Gustavo Esteva: It is very per­ti­nent to talk asso­ci­at­ing this with the Zapatistas. You know, we are in the twen­ti­eth anniver­sary, twen­ty years ago in January 1st, 1994, we had the begin­ning of the Zapatista upris­ing. And to under­stand it we need to see what was hap­pen­ing with these peo­ple before the upris­ing, how they came to that ter­ri­ble deci­sion of start­ing an armed uprising. 

In the 70s we were say­ing that in the high­lands of Chiapas we were com­mit­ting geno­cide in Mexico. In this area of Mexico, in the south of Mexico, next to Guatemala, is an area where the peo­ple were suf­fer­ing like mad. All the kinds of suf­fer­ing that you can imag­ine. In the 70s, in the 80s, they were dying like flies of hunger, of hor­ri­ble dis­eases. One day, the now-famous Subcomandante Marcos said that in the vil­lages there were no chil­dren because all of them were dying. You were talk­ing with a woman and she will tell you, You know, I had eleven chil­dren but only two are alive.” That was the nor­mal sit­u­a­tion. They had a very prim­i­tive pow­er struc­ture killing them, oppress­ing them. Most of them were becom­ing alco­holics because they were get­ting their pay with some salary and posh, a ter­ri­ble kind of liquor that real­ly poi­soned them. 

They tried every­thing. They tried polit­i­cal orga­ni­za­tion, eco­nom­ic orga­ni­za­tion. They had that incred­i­ble march, 3,000 peo­ple march­ing to Mexico City 2,000 miles to present their claims. And nobody heard. Not the gov­ern­ment, and not the civ­il soci­ety. Nobody heard. When they came back after this march and in 1991 they took the deci­sion of declar­ing war to the Mexican gov­ern­ment, from the very begin­ning, they said that they were not guer­ril­la. The def­i­n­i­tion of the guer­ril­la in terms of Che Guevara is a fish that swims in the sea of the peo­ple. This fish, the group of rev­o­lu­tion­ar­ies that start­ed the guer­ril­la, and then the peo­ple sup­port­ing that group of revolutionaries. 

They said, We are not the fish, we are the sea.” But it is lit­er­al­ly true. It was hun­dreds of com­mu­ni­ties in pub­lic assem­blies tak­ing the deci­sion, We have no oth­er option. We need to declare the war to the Mexican gov­ern­ment.” The main pur­pose per­haps was not to defeat the Mexican army but to be heard, because they were real­ly dying. And when, on top of this, because of the sig­na­ture of the North American Free Trade Agreement, they can­celed the option—the con­sti­tu­tion­al pro­tec­tion for the land. The con­sti­tu­tion­al right of the campesinos, of the peo­ple, to have access to land. They became dis­pos­able human beings. 

It is very clear in the case of Mexico what NAFTA rep­re­sent­ed. It meant basi­cal­ly that in the past, cap­i­tal, or landown­ers, or dif­fer­ent kinds of peo­ple, were using them, were hid­ing them in ter­ri­ble con­di­tion as semi-slaves, in very bad con­di­tions. But they were using them. After NAFTA, because of NAFTA, because of the con­di­tions of the free trade and neolib­er­al­ism and all these poli­cies, they will become disposable—they had no use for them. And they will be doomed to die. And instead of dying in those ter­ri­ble con­di­tions, they con­sid­ered that the only thing they still had was their dig­ni­ty. And then they used that dig­ni­ty to start first their mil­i­tary train­ing, and then to start the uprising. 

I would say imme­di­ate­ly that in this upris­ing, the Zapatista Army [of] National Liberation had 40% women. How this army was con­sti­tut­ed? Every com­mu­ni­ty sent a few, five, ten, twen­ty peo­ple to the army to get the mil­i­tary train­ing. And they’d take care of the fam­i­lies, etc. And then 40% of them were women. But we dis­cov­ered lat­er that the women occu­pied 60% of the posi­tions of com­mand. Positions of com­mand obtained—the ranks were defined in the train­ing because of their mer­its in the train­ing. And then the women occu­pied 60%, and per­haps it is the only case in which women were overrep­re­sent­ed. I will talk more about this because the ques­tion of women is a very cen­tral thing when you talk about the Zapatistas. In a sense we are say­ing that the Zapatistas by nature is a kind of fem­i­nine movement. 

Anyway, because they were becom­ing dis­pos­able human beings, this ter­ri­ble expres­sion, because they were doomed to have a ter­ri­ble des­tiny, then they start­ed the uprising. 

I must tell you that that first week of January 1994, I was in com­plete per­plex­i­ty. For thir­ty years I had been absolute­ly con­vinced of non-violence. I had embraced non-violence, after try­ing some­thing of this kind in the 60s. Then I was ask­ing myself, Gustavo what’s hap­pen­ing with you? You are very hap­py and very enthu­si­as­tic about the Zapatistas. You are in the streets with them. But what about vio­lence? That they are killing each oth­er in Chiapas right now. What is hap­pen­ing with you? 

Then I [read] my Gandhi. And I think what I found is a way to under­stand the Zapatistas and what is hap­pen­ing today with vio­lence in Mexico. Gandhi is asked by his son—he suf­fered an attempt, and then his son asks him, What should I do if some­one comes and tries to kill you? Should I preach non-violence?” 

And then Gandhi smiles and he said, What you nev­er should be is a cow­ard. Cowardice is the worst kind of vice that you can have. You must not be a cow­ard. But, vio­lence is for the weak. If I am preach­ing non-violence, it’s because I don’t see any rea­son why 300 mil­lion peo­ple in India are afraid of 150,000 British. Because they are strong, they should use non-violence. It would be crim­i­nal [?],” said Gandhi, if I am preach­ing, I am telling non-violence to a mouse at the point of being devoured by a cat. This is not for him. We need to con­sid­er that vio­lence is the last resource of the weak.”

And I think this is a very good sto­ry to illus­trate what hap­pened with the Zapatistas. They were the weak. Nobody heard. They tried every­thing and they were real­ly dying. And they decid­ed to have this very lim­it­ed amount of weapons—they they were just a few weapons in their hands—to start their upris­ing. The last resort of the weak. 

But then they became the strong. In a few days we were by the mil­lions in the streets, try­ing to tell them, We are with you, you are not alone. We love what you are say­ing, but we don’t want more vio­lence in Mexico. Please stop the vio­lence.” And then in January 12th, 1994, twelve days after the begin­ning of the upris­ing, there was a uni­lat­er­al cease­fire, and the Zapatistas not only care­ful­ly respect­ed the cease­fire for twen­ty years—they’re not using their weapons, not even for self defense. They are clear­ly the cham­pi­ons of non-violence in Mexico. This is because they became the strong. Because they got the sup­port not only in Mexico, but out of Mexico, of many peo­ple that were lis­ten­ing to what they were saying. 

And one very impor­tant thing in dis­cussing the Zapatistas is their first impor­tant con­tri­bu­tion was hope. Before 1994, until 1993, we had glob­al­iza­tion as a kind of real­i­ty that you need to adapt to it. For some peo­ple it was a threat, for some oth­er peo­ple it was a promise, but for every­one it was a real­i­ty. You need to accept it, things are like that, the world is like that. The Zapatistas were the first say­ing, No, real­i­ty is not like that. We can­not accept this pol­i­cy, this ori­en­ta­tion, this gen­er­al vision of the sit­u­a­tion in which we are just dis­pos­able human beings. We can­not accept that.” All the anti-[?] move­ments after that acknowl­edge that the Zapatistas were the first. It was like a wake-up call.

And they came with an open­ing, a wake-up call, and at the same time the hope. We are suf­fer­ing, clear­ly, a cri­sis of hope. And it is the Zapatistas that in a very dif­fi­cult sit­u­a­tion, when the world is falling apart, when truths and insti­tu­tions that gov­erned us for 200 years are lit­er­al­ly falling apart, when Mother Earth is real­ly in a very seri­ous con­di­tion and the sur­vival of the human species is in danger…in that ter­ri­ble moment, in the moment of hor­ror, the Zapatistas brought a light of hope. A pos­si­bil­i­ty of hope. When they were accused by some­one of being pro­fes­sion­als of vio­lence, they imme­di­ate­ly react­ed, No, we’re not pro­fes­sion­als of vio­lence. We are pro­fes­sion­als of hope.” They had been cul­ti­vat­ing hope. And hope, in this Zapatista tra­di­tion is not the con­vic­tion that some­thing will hap­pen in a cer­tain way. It’s the con­vic­tion that some­thing makes sense. 

I want to read some things that illus­trate one very impor­tant point for me. Zapatistas are unique, are sin­gu­lar, and at the same time are typ­i­cal. They clear­ly illus­trate a kind of insur­rec­tion that is hap­pen­ing all over the world. People are reclaim­ing their dig­ni­ty, and with that dig­ni­ty they are try­ing to cre­ate some­thing dif­fer­ent. They are now mobi­lized. And what Ana María said, let me read what [she] said. As you know, the Zapatistas used these ski masks to present them­selves. And then she said,

Behind our black mask, behind our armed voice, behind our unname­able name, behind what you see of us, behind this we are you. Behind this we are the same sim­ple and ordi­nary men and women who are repeat­ed in all races, taint­ed in all col­ors, speak in all lan­guages, and live in all places. Behind this, we are the same for­got­ten men and women. The same exclud­ed, the same intol­er­at­ed, the same per­se­cut­ed, the same as you. Behind this, we are you. 

This is a very very impor­tant state­ment for the Zapatistas. I would say that this is com­ple­ment­ed with some­thing that defined their posi­tion. At some point, many peo­ple were send­ing things to them. Were send­ing mon­ey or were send­ing objects of dif­fer­ent kinds. And even they were com­ing and they orga­nized that they called the Zapatour because it was kind of rev­o­lu­tion­ary tourism.” They want­ed to come and touch the Zapatistas and be there with the Zapatistas. 

But this was also very humil­i­at­ing. Then at one point, Subcomandante Marcos came with a com­mu­niqué and said, Now I am forced to include in my back­pack some­thing that came as char­i­ty,” to one of the com­mu­ni­ties. It’s one red high heel. Not the pair, just one. And for the jun­gle, a high heel? Can’t you imag­ine? Can you imag­ine the humil­i­a­tion of these peo­ple when they get a box with things that some­one took from the clos­et and sent to these poor peo­ple. And then Subcomandante Marcos declared, If you want to offer your help to these poor indige­nous peo­ple strug­gling against a bad gov­ern­ment, thanks but no thanks. We don’t want your help. If you think that our strug­gle is also your strug­gle, please come. We have plen­ty of things to talk.”

I think this is the point. I think we are in the same strug­gle. I think we can see it is not the Zapatistas out there in the south of Mexico, in the jun­gle, la sel­va la cal­dona, strug­gling against a bad gov­ern­ment, try­ing to cre­ate a small piece of par­adise in the jun­gle. It is their strug­gle. It’s also our strug­gle, every­where. In every city in every coun­try over the world. We are in a very dif­fi­cult moment, in a ter­ri­ble moment of humankind. But there is hope. The Zapatistas illus­trate that hope, and then we can build some­thing dif­fer­ent with that hope in our hands.

Help Support Open Transcripts

If you found this useful or interesting, please consider supporting the project monthly at Patreon or once via Cash App, or even just sharing the link. Thanks.