2. The Zapatistas famously referred to NAFTA as a 'death certificate'
for Indigenous people and peasant communities. Critically evaluate
why they felt this way and discuss how they have responded to
neoliberalism.
Introduction
This resentment was justifiable as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) meant
that neoliberalism would spread into Mexico from the USA and Canada. The Zapatistas, an
armed insurgency group in Chiapas, Southern Mexico, therefore declared war on neoliberalism
after the agreement was ratified in January 1994. Skirmishes between the Mexican Federal
military and the Zapatistas would take place following this declaration; they would fight over the
privatisation of indigenous and small-scale farmers' land. The Zapatistas aimed to make their
revolution peaceful and only used violence when necessary; they understood that the Mexican
media would portray them as terrorists if they harmed civilians (Evans, 2009). Their main goals
were to try and preserve their indigenous ideals and peasant communities that were directly
being threatened by an invasion of free market capitalism. As stated by Kropotkin (1880),
revolutions are sometimes necessary to preserve the ideals, traditions and livelihoods of
minority groups when they are threatened. The Zapatistas’ name was inspired by the leader of
the people’s revolutionary party during the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920, general Zapata.
They aimed to continue his legacy and fight for the justice of discriminated minority groups such
as themselves. Members of the group also cover their faces to protect their identities and to
make themselves feel as if they are a collective subject fighting for the same cause; their
anonymity also creates solidarity amongst other marginalised groups in society.
Why Zapatistas hate NAFTA
The Zapatistas saw NAFTA as a direct threat to Mayan communities and other indigenous and
peasant farmers. It was seen as an extension of Western Imperialism and an invasive force.
Prior to NAFTA, 500 years of colonialism had already been endured, the Zapatistas were not
going to allow for their people to be exploited any longer by the Mexican Government. The
agreement also meant that the implementation of privatisation tactics were inevitable; If the
Zapatistas stood back, many indigenous people would have been forced off their land. This
would be devastating for such groups as their land represents who they are, is part of their
culture and has been with them for generations. These views clash with the Western ideals of
land who only see it as a commodity or resource (Christophers, 2016). In addition, the
agreement meant that Mexico would create a free-market with the United States and Canada;
this was especially damaging for minority groups whose livelihoods rely on agriculture. It would
not be possible for small scale subsistence farmers to compete with entire countries resulting in
them being undercut due to their lack of control and no price support. In some situations farmers
for Indigenous people and peasant communities. Critically evaluate
why they felt this way and discuss how they have responded to
neoliberalism.
Introduction
This resentment was justifiable as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) meant
that neoliberalism would spread into Mexico from the USA and Canada. The Zapatistas, an
armed insurgency group in Chiapas, Southern Mexico, therefore declared war on neoliberalism
after the agreement was ratified in January 1994. Skirmishes between the Mexican Federal
military and the Zapatistas would take place following this declaration; they would fight over the
privatisation of indigenous and small-scale farmers' land. The Zapatistas aimed to make their
revolution peaceful and only used violence when necessary; they understood that the Mexican
media would portray them as terrorists if they harmed civilians (Evans, 2009). Their main goals
were to try and preserve their indigenous ideals and peasant communities that were directly
being threatened by an invasion of free market capitalism. As stated by Kropotkin (1880),
revolutions are sometimes necessary to preserve the ideals, traditions and livelihoods of
minority groups when they are threatened. The Zapatistas’ name was inspired by the leader of
the people’s revolutionary party during the Mexican Revolution of 1910-1920, general Zapata.
They aimed to continue his legacy and fight for the justice of discriminated minority groups such
as themselves. Members of the group also cover their faces to protect their identities and to
make themselves feel as if they are a collective subject fighting for the same cause; their
anonymity also creates solidarity amongst other marginalised groups in society.
Why Zapatistas hate NAFTA
The Zapatistas saw NAFTA as a direct threat to Mayan communities and other indigenous and
peasant farmers. It was seen as an extension of Western Imperialism and an invasive force.
Prior to NAFTA, 500 years of colonialism had already been endured, the Zapatistas were not
going to allow for their people to be exploited any longer by the Mexican Government. The
agreement also meant that the implementation of privatisation tactics were inevitable; If the
Zapatistas stood back, many indigenous people would have been forced off their land. This
would be devastating for such groups as their land represents who they are, is part of their
culture and has been with them for generations. These views clash with the Western ideals of
land who only see it as a commodity or resource (Christophers, 2016). In addition, the
agreement meant that Mexico would create a free-market with the United States and Canada;
this was especially damaging for minority groups whose livelihoods rely on agriculture. It would
not be possible for small scale subsistence farmers to compete with entire countries resulting in
them being undercut due to their lack of control and no price support. In some situations farmers
