Chiquitano and the Multiple Meanings of Being Indigenous in Bolivia

Abstract

To be ‘indigenous’ in Bolivia is not only a rights‐ and resource‐bearing identity, but the national MAS party has recently actively promoted the ‘indigenous’ as an inclusive national political project. This article seeks to shed further light on the different meanings Bolivians attach to ‘indigeneity’ by focusing on the Chiquitano people of the Bolivian lowlands. This reveals that while Chiquitano employ the term to advance their political project, some nevertheless simultaneously reject its power to categorise and subordinate Chiquitano. This highlights some of the paradoxes faced by those employing an indigenous political strategy, be it at the local or ‘more inclusive’ national level.

‘We were forgotten’: explaining ethnic voting in Bolivia’s highlands and lowlands

“…Also, large-estate owners were expropriated, indigenous farmers set free from dependent labour on large-scale farms and land was redistributed to them (Lopez Pila 2014). The land reform was applied to a larger extent in the highlands and in some parts of the lowlands, while it didn't reach other parts of it (Farthing and Kohl 2014;Weber 2013). Indigenous farmers were organised in peasant unions and a socialist ideology was imposed on them.…”

“…Lowland indigenous peoples started mobilising in the late 1970s and founded the Indigenous Confederation of the East and Amazon of Bolivia (CIDOB) in 1982. During the 1980ies, CIDOB, supported by the NGO Support for the Indigenous Peasant of the Bolivian East, build its networks with lowland indigenous organisations (Albó 2009;Lopez Pila 2014;Medeiros 2001;Postero 2007;Van Cott 2005;Weber 2013). Lowland indigenous peoples had until then been widely fragmented and were largely unaware of the fact that they were sharing the region with other peoples with similar needs.…”

“We are all Chiquitano”: Struggles over Territory and Sovereignty in Lowland Bolivia

“…In turn, the LPP aimed to open municipal‐level politics to citizen participation and oversight (Calla :80; Van Cott :155). To gain access to these rights, the Chiquitano organization reacted to the promulgation of the laws by adopting the label “indigenous” in the organization's name, replacing the previous class‐based “peasant,” which had been in line with MNR policies, while the CICC and its NGO allies promoted the use of the indigenous label among Chiquitano communities (Weber ).…”

“…The Chiquitano political project hinged on stressing ethnic distinctiveness and indigeneity, a strategy that, as I have discussed elsewhere, is not problem free (Weber ); thus, it is unsurprising that to some Chiquitano, the denial of this proved disturbing. I discussed this issue with a Chiquitano colleague from the comunidad Santa Mónica, who noted, “it was important to realize” that the “whites” also called themselves Chiquitanos, even though “they were not like them”—whom he called “chiquitano indígena nativo del lugar” (native indigenous Chiquitano from this place).…”

“…They may highlight ancestral connections with the land, a distinctive language, “culture,” and communal organizational forms (thus demonstrating their familiarity with the national and international indigenous rights discourse), as well as notions of class. More difficult to articulate through such tropes, however, is that to be identified as comunario involves communal acceptance and the commitment to follow a Chiquitano community's rules of sociability, which are more important than relational connectedness (Weber , ). This is more in line with Amazonian perspectives on society that associate culture “with history … no crucial distinctions are made in regard to origins” (Rosengren :223).…”