shift in social relations, while another is the bourgeoisie instituting itself in the position of the state power.


both are reactions by national groups however, according to your definition the only diffrence is in their goals and not their nature. i would say that often you are correct to say that the bourgoisie often foster nationalsm to advance their goals but other national movments (such as the PKK Kurdish Workers Party and the LTTE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) are also socialists.

nation is used interchangably with ethnicity and not tribe, although there is not one tribe the movement in chiapas is defined by the "indigenous" nature of their people meaning that they share a common ethnicity apart from those of european descent.

in an article i wrote a couple of months ago, this was the working definition of ethnicity (nation) i setteled on:


Ethnicity is defined commonly as a distinct group with a sense of common historical culture, shared activities, and lifestyles as well as a perceived common origin (perhaps a geographic location or region) and can be characterized both from within the specific group itself as well as from without.

nationalism is simply the concepts of national identity applied to the political realm, this would seem to be in line with the EZLN as it is with the PKK or the LTTE.



I don't think you could reduct this situation to the 'indigenous' people of Chiapas rebelling for the sake of 'national independence'

Semantics ..... as far as i understand the EZLN they are seeking independance from the central govenment of mexico and a central tenant of their movmement is the "indegenous" people of chiapas (non-europeans) ..... this would fit the definition of a National Liberation movmement ....