Revolution, Identity, and the Zapatistas in Chiapas "Why do the Zapatistas wear ski masks?" This was the question that one journalist posed on New Year's Day 1994 to the man who presented himself as subcommandante Marcos. On that day, San Cristobal de Las Casas, Ocosingo, Las Margritas, Altamirano, Chanal, Oxchuc, and Huixtan, seven towns located in the highlands of Chiapas, had been occupied by an army of over 3000 indigenous people demanding land, jobs, housing, food, healthcare, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice, and peace. Marcos responded to the question by invoking the novelty of the Zapatistas. "The main reason is that we have to be careful that nobody tries to be the main leader. The masks are meant to prevent this from happening. It is about being anonymous, not because we fear for ourselves, but rather to avoid being corrupted. Nobody can then appear all the time and demand attention. Our leadership is a collective leadership and we must respect that. Even though you are listening to me now, elsewhere there are others who are masked and are also talking. So, the masked person here today is called "Marcos" and tomorrow it might be "Pedro" in Las Margaritas, or "Josue" in Ocosingo, or "Alfredo" in Altamirano, or whatever he is called. So, the one who speaks is a more collective heart, not a single leader, or caudillo, That is what I want you to understand, not a caudillo in the old style and image. The only image that you will have is that those who have made this rebellion wear ski-masks. And the time will come when the people will realize that it is enough to have dignity and put on a mask and say that they too can do this" (Harvey 6). Through consciousness of oneself, one becomes acutely aware of others. For Octavio Paz, Mexico's Nobel Prize Laureate, self-consciousness must be present before there exists any hope of self-determination which, for Paz, amounts to freedom. This struggle for Mexican self-determination is the primary task of The Labyrinth of Solitude and Paz hopes to achieve this through the realization that in the moment of self-consciousness, the individual has the power to mediate through the myths which determine our lives and realize that, to a certain extent, individual's can reject the myths which hinder their self-determination and imprison them in a world of self-imposed bondage. Paz takes this struggle from an individual level and applies it the Mexican nation. My primary concern in this essay is to examine the ways in which Paz characterizes Mexican identity in regards to revolution and to then illustrate an alternative understanding of revolution in Mexican society and how this has changed as a result of the recent uprisings in Chiapas. Paz and the Internalization of Actions The Labyrinth of Solitude was not written to act as analytical assessment for the entire population of Mexico. Paz wrote it with a very small population in mind. Paz specifically directed it at the urban mestizo population and the other elements of the urban population but he surely did not have in mind the rural indigenous population which makes up a large portion of the country. "My thoughts are not concerned with the total population of our country, but rather with a specific group made up of those who are conscious of themselves, for one reason or another, as Mexicans. Despite general opinion to the contrary, this group is quite small. Our territory is inhabitated by a number of races speaking different languages and living on different historical levels. A few groups still live as they did in prehistoric times"(Paz 11). From this quotation, it becomes evident that Paz defines "Mexican" as spanish speaking mestizos or criollos who are, at least, tenuously connected to urban areas. This raises the question of whether or not an individual from an indigenous background can consider themselves "Mexican" and still a part of their indigenous heritage. According to Paz, at the very least, he never considered the fact that a Mayan would consider himself "Mexican" prior to his Mayan heritage and at the very most, Paz would define citizenship as characterized by ethnic and language barriers which could not include Indians until they became assimilated with Spanish speaking Mestizos. This is important because a group of people (which is defined by culture, language, ethnicity) attains actualization and self-determination through the formal politicized organization of the State and a group of people can never have a voice in that state until they are considered citizens or potential citizens which begins by the conscious understanding of oneself as a component of the political structure which harbors power (i.e. through such constructs as laws and taxes) over them. In San Cristobal de Las Casas on January 1, 1994, a Subcommandante Marcos answered questions from the steps of the capital building and, in passing, said, "All of us are Mexicans. The movement is national, and among our troops that fight here are people who have visited various states of the Republic but mainly the troops that are here are Chiapanecos and mainly indigenous." Thus signifying that the Zapatistas identity is oriented with the Mexican nation-state and not excluded by the coexistence of their indigenous identity. Therefore, I do not find it problematic to apply Paz's criticism of Mexican identity to the Zapatistas due to the fact that the Zapatistas are obviously "conscious of themselves...as Mexicans." Paz's primary concern with Mexican identity is how the internalization of feelings, emotions, and actions result in a sense of aloneness or solitude. Paz understands this closed nature to be a uniquely Mexican characteristic. "The speech of our people reflects the extent to which we protect ourselves from the outside world: the ideal of manliness is never to "crack," never to break down. Those who "open themselves up" are cowards. Unlike other people, we believe that opening oneself up is a weakness or a betrayal" (Paz 29). It seems that Paz views this tendency to close oneself up results in an unfeeling macho attitude which leads people to distance their emotions from themselves and this feigned indifference results in some type of power. Paz believes these pent emotions and aggressions are only released at certain times such as the time of fiestas. "During these days the silent Mexican whistles, shouts, sings, shoots off fireworks, discharges his pistol into the air. He discharges his soul...But these too are part of the fiesta, for the Mexican does not seek amusement: he seeks to escape from himself, to leap over the wall of solitude that confines him during the rest of the year...And this fiesta, shot through with lightning and delirium, is the brilliant reverse to our silence and apathy, our reticence and gloom" (Paz 49). This quotation reveals that, according to Paz, the importance of the fiesta lies in the spontaneity and energy which is released and subsequently impossible to control. Thus, Paz uses the fiesta as a microcosm for revolution. The Revolution has hardly any ideas. It is an explosion of reality: a return and a communion, an upsetting of old institutions, a releasing of many ferocious, tender and noble feelings that had been hidden by our fear of being. And with whom does Mexico commune in this bloody fiesta? With herself, with her own being. Mexico dares to exist, to be. The revolutionary explosion is a prodigious fiesta in which the Mexican, drunk with his own self, is aware at last, in a mortal embrace, of his fellow Mexican. (Paz 149) Paz portrays the fiesta and revolutions to share the common fate of being based on an external expression of internal emotions. Or rather, an explosion of internal emotions that are not based on external factors, but the inability to reconcile feelings with expression. The Zapatistas and the Destruction of Solitude Revolution is the most extreme example of externalized action. On January 1st 1994, the decision to seize seven towns in the highlands of Chiapas was not decided upon a spontaneous urge to vent personal anxiety but rather in order to make a calculated political move. The point I hope to illustrate in this section is that while Paz makes an amazing literary analyzes of Mexican identity, it seems that, at times, he romanticizes reality in order to make a point about what it means to be Mexican and this becomes evident through his assessment and determination of the meaning of revolution in Mexico. Historically, Chiapas has been ignored by the government in Mexico City despite the fact that Chiapas provides a large portion of the natural resources for the rest of the country. In fact, George Collier goes as far to call Chiapas an "internal colony for the rest of Mexico" (Collier 16). For example, Chiapas possess only 3% of Mexico's population but produces 13% of the country's corn, 54% of the country's hydroelectric power, 5% of the country's timber, 4% of the country's beans, 13% of the country's gas, and 4% of its oil (Collier 16). Despite this figures, only half of Chiapas has electricity. While these numbers are astounding, Mexico City hasn't been compelled to address issues of development and modernization throughout Chiapas due to the disjointed population. Chiapas is among the poorest states in Mexico and Chiapas' large number of indigenous communities creates difficulties in forming a united opposition to the Federal Government. This is especially evident when one thinks of the sheer difficulty of uniting a state which has poor means of transportation and communication and less than half of the men and only a small fraction of the women speak Spanish. On January 1st 1994, the EZLN, or the Zapatista National Liberation Army, entered seven cities in Chiapas armed an expelled the military presence. This action came as a surprise to many because the state of Chiapas had been overwhelmingly loyal to the government (89.9% of the population of Chiapas supposedly supported the PRI in the 1988 presidential election) in Mexico City due to agrarian land reform which began in the Post-Revolution years and continued until 1992 when President Salinas de Gortari dismantled the program. The possibility of land redistribution gave hope for many peasants who possessed nothing despite the fact that the land distribution was painstakingly slow. Even when land distribution did occur, the land was usually of poor farming quality but the importance resided in the peasants allegiance that was created due to the fact that the peasants viewed the government as being their ally. Land redistribution meant hope and the possibility of a better tomorrow for peasants. This directly resulted from the governments initiative to provide land for the historically marginalized segments of Mexico's population; specifically, non-Spanish speaking Indians. . In the 1930's under President Cardenas, land redistribution began when large plots of lands were given to indigenous communities therefore legitimizing peasant complaints about their ill treatment at the hands of plantation bosses. Therefore, the prospect of land reform bound peasant communities to the federal government because it was through the government that they would receive land and this made organization along class difficult because allegiance to the government would be rewarded with land grants whereas antagonizing the government would result in withheld land reform measures. Thus, President Gortari's decision to end land reform (Article 27) proved to be a crucial moment for the peasant communities in Chiapas because it signified a formal end of the governments attempt to even acknowledge the economic and social ills which are being experienced by the rural indigenous populations throughout Mexico. In Tiempo magazine, Subcommandante Marcos spoke on this problem and indicated how the end to land reform proved to be a deciding factor in taking up arms. "[The government] really screwed us, now that they destroyed Article 27, for which Zapata and his Revolution fought. Salinas de Gortari arrived on the scene with his lackeys, and his groups, and in a flash they destroyed it. We and our families have been sold down the river, or you could say that they stole our pants and sold them. What can we do? We did everything legal that we could so far as elections and organizations were concerned, and to no avail" (Colllier 45). It is this image of the Zapatistas yelling, "Enough Is Enough," which I would like to juxtapose with Paz's assessment of revolution in the context of Mexican identity and illustrate how I believe there may another way to understand the role of revolution in Mexico society. Paz understands the Mexican to be driven by an understanding of myth which results in an inability to open up and be themselves and the tension to turn inward results in an explosive tendency which is released at random moments such as the fiesta or in a revolution. However, Marcos is clear in indicating that there is nothing spontaneous about the decision for the Zapatistas to declare war on the Federal Government of Mexico and occupy seven towns in the highlands of Chiapas on the same day that the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect. This was a bold, calculated, political move which had nothing to do with "leaping over a wall of solitude" or "communing with oneself." Rather, the Zapatistas stood up because they were tired of being marginalized in the eyes of the government and military action was the only way they could be heard. I feel that reducing the Zapatistas to a literary assessment of their identity trivializes the real issues which are at hand: "work, land, housing, food, health care, education, independence, freedom, democracy, justice, and peace" (this was taken from the formal demands issued on January 1st by the Zapatistas). Suffering cannot be quantified through beautiful prose and I think it is important to recognize that the Zapatistas externalized actions were not determined by a desire to realize themselves in another but in order to achieve social justice. A Revolutionary Morality: Thick And Thin In the United States, revolution takes on a negative connotation and I believe this is due to the fact that the theoretical model which Revolutions are compared to in the United States is the Marxist version. Furthermore, the violence associated with revolution is complemented by the stigma which is associated with Marxism and Communism and Americans are socialized into perceiving revolution as a degeneration in society. While in Mexico, I was struck by the overwhelmingly positive connotation associated with revolution. I was shocked to see that revolution is not only associated with positive change in the social structures of the country, but also that the government advocated the celebration of the revolutionaries through subtle acknowledgments of their contributions to society. For instance, the subway system in Mexico City has stops named after famous Mexican Revolutionaries such as Zapata, Hidalgo, Morelos, and Guerrero. There is also a stop simply named Revolucion. Initially, I had the desire to compare Zapata to someone like George Washington but I think there is no accurate comparison. Zapata never had any affiliation with the government while George Washington led the Continental Army but I think the ultimate difference between Zapata and any American legend is that Zapata was betrayed and murdered by the government which later celebrates his heroic deeds on behalf of the peasants of Morelos. Thus, it can fairly be said that the popular perception of revolution is much different in the United States than it is Mexico. The positive connotation associated with revolution is crucial in understanding the way in which revolution can be understood to take an active part in a cultures identity. Michael Walzer's ideas about "thick and thin" morality provide a theoretical framework through which the meaning and importance of revolution in Mexico can be understood. Walzer proposes that in every culture, a "thick" morality exists which is a culturally specific way of understanding a particular problem. For example, in order to approach economic justice in the United States, the citizens of the United States have supported a progressive taxing system which, at least in the abstract, taxes the wealthy the most and the poorest the least. Therefore, our culturally specific, or "thick" way of alleviating economic inequalities is through a progressive tax. The "thin" aspect of that tax is the simple goal of social mobility which is what we would consider justice. Justice being the "thin" morality which says that if you work hard, you will be economically rewarded for your work which would be difficult if the poor payed a higher percentage of their taxes than the rich. I would like to propose that revolution in Mexico can be understood as a part of their "thick" morality. While justice, land, and liberty are the obvious aspects of "thin" morality, I think that there is a general Mexican cultural understanding and acceptance of revolution and violence which will likely complement the realization of "justice." Thus, a "thick" morality can also express itself as a vehicle to which the realization of justice can be achieved. However, thin moralities are by nature empty and this is what allows for cross culture judgement but I think that the positive connotation associated with revolution in Mexican society illustrates the primary way in which "thick" morality expresses itself. Walzer refers to morality in cross cultural perceptions of political strife. "Hence when we see the Prague marchers, we don't in the first instance (or perhaps ever) endorse "truth" and "justice" as abstract propositions. Rather, we recognize the occasion; we imaginatively join the march; our endorsement is more vicarious than detached and speculative. We too don't want to be told lies; we too remember, or we have listened to stories about, tyranny and oppression. We see the point of the Czech signs. At the same time, however, we give to "truth" and "justice" our own additional meanings; we allow them their full expressive range within our own culture. So while we march in spirit with the men and women of Prague, we have in fact our own parade" (Walzer 8). Following Walzer's understanding of morality, revolution can be understood as an idea which is charged with a positive connotation in Mexican cultural. This "thick," or culturally specific, understanding of revolution complements the "thin" notion of historically Mexican demands such as land and liberty which date back to the Revolution. Thus, revolution should not be characterized by the specific motivations which lead to violent rebellion such as those attempted by Paz, but rather by the grander societal acceptance of revolution as a vehicle for which to attain the hallmark understanding of justice (land and liberty) in Mexican society. Regardless of whether revolution is a result of Paz romanticized notions internalized emotions, a calculated political move in order to demand rights and respect, the revolution plays an important role in understanding the modern Mexican political identity. Possibly, the myth which Paz refers to is no longer the over overwhelming power of reason but rather the reaction to that reason through the pursuit of social justice. Thus, the importance of revolution becomes bound up in an understanding of social justice which becomes the determinate factor in the realization of self-consciousness; hence, self-determination.