-
Chapter 7. Systemic Racism, Subjectivities, and Shared Futures
- University of Pittsburgh Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
208 Chapter 7 Systemic Racism, Subjectivities, and Shared Futures In March 2011, as popular struggles erupted across the Middle East, U.S. president Barack Obama visited Chile. “At a time when people around the world are reaching for their freedoms,” he observed, “Chile shows that, yes, it is possible to transition from dictatorship to democracy, and to do so peacefully” (“Obama in Chile” 2011). The strength of this transition—the so-called Chilean Miracle—frequently has been attributed to the neoliberal model instituted by the dictatorship and left in place by the Concertación governments. In this book I have sought to trouble the association between neoliberalism and the strength of democracy by addressing the consequences of the Chilean Miracle for the Mapuche people. The Mapuche case shows that the Chilean transition has not involved an improvement in the substantive experience of democracy for many indigenous people. Instead, despite the establishment of some multicultural policies and the promotion of diversity, for many Mapuche, Chile’s neoliberal democracy has represented the perpetuation of colonial dispossession and structural racism. Racial and cultural hierarchies have been pivotal in shaping social rela- Systemic Racism, Subjectivities, and Shared Futures 209 tions in the Araucanía over time. They pose urgent dilemmas for the substance and future of Chilean democracy. This chapter represents an epilogue of sorts, reflecting on the situation post-2010, when Sebastián Piñera took over leadership of the country. I summarize the book’s findings and analytical contributions, then I speak briefly to two routes to change: the pursuit of indigenous rights claims in international forums and the formation of antiracist intercultural coalitions for change. Finally, I address what the Chilean case can add to broader debates about rights, racism, and democracy. The Piñera Government In March 2010, Sebastián Piñera assumed the presidency of Chile. A member of the Renovación Nacional (National Renovation Party), he was the first rightist to win this position since the return to democracy. What would become of indigenous policy under Piñera? A year into his administration , it seemed the neoliberal multicultural agenda would persevere, with some alterations, mainly involving the individualization of indigenous claims and intensification of efforts to integrate indigenous subjects into the free-market economy. Piñera’s campaign materials displayed a willingness to engage the Concertaci ón’s commitment to multiculturalism while simultaneously echoing some of the attitudes held by local elites in my study. The section on indigenous peoples in his “Program of Government” is subtitled “The Value of Multiculturalism” (Piñera 2009). The first line reads: “One of the great assets of the country is its multicultural richness to which our original peoples contribute .” The document criticizes the Concertación for its lack of effectiveness in “taking advantage of this potential,” specifying that its policies failed to create a context in which the indigenous could “participate in the opportunities provided by economic development and at the same time maintain their identity and culture.” The Concertación’s policies were excessively “ruralizing,” the document alleges, tying indigenous identities and cultures to the land. Piñera intended to eliminate these tendencies, meaning that his government would shift away from restituting land, abolish aspects of the land policy they felt incentivized violence, privilege subsidies for individuals rather than communities, and create opportunities to access the market. In one sense Piñera’s program suggests that a discursive commitment to multiculturalism had become more or less a given. The document also exhibits the long-standing tendency to patronize the indigenous, referring to “our” original peoples, for example. The commitment to multiculturalism is very thin; it is discussed in terms of “development with identity,” reflecting some aspects of Mapuche demands at the return to democracy rather than the [54.92.135.47] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 14:15 GMT) 210 Systemic Racism, Subjectivities, and Shared Futures more substantive claims for collective cultural and political rights that had become widespread in the movement by the early 2000s. Indeed, the word “rights” does not appear in the document’s discussion of indigenous peoples at all. Nor is adherence to the recommendations and requirements of various UN bodies, observers, and documents to which Chile is obliged—such as the recommendations of the Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Convention Against Racial Discrimination, ILO 169, or the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—mentioned at all (Pantel 2010). This suggests that Piñera’s government planned to continue to ignore...