In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Book Reviews down popular schools, stealing images from their family altars), or picking the wrong agents of change (corrupt, antagonistic, and/or sexually predatory individuals). As institutions, the church and state in this period were strikingly similar: they were both weak, both conciliatory, and both focused on winning over the long term. They both wanted stability , peace, and dominance. Outnumbered zealots on both sides fueled the worst prejudices of the other; isolated local events bloomed into nationalized hysteria, which in turn further entrenched opponents who failed to realize either their similarities or their many shared objectives. As a result, the worst of both sides too often triumphed, and Mexico’s opportunity for meaningful change was lost. A bittersweet story, really, of the long, slow road to democracy, purchased at the expense of equity for the campo. Stephanie Mitchell Associate Professor of History Carthage College FROM ENRON TO EVO: PIPELINE POLITICS, GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTALISM, AND INDIGENOUS RIGHTS IN BOLIVIA by Derrick Hindery (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 2013, p. 303, $55). From Enron to Evo examines how indigenous populations navigate consultation and consent in development and land conservation debates related to extractive industries. The book draws on extensive ethnographic research, including interviews, participant observation, and document analysis during several trips to Bolivia (dissertation research between 1999–2000, and shorter trips between 2002–2011). Hindery examines agreements between the Bolivian state and multinationals Enron and Shell in the 1990s, and more recent state-led models of extraction to explore the shifting contexts of indigenous mobilization, or the “nexus of Indigenous politics, ‘development,’ and environment” (17). Rooted in a political ecology framework, From Enron to Evo critically evaluates the movement from the neoliberalization of Bolivia’s extractive industries, to Bolivian forms of ‘state capitalism’ through the case of the Cuiabá natural gas pipeline. The book constructs a long and detailed history , including interventions by the World Bank, which facilitated financial backing for pipeline construction from private industries, including Enron and Shell. Hindery notes the Bank’s own acknowledgement of the contradictions produced by its support of a project that would undermine the institution’s aims to reduce poverty in the country. With preliminary approval granted in 1998, the pipeline would traverse sensitive lowland ecosystems, prompting indigenous peoples and international conservation organizations to protest continued construction efforts. Hindery argues that international attention to the pipeline project, while significant in detailing its potential impacts, also resulted in a model of ‘fortress-conservation.’ Indigenous populations were excluded from 183 The Latin Americanist, June 2014 decisions about the industry-funded conservation program. Furthermore, conservation organizations received $20 million to “conserve natural resources already claimed and managed by Indigenous groups” (86). This exclusionary process sets the stage for the author’s analysis of ‘dynamic pragmatism’ of indigenous communities as they fought to engage in debates over conservation and indigenous rights to territory. Hindery examines the ways in which the Chiquitano (Bolivia’s most numerous lowland indigenous group) construct mobilization techniques that at once embrace Western law, while at the same time remain outside of it, utilizing more direct techniques (marches, blockades) to claim rights to territory. The author’s in-depth ethnographic research allows the reader to explore the day-to-day processes of company and state relationships to indigenous populations, including ‘compensation’ for territory. In turn, Hindery’s analysis examines the spaces of protest, and their interpretation by state and corporate actors. The ‘grassroots struggles’ precipitated by the Chiquitano influenced decisions about control over, and access to resources . As the author writes, the Cuiabá case illustrates how control and rule-making emerges through resistance and protest. With the election of Evo Morales in 2005, self-identifying as Bolivia ’s first indigenous president, indigenous mobilization moved from the streets to state institutions. Bolivia’s new Constitution, passed in 2009, highlighted indigenous rights in state decision-making. Yet, as Hindery argues, this was a cosmetic shift; hydrocarbons extraction remained a central focus of the state, with no significant changes in social spending and effects on local communities and the environment. Instead, indigenous peoples were expected to merge into the system as ‘modern subjects’, while social and environmental responsibilities of multinationals, whose presence persists in the country, remains murky (150...

pdf

Share