Forthcoming in: Jonathan Fox and Gaspar Rivera Salgado, eds., Indigenous Mexican Migrants in United States, La Jolla: University of California, San Diego, Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, 2004 (to be published in Spanish by the Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas/Miguel Angel Porrúa Chapter 1 Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants JONATHAN FOX AND GASPAR RIVERA-SALGADO . Mexican migrants in the United States are still widely assumed to be an ethnically homogeneous population. Historically, most Mexican migrants did share many common characteristics, coming primarily from rural communities in the central-western part of the country. Over the last two decades, however, the Mexican migrant population has diversified dramatically, both socially and geographically. Their regions of origin now include a more diverse range of states as well as large cities.1 For example, the Los Angeles area now has federations of hometown associations from at least thirteen different Mexican states, and eleven statewide federations are active in Chicago. Regions of migrant settlement in the United States are becoming similarly diverse—researchers recently found license plates from thirty-seven different U.S. states just along the main road of San Juan Mixtepec, Oaxaca.2 . Thanks very much to Luis Escala Rabadán, Luin Goldring, Michael Kearney, Lynn Stephen, and Laura Velasco Ortiz for especially insightful, constructive, and timely comments on an earlier version of this introduction. The authors bear sole responsibility for what follows. This volume will be published in Spanish by the Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas/Miguel Ángel Porrúa. 1 On the variation in state-to-state cross-border migration patterns, see the maps in Cano 2002. See also CONAPO 2000; Durand 1998; Durand and Massey 2003. 2 See López and Runsten, this volume. Besserer documented that this municipality received remittances from 171 locations scattered across seven states in Mexico and fifteen states in the United States (2003: 67–69). 2 Fox and Rivera-Salgado The Mexican migrant population is not only growing more geographically diverse, it is also increasingly multiethnic. Some Mexican indigenous peoples have many decades of experience with migration to the United States, dating back to the Bracero Program (1942–1964), such as the P’urépechas of Michoacán and Oaxaca’s Mixtecs and Zapotecs. This binational government program also recruited Nahuas, as revealed in the recent account of a rare (successful) strike by braceros in the late 1950s. As one participant reported, “We spoke in mexicano [Náhuatl] and they didn’t understand us, that’s how we were able to organize even though it was prohibited and we fought for fair pay. We did the strike in mexicano.”3 Historically, however, most indigenous migrants went to large cities or agribusiness jobs within Mexico. Until the 1980s, their relative share of the overall cross-border migrant population was relatively low. More recently, the indigenous proportion of the Mexican migrant population has grown significantly, most notably in both urban and rural California and increasingly in Texas, Florida, New York, and Oregon. As the public debate within Mexico continues over the nation’s multiethnic character and indigenous rights, the growing presence of indigenous migrants has also raised this issue within Mexican migrant communities in the United States. To provide context, it is important to keep in mind that, in absolute terms, Mexico’s national indigenous population is the largest in the hemisphere, with approximately one-quarter of the Indians in the Americas as a whole.4 In relative terms, at least one-tenth of the Mexican population is of indigenous origin, according to the government’s relatively strict criterion of indigenous language use (though the most recent national census allows for ethnic self-identification for the first time). In other words, despite five centuries of pressure to assimilate, at least one in ten Mexicans reports to their national census that an indigenous language is spoken in their household.5 3 Testimony of Florencio Martínez Hernández, from Tlaxcala, cited in Ramírez Cuevas 2003. Authors’ translation. 4 In terms of the relative sizes of national indigenous populations in Latin America, Mexico is followed by Peru, Guatemala, Bolivia, and Ecuador (Dossier Courrier International 2003). See also Varese 1991. 5 The National Indigenous Institute’s (INI) most recent estimates of the national indigenous population range between 10.3 and 12.7 million people, depending on the criteria. See Serrano Carreto, Embriz Osorio, and Fernández Ham 2002 for details on the 2000 census. For background on the census and indigenous peoples in Mexico, see Valdés 1995; Lartigue and Quensel 2003. For analyses of indigenous migration by the INI, see Rubio et al. 2000 for an overview, as well as Atilano Flores 2000 and Valencia Rojas 2000. For background, see Molinari Soriano 1979. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 3 The future projected by Mexico’s dominant economic model has little place for indigenous peoples other than their joining the urban and agroexport workforce.6 Because the majority of Mexico’s indigenous population depends on agriculture, their livelihood prospects are highly sensitive to governmental policies toward that sector. Two decades ago, the government abandoned its previously on-again/off-again commitment to make family farming economically viable.7 Since the 1980s, peasant agriculture became a target of welfare policy rather than production support, a shift that weakened the economic base of indigenous communities.8 Since implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the government’s rural development strategy has been based on the assumption that a large proportion of the rural poor would move either to the cities or to the United States.9 Indeed, Mexico City’s population of urban Indians in the hemisphere is officially estimated by the city government at half a million in the Federal District and one million in the greater metropolitan area.10 The long-term crisis of the peasant economy has been exacerbated in recent years by the persistent collapse of the international price 6 The widespread perception of systematic social exclusion by the dominant economic model was summed up by Subcomandante Marcos’s widely repeated prediction that NAFTA would be “a death sentence” for Mexico’s indigenous people. It is no coincidence that the Zapatista rebellion became, in effect, the “shot heard ’round the world” in the spreading concern with what later became known as economic globalization. 7 On the history of government policies toward peasant grain production, see Fox 1992. 8 According to the government’s National Population Council (CONAPO), poverty worsened in 30 percent of the predominantly indigenous municipalities during the 1990–2002 period (cited in Urrutia 2002). 9 See the explicit 1992 predictions of then Undersecretary of Agriculture Luis Téllez that the rural proportion of the national population would (and should) fall from 26 percent to 16 percent over the following decade or two (cited in Fox 1994: 224). According to the logic of these neoliberal policy makers, if agriculture accounts for only 7 or 8 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), then that is the appropriate share of the population that should remain in the countryside. They implicitly regard the rest of the rural population as surplus that should move to the cities (thereby keeping industrial wages down to attract foreign investment). 10 This is the official estimate of the Government of the Federal District (personal communication, Pablo Yanes, Dirección de Atención a los Pueblos Indígenas, June 2003). For details on ethnicity and the most recent census in the Mexico City context, see Yanes Rizo 2002, as well as Anzaldo Meneses 1999; Dirección de Atención a los Pueblos Indígenas 2001; Gobierno del Distrito Federal 2000. For background on the Assembly of Indian Migrants of Mexico City, see www. indigenasdf.org.mx/. 4 Fox and Rivera-Salgado of coffee, which is the principal cash crop for many of Mexico’s indigenous farmers.11 Both in the United States and in Mexico, indigenous migrants find themselves excluded—economically, socially, and politically—both as migrants and as indigenous people. Economically, they work in ethnically segmented labor markets that relegate them to the bottom rungs. In the social sphere, in addition to the well-known set of obstacles that confront cross-border migrants, especially those without documentation, they also face entrenched racist attitudes and discrimination from other Mexicans as well as from the dominant society in the United States. In the civic-political arena, most cross-border migrants are excluded from full citizenship rights in either country. On the one hand, the U.S. government resists proposals to regularize the status of millions of workers. On the other hand, by 2003 the Mexican government had yet to comply either with the 1996 constitutional reform that recognized migrants’ right to vote or with the 1996 San Andrés Accords on Indigenous Rights and Culture which had promised a modest form of indigenous autonomy.12 In addition, lack of effective absentee ballot provisions also prevents many migrants within Mexico from voting. In the less tangible arena of the dominant national political culture, both indigenous peoples and migrants have long been seen, especially by Mexico City political elites, as less than full citizens—a powerful historical inheritance that only began to change substantially within Mexico by the mid-1990s. Like other migrants, indigenous Mexicans bring with them a 11 For background on the coffee crisis, see Aranda 2003; Oxfam 2002; and many Internet resources linked to a recent PBS documentary: www.pbs.org/ frontlineworld/stories/guatemala.mexico/. On NAFTA’s impact on Mexico-U.S. migration, see Cornelius 2002. On corn and NAFTA, see Nadal 2000. On the role of U.S. policy in Mexico’s corn economy, see Oxfam 2003. 12 For background on the right-to-vote issue, see Martínez-Saldaña and Ross Pineda 2002. On the San Andrés Accords and their context, see Hernández Navarro and Vera Herrera 1998. For essays by Mexican indigenous rights advocates in English, see the spring 1999 thematic issue of Cultural Survival Quarterly. Mexico’s movement against second-class citizenship for indigenous peoples has had a significant impact on national political culture and has made public racism increasingly “politically incorrect.” Nevertheless, some Mexico City cultural elites, ranging from television network managers to prominent intellectuals, persist in reproducing racist bias. For example, noted historian and public intellectual Enrique Krauze recently declared that “Mexico has many problems, but an Indian problem or ethnic violence is not one of them” (Authers and Silver 2003). This formulation implies that the “Indian problem” would only really count if it expressed itself through ethnic violence, while erasing the alternative frame which would define the main “problem” in terms of systematic patterns of political exclusion, biased public policies that reinforce structural poverty, and discriminatory social attitudes. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 5 wide range of experiences with collective action for community development, social justice, and political democratization, and these repertoires influence their decisions about who to work with and how to build their own organizations in the United States.13 REFRAMING MEXICAN MIGRATION AS A MULTIETHNIC PROCESS The past and the future of the Mexican nation can be seen in the faces of the tens of thousands of indigenous people who each year set out on their voyages to the north, as well as the many others who decide to settle in countless communities within the United States. To study indigenous Mexican migrants in the United States today requires a binational lens, taking into account basic changes in the way Mexican society is understood as the twenty-first century begins. On the one hand, Mexico is increasingly recognized to be a nation of migrants, a society whose fate is intimately linked with the economy and culture of the United States. On the other hand, the experiences specific to indigenous migrants require understanding Mexico as a multiethnic society in which basic questions of indigenous rights are finally on the national agenda but remain fundamentally unresolved. Historically, different indigenous peoples in Mexico have pursued different migration paths. Note, for example, that there is no direct correlation between the relative size of the populations of Mexico’s different indigenous peoples and their respective tendencies to migrate to the United States. Until recently, Mexico’s two largest indigenous ethnolinguistic groups, the Nahua and the Maya, did not tend to cross the border in large numbers.14 Even within the state of Oaxaca, there is no direct correlation between the lowest-income municipalities and those with the most 13 For overviews of Mexico’s patchwork quilt of widely varying degrees of political space and conflict in indigenous regions following more than two decades of contestation over rural democratization, see Fox 1996 and Cornelius, Eisenstadt, and Hindley 1999, among others. 14 In terms of the relative sizes of these populations in Mexico, according to the INI’s analysis of the 2000 population census, the fifteen largest indigenous language groups include: Náhuatl (1,771,000), Maya (1,149,000), Zapoteco (546,000), Mixteco (534,000), Tzotzil (445,000), Otomí (427,000), Tzeltal (349,000), Totonaco (289,000), Mazahua (256,000), Mazateco (224,000), Huasteco (186,000), Chol (174,000), Chinanteco (157,000), Purépecha (141,000), and Tlapaneco (98,000) (Serrano Carreto, Embriz Osorio, and Fernández Ham 2003: 73–74). 6 Fox and Rivera-Salgado out-migration.15 In contrast to the predominance of Oaxacans among migrants to Baja California and the United States, the groups with the largest presence in Mexico City are of Nahua and Hñahñu (Otomí) origin, representing approximately 27 percent and 17 percent, respectively.16 However, as the economic and social dynamics that encourage migration spread more deeply throughout the Mexican countryside, indigenous peoples who did not have a history of migration outside of their regions are coming to the United States.17 For example, Mayans from Yucatán and Chiapas are now working in California and Texas, both Hñahñus and Nahuas from central Mexico are coming to the Midwest and Texas, and Mixtecs from Puebla are settling in the New York area, followed more recently by Hñahñus from neighboring Veracruz.18 Mixtecs and Nahuas are also coming to 15 16 17 18 For a different comparative approach, see the state maps of differing migration rates and poverty levels in Dirección General de Población de Oaxaca 2002. Notably, the southern Sierra is one of the state’s poorest regions, yet so far few from this area migrate to the United States. Note also that Oaxacan migration to the United States includes urbanized mestizos. See, for example, Grimes’s study of the impact of migration from Putla on local identities. Atlantic City, New Jersey, is one of the main areas of U.S. settlement for this group (Grimes 1998: 58). In Mexico City, Mixtecs and Zapotecs come in third and fourth place, with 14 percent and 13.5 percent, respectively, followed by Mazahuas with 4.2 percent. See Dirección de Atención a los Pueblos Indígenas 2001: 2. In 1994, of the 803 municipalities considered by the INI to be predominantly indigenous, 25 percent were considered to “expel farmworkers.” By 1998–1999, 38 percent of indigenous municipalities fell into this category (cited in Barrón 2003). Approximately 40 percent of Mexico’s farmworker population is indigenous, with Guerrero now ahead of Oaxaca as the leading source (Barrón 2003: 49). Barrón’s report notes, “More than ten years ago, farmworkers of Nahua origin from the Huasteca region of Hidalgo began to work in the cane fields of the Huasteca regions of San Luis Potosí and Veracruz. Currently, an important proportion of farmworkers working in the fields of Sonora and Sinaloa come from the Huasteca region of Hidalgo.… Also, farmworkers from Chiapas and indigenous Coras and Huicholes from Nayarit, who before only migrated from the mountains to the valleys of Nayarit, now go to Sonora and Sinaloa” (Barrón 2003: 15; authors’ translation). A longtime Huasteca-based community organizer confirms this pattern, reporting that Nahua migration from the region goes mainly to central and northern Mexico to take the place of workers who migrate (personal email communication, Juan Felipe Cisneros Sánchez, San Luis Potosí, September 2003). For example, from the largely Hñahñu municipality of Texcatepec, in the Huasteca region of Veracruz, an estimated 400 to 500 young men are now working in the New York City area, out of a local population of approximately 9,000. According to a Jesuit priest from the region who travels regularly from Veracruz to see them, they live and work together based on “the natural organization of their community,” though they are not sufficiently settled to produce formal organizations that send collective remittances. Even though the local community of Amazac recovered their ancestral land from violent rancher elites after decades of agrarian struggle in 1994, large-scale migration to the north began in 1995. The members of the agrarian community were unable to access the capital needed to Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 7 the United States from Guerrero, a Mexican state whose migration patterns have received little research attention so far.19 As newer arrivals coming with different traditions of community organization back home, these indigenous migrants have experiences that differ from those of the Oaxacans. To improve our understanding of these new groups and their regions of origin and settlement, researchers will need to broaden the exchange between those who study indigenous communities and those who study migration, as well as between those who focus on domestic versus international Mexican migration.20 While this volume focuses primarily on the Oaxaca-California experience, it also includes several studies of other indigenous Mexican migrant groups. It is important to recognize that not all migrants have formed satellite communities in the United States, which is a key precondition for organizing along hometown lines, and even fewer have formed ethnic, regional, or pan-ethnic organizations. Some indigenous Mexican migrants organize as members of ethnically mixed groups, whether along religious lines, as in the case of New York’s Tepeyac Association, or along class lines, as in the case of Oregon’s Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United (PCUN) or Florida’s Coalition of Immokolee Workers (CIW).21 Inconvert the ranchland to more job-creating crops. Out-migration was reportedly further accelerated by NAFTA’s opening to meat imports, which drove down the price of their cattle, and coffee is no longer a viable alternative. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, some of these migrants branched out to New Jersey, North Carolina, and Florida, where Hñahñus from the Valle del Mezquital, Hidalgo, have been going for two decades. In contrast, Totonacos from Veracruz, being closer to the coast, tend to cross at Matamoros and work in Texas (author interview with Alfredo Zepeda, S.J., Huayacocotla, Veracruz, October 2003). Hñahñu migrants from Hidalgo have now reached almost 15 percent of the population of Clearwater, Florida. See Schmidt and Crummett, this volume. 19 See, however, Boruchoff 1999; Boruchoff and Johnston 2003; García Ortega 2002, 2003. García Ortega’s study of both national and international Nahua migration from the Alto Balsas region of Guerrero finds an important local role of the Bracero Program. She also reports a 2001 community census from the village of Ahuelican that found that migrants made up 38 percent of the total population of 760 (2002: 112_ff). Most were working in the United States, including in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, and Ontario, California. A recent front-page story on the growing tendency of migrant farmworkers to settle in the United States for the long term (Porter 2003) profiled a migrant from Guerrero who is of Nahua origin (personal email communication, Eduardo Porter, October 2003). 20 For one of the few studies that focus specifically on the interaction between national and international Mexican migration, see Lozano-Ascencio, Roberts, and Bean 1999. 21 On the Tepeyac Association, see Rivera-Sánchez, this volume; Galvez 2003. On the PCUN, see Stephen, this volume. On the CIW, see Bowe 2003; Cockburn 2003; 8 Fox and Rivera-Salgado digenous migrant organizations also vary in terms of their degree of interest in collaboration with other kinds of groups, whether they be organizations of other kinds of migrants or U.S.-focused civic and social organizations. In Los Angeles, for example, the Oaxacan Federation works closely both with other Mexican organizations and with trade unions and civil rights organizations on issues such as access to driver licenses for undocumented workers. Because of cultural, political, and language differences between groups of Mexicans, any efforts to communicate or build coalitions among these groups must take these differences into account. Advocacy efforts by U.S. groups on behalf of indigenous migrants face major challenges in terms of building trust and cross-cultural communication.22 Various incipient crosssectoral coalition-building efforts have not coalesced, leading to some skepticism as well as suggesting the need for greater mutual understanding to facilitate the process of finding the common ground needed to sustain balanced multicultural coalitions.23 THE EXPERIENCE OF OAXACAN INDIGENOUS MIGRATION Historically, most indigenous migrants to the United States were temporary, but the increased risk and cost of crossing the border without documents has led more of these immigrants to settle in the United States for the long term. This is possible in part because their networks have matured over the past two decades.24 In addition to the cross-border workers in the Bracero Program, the first travels of Oaxacan villagers in search of employment began back in the 1930s, taking them to Oaxaca City, the sugarcane fields of Veracruz, and later to the growing neighborhoods in Ciudad Nezahualcóyotl on the periphery of Mexico City. Then labor contractors supplying the agribusinesses of the northwestern state of Sinaloa began Payne 2000; and www.ciw-online.org. The CIW’s struggle is especially notable because they actually managed to convict violent labor contractors on criminal charges of slavery. Founded in 1994, CIW works to empower low-wage workers in southwest Florida, and its members include Latinos, Haitians, and indigenous migrants from Mexico and Guatemala. 22 For one precedent-setting case, see Paul Johnston’s study of the community-based coalition defense and public debate against the 2001 INS roundup of Triqui men in Greenfield, California (this volume). 23 On related issues of identity formation and organizational strategy in coalitionbuilding processes, see the classic study by Nagengast and Kearney 1990. See also Rivera-Salgado 1999, 2002; Fox 2001a, 2002. 24 On the concept of migratory networks, see Wilson 1998. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 9 recruiting, especially in the Mixteca region. These south-to-north flows later extended to the Valley of San Quintín in northern Baja California. By the early 1980s, indigenous migrants reached further north, to California, Oregon, and Washington.25 Early migrants were able to regularize their status and settle down in the United States following the 1986 immigration policy reform (the Immigration Reform and Control Act, or IRCA). Within California, Oaxacans have long-established communities in the San Joaquin Valley, the Los Angeles metropolitan area, and northern San Diego County.26 Within a relatively short time, these indigenous migrants went from invisibility to outsiders to attracting media attention and becoming a subject of both academic research and progressive activism.27 Oaxacan migration took off by the end of the 1980s, with the extensive incorporation of Zapotecs in urban services and Mixtecs in farm labor—often in the most difficult and lowest-paid jobs.28 The IRCA reforms permitted millions of earlier migrants to regularize their status, allowing them to move up in the labor force, leaving open bottom rungs in the social ladder for newer indigenous migrants. Employers of low-wage workers have been more than willing to continue their long tradition of encouraging ethnic segmentation in labor markets. As a conservative scholar and farmer summed up the employers’ view, “they will tell you, ‘don’t bring anybody onto the cement crew who speaks English’ because the second generation will not work like the people from Oaxaca.”29 Indigenous work25 On the history of Oaxacan migration to the United States, see Aguilar Medina 1979; Besserer 1999a, 1999b, 2003; Corbett et al. 1992; Escárcega and Varese n.d.; Guidi 1992; López and Runsten, this volume; Molinari Soriano 1979; Mountz and Wright 1996; Rivera-Salgado 1999; Stephen, this volume; Varese 2000; Velasco Ortiz 2002; Wright 1990; Zabin and Hughes 1995—as well as the citations in notes 23 and 26. By the late 1990s the Mexican government–sponsored survey of migrants to the border heading further north considered 7.6 percent of those surveyed to be speakers of indigenous languages (CONAPO 2001: 4). On the historical patterns of migration from Oaxaca to Mexico City, see Orellana 1973; Hirabayashi 1993; Sánchez G. 1995. For a comparison of urban migrant associations across Latin America, see Altamirano and Hirabayashi 1997. 26 See Zabin 1997; Zabin, ed. 1992a, 1992b; Zabin, Kearney, et al. 1993; Runsten and Kearney 1994; Huizar Murillo and Cerda, this volume. 27 For example, the first New York Times coverage of Mixtec migrants to California appeared in Mydans 1989. 28 On the disparities in wages and working conditions between mestizo and indigenous migrants, see Zabin, Kearney, et al. 1993. See also, for example, the excellent account in Schlosser 1995. 29 Victor Davis Hanson, California State University, Fresno, cited in “Mexifornia: A State of Becoming,” Panel Discussion Transcript, August 19, 2003, National Press 10 Fox and Rivera-Salgado ers also draw on ethnic difference to position themselves in the labor market. As one informant reported to Guidi: “Of course we speak Mixteco! [in the United States]. Sometimes we speak to each other in dialecto in front of the [Chicano] contractor so that we can come to an agreement about our wages. And they get mad because they don’t understand us.”30 By the early 1990s, an estimated 45,000 to 55,000 Mixtecs worked in agriculture in California’s Central Valley, and 50,000 to 60,000 Zapotecs had settled in Los Angeles, mainly in the central neighborhoods of Koreatown, Pico Union, and South Central.31 The proportion of predominantly indigenous migrants from southern Mexico in California farm labor almost doubled during the 1990s, from 6.1 percent (1993–1996) to 10.9 percent (1997–2000), spurring researcher Edward Kissam to project that indigenous migrants will represent more than 20 percent of California’s farmworkers by 2010.32 The parallel process of long-term settlement and geographic concentration has led to the creation of a “critical mass” of indigenous Oaxacans, especially in California. This has permitted the emergence of distinctive forms of social organization and cultural expression, especially among Mixtecs and Zapotecs. Their collective initiatives draw on ancestral cultural legacies to build new branches of their home communities. Their public expressions range from building civic-political organizations to the public celebration of religious holidays, basketball tournaments involving dozens of teams, the regular mass celebration of traditional Oaxacan music and dance festivals such as the Guelaguetza, and the formation of villagebased bands, some of which return to play in their hometown fiestas, as in the case of the Zapotec community of Zoogocho. Their cultural and politiClub, Washington, D.C., at www.cis.org/articles/200e/mexiforniapanel.html. For analysis of the active roles played by employers and labor contractors in the ethnic segmentation of agricultural labor markets, see Krissman 1996, 2002. 30 Cited in Guidi 1992: 162. Note that the use of the term “dialect” instead of words for “language” indicates the still widespread self-denigration of indigenous culture. 31 See Runsten and Kearney 1994; Zabin and Escala Rabadán 1998; López and Runsten, this volume. On specifically Zapotec migration to California, see Caballero and Ríos Morales n.d.; Cruz Manjarraz 2001; Hulshof 1991; Klaver 1997; López 1999; Montes 2000; Mountz and Wright 1996; Rivera-Salgado 1999; Robles Camacho, this volume. On Zapotec migration to Mexico City, see Hirabayashi 1993; Sánchez G. 1995. 32 See Kissam 2003a: 1. This trend is corroborated by a 1998–1999 anthropological field survey of migrant farmworkers in Napa and Sonoma counties, which found that Oaxacans represented 11.9 percent of the sample (n = 252). See Sánchez G. 2000, n.d.1, n.d.2, n.d.3: 7. Oaxacans were the third largest group, after migrants from Michoacán (47.2 percent) and Jalisco (15.1 percent). Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 11 cal projects also include the revival of traditional weaving workshops, the publication of binational newspapers, indigenous- and Spanish-language radio programs, and efforts to provide translation services and preserve indigenous languages, as well as the emergence of writers and visual artists with cross-border sensibilities. This collection explores these migration processes and their social, cultural, and civic impacts in the United States and in Mexico. The studies come from diverse perspectives, but they share a concern with how sustained migration and the emergence of organizations of indigenous migrants influence social and community identity, both in the United States and in Mexico. These studies also focus on how the creation and re-creation of collective ethnic identities among indigenous migrants influences their economic, social, and political relationships in the United States. ETHNIC IDENTITY AND COLLECTIVE ACTION Our understanding of the relationship between Mexican migration, collective action, and the formation of ethnic identities has been greatly influenced by the research of Michael Kearney, who pioneered the study of Mixtec migration to the United States.33 His work provides detailed descriptions of the transformative impact of migration on the ethnic identities of indigenous Oaxacan workers. The process of racist discrimination and exclusion, both in northern Mexico and in the United States—though not completely new for Oaxacan indigenous people—was sharpened in the agricultural fields of Sinaloa, Baja California, and California’s San Joaquin Valley. Vividly represented by the widespread use of derogatory terms such as “oaxaquitas” (little Oaxacans) and “indios sucios” (dirty Indians), this process of racialization led to a new ethnic identity for many migrants. Not only does this experience intensify their sense of ethnic difference, Kearney goes further to suggest that the process of migration to a new social context generates a new, broader ethnic identity that brings together migrants from communities that would not necessarily have shared identities back in Oaxaca. “This experience of discrimination outside of Oaxaca was a major stimulus for indigenous migrants to appropriate the labels—mixteco, zapoteco, and indígena—that formerly had only been used by linguists, an- 33 See Stuart and Kearney 1981; Kearney 1986, 1988, 1994, 1995a, 1995b, 1996, 2000, 2002; Kearney and Nagengast 1989; Nagengast and Kearney 1990; Nagengast, Stavenhagen, and Kearney 1992; Runsten and Kearney 1994. See also Wright’s comprehensive early study (1990). 12 Fox and Rivera-Salgado thropologists, and government officials, and to put them to work in organizing along ethnic lines.”34 The newly appropriated ethnic identities that emerge in the process of migration created new opportunities for collective action that were expressed through the emergence of a diverse array of civic and political organizations in the United States and northern Mexico. These organizations differed from those in the communities of origin, where crosscommunity solidarity was often blocked by persistent legacies of intervillage conflict.35 Kearney argues that workers from communities that might have been rivals in Oaxaca came to develop a sense of solidarity through their shared experiences of class and racial oppression as migrants. The resulting pan-Mixteco, pan-Zapoteco, and, later, pan-indigenous Oaxacan identities made possible broader pan-ethnic organizing among migrants for the first time.36 This interpretation has been confirmed by recent developments within the Oaxacan Indigenous Binational Front (FIOB), which include a collaborative agreement with a newly organized P’urépecha community in Madera, California.37 Of the six elected leaders of the FIOB’s Baja California 34 Personal communication, Michael Kearney, July 2003. Ethnic slurs used against indigenous migrants from Guerrero include: “nacos, güancos, huarachudos, montañeros, piojosos, indios pata rajada, calzonudos, comaleros, sombrerudos, sin razón, paisanitos, indio bajado a tamborazos de la Montaña, Metlatontos (de Metlatónoc), Tlapanacos (Tlapanecos), son de Tlapa de me conformo (Tlapa de Comonfort), tu no savi, tu sí savi (tu no sabes, tu sí sabes), mixtequillo, indiorante (ignorante), paisa, mixterco (mixteco terco)” (cited in García Leyva 2003). 35 For a full discussion on intercommunity land conflict in Oaxaca, see Dennis 1987. Dennis finds that government agencies deliberately allowed such disputes to fester for decades, thereby focusing political conflict inward and preventing the emergence of broader, cross-community coalitions. For an analysis of one of the first political openings—subtle but systematic—that permitted widespread regional, cross-community coalition building in Oaxaca, see Fox 1992. See also Fox 1996 on the dynamics of scaling up indigenous organizations from local to regional levels. 36 It would be useful to compare this process with others in which localized collective identities become transformed, through bottom-up antiracist struggle and contact with outside allies, into ethnic and pan-ethnic collective identities. Note Pallares’s study of the Ecuadorian experience with this process (2002). 37 They are primarily from Angahuan, Uruapan, and the membership is primarily female. The October 9, 2003, “convenio de trabajo” with the FIOB states: “Knowing that we are two indigenous peoples with different languages and cultures [Oaxaca and Michoacán], we affirm that we are brothers and sisters from one single country. In our condition as indigenous migrants in the United States, we face the same issues of human and labor rights, and therefore we want to work together to improve the living conditions in our community and to continue maintaining our culture amongst ourselves, our children, and our young people, with gender equality” (authors’ translation). Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 13 branch, one is Mixtec from Guerrero and the vice-coordinator is P’urépecha from Michoacán. This partial shift from a pan-Oaxacan frame to a broader pan-indigenous base has initiated an internal discussion over whether to drop “Oaxacan” from the organization’s name, possibly to become the “Indigenous Binational Front.”38 These insights about how migration and racialization influence collective identities provide the context in which migrants are understood in this volume. Here, migrants are framed as social actors rather than as either passive victims or faceless flows of amorphous masses. In contrast to idealized views of migrants, whether as “heroes” or “pochos,” this collection focuses on their efforts to create new lives, to build their own organizations, and above all to represent themselves in a process of building an indigenous migrant civil society that can help face the challenges of the future. Despite the adverse conditions that indigenous migrants encounter, they have nevertheless managed to create a wide range of civic, social, and political organizations that are notable for the diversity of their strategies and goals. Within this indigenous migrant civil society, two main kinds of organizations stand out. The first includes the large number of hometown associations, known in Spanish as “organizaciones de pueblo,” “clubes de oriundos,” or “clubes sociales comunitarios.” They are composed of migrants from specific communities who come together mainly to support their community of origin, most notably by raising funds for local public works such as road or bridge building, water systems, electrification, or public spaces such as town squares, sports fields, schools, churches, or community halls.39 The second main kind of indigenous migrant associations includes coalition-building projects that draw on hometown, “translocal” ties but bring people together from a broader, regional ethnogeographic sphere. The most consolidated coalitions include the Oaxacan Indigenous Binational Front (FIOB), the Oaxacan Regional Organization (ORO), the Union 38 39 Author interview with Rufino Domínguez, Fresno, November 2003. On Oaxaca hometown collective remittances, see de la Garza and Lowell 2002; Girón Cruz and Reyes Morales 2003; López, Escala-Rabadán, and Hinojosa-Ojeda 2001; Molina Ramírez 2003; Runsten 2003; Tucker, Díaz McConnell, and Van Wey 2003. For a study that compares community development initiatives in a Oaxacan community in terms of the degree to which they emerge internally or externally, see Gil Martínez de Escobar 2003. On Mexican hometown collective remittances more generally, see, among others, Alarcón 2002; Bada 2001; Corona Vásquez 2000; García Zamora 2002, 2003; García Zamora, ed. 2002; Goldring 1998a, 1998b, 2001, 2003a; López Espinosa 2002; Lozano-Ascencio 1993, 2003; Orozco, González, and Díaz de Cossío 2003; Suro et al. 2002. 14 Fox and Rivera-Salgado of Highland Communities of Oaxaca (UCSO), the Coalition of Indigenous Communities of Oaxaca (COCIO), the International Indigenous Network of Oaxaca (RIIO), and the recently formed Oaxacan Federation of Indigenous Communities and Organizations in California (FOCOICA), whose affiliates include most Oaxacan organizations in that state. Both kinds of organizations have created spaces within which indigenous migrants can engage in collective action and cultural sustenance. These organizations open up spaces within which social identities are created and re-created through the institutionalization of collective practices in which migrants are recognized as Oaxacans and as indigenous people. That is, these diverse collective practices generate discourses that recognize their specific cultural, social, and political identities. The real and imagined space in which they develop these practices is called “Oaxacalifornia,” a transnationalized space in which migrants bring together their lives in California with their communities of origin more than 2,500 miles away.40 Note, for example, the wide range of names chosen for the organizations that bring together indigenous migrants from different regions and political backgrounds. These names reflect the previous political experiences of some of the leaders, who were able to channel the members’ collective efforts to recognize themselves as social actors with specific political roots. The use of frente in FIOB reflects the previous activism of some of the founding leaders in leftist causes and organizations in Mexico. Some of the FIOB’s founding members were active, for example, in the class-based Independent Central of Agricultural Workers and Peasants (CIOAC), the leading independent farmworker union in Mexico during the 1970s and 1980s (and especially active in Sinaloa).41 Several key leaders were teachers and veterans of Oaxaca’s movement to democratize the official union.42 Since the 1930s, this tendency within the teachers’ union encouraged members to commit themselves to “serving the people.”43 40 The term “Oaxacalifornia” was coined by Michael Kearney and Carole Nagengast, to refer to the deterritorialized community from which new forms of organization and political expression emerged. See their seminal articles: Kearney and Nagengast 1989; Nagengast and Kearney 1990. 41 The CIOAC was originally affiliated with the Mexican Communist Party (PCM), which later merged with moderate left-wing groups to form the Unified Socialist Party of Mexico (PSUM). See López Monjardín 1991. 42 For a history of Oaxaca’s teachers’ movement, see Cook 1996. 43 Dating from the 1950s, the political influence of radical teachers’ movement leader Othón Salazar in the Montaña region of Guerrero was felt in the neighboring Mixteca region of Oaxaca. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 15 In this context, the concept of frente referred to a coalition that could coordinate the actions of independent groups desiring to join their efforts in a common cause, all the while maintaining their own autonomy. When FIOB was founded as the Mixteco-Zapoteco Binational Front (FM-ZB) in late 1991, its main goal was to coordinate the indigenous campaigns of the nine original founding organizations that were opposing celebration of the quincentenary of the “Discovery of the Americas.” These organizations did not want to dissolve their organizations and create a new one for this purpose; rather, they wanted to coordinate their efforts temporarily in a “front” that would serve as an umbrella organization for this very specific goal. After this first joint campaign, some of the founding organizations merged in what became the FIOB in 1994; others withdrew from the process and remained independent.44 Notably, the shift in the organization’s name reflected a more inclusive, pan-Oaxacan identity (the state has sixteen distinct ethnic groups). The names of the Oaxacan migrant organizations also offer clues about their members’ political orientation. The name of the Organization of Exploited and Oppressed People (OPEO) clearly emphasizes its members’ shared sense of both class identity (“exploited”) and racial identity (“oppressed”), though the members also share a strong territorial identity since they come from the same community of origin. Other groups chose to highlight different dimensions of their identity. “Civic,” for example, in the Mexican context of the 1960s through the 1980s (before electoral democracy was on the agenda) was a relatively nonconfrontational way of referring to the struggle for respect for citizens’ rights and for clean government (especially at the local level), and it sometimes provided cover for a radical democratic agenda.45 “Civic” also had the advantage of suggesting a nonpartisan approach in a context in which explicitly “political” opposition was severely sanctioned by the state. The term “popular” in the Mixteco Popular Civic Committee (CCPM) suggested a broad class identity, bridging 44 45 On the history of the FIOB, see Domínguez Santos n.d. and his chapter in this volume; Rivera-Salgado 1999, 2002; Hernández Díaz 2001; Kearney 2001; Leal 2001; López Mercado 1998; Ramírez Romero 2000; Robles Camacho, this volume. As per an official November 5, 1992, “circular” of what was then called the Frente Mixteco-Zapoteco Binacional, the member organizations at that time included the CCPM, ORO, COTLA, OPEO, ACBJ, OPAM, YEB, YEA, and Tlacochahuaya. When the FM-ZB became the FIOB in 1994, the ACBJ left, as did some but not all members of ORO. Recall the case of Guerrero’s Civic Association of the 1960s, which government repression later provoked into becoming the Revolutionary National Civic Association (ACNR). 16 Fox and Rivera-Salgado workers, peasants, and small entrepreneurs with both a civic and an ethnic (Mixtec) identity. Inherent in the name of the CCPM is the ideological dilemma facing members as to whether to organize along class lines, or as Mixtecs, or both. Yet either approach implicitly required a fight for democracy; hence the term “civic.” In practice, however, the organization’s membership was primarily hometown-based. The name of the Benito Juárez Civic Association (ACBJ) also identifies it with the cause of democracy and good government implied by “civic.” The reference to Benito Juárez combines an implicit call for the rule of law with the ethnic/national pride symbolized by Mexico’s “indigenous Abraham Lincoln.” This name choice also sent an implicitly pan-ethnic signal; because the ACBJ’s base was primarily Mixtec while Juárez was Zapotec, the name underscored shared Oaxacan identity. The names of the primarily Zapotec Oaxaca Regional Organization and the Tlacolula Community in Los Angeles (COTLA) illustrate the use of more politically neutral descriptive terms, reflecting their primarily cultural goals as well as their members’ shared territorial identities.46 Despite the wide variety of political backgrounds of indigenous migrants that are reflected in the nature of the different organizations, all emphasize public activities and mobilizations that reaffirm their collective identities as indigenous peoples. As a consequence, the migrant organizations’ wide range of public cultural events nourishes the multicultural experience of its citizens. The Guelaguetza festivals of music and dance are among the most important Oaxacan cultural events, and at least four Guelaguetzas are now celebrated annually in California within the context of a broader pan-ethnic Oaxacan indigenous identity.47 The Oaxacan Regional Organization pioneered the celebration of these festivals in the United States in 1987 and has been holding them in a park in the Pico Union neighborhood of Los Angeles. The festivals bring 46 47 The ORO’s member organizations as of a decade ago included COTLA, OPAM, Yatzachi El Bajo, Yatzachi El Alto, and Tlacochahuaya, though in the process of working together in the Mixteco-Zapoteco Binational Front, COTLA and OPAM were represented directly rather than through ORO. Guelaguetza is a Zapotec word that refers to reciprocity or mutual aid, but its meaning now refers to dance and musical exchanges. The festival centers on a series of dances associated with Oaxaca’s ethnically distinct regions, each with its own music and costumes. In Oaxaca City, the state-sponsored Guelaguetza is the most important annual tourist event, but grassroots organizations also organize their own Guelaguetza festivals on special occasions. For historical context that underscores the role of the state government in structuring officially acceptable regional identities, beginning in the 1930s, see Poole 2002, 2004. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 17 together two thousand people each year. In 2003 the XVI Guelaguetza featured two of the oldest musical bands of migrants in Los Angeles—Yatzachi El Bajo and Zoochina—as well as six community-based dance troupes (Huaxyacac, Yalálag, OPAM, Nueva Antequera, Centeotl, and COTLA; see El Oaxaqueño 2003a). The Coalition of Indigenous Communities of Oaxaca, based in northern San Diego County, also holds an annual Guelaguetza festival, this one on the campus of California State University, San Marcos, in association with the leading Chicano student organization (MEChA) and other universityand community-based organizations. COCIO’s Guelaguetza is unique in that it draws on organized support from the region’s broader Latino and university community, in addition to the Oaxacan immigrant community.48 COCIO ‘s festival, begun in 1994, is the second oldest in the state. Its organizers report that more than four thousand people have participated.49 Since 2001, northern San Diego County’s Oaxacan organizations have also participated in a broad, multisectoral, officially sponsored public celebration of the Day of the Dead in downtown Oceanside, which draws thousands of people to a community otherwise known for its social polarization. In the city of Fresno, in California’s Central Valley, the Oaxacan Indigenous Binational Front has held a Guelaguetza annually since 2000, drawing on newly formed local dance troupes and also on larger, more consolidated Los Angeles–based dance and music groups. In 2002 this Guelaguetza opened with music from a local Native American group, and in 2003 with traditional Mixtec dances (chilenas y diablitos) performed by the Maderabased Grupo Folklórico Cultural Se’e Savi. Public interest groups and civic groups in the region are invited, with outreach activities that range from disseminating information about political causes to culturally appropriate public health education. More recently, FOCOICA has since 2002 celebrated a Guelaguetza in the Los Angeles Sports Arena (former home of the Lakers basketball team), cosponsored by the Oaxaca state government, local trade unions, and the 48 49 The flyer distributed by COCIO announcing the 2003 Guelaguetza included the support of the following organizations and community groups: CSUSM-MEChA, CSUSM-Center for Border Studies, CSUSM-Latino Association of Faculty and Staff, Grupo Folklórico Zaachila, Grupo Folklórico Guelaguetza, Grupo Folklórico Renovación Oaxaqueña, Banda Tlapacoyam, Banda de Yatzachi El Bajo, San Pedro del Rincón, El Trapiche, Ayoquesco de Aldama, Santiago Yucuyachi, Nieves Ixpantepec, and Rosario Nuevo Tezoatlan. Author interview, Miguel Morales, COCIO, San Diego, November 2003. See also El Oaxaqueño 2003b. 18 Fox and Rivera-Salgado Spanish-language media (see García 2003a). FOCOICA’s Guelaguetza draws between six and ten thousand people, mainly Oaxacan immigrants in Southern California, as well as a large number of Mexicans from other states. This event also promotes Oaxacan imports (ranging from traditional arts and crafts to mescal, chocolate, and so on) brought by entrepreneurs trying to gain a foothold in the large immigrant market. Sports competitions are also important public events for Oaxacans, with basketball more popular than soccer.50 One of the most important tournaments is the Los Angeles “Juárez Cup,” organized by the Union of Highland Communities of Oaxaca each March for the past six years. Some sixty-five teams participate, representing more than forty Oaxacan communities.51 Some Mixtecs and Zapotecs in California also play a pre-Columbian ball game.52 “Mixtec ball” is played in some very unlikely places—a parking lot in Los Angeles’s Griffith Park, a lot adjacent to a farm in Selma, a high school sports field in the agroindustrial city of Watsonville. The resurgence of this game among immigrants is culturally important because, according to a recent report in El Oaxaqueño, the number of players of the game has decreased in Oaxaca as appropriate open spaces have disappeared.53 As many as twelve different teams meet in an annual statewide tournament in Los Angeles. According to one player, many “play this game from childhood for fun. This is a tradition, a custom that we carry in 50 For detailed accounts of the role of basketball in Oaxacan migrant communities, see Quiñones and Mittelstaedt 2000; Quiñones 2001. See also the new film Oaxacan Hoops, by Olga Rodríguez (www.oaxacanhoops.com). The game’s popularity in the northern Sierra region is due in part to the very limited availability of flat space, which makes basketball courts easier to build than the larger soccer fields. On the key role of basketball among Nahua migrants from Guerrero, see García Ortega 2002; this author finds the game incorporated into village rituals. 51 In many Oaxacan villages, basketball courts are central public spaces. Historically, they were often among the few paved surfaces and therefore filled many village needs, from keeping coffee clean while drying to protecting participants in community dances from mud or dust. For a study of Oaxacan rural community decisions about how to prioritize different kinds of infrastructure investments based on a representative statewide sample of municipalities, see Fox and Aranda 1996. 52 The game is played in two different ways, both with a guante (glove) and pelota de forro (wrapped ball). The gloved version, also known as “fastball,” is played by migrants from Oaxaca’s Central Valleys, especially those from Ejutla de Crespo. This particular version is played with a heavy glove that can weigh up to six kilos. Migrants from the Mixteca Baja, especially those from the Juxtlahuaca District, play with the pelota de forro. The ball is made of cloth and leather, and its weight (about 200 grams) makes this version of the game much slower. 53 See García 2003b. This report mentions that at present there is only one ball court in the entire city of Oaxaca, compared to ten courts that existed just a few years ago. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 19 the blood, and we do it for the sheer pleasure of the game” (see García 2003c). As in the case of many other Oaxacan migrant cultural activities—dances, music, food—Mixtec ball has generated a demand for traditional equipment, creating jobs for the artisans back home who make the gloves and balls. Public religious celebrations among indigenous migrants in California have emerged much more recently. The “community calendar” section of El Oaxaqueño newspaper is very revealing. For example, the July 28, 2001, issue listed a number of fund-raising events organized by various Los Angeles–based Oaxacan hometown associations, including a dance organized by the Commission for the Restoration of the Santiago Mayor Apostol Church in Villa Hidalgo, Yalálag, to raise money for major repairs to the community’s church. The Club Pro-Santos Fiscales from San Francisco Cajonos was organizing a dance to support their efforts to get two local “martyrs” declared “saints.” After some twenty years, the Oaxacan Archdiocese had sent the case for canonization to the Vatican for consideration.54 The association from the town of Santa María Xochixtepec was announcing a “traditional fiesta” honoring the Virgen del Rosario. And finally, the association from San Miguel Cajonos was organizing a dance honoring their community’s patron saint, San Miguel Arcángel. In addition to these fund-raising events, announcements reminded readers about the monthly “oaxaqueño” mass every third Sunday in a Catholic church in South Central Los Angeles. This “oaxaqueño” mass, accompanied by a Oaxacan dance troupe and a 25-piece Zapotec brass band, reflects a high degree of community participation. This crowded calendar of religious happenings is typical among indigenous Oaxacan immigrants in Los Angeles, with events spread evenly throughout the year. In fact, Oaxacan hometown associations in Los Angeles often compete for available venues in which to hold their dances. A more public example of faith-based collective action was the procession of the Virgen de la Soledad, organized by a group of immigrants who call themselves the Oaxacan Catholic Community of Los Angeles (Comunidad Católica Oaxaqueña). The procession drew more than a thousand 54 During the Pope’s visit to Mexico City in 2002, he beatified the Santos Fiscales, with the participation of many people from San Francisco Cajonos (see Rendón 2002). At ORO’s Guelaguetza festival that summer, reactions were divided, with some of the faithful overjoyed at the result of their years of campaigning, while others were more skeptical about honoring some of the early leaders of the cultural assimilation process. One volunteer organizer went so far as to declare them “traitors” (author interviews, Los Angeles, August 2002). 20 Fox and Rivera-Salgado participants on December 16, 2002.55 On this Sunday the Oaxacan community celebrated finding a permanent home for the Virgin, the patron Saint of Oaxaca City and a special religious symbol for oaxaqueños in general. The statue of the Virgin that led the procession had been brought from Oaxaca City by the Oaxacan Catholic Community, who had lobbied the Oaxacan Archdiocese for a statue of the Virgin and then traveled to Oaxaca to bring it back to Los Angeles. The procession began at the intersection of Normandie and San Marino in Koreatown. The mood was very festive, with Oaxacan dancers leading the procession and a brass band playing traditional jarabes serranos. Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles Edward Clark declared, “the Virgen de la Soledad is your patron saint; she is your mother. She has come here, to be beside you, so that you do not feel alone far away from home.”56 This procession, organized by Oaxacan immigrants, culminated a series of actions begun about four years earlier when Oaxacans from different communities had decided to set aside their differences and organize as Catholics and as oaxaqueños. Both the religious procession itself and the formation of the Oaxacan Catholic Community can be explained in part by Hirabayashi’s concept of paisanazgo (see Hirabayashi 1993). It is true that Oaxacan immigrants draw on the social solidarity prescribed by paisano relations to form village-based migrant associations. However, the formation of the Oaxacan Catholic Community as a Oaxaca-wide religious organization had to transcend village-based social relations through the development of a strategy that would provide the basis for a Oaxacan identity, bringing immigrants from dozens of villages in the Mixe, Mixtec, and Zapotec regions of Oaxaca together in a single collective organization. This is a good illustration of the interconnectedness between religious practices and ethnic identity. The dense web of social, civic, and political organizations—as well as their performances and “public rituals”—creates an environment in which preexisting collective identities come through in a new context, in the process transforming the actors themselves. These organizations create a dual identity. First, they are vehicles for reinforcing collective practices that affirm broader ethnic identities emerging from the migrant experience. Second, these organizations—above all the hometown associations—encourage community building, cultural exchange, and the flow of information. Both processes are crucial for sustaining the links that connect 55 56 See El Oaxaqueño, January 19, 2002, pp.18–19. His words were published in Spanish in the January 19, 2002, issue of El Oaxaqueño. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 21 communities of origin with their satellite communities spread beyond their traditional homeland. The use of alternative media also plays a central role in building migrant civil society. Notably, the biweekly newspaper El Oaxaqueño, “the voice of Oaxacans in the United States,” is one of the few professional Mexican newspapers with a binational circulation. The paper was launched by Fernando López Mateos, a successful Zapotec migrant entrepreneur and native of Matatlán. It has published more than 117 issues since its founding in 1999. Its content is developed binationally; graphic design work is done in Oaxaca and then the job is sent to Los Angeles for printing. The paper’s coverage includes civic, political, social, sports, and cultural issues that affect Oaxacan communities in both Mexico and the United States. Reports range from local village conflicts and the campaign to block construction of a McDonald’s on the main square in Oaxaca City, to the binational activities of hometown associations and California-focused coalition building for immigrants’ right to obtain driver licenses and against cutbacks in health services. The press run of 35,000 copies is distributed free of charge throughout California and in other migrant communities in the United States, as well as in Oaxaca.57 El Oaxaqueño is made available at public events and through community institutions and local businesses (as well as given to arrivals at the Oaxaca City airport). This groundbreaking effort in community media remains largely invisible outside of the Oaxacan community. Oaxaca’s indigenous migrants are also using radio and electronic media in the United States. Filemón López, a native of the Mixtec community of San Juan Mixtepec, has for the last six years anchored La Hora Mixteca, a bilingual (Mixtec-Spanish) weekly program broadcast on the Radio Bilingüe network founded by Hugo Morales, another Oaxacan migrant from the Mixteca. Radio Bilingüe recently obtained a Rockefeller Foundation grant for a satellite link that will enable it to transmit its programming to listeners in Oaxaca and Baja California.58 As another example, in 2001 the FIOB and New California Media jointly produced a one-hour news show, 57 58 Personal communication, Fernando López Mateos (president, El Oaxaqueño), November 13, 2003. Of a press run of 35,000 copies, 20,000 are distributed in the United States (70 percent in the Los Angeles area, with the rest distributed throughout California and in Seattle, Columbus, Nashville, and Las Vegas). The other 15,000 copies are distributed across Oaxaca, through migrant organizations, money transfer agencies, and municipal authorities. See Magagnini 2002. For more on Radio Bilingüe’s programming, see www. radiobilingue.org. On radio and migrants, see also Besserer 2002; Reyes 2002. 22 Fox and Rivera-Salgado Nuestro Foro, on local community radio in Fresno (KFCF-88.1 FM). In addition, FIOB has published a monthly newsletter, El Tequio, since 1991 and introduced an on-line version two years ago, allowing its binational membership to share news on local activities and maintain a sense of unity across the U.S.-Mexico border.59 Since these migrant-run mass media also report systematically on other community initiatives, they promote “virtuous circles” of institution building within indigenous migrant civil society, each reinforcing the other. The effort to sustain the use of indigenous languages has become a collective activity, both as part of the political struggle for rights and as an endeavor in cultural survival. Indigenous migrants who do not speak Spanish well experience intense language discrimination on a daily basis at the workplace and also in their interactions with legal, educational, and health institutions. Long-standing Mexican cultural prejudices, symbolized by the use of the term “dialect” to describe indigenous languages, are widespread in immigrant communities in the United States. Ayala and Mines (2002) documented a classic example involving mestizo discrimination against P’urépechas in California’s Coachella Valley: The son of a mayordomo [crew manager] coined the term chaca to describe the P’urépecha. One man described the origin of this derogatory phrase in this way: “The mayordomo asked me, ‘Hey, you guys sure talk a lot. All of this chaca, chaca, chaca and I don’t understand anything! What are you saying?’” That’s how it started—at that moment. They say, “You’re a chaca because you guys say chaca, chaca, chaca, chaca like a washing machine” [authors’ translation]. In at least two well-known cases in the 1980s, indigenous-language speakers were incarcerated in Oregon, unable to offer any defense because they did not speak either Spanish or English. The first victim was Adolfo Ruiz Álvarez, a Triqui, who was confined to a mental hospital and kept sedated for two years before being released (see Davis 2002). The second, Mixtec Santiago Ventura Morales, was jailed for more than four years for murder before his conviction was overturned.60 59 60 To access El Tequio newsletter, see www.laneta.apc.org/fiob. Ventura Morales is now a trilingual community organizer. See his own account (2000), as well as De León’s analysis of the role of linguistic disconnects in the trial (1999). Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 23 This situation began to change when California Rural Legal Assistance (CRLA), in a precedent-setting move, hired the first Mixteco-speaking outreach worker in 1993 (see Olivera 2003). Migrant organizations have also responded to the need by creating their own translation services in Mixteco, Zapoteco, and Triqui to help people responding to criminal charges or trying to access health care and other public services. Interpreters for the Binational Center for Indigenous Oaxacan Development (CBDIO) work throughout California as well in other states.61 The Madera School District has hired a Mixtec community outreach worker to communicate with the hundreds of Mixtec parents who send their children to the public schools of this farming community in the heart of California’s Central Valley. The Oaxaca-based Academy of the Mixtec Language recently began conducting workshops in the Central Valley to teach the writing of the Mixtec language.62 At the same time, the Mexican government’s Adult Education Agency, which is already active in eighteen U.S. states, recently launched an outreach project specifically for indigenous migrants (see Poy Solano 2003). These various initiatives have been reinforced by the use of CD-ROM teaching materials in English and Spanish that provide accessible introductions to many dimensions of Mixtec history and culture, from analysis of little-known codices to contemporary issues of land and identity (see Bakewell and Hamann 2001). Indigenous immigrant organizations face a huge challenge with the coming of age of the second generation. As thousands of indigenous immigrant families settle for the long term, the rising number of their children born and raised in the United States poses the risk of losing the indigenous languages. In some cases, migrant youth become trilingual, and hence are a crucial resource for the migrant community. For example, FIOB has employed several trilingual organizers in strategic positions, encouraging leadership development. Nevertheless, these cases are the exception. 61 CBDIO currently has a roster of fourteen trained translators (see contact information at www.laneta.apc.org/fiob). In 1999, twelve indigenous migrants were professionally trained in translation at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, with support from a grant from Oxfam America. The content of the training included code of ethics, types of translation, medical translating, and translating during immigration proceedings, along with applications to serve as Berlitz International translators. 62 “A written script for Mixtec will help inhabitants from different villages communicate with one another, since the creation of a standardized vocabulary will smooth over linguistic variants [from] the rugged countryside where the language originated,” according to the Academy of the Mixtec Language (Stanley 2003a). 24 Fox and Rivera-Salgado More often, second-generation indigenous youths are not unlike other migrant groups, and they often show low levels of retention of fluency in their parents’ first language.63 Gender roles are also changing the terms of community membership.64 Some migrant women experience changes in the division of labor when they begin to earn wages. In the less isolated new areas of settlement, the women are exposed to different customs and institutions, and they sometimes enter into contact with U.S.-based social actors promoting gender equality. Note, for example, the active role of Líderes Campesinas in making domestic violence a public issue for the first time in many small towns of rural California, challenging the widely held view that such violence is strictly a private matter and cannot be changed.65 Women are also taking on public leadership roles in mixed-gender migrant organizations in the United States.66 At the same time, migration from many indigenous communities remains primarily male, affecting the women who remain in at least two ways; on the one hand, their workload is increased, but on the other they often gain greater access to the local public sphere. In some communities of origin, women are participating more in assemblies, creating their own organizations, and fulfilling their husbands’ community 63 For example, Cruz Manjarrez’s ethnographic study of the reproduction of highland Zapotec culture in Los Angeles reports, “although most immigrants continue to speak Zapotec for everyday use, most Yalaltecos born in the U.S. just understand it. I have observed that American Yalaltecos generally speak Spanish with their parents and relatives, and usually switch from English to Spanish when they are with friends of their own age. Immigrant Yalaltecos consider it more important for their descendents to learn Spanish than Zapotec” (2001: 49). 64 For gendered analyses of women’s participation in Mexican migrant organizations, see Goldring 2001, 2003a, 2003b. For one of the few analyses of indigenous migrants that bring together ethnicity and gender, see Sánchez G. n.d.2. 65 Líderes Campesinas is a California-based women’s membership organization that is mestiza-led but includes indigenous migrant women as well. It is the first organization in this country founded by and for farmworker women. It is assisting nascent organizations in other states, including Arizona, Iowa, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. 66 See Martínez-Saldaña, this volume, and Maceda et al. 2003. As Fresno-based FIOB organizer Oralia Maceda put it, “There have been many changes within our culture.… Now there is more of our participation, as women, in community organizations or participating in meetings.… These are positive [changes] that are happening in our lives, as indigenous women, because it’s always been that the honors and everything that has to do with the community were under men’s control” (remarks at the panel discussion “Cambio, cultura, y migración: las indígenas oaxaqueñas en California,” Chicano Latino Research Center, University of California, Santa Cruz, May 1, 2003; authors’ translation). For context, see Mejía Flores 2003. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 25 obligations (in a context in which local citizenship often remains explicitly reserved for men) (see Maldonado and Artía Rodríguez, Robles Camacho, and Velásquez C., all in this volume). Women often undertake their increased public role in the name of their absent spouse, making this a form of “indirect citizenship.” Much more research is needed to enhance our understanding of the diverse patterns of change in gender relations, both in communities of origin and in settlement areas. This nascent process in which migrants are creating their own public spaces and membership organizations is built on the foundation of what are increasingly referred to as “transnational communities,” a concept that refers to groups of migrants whose daily lives, work, and social relationships extend across national borders.67 The existence of transnational communities is a precondition for, but is not the same as, an emerging migrant civil society, which also must involve the construction of public spaces and representative social and civic organizations. Some analysts use the concept of “cultural citizenship” to describe cases where migrant collective action has transformed the public sphere in the United States. This term “names a range of social practices which, taken together, claim and establish a distinct social space for Latinos in this country [the United States]” and serves as “a vehicle to better understand community formation.… It involves the right to retain difference, while also attaining membership in society.”68 This process may or may not be linked to membership in a territorially based community, either in the home country or in the United States. Instead, it may be driven by other kinds of shared collective identities, such as racialized and gendered class identities as Latina or Latino workers. The idea of cultural citizenship is 67 68 For a comprehensive literature review, see Fletcher and Margold 2003. Studies that deal with Mexican transnational communities include, among others, Bada 2001, 2003; A. Castañeda 2003; Espinoza 1999; de la Garza and Hazan 2003; Fitzgerald 2000, n.d.; Fletcher 1999; Gledhill 1995; Goldring 1998b, 2002; Leiken 2000; Moctezuma Longoria 2003a, 2003b; Portes, Guarnizo, and Landolt 1999; Portes and Fernández Kelly 2003; Rivera-Salgado 1999; Roberts, Frank, and LozanoAscencio 1999; Rouse 1992; R. Smith 1995, 2003; M. Smith and Guarnizo 1998; Zabin and Escala Rabadán 1998. Fitzgerald n.d. suggests that relationships that are often called transnational are actually more translocal, observing: “Migrants’ strongest cross-border links are often highly localistic ties between particular sending areas and their satellites in the receiving country…. Transborder local connections are embedded in macro structures, but the specifically ‘national’ element cannot be assumed.” See Flores and Benmayor 1997: 1; Flores 1997: 255, 262. See also Stephen 2003. Johnston 2001 applies the concept of “transnational citizenship” to refer to similar struggles for inclusion with empowerment. 26 Fox and Rivera-Salgado complementary to but quite distinct from the notion of transnational community, which both focuses on a specific kind of collective identity and emphasizes sustained binational community membership. The research presented in this collection also speaks to a third way of conceptualizing migrants as social actors, which is the process of constructing a de facto form of “translocal community citizenship.” This term refers to the process through which indigenous migrants are becoming active members of both their communities of settlement and their communities of origin.69 Like the idea of transnational community, translocal community citizenship refers to the cross-border extension of the boundaries of an existing social sphere, but the term “citizenship” differs from “community” in at least two ways. First, it involves much more precise criteria for determining membership rights and obligations. Second, it refers explicitly to membership in a public sphere. The idea of “translocal community citizenship” therefore involves much more explicit boundaries of membership in the public affairs of a community that is geographically dispersed or, in Kearney’s terms, “deterritorialized.” Like cultural citizenship, the term “community citizenship” refers to a socially constructed sense of membership, often built through collective action, but it differs in at least three ways. First, community “citizenship” incorporates the term that is actually used by the social actors themselves to name their experience of membership. In indigenous communities throughout rural Mexico, a member in good standing—one who fulfills specific obligations and therefore can exercise specific rights—is called a “citizen” of that community.70 In contrast, it is not clear whether the idea of cultural citizenship has been appropriated by those to whom it refers. Second, the idea of translocal community specifies the public space within which membership is exercised, whereas “cultural citizenship” is deliberately open-ended as to the arena of inclusion (local, regional, or national? territorial or sectoral?). Third, the concept of cultural citizenship focuses, quite appropriately given its goals, on the contested process of negotiating new terms of incorporation into U.S. society, in contrast to the emphasis 69 70 In some cases this process could be called “dual community citizenship,” but since many migrant communities are “multi-local,” or “multi-sited,” it is more inclusive to use a more open-ended term. Note that this use of the term “citizen” for full membership in local communities predates the widespread usage of the term by national and international civil society organizations. Its use appears to be widespread within indigenous Mexico. On its use in Oaxaca, see Robles Camacho, this volume; in Nahua communities in Guerrero, see García Ortega 2002; and in Hñahñu communities, see Schmidt and Crummett, this volume. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 27 embedded in the idea of translocal community citizenship on the challenge of sustaining binational membership in a cross-border community. The concept of translocal community citizenship has its own limits as well. It does not capture the broader, rights-based perspective that transcends membership in specific territorially based (or deterritorialized) communities, such as the broad-based migrant movement for Mexican voting rights abroad, or the FIOB’s emphasis on pan-ethnic collective identities and indigenous and human rights. These collective identities are shared beyond specific communities. The idea of translocal is also limited insofar as it does not capture the frequently multilevel process of engagement between migrant membership organizations and the Mexican state at national and state as well as local levels. These different concepts for describing migrants as social actors are all complementary, and each reflects important dimensions of the process. Each one refers to social processes of migrant identity and organization that may overlap but are distinct, both in theory and in practice. At the same time, they do not capture the full range of migrant collective identities. The broader idea of “migrant civil society” provides an umbrella concept for describing diverse patterns of collective action. The collective and individual practices that are beginning to constitute a specifically indigenous migrant civil society show us a positive side of what would otherwise be an unrelentingly devastating process for Mexico’s indigenous communities—their abrupt insertion into globalized capitalism through international migration in search of wage labor. In spite of their dispersion throughout different points along the migrant path, at least some indigenous communities manage to sustain the social and cultural networks that give them cohesion and continuity. In some cases, the migratory experience has both broadened and transformed collective ethnic identities. This open-ended process serves as a reference point for rethinking what it means to be indigenous in the twenty-first century. Notably, “long-distance membership” in home communities, as well as the construction of new kinds of organizations not based on ties to the land, raises questions about the classic close association between land, territory, and indigenous identity. Within Mexico, the national debate over how institutions and social actors could or should build indigenous autonomy has yet to fully grapple with this dilemma. In this context, one analytical puzzle that emerges from the studies that follow is why, in spite of the challenges posed by migration, some commu- 28 Fox and Rivera-Salgado nities, within some ethnic groups, manage better than others to sustain themselves as a group and create their own public spaces as organized migrants. Note, for example, the case of Nahua migrants to the United States. Though they represent the largest indigenous group in Mexico and some have been coming for many years, their migrants have not sustained visible membership organizations in the United States. Yet this does not mean that they are not organized or capable of cross-border collective action. On the contrary, it turns out that Nahua transnational communities from the state of Guerrero supported a pioneering and highly successful public interest advocacy campaign in defense of their villages against a planned hydroelectric dam in 1991. The project threatened to displace an estimated forty thousand people in the Alto Balsas Valley, damage a critical ecosystem, and flood a newly discovered major archaeological site. Local communities drew on existing cross-village social ties and local marketing networks to quickly build a cohesive regional movement, gaining national and international leverage in the context of the pending quincentenary of the Conquest. Migrants not only contributed funds, drawing on their traditional quota system for village fiestas, but they were also involved in campaign strategy and tactics. Migrants bought video cameras to tape the movement’s mass direct actions in a state known for intense repression. This tactic not only served to inform paisanos in the United States; it also inaugurated what became the Mexican indigenous movement’s now widespread use of video to deter police violence. Migrant protests in California also drew the attention of Spanish-language television, which led to the first TV coverage of the Alto Balsas movement within Mexico itself.71 With their combination of regionwide, national-level, and transnational organizing crosscut by multisectoral alliances with environmentalists, anthropologists, and human rights activists, these migrants pioneered what could be called a “vertically integrated” approach to public interest campaigns.72 PRESENTING THE COLLECTION This collection is the result of collaboration between the two coeditors and Rufino Domínguez Santos, general coordinator of the FIOB since 2001. The three jointly convened the conference where these essays were first presented. The gathering was entitled “Indigenous Mexican Migrants in the 71 72 See Good 1992. See also Díaz de Jesús et al. 1996; García Ortega 2000; Hindley 1999. On the vertical integration of civil society policy advocacy, see Fox 2001b. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 29 US: Building Bridges between Researchers and Community Leaders.” It was hosted by the University of California, Santa Cruz’s Department of Latin American and Latino Studies and cosponsored by the FIOB and UCSC’s Chicano Latino Research Center. The conference included eighteen indigenous migrant leaders of Mixtec, Zapotec, Triqui, P’urépecha, Chatina, and Mayan origin, as well as academics, applied researchers, journalists, trade unionists, local civic leaders, lawyers, and foundation representatives. The chapters that follow are organized into themes, beginning with perspectives of diverse indigenous migrant leaders, followed by sections on social and civic participation, social and economic processes, and ethnic and geographic diversity among indigenous migrants. The volume concludes with analyses of some of the binational dimensions of migration in communities of origin. This initiative follows in a tradition pioneered by the first meeting between indigenous migrant leaders, scholars, and other potential allies, which was held at the University of California, San Diego’s Center for U.S.Mexican Studies in 1988 (see Zabin, ed. 1992a, 1992b; Runsten and Kearney 1994). This process encouraged what would become the California Rural Legal Assistance’s Mixtec farmworker outreach project, as well as key benchmark studies of migrant farmworkers and campaigns to reduce the census undercount. This effort was followed by a 1994 meeting in Mexico that presented the state of the art of research on Mixtec migration (see Varese and Escárcega n.d.). This collection broadens the scope from what started as a primary focus on Mixtecs in rural California to address indigenous migrants in the United States more generally. Studies here focus on “Oaxacalifornia” but also include research from Oregon, Illinois, Florida, and New York, as well as Baja California, Michoacán, Puebla, Hidalgo, Yucatán, Chiapas, and Oaxaca itself. Major research gaps remain, especially on the increased diversity of indigenous migrants and their regions of origin and settlement. Migrant Leaders’ Perspectives This collection begins with indigenous Oaxacan migrant leaders holding the floor. The first is Rufino Domínguez Santos, general coordinator of the Oaxacan Indigenous Binational Front, whose lifelong commitment to social justice began when, as a young man, he challenged violent boss rule in his home village. Domínguez Santos followed the path known as the “ruta mixteca,” migrating first to the fields of Sinaloa and then to San Quintín, 30 Fox and Rivera-Salgado Baja California, before coming to the United States.73 His essay combines a personal and organizational history of one of the most broad-based binational Mexican migrant organizations, including a frank discussion of the difficult process of building leadership accountability. The FIOB is distinctive for at least two reasons. First, the organization has promoted a broad pan-ethnic understanding of indigenous identity and indigenous rights. Second, while migrant communities in the United States are brimming with a wide range of hometown clubs and home state federations, the FIOB is among the relatively few with close ties to broad-based counterpart membership organizations in their communities, regions, and states of origin.74 FIOB is active in three very different arenas at once, including within its membership active base committees and statewide structures of representation in California, Baja California, and Oaxaca. Migrant leader Gustavo Santiago Márquez’s testimony follows; he shares his experience as the first president of the Oaxacan Federation of Indigenous Communities and Organizations in California, an umbrella group that brings together both hometown clubs and regional organizations from across different ethnic groups. Following mixed results from the first round of efforts to come together in the early 1990s, for most of that decade Oaxacan migrant organizations each tended to follow their own paths. Some focused more on cultural activities, preserving Oaxacan music and dance traditions in the United States; some prioritized their hometown community development efforts; and still others pursued a more activist rights agenda. In this context, the FOCOICA’s emergence in 2001 reflects the work of many Oaxacan organizers to overcome past differences and find common ground. The FOCOICA’s work has focused on issues of shared concern, including dialogue with the governor of Oaxaca on issues such as matching funds for collective remittance investments in community development projects back home, large-scale cultural activities such as the Guelaguetza, cross-sectoral coalitions for driver licenses for migrants and campaigns for migrants’ right to vote in Mexico, as well as networking 73 For more on the “ruta mixteca,” see Atilano Flores 2000; Besserer 1999a, 1999b, 2003, n.d.; Varese and Escárcega n.d.; Zabin, ed. 1992a, 1992b; Zabin, Kearney, et al. 1993. For background on this migration process analyzed through the lens of the changing agricultural and environmental context, see Wright 1990. On the relationship between regional agricultural problems and out-migration from the Mixteca, see Simon 1997: chap. 2; García Barrios and García Barrios 1992, 1994. For an analysis of farmworker union organizing in northwestern Mexico, see López Monjardín 1991. 74 For discussions of issues of balance within binational coalitions and networks, as well as the concept of counterparts, see Fox 2002. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 31 on an equal footing with other long-standing state-based Mexican migrant organizations in California, such as those from Zacatecas and Jalisco.75 Mixtec community organizer and radio show host Filemón López is a co-founder of one of the first Oaxacan migrant organizations in the United States, the Benito Juárez Civic Association (ACBJ).76 He is also the host of one of the single most important mass media outlets for indigenous Oaxacans in the United States, the Mixtec Hour radio show, broadcast over the Radio Bilingüe network. This show reaches most of California for two hours at midday on Sundays.77 In addition to broadcasting music and messages to community and family, this radio show also includes interviews and call-in discussions with guests who address a wide range of issues confronting Mixtec, Zapotec, Triqui, and other Mexican indigenous peoples. The show was launched in 1997, and López is now training Zapotec and Triqui DJs, so that they too can launch their own shows. Chatina migrant videographer Yolanda Cruz is playing a leading role as a cultural interlocutor between indigenous migrant communities and other social and intellectual sectors in the United States. Her videos document the binational social and cultural dynamics of the migration process. She portrays the universal immigrant story, through the eyes and experiences of her subjects, to help U.S. and Mexican decision makers and scholars understand the challenges and unique position of indigenous Mexican migrants. Her work also attempts to provoke conversations among different indigenous migrant communities, to learn from each other’s experiences. As she put it, “if Chatino migrants see the development of the Mixtecos in the United States they will be inspired to organize strong community organizations in their hometowns and abroad. And when Mixtecos see their stories and the story of the Chatinos, they will identify with the same experience. They can feel good about their accomplishments and continue to work at improving their organizations.”78 Her work also contributes to broader video efforts to reach across cultural boundaries, such as the recent binational “Video México Indígena/Video Native Mex75 For detailed coverage of the activities of the FOCOICA and its affiliates, see El Oaxaqueño. 76 For an oral history of one of the other founders of this organization, who later became mayor of his home municipality, see Besserer 1999a. See also Besserer 2003, n.d. 77 Radio Bilingüe’s regular listeners include “about 60% of the Spanish-dominant, predominantly immigrant population in the rural communities in the 11-county areas of California” served by the network (Kissam 2003b: 4). 78 Personal communication, July 9, 2003. 32 Fox and Rivera-Salgado ico” tour of the United States, organized by the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian.79 Ulises García is vice president of FOCOICA and a leader of the Union of Highland Communities of Oaxaca (UCSO), an association of Zapotec communities from the Sierra de Juárez that includes five hometown clubs. His testimony sheds light on the process through which their community service traditions are reproduced in the United States. He focuses on how sports and cultural activities bring migrants together across both communities of origin and generations. Inspiring migrant youths to continue to identify with their ancestral homes and traditions despite crosscutting U.S. cultural influences is easier said than done. For the first time, gangs of Oaxacan young people are beginning to emerge in Los Angeles, which underscores the importance of García’s efforts to bring young Oaxacans, the U.S.-born sons and daughters of migrant families, into their community sports networks.80 Quechua anthropologist Guillermo Delgado shares his reflections on indigenous Mexican migrants in the broader context of indigenous rights movements in the hemisphere. For more than two decades, indigenous activists from throughout the Americas have been entering the international arena, both to find counterparts and to influence national and international authorities. Within the United States, indigenous migrants have come together across their different community and ethnic identities. For example, a growing pan-Indian network is emerging in the San Francisco Bay Area among migrants of Shuar (Ecuador), Quechua, Lenca (El Salvador), Maya, Triqui, and Yurok (California) origin.81 As an explicitly panethnic organization, the FIOB in California also includes—in addition to its 79 80 81 See www.nativenetworks.si.edu (English) and www.redesindigenas.si.edu (Spanish). For example, Cruz Manjarraz reports that a community leader estimated that there are between four and six thousand people who identify with Yalálag, a Zapotec highland village, but only just over two thousand now live in Yalálag. “This estimate includes not only the immigrant population, but also Yalaltecos born in the U.S. Some Yalaltecos consider that the 30% of Yalaltecos are immigrants, whereas 70% are Yalaltecos born in the U.S. They also suggest that among the 30% of immigrants, 25% of them are legal residents” (2001: 48). Personal communication, Robin Maria Delugan, Anthropology Department, University of California, Berkeley, May 7, 2003. Los Angeles also has a pan-ethnic network, the Los Angeles Indigenous People’s Alliance (LAIPA), which was launched in 1991 to address the Quincentenary. LAIPA is an affiliate of the International Xicano Human Rights Council, a working group from the International Indian Treaty Council. See www.laipa.net. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 33 main base of Mixtecs from Oaxaca—Mixtecs from Guerrero, Zapotecs, Chatinos, Triquis, P’urépechas from Michoacán, and mestizos.82 Concluding this roundtable discussion, conference participant Alejandrina Ricárdez, a migrant from Oaxaca’s Central Valleys and urban planner trained at the University of California, Los Angeles, shares her insights into the need to rethink what “traditions” mean from the point of view of indigenous women. She also underscores the challenge that indigenous intellectuals face in their efforts to translate knowledge into specific practices that benefit their communities. Her experience illustrates the challenges that young migrants face, as those who grew up in the United States increasingly serve as cultural bridges between very different worlds—and must, in the process, balance often conflicting social and cultural demands.83 Social and Civic Participation Anthropologist Laura Velasco Ortiz’s study of indigenous organizations in Baja California opens the section of chapters on indigenous migrant organizations. Though this collection focuses primarily on migrants in the United States, one cannot understand the social processes that generate both indigenous migration and migrant organization without taking into account the Baja California arena. This border region is both a major center of long-term indigenous migrant settlement and a staging area for migration between southern Mexico and the United States.84 After years of campaign and public debate, the reproduction of ethnic identity is increasingly institutionalized in Tijuana, including active roles for the migrants’ own organizations, the local media, human rights organizations, and bilingual 82 Personal email communication, Rufino Domínguez Santos, June 4, 2003. The approximately one thousand members in California are affiliated through their eight base committees, located in Santa Rosa, Livingston, Madera, Fresno, Selma, Lamont/Arvin, Santa Maria, and Vista/Oceanside. Organizers in Oaxaca estimate the membership there at approximately five thousand families, mainly in the Mixteca Baja but also in the Chatino region, as well as almost five hundred new members in the Central Valleys, mainly at the edge of Oaxaca City. The FIOB’s urban colono base is multiethnic, made up of migrants to the city who have few relatives in the United States (Jonathan Fox, field interviews in six Oaxaca urban colonias, May 2003). 83 On issues facing second-generation indigenous women, see also Stanley 2003b. 84 See also Velasco Ortiz 2002. On the process of building community and ethnic identity among Oaxacan farmworkers in San Quintín, Baja California, see Bacon 2004: chap. 5; Garduño, García, and Morán 1990; Garduño 1998, n.d; Quiñones 2001: chap. 5. 34 Fox and Rivera-Salgado schools and teachers, as well as specialized government agencies such as the National Indigenous Institute (INI). As part of Tijuana’s own approach to reinforcing national identity in the shadow of the United States, the local municipal authorities—not known for their ethnic sensitivity—celebrated “Indian Day.”85 Velasco Ortiz’s work underscores Baja California’s powerful symbolic importance to binational organizations. For example, the FIOB’s 2001 binational assembly, held in Tijuana, was inaugurated with a multiethnic chorus of schoolchildren singing the national anthem in Mixteco—surprising the dozens of community delegates who had traveled from Oaxaca, most of whom had never before heard the anthem sung in an indigenous language. The International Indigenous Network of Oaxaca (RIIO) held its binational assembly in San Quintín. Velasco Ortiz’s study focuses on the diversity and consolidation of indigenous migrant organizations, comparing the urban experience in Tijuana with the agribusiness zone of San Quintín and highlighting the role of women. She finds that Oaxacan migration itself integrates California and Baja California, making possible the exchange of experiences across the border. In addition, on both sides of the line migrant organizations face the challenge of bringing together urban and rural-based groups. In the process, women’s organizing has encouraged a “redefinition or incorporation of new interests, more associated with the private sphere, into the plans and actions of these organizations, and has been enriched by cross-border interactions between women in organizations on both sides of the border.”86 Jesús Martínez-Saldaña, veteran analyst of migrant history, culture, and organization, shares his analysis of the texture of local participation in indigenous migrant organizations in California. He takes as his case study the local community–based committees of the FIOB in the Fresno area, comparing their participation in both cultural and civic action. He frames this in broad historical context, reaching back to recall major national figures in Mexican social change who were themselves migrants of indigenous origin, such a Benito Juárez and Ricardo Flores Magón. MartínezSaldaña highlights the migrant’s multiple identities—with the capacity to simultaneously be seen as a low-profile, low-status worker in one context while playing major leadership roles in other arenas. Who would have thought, looking at Benito Juárez rolling cigars in a New Orleans factory while in exile, that he would go on to become one of his country’s leading 85 86 See Lestage 2002, 1998, 1999. See also Clark Alfaro 1991; Young 1994. Personal communication, Laura Velasco Ortiz, July 28, 2003. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 35 political figures? Martínez-Saldaña also analyzes one of the most innovative public spaces so far in terms of the emergence of a distinctive migrant civil society. In 1999 the Zapatistas and their allies in Mexico organized a national referendum in support of constitutional recognition of indigenous rights and “true peace through dialogue” in Chiapas. The voting was also carried out in Mexican communities throughout the United States. The FIOB organized polling places both in Oaxaca and in California.87 Sociologists Gaspar Rivera-Salgado and Luis Escala Rabadán shift the level of analysis of organization building from local forms of grassroots participation to broader forms of representation, through statewide migrant federations.88 Their study examines the similarities and differences among the federations of migrants from Zacatecas, Jalisco, and Oaxaca. By focusing on these different “territorially based” organizations in the Los Angeles area, they are able to “hold constant” the role of other factors that might explain their organizational dynamics, such as the role of the Mexican government presence through the local consulate office (in the Mexican context, the Los Angeles consulate is one of the single most important and active diplomatic posts). In each case, the statewide federations take on the structure and look of Mexico-based civic associations since they emerge primarily as counterparts to deal with their respective state governments. At the same time, the Oaxaca umbrella group organizes in its own distinctive way, combining the hometown club base similar to the zacatecanos and jaliscienses with the regional and pan-ethnic associations specific to Oaxaca. Lynn Stephen, an anthropologist with extensive field experience in Oaxacan communities in both Mexico and Oregon, compares the histories and dynamics of two different kinds of Mixtec collective action in Oregon. One form of participation involves the defense of their rights as workers and migrants through Oregon’s main farmworker organization, Northwest Treeplanters and Farmworkers United (PCUN), founded in 1985.89 The 87 The Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) sent more than five thousand delegates to do outreach throughout Mexico in support of the referendum, and in Oaxaca the FIOB was assigned twenty-six Zapatistas to cover thirteen municipalities in the Mixteca region. The FIOB organized four polling places in California, in the cities of Fresno, Watsonville/Santa Cruz, Los Angeles, and Vista. The voter participation was highest in Fresno, registering 1,627 votes. See RiveraSalgado 1999. 88 For further discussion of statewide federations of hometown associations, see, among others, Bada 2001, 2003; de la Garza and Hazan 2003; Espinoza 1999; Goldring 2002; R. Smith 2003. For a contrasting discussion of less formal expressions of Mexican transnational communities, see Fitzgerald 2000; Fletcher 1999. 89 See their Web site at www.pcun.org and Stephen 2001, 2003. On the history of Mixtec migration to Oregon, see De León 1995. 36 Fox and Rivera-Salgado other form of organization comes together around a shared community of origin and ethnic identity, San Agustín Atenango, which has ten different hometown clubs spread throughout the United States. Stephen finds that many Mixtec farmworkers participate in both organizations, pursuing their class and ethno-local goals through different forms of practice. Social and Economic Processes Medical anthropologist Bonnie Bade contributes to cross-cultural understanding with her ethnographic account of the health challenges facing Mixtec migrants in California. These challenges include both the health risks and the difficulty of accessing health services that are specific to their class, ethnic, and legal positions in U.S. society. Bade’s research helps us to understand the dramatic differences in basic frames of reference about health, including ethnically specific beliefs and practices regarding health and illness.90 She also shows the ways in which Mixtec migrants cope with this situation, outlining a series of alternative health care strategies they have developed, in the context of difficult and limited access to mainstream health care. These strategies include the use of the “Mixtec medical culture” to treat ordinary and ethnic-specific illness through medicinal plants, temascales (steam baths), massages, and healing ceremonies. These ethno-specific healing practices reaffirm the patients’ ethnic identity and sense of belonging to a specific community. Bade contends that these practices complement, but do not replace, the need for mainstream medical care. The study by urban planner Felipe López and economist David Runsten provides cutting-edge documentation of important differences in migration patterns, both across and within ethnic groups. They document the notable differences in migration patterns between Mixtec and Zapotec communities from Oaxaca’s Central Valleys. They find that Mixtecs consistently migrate to rural areas of California (as well as Oregon and Washington) to work in agriculture, while Zapotecs tend to move to large cities, such as Los Angeles, and work primarily in services. In addition, Mixtec migration originated as a step process, via northwestern Mexico, whereas Zapotec migration, in addition to a long tradition of going to Mexico City, 90 Note that nonindigenous Mexican migrants of rural origin also report “ethnospecific diseases,” such as nervios, empacho, susto, and mal de ojo. See Mines, Mullenax, and Saca 2001. On Mixtec migrant health issues, see also Grieshop 1997; McGuire 2001. On farmworker health in California more generally, see Villarejo et al. 2000. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 37 has tended to go straight to California. López and Runsten explore a range of hypotheses that might explain these differences. Researchers Javier Huizar Murillo and Isidro Cerda present a very original set of data on where indigenous migrants are settling in California. They draw on the 2000 U.S. census to document the presence of the new category of “Hispanic American Indians”—that is, people who choose to identify both as Hispanic or Latino as their ethnicity, and as American Indian as their race.91 The overlapping category that emerges primarily reflects indigenous migrants from Latin America, primarily from Mexico, but also including Guatemalan Mayans, especially in the Los Angeles area.92 The absolute numbers show that this self-identified population now numbers at least 400,000 in the United States as a whole, including more than 150,000 in California alone. Other major receiving states include Texas, New York, and Florida, though preliminary research suggests that the magnitude of the undercount of indigenous migrants may vary by state, depending on the unevenness of outreach efforts undertaken in the 1990s. Because of the persistence of the undercount, the absolute census numbers must be interpreted with a great deal of caution. At the same time, the relative data are very suggestive since they produce a revealing pattern of geographic distribution, at least within California. The findings summarized visually by these maps reinforce the data presented by López and Runsten, showing the principal population concentrations both in agribusiness regions of Southern California and California’s Central Valley, as well as a strong presence in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Independent researcher Edward Kissam and attorney Ilene Jacobs’s study describes with unusual detail and precision the nature and mechanisms of the U.S. census undercount of rural indigenous migrants. After the widely criticized undercount of 1990, California public officials worked with community-based organizations in California to develop more effective outreach strategies. Some progress was made, insofar as some of the most egregious patterns of exclusion were reduced (though they probably persist in other states). At the same time, Kissam and Jacobs’s ethnographic 91 On race, ethnicity, and Latinos in the U.S. census, see, among others, C. Rodríguez 2000; Yanow 2003. The most recent research on Latino responses to the race and ethnicity questions in 2000 finds that, based on the widespread response of “other” to the race question, the ethnic Latino category is treated as a de facto racial category. See Navarro 2003; Tafoya 2003; Crece and Ramírez 2003. 92 There is a substantial literature on Guatemalan Mayan migrants in the United States. See Burns 1993; Castañeda, Manz, and Davenport 2002; Fink 2003; Hagen 1994; Loucky and Moors 2000; Popkin 1999; N. Rodríguez 2000; N. Rodríguez and Jonas n.d. 38 Fox and Rivera-Salgado community studies, when contrasted with official census data, provide clear evidence that the census undercount persists in California, though through more subtle mechanisms. Only further research, adapted to urban settings, will be able to tell us whether similar patterns of undercount are a serious problem affecting urban indigenous migrant populations as well. Ethnic and Geographic Diversity among Indigenous Migrants Journalist Garance Burke’s study sheds light on the challenges facing Mexican indigenous peoples who have joined the migrant stream most recently. Historically, Yucatecan and Chiapan Mayas limited their travels for work to southeastern Mexico, as in the case of Chiapan migration to lowland agroexport estates and to wage labor when the oil industry was being built in Tabasco.93 It may not be a coincidence that the people who rose up in the Zapatista rebellion lived in one of Mexico’s regions with the least likelihood of migrating to the cities and to the United States. Yet many of the lowland Chiapas communities that took up arms for their cause and have since built autonomous local governments are also themselves migrant communities—homesteaders who came down from crowded highland villages only a generation or two before. Burke’s study documents the experiences of those Mayas who made their way to the Bay Area of California.94 Like other migrants, they form their own informal support networks. Like other indigenous migrants, they face discrimination from within the migrant community, which reinforces their own social solidarity. Anthropologist Warren Anderson focuses on Cobden, Illinois, a small town in the rural Midwest that has become a classic satellite community of the town of Cherán, in the P’urépecha highlands of Michoacán.95 Though P’urépecha migrants have been coming to the United States for at least as 93 The first published documentation of Chiapan migration to the United States focuses on communities near San Cristóbal and traces its beginnings back to the late 1980s. See Rus and Guzmán López 1996. On the new travel industry from Chiapas to the northern border, see Ross 2002. See Balkan 2001 for an unusual study of the determinants of non-migration in two Chiapas communities. 94 See Adelson 2002 on one of the first Yucatecan Mayan migrants to San Francisco. Najar (2003) reports that Mayans in Quintana Roo gain service work experience in the tourism industry, which prepares them to find related jobs as migrants in the United States. 95 See also Rubén Martínez’s richly nuanced journalistic portrait of Cherán’s migration process (2001). Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 39 long as the Oaxacans, so far they have attracted less research attention.96 Anderson’s ethnographic case study provides a detailed portrait of the growing wave of migration to rural U.S. communities that until recently had no history of receiving migrants. Though lacking a legacy of progressive cultural and racial attitudes, the community of Cobden has “tolerated and coped.”97 Anderson’s approach stresses the interaction between individual agency and binational social context, focusing on how migrants also “tolerate and cope.” Sociologist and community organizer Paul Johnston analyzes an important case of multisectoral solidarity with a Triqui community in southern Monterey County that had been targeted for a raid by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS).98 The Triqui people come from western Oaxaca, and though they have a long tradition of migrating within Mexico, they are increasingly coming to the United States.99 The capacity of community-based organizations to rally in their support was unusual in part because the Triquis tend to be more socially isolated in the United States than other Oaxacan migrant groups, in part due to their more limited command of Spanish. Some compare their situation to that of Mixtec migrants two decades ago. Previous cycles of Latino political enfranchisement and empowerment in the small town of Greenfield made the campaign possible, and the INS proved to be unusually vulnerable to public criticism in the process.100 Since then, Triqui community leaders have 96 On P’urépechas in the United States, see also Anderson 1997; Ayala and Mines 2002; Krissman 2002. For background on ethnic politics in the P’urépecha highlands, see Vásquez León 1992; Zárate Hernández 2000. 97 Perhaps the arrival of migrants in communities that were not previously socially polarized into a caste system (as in the case for much of rural California) allows for creative adaptation. For example, it is common for Cobden farmers to know all the names of as many as a hundred of their Mexican workers (Warren Anderson, comment at the University of California, Santa Cruz conference, October 11, 2002). Rubén Martínez’s journalistic study of Cherán migrants in a small Wisconsin meatpacking town finds a similar local flexibility (2001). 98 The Triqui community in Greenfield, currently numbering about five hundred, is in part a waystation to other destinations within the United States, including Oregon and New York (author interview, visiting Mexican scholar María Dolores París Pombo, also adviser to Las Mujeres de Sur, a Triqui artisan cooperative in Greenfield, Santa Cruz, June 2003). See also París Pombo 2003a, 2003b. 99 In contrast to most Mexican migrants, a significant number of Triquis leave home in fear of the high level of political violence in the region. For details, see París Pombo 2003b: 13. For background, see López Bárcenas 2002. The collapse of the price of coffee is also a key factor. 100 For background on the Citizenship Project, which led the coalition in defense of the Greenfield Triquis, see www.newcitizen.org. 40 Fox and Rivera-Salgado forged a sustained partnership with the local branch of the United Farm Workers, using their hall for assemblies held in the Triqui language.101 Sociologist Liliana Rivera-Sánchez’s chapter focuses on a pattern of migrant social organization that is very different from the cases that draw from the Oaxacalifornia experience. She documents the origins and dynamics of New York City’s Tepeyac Association, a Catholic Church–sponsored association of local faith-based committees of migrants, mainly from the state of Puebla. Tepeyac has quickly become a major activist voice for the growing Mexican community in New York City, now referred to as “Puebla York.”102 The Mexican population of New York City tripled over the decade of the 1990s, reaching an estimated 300,000—the vast majority from Puebla.103 Many come from the Mixteca region within Puebla, and a minority of them are of indigenous Mixtec ancestry.104 They sometimes refer to New York City as “Ñuu York”; “ñuu” means “land” in Mixteco. Unlike in California, these migrants do not organize or publicly identify in terms of their indigenous roots, but rather come together 101 Author interview, París Pombo, Santa Cruz, June 2003. Tepeyac has consistently focused on raising the media profile of the immigrant rights agenda. Note, for example, their annual collective run from Mexico to New York in honor of the Virgin of Gualalupe (Galvez 2003; Najar 2002; Solís 2001, 2002). See www.tepeyac.org. The other main activist Mexican migrant organization in New York City is Casa México/Asociación de Trabajadores Mexicano Americanos, which “spearheaded the organizing drive that culminated with a landmark agreement between Korean greengrocers and Mexican workers [an estimated forty thousand in the New York region work for the greengrocers]”; David Brooks, personal email communication, June 4, 2003. 103 Kamber 2001a, citing Robert Smith. See also Binford and D’Aubeterre 2000; Kamber 2001b, 2001c; López Ángel 2000a, 2000b, 2003a, 2003b; Najar 2002; R. Smith 1995, 1996. For a recent video documentary on a Puebla hometown association based just north of New York City, see “The Sixth Section,” at www.sixthsection.com. For another example of this kind of organization, note the case of two hundred migrants from the community of Axutla, “in the heart of the Mixteca Poblana,” who raised US$80,000 to build a bridge for which they had been lobbying the government for more than four decades (it is now known as the “Mixteco Bridge”). The majority of the community of 2,800 now lives in New Jersey (Juárez Galindo 2002). 104 This dual usage of the term Mixteco to refer both to the region and to the ethnic group leads to a persistent ambiguity in discussions of the ethnicity identity of poblano migrants to the New York area. Note also the role of Casa Puebla, a community outreach center sponsored by the Puebla state government, whose goal is to create “a single regional identity, that of poblanos, among a fractured community composed of people from the very different ethnic groups that inhabit the different municipios of the state of Puebla” (Sevy Fua 2000: 13). 102 Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 41 through either their hometown associations or their religious identities, through communities of faith called “Comités Guadalupanos.”105 Sociologists Ella Schmidt and María Crummett add a new dimension to our understanding of Mexicans’ ethnic and geographic diversity in the United States, focusing on the growing community of Hñahñu migrants from Ixmiquilpan, Hidalgo, now working on the Florida gulf coast. Hidalgo is one of Mexico’s lowest-income states and has recently experienced one of the country’s highest rates of increase in out-migration. The process began to take off in the mid-1990s and also leads migrants to Las Vegas, Atlanta, and North Carolina. Migrants from Hidalgo now account for approximately 15 percent of the population of Clearwater, Florida, where they have revitalized the downtown area and own more than fifty businesses. This chapter explores how the Hñahñu’s historical and cultural legacies in Mexico have shaped their contemporary forms of civic organization, both in Hidalgo and in Florida, embodied in the partnership between the Supreme Hñahñu Council and the Mexican Council of Tampa Bay. Binational Dimensions of Migration in Communities of Origin Michael Kearney and Federico Besserer’s study focuses on the interaction between migration and Oaxaca’s key institutions of local governance, the municipality and agencias (distinct self-governing communities within municipalities). These local governments are much smaller in scale and more politically autonomous than in most of the rest of rural Mexico. More than 400 of Oaxaca’s 570 municipalities, including thousands of smaller villages, are governed by community assemblies rather than Western-style voting for political parties. These participatory local institutions are organized around rotating, unpaid service commitments, which are a requirement for community membership. High rates of out-migration make it 105 Many of those Puebla migrants who organize through hometown clubs in New York or California tend to triangulate their hometown relationship through Mexico City–based migrant associations, which end up orienting the more recently formed clubs in Tijuana or New York. Personal email communication, anthropologist Gustavo López Ángel, November 19, 2002. For example, “the Asociación Micaltepecana, based in Barrio de Santiago of Iztapalapa in Mexico City, is responsible for convening the association of paisanos who live in New York and California.” López Ángel added that the following indigenous communities in the Mixteca Poblana have hometown clubs in New York or California: San Baltasar Atlimeyaya (Valle de Atlixco), Rosario Micaltepec, Santa Ana Tepejillo, Xayacatlán de Bravo, Piaxtla, Chinantla, Tehuitzingo, and Petlalcingo. See also López Ángel 2000a, 2000b, 2003a, 2003b. 42 Fox and Rivera-Salgado difficult to fill many of these jobs, putting these local institutions under stress. Besserer and Kearney have led a long-term anthropological field research team, based at the Iztapalapa campus of Mexico’s Autonomous Metropolitan University (UAM-Iztapalapa), that is analyzing the diverse community responses to this challenge. In the process, they have developed alternative policy proposals that could help institutions of local governance adapt to the realities of widespread migration. Zapotec civic leader Sergio Robles Camacho reflects on his experience as a returning migrant and the challenges that migration poses to traditions of community governance and civic participation. Communities in his region of the northern Sierra have a long tradition of migration in search of personal development and education—what he calls the “tradición juarista.” Their first hometown associations emerged at the end of the 1950s, in Mexico City and Oaxaca. Migration became widespread in the 1970s, “in the face of the increasingly acute loss of food self-sufficiency,” and they formed the first hometown associations in Los Angeles. Today, the community association from Robles’s hometown of Zoogocho reports more than four hundred members, including the second generation.106 Back home, community governance structures adjust by electing migrants to municipal leadership positions, although this owes more to the scarcity of candidates than to a recognition of the migrants’ citizenship rights. Indeed, local community citizenship rights are traditionally limited to resident adult males. Organized migrants have encouraged Sierra communities to become more flexible about the terms of membership, and they have reacted in diverse ways. Some communities have remained firm, requiring migrants to return to perform the obligatory unpaid leadership service required of all local citizens.107 Other communities, especially those with a longer tradition of migration, have reassessed their definitions of membership in an effort to reconcile both local leadership and migrant needs.108 106 107 108 See García 2003d. In addition, after twenty years of effort, the Zoogocho hometown associations in Los Angeles, Mexico City, and Oaxaca City completed their project of building a “Casa del Migrante Zoogochense” just outside Oaxaca City. For a vivid case study of a northern Oaxaca community that tries to discourage out-migration through strict minimum standards for reincorporation, see Mutersbaugh 2002. Mutersbaugh documents the concept of “civic death”—the expulsion of those who do not make their economic and leadership contributions. García Ortega finds similar responses among Nahua communities in Guerrero (2002). See also Tucker, Díaz McConnell, and Van Wey 2003 for a comparison of different local Oaxaca community efforts to negotiate their terms of engagement with migrants. For example, the northern Zapotec community of San Juan Tabaá, which spent four years putting its community governance processes in writing, details the Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 43 Robles’s own trajectory—he eventually returned and drew on his extensive professional experience to become both a municipal and a regionwide civic leader—reflects the commitment of even long-term migrants to provide diverse forms of community service over decades. Anthropologist María Cristina Velásquez points out that, despite the widespread impression that indigenous women are always excluded from participation in community self-governance in rural Mexico, in Oaxaca the panorama is quite diverse. Though women are increasingly migrating, men still leave in widely disproportionate numbers, which renders many home communities majority-female.109 This dramatic demographic shift does not by itself change the local gender balance of power. Social and cultural changes, encouraged in some communities by deliberate empowerment strategies, are also key to increasing women’s direct participation and representation in both civic and cargo responsibility systems. Velás-quez’s study, based on extensive statewide field research, shows that actual practices range from complete exclusion to “voz con voto” (the right to speak and to vote), “voz sin voto” (the right to speak but not vote), and the right to be elected to community leadership positions.110 At the same time, Velásquez finds that some kinds of women’s participation in the local public sphere have contradictory implications, as in the frequent case when a woman participates indirectly, in the place of her absent spouse, constituting a kind of second-class citizenship as well as additional work obligadistinctions between “comuneros ausentes (activos en cooperacion)” and “ausentes definitivos.” Their governance structure officially includes participation in “organizaciones de paisanos” in Oaxaca, Mexico City, and Los Angeles as a form of community membership, though sustaining full citizenship still requires paying annual taxes and, eventually, fulfilling leadership service. In contrast, “ausentes definitivos” (“paisanos que están totalmente olvidados de su comunidad de origen”) risk losing their property and must pay thirty-four days of the local minimum wage in order to visit the community. See the “Estatuto comunitario de San Juan Tabaá, Villa Alta,” published in Hora Cero, Suplemento Especial, June 20, 2001. 109 On the increasing tendency of indigenous women to migrate, see Poy Solano 2003. For data on rural women’s migration, including indigenous women, see INEGI 2002. 110 According to the statewide 1997 “Catálogo Municipal de Usos y Costumbres” of the Oaxaca Electoral Institute, in 10 percent of the state’s 418 municipalities governed by usos y costumbres, women are not allowed to vote nor to hold local office (referring to tequios). In 9 percent of the cases they cannot vote in local elections but can hold local office. In 21 percent of the municipalities, women can vote but cannot hold local office. In 60 percent of the cases, women can both vote in local elections and hold local office (cited in Velásquez 2002). See also Velásquez 2000, 2001, 2003, as well as Bonfil Sánchez 2002; Dalton 2003; Ibarra Templos 2003; EDUCA 2003. For background on Oaxaca state policy toward indigenous local governance, see Fox and Aranda 1996; Hernández Navarro 1999. 44 Fox and Rivera-Salgado tions. From a long-term point of view, Oaxaca’s indigenous communities are in the midst of an uneven transition that is still little understood. The current patchwork-quilt pattern of varied but limited female access to the local public sphere is quite different from the complete exclusion of women two decades ago, but it is still far from a system in which women have full rights to citizenship in local community governance. The chapter by Centolia Maldonado, the FIOB’s leading women’s organizer in the Mixteca region, and anthropologist Patricia Artía Rodríguez builds on Velásquez’s overview by offering a participant’s perspective on women’s activism in a high out-migration region. In this case the presence of a regional social organization has encouraged the women of the region to create their own social, economic, and civic organizations. As with most mixed-gender poor people’s organizations, the women of the FIOB participate in the group’s mass mobilizations for political change, as well as for community development demands such as local projects and to gain access to the government community development funds that are ostensibly targeted to them. In addition, however, they are organizing to create their own savings clubs, alternative productive projects, and artesanía marketing, and in some cases they are demanding their rights to participate as full citizens in local community governance. CONCLUSIONS This collection seeks to make existing research on indigenous Mexican migrants in the United States more widely available. Hopefully, this will encourage further collaborative initiatives among researchers to help fill the many gaps that remain, as well as among other social and civic actors concerned with building sustainable bridges across multiple cultural divides. This will require rethinking Mexican migration in terms of the diversity of different ethnic, gender, and regional experiences. This recognition has very practical implications. First, it can help to inform potential strategies through which indigenous migrants can bolster their own capacity for self-representation. Second, this recognition of diversity is crucial for broadening and deepening coalitions with other social actors, both in the United States and in Mexico. To illustrate the potential for coalition-building experiences, consider two recent initiatives in the domain of symbolic politics. The historic memory of Benito Juárez continues to resonate powerfully among Oaxacan migrant communities, as noted above. As a result, migrant organizations took initiatives that raised statues in his honor in prominent public places Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 45 in March 2003, on the 197th anniversary of his birth (Stanley 2003c). Independently, both the FOCOICA in Los Angeles (Lynwood) and the FIOB in Fresno launched campaigns to forge the broad coalitions necessary to build and install the statues, coalitions that involved policy makers in both countries as well as organized sectors of U.S. society. In the Lynwood case, the FOCOICA first persuaded the governor of Oaxaca to donate the statue. They then persuaded the mayor of Lynwood (a migrant born in Michoacán) to authorize its placement, and they convinced a Korean migrant businessman to donate a location in his shopping center (including funding the pedestal). The FOCOICA also gained the support of the Council of Federations in Los Angeles, which represents Mexican migrant federations from fourteen different states (see El Oaxaqueño 2003c). In Fresno, the FIOB followed a similar strategy, gaining support from the governor of Oaxaca, local elected officials, businesses, and public interest groups to inaugurate a statue of Juárez, right next to a statue honoring the bracero workers. As County Supervisor Juan Arámbula put it, the statue was in an especially appropriate location, “because it is between two symbols of justice, the State Court on one side, and the Federal Court [under construction] on the other” (cited in N. Martínez 2003). Juárez’s most famous phrase bound his legacy to the principles of self-determination: “between nations as between individuals, respect for the rights of others means peace.” This message gave the two statues an unforeseen but powerful added meaning in the midst of the U.S. war in Iraq. Indeed, just two weeks before the inaugural ceremony in Fresno’s main square, the FIOB’s leadership released a communiqué addressed to the presidents of the United States and Mexico, entitled “No to the United States’ unilateral and hegemonic war!” (FIOB 2003). Juárez is a symbol not only of pan-Oaxacan unity but also of a more diverse Mexican identity as well. The installation of the statues was only possible because of the multisectoral and cross-border coalitions that Oaxacan migrant organizations in the United States have built over more than a decade. The statues’ incorporation into the public landscapes of Los Angeles and Fresno also symbolizes the coming of age of a new phase of Mexican migration, one in which indigenous migrants are taking their place in the collectively imagined Mexico outside of Mexico. To sum up, indigenous Mexican migrants’ organizational initiatives and rich collective cultural practices open a window on their efforts to build new lives in the United States while remaining who they are and remembering where they come from. This is the challenge they face. 46 Fox and Rivera-Salgado References Adelson, Naomi. 2002. “Los mayas de San Francisco,” Masiosare (La Jornada) 255 (November 10). Aguilar Medina, José Íñigo. 1979. “La mixteca oaxaqueña, una zona de emigración.” In Aspectos sociales de la migración en México, edited by Margarita Nolasco Armas. Mexico City: Departamento de Proyectos Especiales de Investigación, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Alarcón, Rafael. 2002. “The Development of the Hometown Associations in the United States and the Use of Social Remittances in Mexico.” In Sending Money Home: Hispanic Remittances and Community Development, edited by Rodolfo O. de la Garza and Briant Lindsay Lowell. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. Altamirano, Teófilo, and Lane Ryo Hirabayashi, eds. 1997. Migrants, Regional Identities and Latin American Cities. Washington, D.C.: Society for Latin American Anthropology/American Anthropological Association. Anderson, Warren. 1997. “Ethnic Identity and Migration among Mexican Wage Laborers in Southern Illinois.” PhD dissertation, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. Anzaldo Meneses, Juan, ed. 1999. “Indígenas en la ciudad de México,”Ce-Acatl 101 (Summer). Aranda, Josefina. 2003. “Peasant Farmers in the Global Economy: The State Coalition of Coffee Producers of Oaxaca.” In Confronting Globalization: Economic Integration and Popular Resistance in Mexico, edited by Timothy Wise, Hilda Salazar, and Laura Carlsen. West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian. Atilano Flores, Juan José. 2000. Entre lo propio y lo ajeno: la identidad étnico-local de los jornaleros mixtecos. Serie Migración Indígena. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista/United Nations Development Programme. Authers, John, and Sara Silver. 2003. “Mid-term Poll May Add to Fox’s Woes,” Financial Times, July 1. Ayala, Marisol, and Richard Mines. 2002. “Patterns of Community Cross Border Migration from a Purépecha Town: Dispersion of a People and a Culture.” Presented at the conference “Mexican Indigenous Migrants in the US: Building Bridges between Researchers and Community Leaders,” University of California, Santa Cruz, October. At www.lals.ucsc.edu/conference/index.html. Bacon, David. 2004. The Children of NAFTA: Labor Wars on the U.S./Mexico Border. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bada, Xochitl. 2001. “Collective Remittances, Culture and National Identity: The Reconstruction of Identities among Michoacano Hometown Associations in the Chicago Area.” Master’s thesis, University of Chicago. ———. 2003. “Mexican Hometown Associations,” Citizen Action in the Americas 5 (March). At www.americaspolicy.org. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 47 Bakewell, Liza, and Byron Hamann. 2001. Mesolore: Exploring Mesoamerican Culture (CD-ROM). Providence, R.I.: Brown University/Prolarti. At www.mesolore.com. Balkan, Jennifer Lynn. 2001. “Why Not Migrate? A Case Study of Two Rural Villages in Chiapas, Mexico.” PhD dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Barrón, María Antonieta. 2003. “Evaluación del Programa de Atención a Jornaleros Agrícolas, impacto en 2001, comportamiento en 2002 y un análisis comparativo entre 2001 y 2002.” Mexico City: Departamento de Economía, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Manuscript. Besserer, Federico. 1999a. Moisés Cruz: historia de un transmigrante. Culiacán: Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa/Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana–Iztapalapa. ———. 1999b. “Estudios transnacionales y ciudadanía transnacional.” In Fronteras fragmentadas, edited by Gail Mummert. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán. ———. 2002. “Política cuántica: el uso de la radio por comunidades transnacionales,” Nueva Antropología 25, no. 57. ———. 2003. “Contesting Community: Cultural Struggles of a Mixtec Transnational Community.” PhD dissertation, Stanford University. ———. n.d. Topografías transnacionales: hacia una geografía de las comunidades transnacionales de origen mixteco. Mexico City: Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana–Iztapalapa/Plaza y Valdés. Forthcoming. Binford, Leigh, and María Eugenia D’Aubeterre, eds. 2000. Conflictos migratorios transnacionales y respuestas comunitarias. Puebla: Gobierno del Estado de Puebla. Bonfil Sánchez, Paloma. 2002. “Las mujeres indígenas y su participación política: un movimiento contra la desmemoria y la injusticia.” In Participación política de las mujeres y gobiernos locales en México, edited by Delia Barrera Bassols. Mexico: GIMTRAP. Boruchoff, Judith A. 1999. “Creating Continuity across Borders: Reconfiguring the Spaces of Community, State, and Culture in Guerrero, Mexico and Chicago.” PhD dissertation, University of Chicago. Boruchoff, Judith A., and Jennifer Johnston. 2003. “Reconfiguring the Mexican State from the Inside Out and the Outside In: Impacts of Community Action within and beyond Guerrero.” Presented at the International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Dallas, March. Bowe, John. 2003. “Nobodies: Slavery in Agricultural Industries of South Florida,” New Yorker 79 (April 21). Burns, Allan F. 1993. Maya in Exile: Guatemalans in Florida. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press. Caballero, Juan Julián, and Manual Ríos Morales. n.d. “Impacto de la migración transnacional entre los Nuu Savi (Mixtecos) y los Bene Xhon (Zapotecos de la Sierra Norte) de Oaxaca.” In La ruta mixteca: el impacto etnopolítico 48 Fox and Rivera-Salgado de la migración transnacional en los pueblos indígenas de México, edited by Stefano Varese and Sylvia Escárcega. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Forthcoming. Cano, Arturo. 2002. “Paisanos en Estados Unidos: cuántos, cómo, dónde. Hacia una geografía del otro México,” Masiosare (La Jornada) 235 (June 23). Castañeda, Alejandra. 2003. “The Politics of Citizenship: Mexican Migrants in the U.S.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. Castañeda, Xochitl, Beatriz Manz, and Allison Davenport. 2002. “Mexicanization: A Survival Strategy for Guatemalan Mayas in the San Francisco Bay Area,” Migraciones Internacionales 1, no. 3 (July–December): 103–23. Clark Alfaro, Víctor, 1991. “Los mixtecos en la frontera (Tijuana), sus mujeres y el turismo,” Cuadernos de Ciencias Sociales (Universidad Autónoma de Baja California) 4, no. 10. Cockburn, Andrew. 2003. “21st Century Slaves,” National Geographic 204, no. 3 (September): 2–28. CONAPO (Consejo Nacional de Población). 2000. Índices de intensidad migratoria, Mexico–Estados Unidos. Mexico City: CONAPO. At www.conapo.gob.mx. ———. 2001. “Población indígena en la migración temporal a Estados Unidos,” Migración Internacional 5, no. 14. At www.conapo.gob.mx. Cook, Maria Lorena. 1996. Organizing Dissent: Unions, the State and the Democratic Teachers’ Movement in Mexico. University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State University Press. Corbett, Jack, Murad A. Musalem Marhey, Othón Ríos Vásquez, and Héctor A. Vásquez Hernández, eds. 1992. Migración y etnicidad en Oaxaca. Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University. Cornelius, Wayne A. 2002. “Impacts of NAFTA on Mexico-U.S. Migration.” In NAFTA in the New Millennium, edited by Edward Chambers and Peter H. Smith. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego/University of Alberta Press. Cornelius, Wayne A., Todd Eisenstadt, and Jane Hindley, eds. 1999. Subnational Politics and Democratization in Mexico. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Corona Vásquez, Rodolfo. 2000. “Monto y uso de las remesas en México.” In Migración Mexico–Estados Unidos, opciones de política, edited by Rodolfo Tuirán. Mexico City: CONAPO/SEGOB/SRE. Crece, Arthur R., and Roberto R. Ramírez. 2003. Analysis of General Hispanic Responses in Census 2000. Population Division Working Paper Series, no. 27. Washington, D.C.: Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau. Cruz Manjarrez García, Guadalupe Adriana. 2001. “Performance, Ethnicity and Migration: Dance and Music in the Continuation of Ethnic Identity among Immigrant Zapotecs from the Oaxaca Highland Village of Villa Hidalgo, Yalalag to Los Angeles.” Master’s thesis, University of California, Los Angeles. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 49 Dalton, Margarita. 2003. “Las presidentas municipales en Oaxaca y los usos y costumbres.” In El municipio: un reto para la igualdad de oportunidades entre hombres y mujeres, edited by Dalia Barrera Bassols and Alejandra Massolo. Mexico: Instituto Nacional de las Mujeres/UNDP/GIMTRAP. Davis, Alex. 2002. “Unusual Woodburn Office Helps Indigenous Mexicans,” Associated Press Newswires, October 28. De la Garza, Rodolfo O., and Myriam Hazan. 2003. Looking Backward, Moving Forward: Mexican Organizations in the U.S. as Agents of Incorporation and Dissociation. Claremont, Calif.: Tomás Rivera Policy Institute. At www.trpi.org. De la Garza, Rodolfo O., and Briant Lindsay Lowell, eds. 2002. Sending Money Home: Hispanic Remittances and Community Development. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield. De León, Lourdes. 1995. “The Mixtecs’ Annual 3,000-Mile Journey.” In Nosotros: The Hispanic People of Oregon, edited by Erasmo Gamboa and Carolyn M. Buan. Portland: Oregon Council for the Humanities. ———. 1999. “‘Si’ Means ‘Yes’: Lenguaje y poder en el juicio a un mixteco en EUA.” In Mirando … ¿hacia afuera? Experiencias de investigación, edited by Gabriela Vargas Cetina. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social. Dennis, Philip. 1987. Intervillage Conflict in Oaxaca. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. Díaz de Jesús, Marcelino, Guillermo Álvarez Nicanor, Pedro de Jesús Alejandro, Hipólito Morales Ramírez, Gilberto Remegio Román, Sabino Estrada Guadalupe, and Gerardo Pineda Gerónimo, eds. 1996. Alto Balsas: pueblos nahuas en lucha por la autonomía, desarrollo y defensa de nuestra cultura y territorio. Mexico City: Consejo de Pueblos Nahuas del Alto Balsas, Guerrero/ Consejo Guerrense “500 Años de Resistencia Indígena.” Dirección de Atención a los Pueblos Indígenas del Distrito Federal. 2001. “Situación de pueblos indígenas originarios y poblaciones indígenas radicadas en el Distrito Federal: elementos para un diagnóstico,” June. At www.equidad.df.gob.mx/cuerop/indigenas/diag/htm. Dirección General de Población de Oaxaca. 2002. Marginación municipal: Oaxaca 2000. Oaxaca: DIGEPO. Domínguez Santos, Rufino. n.d. “Migración y organización de los indígenas oaxaqueños. “ In La ruta mixteca: el impacto etnopolítico de la migración transnacional en los pueblos indígenas de Mexico, edited by Stefano Varese and Sylvia Escárcega. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Forthcoming. Dossier Courrier International. 2003. “Les Indiens aux portes du pouvoir. 44 Millions d’Indiens en Amérique Latine,” Courrier International 668 (August 21). 50 Fox and Rivera-Salgado Durand, Jorge. 1998. “Nuevas regiones migratorias.” In Población, Desarrollo, y Globalización: V Reunión de Investigación Sociodemográfica en México, edited by René M. Centeno. Mexico City: SOMEDE/COLEF. Durand, Jorge, and Douglas Massey. 2003. Clandestinos: migración México–Estados Unidos en lo albores del Siglo XXI. Mexico: Miguel Ángel Porrúa/Univerersidad Autónoma de Zacatecas. EDUCA (Servicios para una Educación Alternativa). 2003. El camino a la equidad: un estudio de género en municipios indígenas de Oaxaca. Oaxaca: EDUCA. El Oaxaqueño. 2003a. “La Guelaguetza de ORO en su cúspide,” August 9. ———. 2003b. “Guelaguetza en San Marcos,” August 9. ———. 2003c. “Oaxaqueños reivindian principios juaristas,” March 29. Escárcega, Sylvia, and Stefano Varese. n.d. “Introducción retrospectiva a la migración transnacional mixteca.” In La ruta mixteca: el impacto etnopolítico de la migración transnacional en los pueblos indígenas de México, edited by Stefano Varese and Sylvia Escárcega. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Forthcoming. Espinoza, Víctor. 1999. The Federation of Michoacán Clubs in Illinois. The ChicagoMichoacan Project Report, Heartland Alliance, September. Fink, Leon. 2003. The Maya of Morganton: Work and Community in the Nuevo New South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. FIOB (Frente Indígena Oaxaqueño Binacional). 2003. “Comunicado: Frente Indígena Oaxaqueño Binacional, Coordinación Estatal Baja California, Asamblea Estatal,” March 2. Fitzgerald, David. 2000. Negotiating Extra-Territorial Citizenship: Mexican Migration and the Transnational Politics of Community. La Jolla: Center for Comparative Immigration Studies, University of California, San Diego. ———. n.d. “Beyond ‘Transnationalism’: Mexican Hometown Politics at an American Labor Union,” Ethnic and Racial Studies. Forthcoming. Fletcher, Peri. 1999. “La Casa de Mis Sueños”: Dreams of Home in a Transnational Migrant Community. Boulder, Colo.: Westview. Fletcher, Peri, and Jane Margold. 2003. “Transnational Communities,” Rural Mexico Research Review 1. At www.reap.ucdavis.edu/rural_review.html. Flores, William V. 1997. “Citizens vs. Citizenry: Undocumented Workers and Latino Cultural Citizenship.” In Latino Cultural Citizenship: Claiming Identity, Space, and Rights, edited by William V. Flores and Rina Benmayor. Boston, Mass.: Beacon. Flores, William V., and Rina Benmayor. 1997. “Constructing Cultural Citizenship.” In Latino Cultural Citizenship: Claiming Identity, Space, and Rights, edited by William V. Flores and Rina Benmayor. Boston, Mass.: Beacon. Fox, Jonathan. 1992. The Politics of Food in Mexico. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 51 ———. 1994. “The Politics of Mexico’s New Peasant Economy.” In The Politics of Economic Restructuring: State-Society Relations and Regime Change in Mexico, edited by Maria Lorena Cook, Kevin J. Middlebrook, and Juan Molinar Horcasitas. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. ———. 1996. “How Does Civil Society Thicken? The Political Construction of Social Capital in Rural Mexico,” World Development 24, no. 6 (June): 1089–1104. ———. 2001a. “Evaluación de las coaliciones binacionales de la sociedad civil a partir de la experiencia México–Estados Unidos,” Revista Mexicana de Sociología 63, no. 3 (July–September). ———. 2001b. “Vertically Integrated Policy Monitoring: A Tool for Civil Society Policy Advocacy,” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 30, no. 3 (September). ———. 2002. “Lessons from Mexico-U.S. Civil Society Coalitions.” In CrossBorder Dialogues: U.S.-Mexico Social Movement Networking, edited by David Brooks and Jonathan Fox. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Fox, Jonathan, and Josefina Aranda. 1996. Decentralization and Rural Development in Mexico: Community Participation in Oaxaca’s Municipal Funds Program. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Galvez, Alyshia. 2003. “’I Too Was an Immigrant’: The Transformation of Affinities and Identity through Time in a Mexican Migrant Devotional Organization in the South Bronx.” Presented at the meeting of the American Anthropological Association, November. García, Martín Alejandro. 2003a. “Guelaguetza en Los Angeles,” El Oaxaqueño, April 26. ———. 2003b. “La pelota mixteca: una tradición milenaria,” El Oaxaqueño, May 24. ———. 2003c. “Rescate de un juego milenario: pelota mixteca de forro,” El Oaxaqueño, August 9. ———. 2003d. “Instituyen Día del Migrante Zoogochense,” El Oaxaqueño, August 23. García Barrios, Raúl, and Luis García Barrios. 1992. “Subsistencia maicera y dependencia monetaria en el agro semiproletarizado: una comunidad rural mixteca.” In Reestructuración económica y subsistencia rural: el maíz y la crisis de los ochenta, edited by Cynthia Hewitt de Alcántara. Mexico City: El Colegio de Mexico/Centro Tepoztlán/UNRISD. ———. 1994. “The Remnants of Community: Migration, Corn Supply and Social Transformation in the Mixteca Alta of Oaxaca.” In Economic Restructuring and Rural Subsistence in Mexico: Corn and the Crisis of the 1980s, edited by Cynthia Hewitt de Alcántara. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego/United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. 52 Fox and Rivera-Salgado García Leyva, Jaime. 2003. “Por los caminos del sur indígena,” Ojarasca (La Jornada) 79 (November). García Ortega, Martha. 2000. “El Consejo de Pueblos Nahuas del Alto Balsas contra la construcción de la presa hidroeléctrica San Juan Tetelcingo, Guerrero (1990–1992).” Bachelor’s thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. ———. 2002. “Nómadas, viajeros y migrantes: la comunidad sin límites de la región nahua del Alto Balsas, Guerrero.” Master’s thesis, Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia. ———. 2003. “Desarrollo indígena, migración y autonomía.” Presented at the “Primer Coloquio Internacional sobre Migración y Desarrollo: Transnacionalismo y Nuevas Perspectivas de Integración,” Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, October 23–25. At www.migracionydesarrollo.org. García Zamora, Rodolfo. 2002. “Los proyectos productivos de los migrantes en México hoy.” Presented at the “Segundo Coloquio sobre Migración Internacional: Mexico-California,” University of California, Berkeley, March. ——— 2003. “Migración, remesas y desarrollo local.” PhD dissertation, Universidad Autonóma de Zacatecas. García Zamora, Rodolfo, ed. 2002. Seminario internacional sobre la transferencia y uso de las remesas: proyectos productivos y de ahorro. Mexico: CEPAL/Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas/Sin Fronteras. Garduño, Everardo. 1998. “Applying Anthropology among Migrant Indians in San Quintín, Mexico,” Practicing Anthropology 20, no. 4 (Fall): 34–38. ———. n.d. “San Quintín, Baja California, en la ruta indígena.” In La ruta mixteca: el impacto etnopolítico de la migración transnacional en los pueblos indígenas de Mexico, edited by Stefano Varese and Sylvia Escárcega. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Forthcoming. Garduño, Everardo, Efraín García, and Patricia Morán. 1990. Mixtecos en Baja California: el caso de San Quintín. Mexico: Universidad Autónoma de Baja California/Museo Regional Universitario. Gil Martínez de Escobar, Rocío. 2003. “Estrategias de desarrollo transnacional de una comunidad indígena oaxaqueña: Santa Maria Tindú.” Presented at the “Primer Coloquio Internacional sobre Migración y Desarrollo: Transnacionalismo y Nuevas Perspectivas de Integración,” Universidad Autónoma de Zacatecas, October 23–25. At www.migracionydesarrollo.org. Girón Cruz, Alicia Sylvia, and Rafael G. Reyes Morales. 2003. “Impactos de la migración en el desarrollo de las comunidades indígenas de Oaxaca.” Presented at the International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Dallas, March. Gledhill, John. 1995. Neoliberalism, Transnationalization and Rural Poverty: A Case Study of Michoacán, Mexico. Boulder, Colo.: Westview. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 53 Gobierno del Distrito Federal. 2000. Memoria de los encuentros sobre presencia indígena en la ciudad de México. Mexico City: Dirección General de Equidad y Desarrollo, Gobierno del Distrito Federal. Goldring, Luin. 1998a. “From Market Membership to Transnational Citizenship? The Changing Politicization of Transnational Social Spaces,” L’Ordinaire Latino-Americaine 173–174 (July–December). ———. 1998b. “The Power of Status in Transnational Social Fields.” In Transnationalism from Below, edited by Michael Peter Smith and Luis Eduardo Guarnizo. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction. ———. 2001. “The Gender and Geography of Citizenship in U.S.-Mexico Transnational Spaces,” Identities 7, no. 4: 501–37. ———. 2002. “The Mexican State and Transmigrant Organizations: Negotiating the Boundaries of Membership and Participation,” Latin American Research Review 37, no. 3: 55–100. ———. 2003a. “Rethinking Remittances: Social and Political Dimensions of Individual and Collective Remittances.” CERLAC Working Paper. At www.yorku.ca/cerlac/ABSTRACTS.htm#Goldring. ———. 2003b. “Gender, Status and the State in Transnational Spaces: The Gendering of Political Participation and Mexican Hometown Associations.” In Gender and U.S. Immigration: Contemporary Trends, edited by Pierrette Hondagneu-Sotelo. Berkeley: University of California Press. Good, Catherine. 1992. “‘Making the Struggle, One Big One’: Nahuatl Resistance to the San Juan Dam, Mexico.” Presented to the Agrarian Studies Colloquium, Yale University, October 30. Grieshop, James I. 1997. “Transnational and Transformational: Mixtec Immigration and Health Beliefs,” Human Organization 56, no. 4: 400–407. Grimes, Kimberly. 1998. Crossing Borders: Changing Social Identities in Southern Mexico. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Guidi, Marta. 1992. Estigma y prestigio: la tradición de migrar en San Juan Mixtepec (Oaxaca/Mexico). Bonn: Holos Verlag. Hagen, Jaqueline Maria. 1994. Deciding to Be Legal: A Maya Community in Houston. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press. Hernández Díaz, Jorge. 2001. Reclamos de la identidad: la formación de las organizaciones indígenas en Oaxaca. Mexico City: Miguel Ángel Porrúa/Universidad Autónoma “Benito Juárez” de Oaxaca. Hernández Navarro, Luis. 1999. “Reaffirming Ethnic Identity and Reconstituting Politics in Oaxaca.” In Subnational Politics and Democratization in Mexico, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius, Todd A. Eisenstadt, and Jane Hindley. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Hernández Navarro, Luis, and Ramón Vera Herrera, eds. 1998. Acuerdos de San Andrés. Mexico City: Era. Hindley, Jane. 1999. “Indigenous Mobilization, Development, and Democratization in Guerrero: The Nahua People vs. the Tetelcingo Dam.” In Subna- 54 Fox and Rivera-Salgado tional Politics and Democratization in Mexico, edited by Wayne A. Cornelius, Todd A. Eisenstadt, and Jane Hindley. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Hirabayashi, Lane Ryo. 1993. Cultural Capital: Mountain Zapotec Migrant Associations in Mexico City. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Hulshof, Marije. 1991. Zapotec Moves, Networks and Remittances of U.S.-Bound Migrants from Oaxaca, Mexico. Amsterdam: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genootschap. Ibarra Templos, Yuribi Mayek. 2003. “Espacios alternativas de poder: la participación de las mujeres en una comunidad transnacional.” Bachelor’s thesis, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana–Iztapalapa. INEGI (Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Geografía e Informática). 2002. Las mujeres en el México rural. Aguascalientes, Mexico: INEGI/SAGARPA/PA. Johnston, Paul. 2001. “The Emergence of Transnational Citizenship among Mexican Immigrants in California.” In Citizenship Today: Global Perspectives and Practices, edited by T. Alexander Aleinikoff and Douglas Klusmeyer. Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Juárez Galindo, Ignacio. 2002. “Inauguran el puente mixteco en Axutla; fue construido con dinero de los migrantes,” La Jornada de Oriente, January 9. Kamber, Michael. 2001a. “A Link in the Chain,” Village Voice, April 11. ———. 2001b. “Deadly Game,” Village Voice, April 18. ———. 2001c. “Toil and Temptation,” Village Voice, April 24. Kearney, Michael. 1986. “Integration of the Mixteca and the Western U.S.Mexican Border Region via Migratory Wage Labor.” In Regional Impacts of U.S.-Mexican Relations, edited by Ina Rosenthal Urey. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. ———. 1988. “Mixtec Political Consciousness: From Passive to Active Resistance.” In Rural Revolt in Mexico and U.S. Intervention, edited by Daniel Nugent. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. ———. 1994. “Desde el indigenismo a los derechos humanos: etnicidad y política más allá de la mixteca,” Nueva Antropología 14, no. 46: 49–67. ———. 1995a. “The Effects of Transnational Culture, Economy, and Migration on Mixtec Identity in Oaxacalifornia.” In The Bubbling Cauldron: Race, Ethnicity, and the Urban Crisis, edited by Michael Peter Smith and Joe R. Feagin. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 1995b. “The Local and the Global: The Anthropology of Globalization and Transnationalism,” Annual Review of Anthropology 24: 547–65. ———. 1996. “Indigenous Ethnicity and Mobilization in Latin America,” Latin American Perspectives 23: 5–16. ———. 2000. “Transnational Oaxacan Indigenous Identity: The Case of Mixtecs and Zapotecs,” Identities 7, no. 2: 173–95. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 55 ———. 2001. “Struggle and Difference: The Jiujitsu of Transnational Indigenous Resistance and Domination.” In History in Person: Enduring Struggles and Identities in Practice, edited by D. Holland and J. Lave. Santa Fe, N.M.: School of American Research Press. ———. 2002. “Transnational Migration from Oaxaca: The Agrarian Question and the Politics of Indigenous Peoples,” Oesterreichische Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaften 13: 4. Kearney, Michael, and Carole Nagengast. 1989. “Anthropological Perspectives on Transnational Communities in Rural California.” Davis: Working Group on Farm Labor and Rural Poverty, California Institute for Rural Studies. Kissam, Edward. 2003a. “Trends in the Ethnic Composition of the California Farm Labor Force.” Memo to the Agricultural Worker Health Initiative Policy Advisory Group, July 1. ———. 2003b. “Transformation of Civic and Political Life in Rural California Communities.” Presented at the conference “The Changing Face of Rural California,” Asilomar, California, May. Klaver, Jeanine. 1997. From the Land of the Sun to the City of Los Angeles: The Migration Process of Zapotec Indians from Oaxaca, Mexico to Los Angeles, California. Netherlands Geographical Studies, no. 228. Utrecht, Amsterdam: Dutch Geographical Society. Krissman, Fred. 1996. “Californian Agribusiness and Mexican Farm Workers, 1942–1992.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Barbara. ———. 2002. “Apples and Oranges? Recruiting Indigenous Mexicans to Divide Farm Labor Markets in the Western U.S.” Presented at the conference “Mexican Indigenous Migrants in the US: Building Bridges between Researchers and Community Leaders,” University of California, Santa Cruz, October. Available at www.lals.ucsc.edu/conference/index/html. Lartigue, Francois, and André Quesnel, eds. 2003. Las dinámicas de la población indígena: cuestiones y debates actuales en México. Mexico City: Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología Social/Institut de Recherche pour le Developement/Miguel Ángel Porrúa. Leal, Alejandra. 2001. “La identidad mixteca en la migración al norte: el caso del Frente Indígena Oaxaqueño Binacional,” Cahier ALHIM, Amérique Latine Histoire et Mémoire 2: 237–55. Leiken, Robert. 2000. The Melting Border: Mexico and Mexican Communities in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Center for Equal Opportunity. Lestage, Francoise. 1998. “Apuntes sobre los mecanismos de reconstrucción de la identidad entre los migrantes: los mixtecos de las Californias.” In Encuentros Antropológicos: Power, Identity and Mobility in Mexican Society, edited by Valentina Napolitano and Xochitl Leyva. London: Institute of Latin America Studies, University of London. 56 Fox and Rivera-Salgado ———. 1999. “Diseñando nuevas identidades: las uniones matrimoniales entre los migrantes mixtecos en Tijuana, B.C.” In Fronteras fragmentadas, edited by Gail Mummert. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán. ———. 2002. “La emergencia de ‘neocomunidades’ étnicas en Tijuana.” In Migración internacional e identidades cambiantes, edited by María Eugenia Anguiano Téllez and Miguel J. Hernández Madrid. Zamora: El Colegio de Michoacán/El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. López, Felipe, Luis Escala-Rabadán, and Raúl Hinojosa-Ojeda. 2001. “Migrant Associations, Remittances and Regional Development between Los Angeles and Oaxaca, Mexico.” Los Angeles: North American Integration and Development Center, University of California, Los Angeles. At www.naid. sppsr.ucla.edu/pubs&news. López, Francisco H. 1999. “The Re-invention and Re-adaptation of Mayordomía: The Case of Tlacolula, Oaxaca and Los Angeles, California.” Bachelor’s thesis, University of California, Santa Cruz. López Ángel, Gustavo. 2000a. “Mixteca internacional: la fuerza de la ausencia,” Ojarasca (La Jornada), July. ———. 2000b. “Mixtecos: lengua, migración y procesos organizativos.” In Conflictos migratorios transnacionales y respuestas comunitarias, edited by Leigh Binford and María Eugenia D’Aubeterre. Puebla: Gobierno del Estado de Puebla. ———. 2003a. “Organizaciones de migrantes en la mixteca poblana: membresía transnacional o exclusión de la ciudadanía multicultural.” Manuscript. ———. 2003b. “Membresía e identidad en procesos migratorios translocales: la experiencia de la Asociación Micaltepecana.” Presented at the “Primer Coloquio Internacional sobre Migración y Desarrollo: Transnacionalismo y Nuevas Perspectivas de Integración,” Zacatecas, October. At www. migracionydesarrollo.org. López Bárcenas, Francisco. 2002. Muertes sin fin: crónica de represión en la región mixteca oaxaqueña. Serie Derechos Indígenas, no. 2. Mexico: Ce-Atl. López Espinosa, Mario. 2002. “Remesas de mexicanos en el exterior y su vinculación con el desarrollo económico, social y cultural de sus comunidades de origen,” Estudios sobre Migraciones Internacionales (International Labour Organization) 59. López Mercado, Alejandro. 1998. “La defensa de los derechos colectivos de los pueblos indígenas en México: los casos del FIOB, la UCIHJ y la Comunidad de Santa Ana Zirosto,” Cuadernos Agrarios 16, nueva época: 174–98. López Monjardín, Adriana. 1991. “Organization and Struggle among Agricultural Workers in Mexico.” In Unions, Workers, and the State in Mexico, edited by Kevin J. Middlebrook. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Loucky, James, and Marilyn M. Moors, eds. 2000. The Maya Diaspora: Guatemalan Roots, New American Lives. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 57 Lozano-Ascencio, Fernando. 1993. Bringing It Back Home: Remittances to Mexico from Migrant Workers in the United States. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. ———. 2003. “Discurso oficial, remesas y desarrollo en Mexico,” Migración y Desarrollo 1 (October). Lozano-Ascencio, Fernando, Bryan Roberts, and Frank Bean. 1999. “The Interconnections of Internal and International Migration: The Case of the United States and Mexico.” In Migration and Transnational Social Spaces, edited by Ludger Pries. Aldershot: Ashgate. Maceda, Oralia, Rosa López, Fidelina Espinosa, Martha Moreno, Julia Hernández, Concepción Pacheco, May Lee, Lee Lor, Sally Yang, Pai Yang, and Vilaysouk Vee Inthaly. 2003. Immigrant Women: A Road to the Future / Mujeres inmigrantes: camino al futuro. Fresno, Calif.: Pan-Valley Institute/American Friends Service Committee. Magagnini, Stephen. 2002. “Radio Gives Mixtecs Their Own Voice: ‘La Hora Mixteca’ Reaches Out across California,” Sacramento Bee, October 20. Martínez, Nayamín. 2003. “El Benemérito de las Américas habita en el corazón de Fresno,” El Tequio, March–April. At www.laneta.apc.org/fiob/ teqmarz03/indicemarz03.html. Martínez, Rubén. 2001. Crossing Over: A Mexican Family on the Migrant Trail. New York: Henry Holt. Martínez-Saldaña, Jesús, and Raúl Ross Pineda. 2002. “Suffrage for Mexicans Residing Abroad.” In Cross-Border Dialogues: U.S.-Mexico Social Movement Networking, edited by David Brooks and Jonathan Fox. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. McGuire, Sharon Ann. 2001. “Crossing Myriad Borders: A Dimensional Analysis of the Migration and Health Experiences of Indigenous Oaxacan Women.” PhD dissertation, University of San Diego. Mejía Flores, Susana. 2003. “Mujer indígena y violencia,” México Indígena 2, no. 5 (September): 41–47. Mines, Richard, Nancy Mullenax, and Lisettte Saca. 2001. “The Binational Farmworker Health Survey: An In-depth Study of Agricultural Worker Health in Mexico and the United States.” Davis: California Institute for Rural Studies/California Endowment, June. Moctezuma Longoria, Miguel. 2003a. “The Migrant Club El Remolino: A Binational Community Experience.” In Confronting Globalization: Economic Integration and Popular Resistance in Mexico, edited by Timothy Wise, Hilda Salazar, and Laura Carlsen. West Hartford, Conn.: Kumarian. ———. 2003b. “Territorialidad de los clubes de zacatecanos en Estados Unidos,” Migración y Desarrollo 1 (October). Molina Ramírez, Tania. 2003. “El sueño de frenar la migración,” Masiosare (La Jornada) 307 (November 9). 58 Fox and Rivera-Salgado Molinari Soriano, Sara. 1979. “La migración indígena en México.” In Aspectos sociales de la migración en México, edited by Margarita Nolasco Armas. Mexico City: Departamento de Proyectos Especiales de Investigación, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia. Montes, Olga. 2000. “Cultura, etnicidad y migración: los zapotecos en Los Angeles,” Cuadernos Agrarios 19–20: 49–67. Mountz, Alison, and Richard Wright. 1996. “Daily Life in the Transnational Migrant Community of San Agustín, Oaxaca and Poughkeepsie, New York,” Diaspora 5, no. 3. Mutersbaugh, Ted. 2002. “Migration, Common Property and Communal Labor: Cultural Politics and Agency in a Mexican Village,” Political Geography 21 (June). Mydans, Seth. 1989. “Strawberry Fields Bear a New Immigrant Crop,” New York Times, May 22. Nadal, Alejandro. 2000. “The Environmental and Social Impacts of Economic Liberalization on Corn Production in Mexico.” Oxford: Oxfam, Great Britain/World Wide Fund for Nature. Nagengast, Carole, and Michael Kearney. 1990. “Mixtec Ethnicity: Social Identity, Political Consciousness and Political Activism,” Latin American Research Review 25, no. 2. Nagengast, Carole, Rodolfo Stavenhagen, and Michael Kearney. 1992. Human Rights and Indigenous Workers: The Mixtecs in Mexico and the United States. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Najar, Alberto. 2002. “La carrera México–Nueva York de los migrantes: en busca del milagro,” Masiosare (La Jornada) 255 (November 10). ———. 2003. “Después del free-way maya, todo es Cuautitlán,” Masiosare (La Jornada) 294 (August 11). Navarro, Mireya. 2003. “Going Beyond Black and White, Hispanics in Census Pick ‘Other,’” New York Times, November 9. Olivera, Mireya. 2003. “Festeja CRLA proyecto mixteco,” El Oaxaqueño, November 15. Orellana, Carlos. 1973. “Mixtec Migrants in Mexico City: A Case Study of Urbanization,” Human Organization 32, no. 3 (Fall). Orozco, Graciela, Esther González, and Roger Díaz de Cossío. 2003. Las organizaciones mexicano-americanas, hispanas y mexicanas en Estados Unidos. 2d rev. ed. Mexico: Centro de Estudios Migratorios/Fundación Solidaridad Mexicano-Americana. Oxfam. 2002. Mugged: Poverty in Your Coffee Cup. Boston, Mass.: Oxfam America. At wwwmaketradefair.com. ———. 2003. “Dumping without Borders: How US Agricultural Policies Are Destroying the Livelihoods of Mexican Corn Farmers.” Oxfam Briefing Paper No. 50, August. At www.maketradefair.com/assets/english/corn_dumping.pdf. Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 59 Pallares, Amalia. 2002. From Peasant Struggles to Indian Resistance: The Ecuadorian Andes in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. París Pombo, María Dolores. 2003a. “Género y etnicidad entre los migrantes triquis al Valle de Salinas, California.” Presented at the “Seminario Permanente sobre Migración Internacional,” El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, July. ———. 2003b. “Derechos humanos de los y las migrantes triquis en California.” Presented at the “Seminario Permanente sobre Migración Internacional,” El Colegio de la Frontera Norte, Tijuana, July. Payne, Brian. 2000. “Taking Back the Reins of Identity Formation: The Evolution of a Grassroots Organization in a South Florida Migrant Farm Working Community.” Master’s thesis, University of Florida. Poole, Deborah. 2002. “Mestizaje, Distinction and the Political Language of Culture in Oaxaca.” Presented at the conference “Mestizaje in the Andes and Central America,” University of Iowa, October. ———. 2004. “An Image of ‘Our Indian’: Type Photographs and Racial Sentiments in Oaxaca, 1920–1940,” Hispanic American Historical Review 84, no. 1 (February): 37–82. Popkin, Eric. 1999. “Guatemalan Mayan Migration to Los Angeles: Constructing Transnational Linkages in the Context of the Settlement Process,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22, no. 2 (March). Porter, Eduardo. 2003. “Once Migrant, Farm Workers Now Settle in California,” Wall St. Journal, October 10. Portes, Alejandro, and Patricia M. Fernández-Kelly. 2003. “Subversion and Compliance in Transnational Communities: Implications for Social Justice.” In Struggles for Social Rights in Latin America, edited by Susan Eva Eckstein and Timothy P. Wickham-Crowley. New York: Routledge. Portes, Alejandro, Luis E. Guarnizo, and Patricia Landolt. 1999. “The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22, no. 2 (March): 217–37. Poy Solano, Laura. 2003. “Aplicará el INEA proyecto educativo para los indígenas mexicanos en EU,” La Jornada, October 19. Quiñones, Sam. 2001. True Tales from Another Mexico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Quiñones, Sam, and Alan Mittelstaedt. 2000. “A League of Their Own: How a Team of Oaxacan Busboys Is Redefining L.A. Basketball,” LA Weekly, February 4–10. At www.laweekly.com/ink/00/11/features-mittelstaedt.php. Ramírez Cuevas, Jesús. 2003. “Cuando los braceros se fueron de huelga en California,” Masiosare (La Jornada) 304 (October 19). Ramírez Romero, Silvia Jaquelina. 2000. “Identidad política y derechos de los pueblos indígenas: la reconstrucción de la identidad política del Frente 60 Fox and Rivera-Salgado Indígena Oaxaqueño Binacional.” Master’s thesis, Instituto de Investigaciones Dr. José María Mora. Rendón, Iván. 2002. “Toca banda oaxaqueña para el Papa,” Reforma, July 8. Reyes, Alma. 2002. “El papel que juega la radio en las comunidades transnacionales.” Bachelor’s thesis, Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana–Iztapalapa. Rivera-Salgado, Gaspar. 1999. “Migration and Political Activism: Mexican Transnational Indigenous Communities in a Comparative Perspective.” PhD dissertation, University of California, Santa Cruz. ——— .2002. “Cross-border Grassroots Organizations and the Indigenous Migrant Experience.” In Cross-Border Dialogues: U.S.-Mexico Social Movement Networking, edited by David Brooks and Jonathan Fox. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Roberts, Bryan R., Reanne Frank, and Fernando Lozano-Ascencio. 1999. “Transnational Migrant Communities and Mexican Migration to the US,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 22, no. 2 (March): 238–66. Rodríguez, Clara E. 2000. Changing Race: Latinos, the Census, and the History of Ethnicity in the United States. New York: New York University Press. Rodríguez, Néstor. 2000. “Maya Urban Villagers in Houston: The Formation of a Migrant Community from San Cristóbal Totonicapan.” In The Maya Diaspora: Guatemalan Roots, New American Lives, edited by James Loucky and Marilyn M. Moors. Philadelphia, Penn.: Temple University Press. Rodríguez, Néstor, and Susanne Jonas. n.d. Guatemalan Migrant Communities in a Changing Tri-national Region. Austin: University of Texas Press. Forthcoming. Ross, John. 2002. “Confronting Chiapas’ Migration Woes,” Crossborder Updater, August 6. At www.americaspolicy.org. Rouse, Roger. 1992. “Making Sense of Settlement: Class Transformation, Cultural Struggle, and Transnationalism among Mexican Migrants in the United States,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 645. Rubio, Miguel Ángel, et al. 2000. “Desarrollo, marginalidad y migración.” In Estado del desarrollo económico y social de los pueblos indígenas de Mexico, 1996–1997, edited by Carlos Zolla and Miguel Ángel Rubio. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista/Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Runsten, David. 2003. “Migration and Rural Development: Further Notes.” Presented at the International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Dallas, March. Runsten, David, and Michael Kearney. 1994. A Survey of Oaxacan Village Networks in California Agriculture. Davis: California Institute for Rural Studies. Rus, Jan, and Salvador Guzmán López, eds. 1996. Jchi’iltak ta Slumal Kalifornia/Chamulas en California: el testimonio de Santos, Mariano y Juan Gómez López. San Cristóbal: Instituto de Asesoría Antropológica para la Región Maya, A.C. (INAREMAC). Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 61 Sánchez G., Martha Judith. 1995. “Comunidades sin límites territoriales: estudio sobre la reproducción de la identidad étnica de migrantes zapotecos asentados en el área metropolitana de la ciudad de México.” PhD dissertation, El Colegio de México. ———. 2000. “Identidad y migración: oaxaqueños en Napa y Sonoma, California,” Cuadernos Agrarios 19/20. ———. n.d.1. “Caracterización sociodemográfica de los mexicanos que trabajan en la agricultura en los condados de Napa y Sonoma, California.” Mexico City: Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Manuscript. ———. n.d.2. “Comunidades sin límites territoriales: fortalecimiento y redefinición de identidades étnicas y genéricas de la migración de mexicanos hacia Estados Unidos.” In Simposio sobre la Emigración Latinoamericana, 2002. Osaka: Japan Center for Area Studies. Forthcoming. ———. n.d.3. “Migración indígena y nuevas formas de organización política: retos para la literatura existente,” México Indígena. Forthcoming. Schlosser, Eric. 1995. “In the Strawberry Fields,” Atlantic Monthly, November. At www.theatlantic.com/issues/95nov/strawber.htm. Serrano Carreto, Enrique, Arnulfo Embriz Osorio, and Patricia Fernández Ham, eds. 2003. Indicadores socioeconómicos de los pueblos indígenas, 2002. Mexico: Instituto Nacional Indigenista/Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. At www/ini.gob.mx. Sevy Fua, Rosa María. 2000. “Casa Puebla: An Organizational Ethnography.” Master’s thesis, University of British Columbia. Simon, Joel. 1997. Endangered Mexico: An Environment on the Edge. San Francisco, Calif.: Sierra Club Books. Smith, Michael Peter, and Luis Guarnizo, eds. 1998. Transnationalism from Below. New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction. Smith, Robert C. 1995. “Los Ausentes Siempre Presentes: The Imagining, Making and Politics of a Transnational Migrant Community between Ticuani, Puebla, Mexico and New York City.” PhD dissertation, Columbia University. ———. 1996. “Mexicans in New York City: Membership and Incorporation of a New Immigrant Group.” In Latinos in New York, edited by Gabriel Haslip Viera and Sherrie Baver. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press. ———. 2001. “Mexicans: Social, Educational, Economic and Political Problems and Prospects in New York.” In New Immigrants in New York, edited by Nancy Foner. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2003. “Migrant Membership as an Instituted Process: Transnationalization, the State and the Extra-Territorial Conduct of Mexican Politics,” International Migration Review 37, no. 2 (Summer). 62 Fox and Rivera-Salgado Solís, Jacqueline. 2001. “Immigration Status and Identity: Undocumented Mexicans in New York.” In Mambo Montage: The Latinization of New York, edited by Agustín Laó Montes and Arlene Dávila. New York: Columbia University Press. ———. 2002. “The (Trans) formation of Illegality as an Identity: A Study of the Organization of Undocumented Mexican Immigrants and Their Children in New York City.” PhD dissertation, City University of New York. Stanley, Eduardo. 2003a. “Mixtec Revival: Mexican Indigenous Language on the Rise,” Pacific News Service, September 16. At http://news.pacificnews.org/ news/. ———. 2003b. “A Mixtec’s Story: From the Onion Fields to College,” Pacific News Service, October 31. At http://news.ncmonline.com/news/. ———. 2003c. “Homenaje a Juárez refleja el crecimiento oaxaqueño en California,” El Oaxaqueño, March 29. Stephen, Lynn. 2001. “Globalization, the State, and the Creation of Flexible Indigenous Workers: Mixtec Farmworkers in Oregon,” Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems and World Economic Development 30, nos. 2–3 (Summer–Fall): 189–214. ———. 2003. “Cultural Citizenship and Labor Rights for Oregon Farmworkers: The Case of Pineros y Campesinos Unidos del Noroeste (PCUN),” Human Organization 62, no. 1 (Spring). Stuart, James, and Michael Kearney. 1981. “Causes and Effects of Agricultural Labor Migration from the Mixteca of Oaxaca to California.” Working Paper No. 28. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Suro, Robert, Sergio Bendixen, B. Lindsay Lowell, and Dulce Benavides. 2002. Billions in Motion: Latino Immigrants, Remittances and Banking. Los Angeles: Pew Hispanic Center/Multilateral Investment Facility, Inter-American Development Bank. At www.pewhispanic.org. Tafoya, Sonya M. 2003. “Latinos and Racial Identification in California,” California Counts 4, no. 4 (May). At www.ppic.org. Tucker, Catherine M., Eileen Díaz McConnell, and Leah Van Wey. 2003. “The Role of Local Organization in Migration, Remittances and Community Development in the Sierra Juárez, Oaxaca, Mexico.” Presented at the International Congress of the Latin American Studies Association, Dallas, March. Urrutia, Alonso. 2002. “Aumentó la pobreza en una de cada tres poblaciones indígenas,” La Jornada, August 9. Valdés, Luz María. 1995. Los indios en los censos de población. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Valencia Rojas, Alberto. 2000. La migración indígena a las ciudades. Mexico City: Instituto Nacional Indigenista/Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. Varese, Stefano. 1991. “How Many Native People,” Report on the Americas 25, no. 3 (December). Building Civil Society among Indigenous Migrants 63 ———. 2000. “Migrantes indígenas mexicanos en los Estados Unidos: nuevos derechos contra viejos abusos,” Cuadernos Agrarios 19–20: 49–67. Varese, Stefano, and Sylvia Escárcega, eds. n.d. La ruta mixteca: el impacto etnopolítico de la migración transnacional en los pueblos indígenas de México. Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Forthcoming. Vásquez León, Luis. 1992. Ser indio otra vez: la purepechización de los tarascos serranos. Mexico City: Consejo Nacional para la Cultura y las Artes. Velasco Ortiz, Laura. 2002. El regreso de la comunidad: migración indígena y agentes étnicos (Los mixtecos en la frontera Mexico–Estados Unidos). Mexico: El Colegio de México/El Colegio de la Frontera Norte. Velásquez, María Cristina. 2000. El nombramiento: las elecciones por usos y costumbres en Oaxaca. Oaxaca: Instituto Electoral de Oaxaca. ———. 2001. “Frontiers of Municipal Governability in Oaxaca, Mexico: The Legal Recognition of Usos y Costumbres in the Election of Indigenous Authorities.” In The Challenge of Diversity: Indigenous Peoples and Reform of the State in Latin America, edited by Willem Assies, Gemma van der Haar, and Andre Hoekama. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis. ———. 2002. “Discriminación por género y participación en los sistemas normativos de gobierno indígena: contrastes y paradojas.” Manuscript. ———. 2003. “¿Mujeres indígenas gobernando en municipios de Oaxaca?” México Indígena 2, no. 5 (September): 24–29. Ventura Morales, Santiago. 2000. “Condena injusto por prejuicio cultural,” El Tequio, January. At www.laneta.apc.org/fiob/condena.html. Villarejo, Don, David Lighthall, Daniel Williams, Ann Souter, Richard Mines, Bonnie Bade, and Steve Samuels and Steven McCurdy. 2000. Suffering in Silence: A Report on the Health of California’s Agricultural Workers. Woodland Hills: California Endowment/California Institute for Rural Studies, November. At www.calendow.org/pub/publications/AgrWorkersSurveyver012301.pdf. Wilson, Tamar Diana. 1998. “Weak Ties, Strong Ties: Network Principles in Mexican Migration,” Human Organization 57, no. 4. Wright, Angus. 1990. The Death of Ramón González: The Modern Agricultural Dilemma. Austin: University of Texas Press. Yanes Rizo, Pablo. 2002. “Urbanización de los pueblos indígenas y la etnicización de la ciudad.” Presented at the “Seminario Permanente ‘Ciudad, Pueblos Indígenas y Etnicidad,’” July 9. At www.equidad.df.gob.mx. Yanow, Dvora. 2003. Constructing “Race” and “Ethnicity” in America: CategoryMaking in Public Policy and Administration. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe. Young, Emily. 1994. “The Impact of IRCA on Settlement Patterns among Mixtec Migrants in Tijuana, Mexico,” Journal of Borderlands Studies 9, no. 2. Zabin, Carol. 1997. “U.S.-Mexico Economic Integration: Labor Relations and the Organization of Work in California and Baja California Agriculture,” Economic Geography 73, no. 3 (July). 64 Fox and Rivera-Salgado Zabin, Carol, ed. 1992a. “Mixtec Migrant Farm Workers in California Agriculture.” Working Paper No. 9. Davis: California Institute for Rural Studies. ———. 1992b. Migración oaxaqueña a los campos agrícolas de California. La Jolla: Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies, University of California, San Diego. Zabin, Carol, and Luis Escala Rabadán. 1998. “Mexican Hometown Associations and Mexican Immigrant Political Empowerment in Los Angeles.” Working Paper. Washington, D.C.: Nonprofit Sector Research Fund. Zabin, Carol, and Sallie Hughes. 1995. “Economic Integration and Labor Flows: Stage Migration in Farm Labor Markets in Mexico and the United States,” International Migration Review 29, no. 2 (Summer). Zabin, Carol, Michael Kearney, Anna García, David Runsten, and Carole Nagengast. 1993. Mixtec Migrants in California Agriculture: A New Cycle of Poverty. Davis: California Institute for Rural Studies. Zárate Hernández, José Eduardo. 2000. “The Reconstruction of the Purépecha Nation and the Process of Autonomy in Michoacán, Mexico.” In The Challenge of Diversity: Indigenous Peoples and Reform of the State in Latin America, edited by Willem Assies, Gemma van der Haar, and Andre Hoekema. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.