Higgins in his book, Understanding the Chiapas Movement seeks to bring to view the Zapatistas as part and parcel of the Mexican history in regard to the encounter between the Mexican and Maya. He concentrates on the fact that the problems existing between the Mexican state and the Zapatistas were foreseen and therefore meant to happen. The state never really recognized the indigenous as important. The state assumed that the Mayans were primitive and less important something that never went down well with the locals. Higgins major concern is the fact that neoliberals is at stake and should be looked into. Through the book, he seeks to unravel the needs and the voices of the local people.
The purpose of Higgins writings on understanding the Chiapas rebellion was to bring the other perspective of the rebellion which is the understanding of the revolt as a means of rebelling against the forces of modernity that was compromising the livelihoods of the indigenous people not only in the context of the Mayans and Mexico as a state, but in other contexts outside Mexico in the changing world. The book travels through time and space to bring forth the contest the Mayans were fighting from the moment of contact with the outside world.
Higgins goes on to state categorically about the notions of modernity which brought in the assimilation of the people into what the outside world presented. It is for this reason that the indigenous people who were mostly Mayan had joined in the fight against the said good governance (Higgins 1). His is a creation that is meant to put not the revolt on the wrong side of the law because this was anticipated anyway for the sole reason of an inevitable outcome of a system that had suppressed a people’s identity as well as ignoring their aspirations as a part of the bigger picture.
This work seeks to place into the limelight the serious issues affiliated to the social and political status of a people who view globalization and modernity as an oppressor and not a savior. Just like others view it from its negative attributes, Higgins wants to sway the thinking of many as to what politics really is. He seems to question why society has assumed the traditional epitomes and structures of power and assumed the structural and instrumental proposals that modernism has brought about (Higgins 172). This is the cause of the conflict in the Mexican context.
The locals had not been given any stake in the state. The governmental state commanded so much authority that it was not possible for the locals to experience the freedom that they thought they deserved. What happens in such scenarios is an uprising which seeks to go against the grain in an effort to find their own space and be heard by the ones in charge. It therefore does not come as a surprise that the people sought to emerge from such political confusion and get real freedom (Higgins 57). The regime of the time had a lot of enemies so to speak. They emanated from not only within but also from foreign interests (Higgins 101).
Social change was the divine calling that the people could not stand. This was the so much needed change that the people needed. The guerrillas need a different kind of leadership that incorporated them. The state seemed to ignore the aspirations of the people it represented. The minority groups felt left out and Higgins talks about them as the awakening that sent signals across the country and the world concerning the dissatisfaction that existed (132). The status quo needed to be contested for the sake of the oppressed and in order for the oppressor to become aware of the dissatisfaction of the indigenous people.
The pressures were raising much to the ignorance of the state. They mounted and there was no looking back. And it is at that point at the beginning of the year 1994 that the violence broke out. The reality dawned and the indigenous populace could not be stopped. The Zapatista army had taken control of at least seven towns much to the disgrace of the state. The invisible Indian was now at the centre of the re awakening. The people’s self reflection in their own freedom in the lands of their fathers was the ultimate. This was the defining moment that the locals had been waiting for. There was no turning back and the world had to come to the realities of the problems of the people of Mexico.
All in all, it is evident that Higgins had to give his own account of the revolution which is all inclusive from the perspective of the indigenous people. The oppressed point of view helps in painting the view point of the reasons behind the revolution. It is a bit different from the mainstream analysts and view point of the state which may not put a clear picture of what really went wrong and how. Higgins gives the oppressed room not to justify themselves but rather to explain themselves on why it had to go that way.
Work Cited
Higgins, Nicholas. Understanding the Chiapas Rebellion: Modernist Visions and the Invisible Indian. Austin: University of Texas. 2004.
