I just got back from a short mini conference at American University on various issues involving multiculturalism in democracies.
The conference was officially titled “Reconciling Liberal Pluralism and Group Rights: Oaxaca, Mexico’s Multiculturalism Experiment in Comparative Perspectives.” It was put together by America’s Todd Eisenstadt, who also asked me to serve as chair & discussant for one of the panels. While much of the discussion grew out of Eisenstadt’s ongoing work on Oaxaca (where “usos y costumbres” legal practices have been used in a number of municipalities), papers also discussed Bolivia, Ecuador, India, Turkey, Europe, and the US.
One of the things that struck me, was how multiculturalism is often distinguished in Latin America & in Europe. José Antonio Lucero (University of Washington) pointed out that Afro-Latin communities are often barely addressed in South American multicultural projects (they appear as an “afterthought” in Bolivia’s new CPE). A few others commented that the experience of India may not be as instructive for Europe, because India—like Latin America—deals w/ “indigenous” multiculturalism, rather than “immigrant” multiculturalism. I disagreed.
One of the interesting differences in the multicultural paradigms used for Europe or non-Western areas is the assumption that non-Western societies only deal w/ “indigenous” multicultural communities. Lucero’s point that Afro-Latins are ignored in much of Latin America is poignant. But I wanted to push the issue further: Why are Latin America’s many immigrant communities left out of the multicultural project or discussions about pluralism in the region?
Beyond Afro-Latins, Latin America is home to a number of other immigrant, non-indigenous communities that might qualify for inclusion in discussions of multiculturalism. Bolivia itself, for example, has significant Mennonite & Nisei (Japanese-Bolivian) communities. Historically, there were a number of immigrant waves that came into Latin America, including Bolivia. Not all were easily assimilated into the “national community,” remaining marginalized. In Santa Cruz, the Mennonites scratch out a rough living in rural farm plots; they face many of the same pressures as mestizo & “indigenous” campesinos, but are never considered when discussing rural land reform or other issues. Should they be? If not, why not?
To this, Prerna Singh (Princeton University) added that one could easily argue that Europe has its own marginalized indigenous communities. Why, for example, aren’t the discussions of Britain’s multicultural policies for Muslims & the Welsh treated in the same conversation. Aren’t the Welsh an “indigenous” population in Britain? I would push the argument perhaps more. Don’t the Welsh in many ways raise the same issues as, say, Bolivia’s Aymara community? Centuries ago, they were displaced and “internally colonized” by Anglo-Saxons (and later invaders), forced to give up their language & traditions, and marginalized in British political & economic society. Should they be treated differently, or similarly, to Muslim immigrants who are marginalized & face pressures of assimilation, but are not “aboriginal” to the specific place?
