Frontera Readings

Hello Everyone,

The readings for the indigena discussion on the 26th are now up (you're welcome Gaby :0).

There are two readings for the discussion, the first by Gunter Dietz is a very similar history to that of Hector Diaz-Polanco's, in the sense that it moves us chronologically through Mexican Native-State Relations. There are, however, some very major differences. Some things to think about as we do the reading:

1. Were is the narrative focused? How does this differ with Diaz?

2. What is the role of "acculturation" of certain indigenous actors here? Does it facilitate, hinder, destroy or reinforce?

3. Does this reading go further in providing some of the material you asked for in your second posts?

4. How can we make this reading reflect back onto the strategies used in the EJ struggle on the Mexican side of the border? Are there similar patterns, or perhaps lessons?

Of course, no need to blog--these will be just questions to hopefully spur discussion.


The second article narrows our focus even further, providing a fly on the wall's perspective on a community meeting in the Huichol heartland. After our readings and lecture regarding the macro-level patterns, this reading (and the short additional readings assigned for my lecture) provides a nice, compressed case to deconstruct. In reading this article, let's think about the various actors and who/what they represent.

Additionally, however, let's also think about the claims being made here on the part of the Huichol elders. What is the role of human rights in this reading? What is the role of cultural rights? Is one being priviliged over the other, and if so, what does that mean for the Mexican State? What is its role here, and what does it have to gain or lose? Finally, how are these issues related to those of the indigenous peoples at the border?

See you on Weds. morning, and remember that you can call me with any questions over the weekend.

Travel Details

This post is to coordinate travel details. So far, the Jamie and Gaby have mentioned that they might possibly be able to pick people up for getting to the parking lot on Weds. morning.

Matt and the other Jamie have iPod stereo converters, so hopefully they will remember to bring those.

For anyone who does not have a ride, please let Mary know in anticipation by Tuesday night.

Any other details, feel free to discuss them here.

Crossing Borders, Passing Judgement

Today, Dr. Marquez discussed the numerous aspects of sweatshops and border industry: work conditions, industry structure, the personal behavior of management and the reactions of Mexican government. For tonight's blog, let's think on a macro-level about these issues--particularly how they are reflected in the Williamson article assigned for tomorrow.

In the article, Williamson articulates the multiple levels, actors and positions involved in an international campaign for justice in a maquiladora. Who were those actors, and were the traditional "bad guys" always bad? Do you feel that the article presents an accurate or believable portrayal of the multiplicity of positions? What does that mean for us when we approach the maquis we will be seeing? Finally, given the complexity of the system presented in the article and today's lecture (international treaties, the American public, owners/managers who believe that they are doing "good," our own consumption patterns, local activists and government) is there "guilt" to be assigned? Or, do you believe the structural argument (it's not me, but the system)?

Social Injustice and Children

The Renquist article concluded from the meta-analysis that there was a definite, but modest effect of race on environmental risk, but no effect for SES. Professor Marquez discussed a number of environmental exposure situations in which communities of color organized against, and were sometimes successful. He also talked about how it is harder to win battles because its hard to prove direct effects. Dillworth-Bart and Moore review literature on how minority children are disproportionately exposed to environmental pollutant exposure. These authors also talk about ways to research environmental exposure from a child development perspective, and involving the communities affected.

What do you take away so far of these seemingly contradictory pieces of scholarship? Are they contradictory, or do they fit together in some way? After reading the Dillworth-Bart article, discuss what you are thinking now in terms of the issue of race and environmental exposures.

Selection Criteria, Missing Pieces and Construction of Meaning

For today's response, let's think critically about methodology and how criteria shape implications of research.

In his conclusion, Evan Rinquist writes that while race is a statistically significant factor in the selection of environmentally hazardous sites, it is nonetheless a small one. He goes on further to say that the small size of its impact means that race should remain only one of many criteria for policy creation. While this is an interesting conclusion that should and probably will be discussed further, let's think about how Rinquist arrived at his conclusion.

Looking at page 230 of the article, the section entitled "The Data Gathering Process," we would like you to think about how the research decisions affect meaning and outcomes.

How did he sort through those studies and how many were discarded? What did he keep? What does that say about his conclusions? How far, and to what can we apply his conclusions? (Hint: is he reporting the results of his analysis of readings, or that of original research on environmental justice?) Reflecting on Alex's comments of the first day about the "holes" she found in literature, how do Rinquist's criteria reflect the general "entry requirements" for evidence in the quantitative or scientific fields?

Good luck, and see you tomorrow!


P.S. If you have a strong statistical background, great! The article will be a much richer experience for you. If not, however, don't worry too much--and *try* not to get too bogged down in the statistical minutiae.

The Roots of Integrationist Indigenism

In the section entitled "Integrationist Indigenism," Hector Díaz-Polanco discusses the foundation of "contemporary integrationist indigenism," and although he does discuss the strands of romanticism, relativism and Gamio's distinction (see footnote 22), much of his tone is alarmist and highly critical.

What do you think about his argument? Do you believe that the integrationist policies and theories he describes were intentionally ethnocidal? If so, why? If not, what makes you think that there might be more to the story?

Don't worry, there is no "right answer" here; instead, we are looking for critical thought regarding his argument.

See you tomorrow!