1. For the purposes of this narrative, I use the terms campesino/a rather than campesin@ or campesinx to recognize gender difference. I made this choice based on the use of campesino/a by the social movement actors who participated in this research.
2. This is not a diagnostic text; therefore I do not seek to define what it means to live well or build dignified livelihoods.
3. It should be noted that the Zapatista support bases are free of weapons (as well as drugs and alcohol); only the military arm of the EZLN, sequestered in the southeast of the state, maintains weapons. Additionally, there is a well-established body of literature that engages the broader groups of indigenous peoples in Chiapas who are part of, or directly impacted by, the Zapatista rebellion; see, for example, monographs or edited volumes by Baronnet, Mora, and Stahler-Sholk (2011), Collier and Quaratiello (2005), Eber and Kovic (2003), Harvey (1998), Hernández Castillo (2016), Mattiace (2003), Mora (2017), Moksnes (2012), Nash (2001), Pérez Ruiz (2004), Rus, Hernández Castillo, and Mattiace (2003), Speed (2005, 2008), Speed and Reyes (2002, 2005), Stephen (2002), and Tavanti (2003).
4. It should be made clear at the outset that although this is not a book about the Zapatista movement, there are very pragmatic reasons for the use of in resistance for Zapatistas and their support base members. For these groups, it takes on a political character to refer to their declaration of rebel autonomy and official policy of refusal of government aid or programming. Additionally, the use of in resistance by non-Zapatistas who are in solidarity takes on a distinct, but similar character.
5. In 1974, in collaboration with Catholic bishop Samuel Ruiz García, the First National Indigenous Congress in Mexico was convened. Held in the city of San Cristóbal de las Casas, Chiapas, the Congress marked the five hundredth birthday of Bartolomé de las Casas, and thousands of indigenous delegates (Tzotziles, Tzeltales, Ch’oles, and Tojolabales) representing 327 communities attended (Harvey 1998, 77–78). The meetings were focused on four areas of appeal to the state, specifically, land, commerce, education, and health (Stephen 2002, 117). Many have identified the Congress as a turning point (cf. Collier and Quaratiello 2005; Harvey 1998; Mattiace 1998; Stephen 2002), as it brought together representatives of the four major linguistic groups and called for unity among the indigenous groups in the state. Stephen (2002, 118) argues that this pointed to “the possibility of a new concept of ethnicity that does not focus on individual ethnic traits but is rooted in a common sense of struggle.”
6. Much training was done in the Lacandón Jungle and also in the northern areas adjacent to Agua Azul and the ruins of Palenque.
7. Additionally, as Nash (2001) argued, the state has never fully addressed gender inequities, especially in the cases of landownership and voting rights (see also Speed 2006).
8. While the official Chiapas Project ended in 1980, its legacy remains through other research labs on Harvard’s campus, which as recently as 2015 still described their work as “the quest for the causes underlying Chiapas’ backwardness” (CID, n.p.).
9. When I arrived in the highlands in 2010, I was acutely aware of social, political, and economic differences in my daily interactions. My race, gender identity (cis-woman), educational attainment, economic status, and U.S. citizenship (settler-colonial) influenced the way that I was able to interact with people and the way they interacted with me.
10. In discussing the politics of representation, I am referring to the problem of “speaking for others and the practice of speaking about others,” critical issues that Alcoff (1992) suggests reinforce hierarchies in research. Alcoff notes that “where one speaks from affects the meaning and truth of what one says” and critically that “the practice of privileged persons speaking for or on behalf of less privileged persons has actually resulted (in many cases) in increasing or reinforcing the oppression of the group spoken for” (6–7). Throughout the researching and writing of this book, I have participated in an interpretation of my needs, goals, and situation as well as those of others, which creates the potential for exploitation and ownership over translation and interpretation. One of the ways I sought to ameliorate the problem of “speaking for/about others” in practice is through cultivating a dialogue and attempting to “speak with others” (Alcoff 1992; Spivak 1988) as the research process unfolded; this approach, however, does not obviate the processes of writing and analyzing, and I fully acknowledge the difficulties of speaking “with others” while writing. Similar to Walsh, I do not see myself as “studying or reporting on social movements and actors, but thinking with and theorizing from” the events and daily activities in which I engaged (Mignolo and Walsh 2018, 85).
11. One of my attempts is to maintain my connections with the cooperatives through their extended networks in the United States, and I continue to be in contact with the coffee-roasting cooperatives that purchase coffee from the producer cooperatives with which I worked in the highlands.
12. I would also add gender to this, as my experience as a woman and female-bodied person in the field differs greatly from those experiences reported by my male-bodied colleagues.
13. This idea of “what it is and who it is for” is drawn directly from work by Leslie McLees (2012), who asked these questions in conducting research on urban agriculture in Dar es Salaam as they related to who and what the city is for.
1. Fair Rebels, Fair Coffee?
1. I use a variation on world systems theory advanced by Immanuel Wallerstein (1974) because it allows for examining core–peripheral relations at multiple scales (and simultaneously). I reject the idea that there is a “developed/undeveloped” or “developing” world, as there are cores and peripheries from the scale of the household—where reproductive labor is extracted—to the global. I also eschew the common bifurcation of the globe into the less derogatory “Global North–Global South” because of its association with the Brandt Line (Brandt 1980), which unhelpfully generalizes an “industrialized North” and “impoverished South” (see Naylor 2014; see also on grand narratives Murphy 2013).
2. For example, see the work of Buttle (2008), Cameron, Gibson, and Hill (2014), Cameron and Wright (2014), Diprose (2016), Dixon (2011), Dombroski (2016), Dombroski, Mckinnon, and Healy (2016), Foley and Mather (2016), Gibson-Graham and Roelvink (2011), Healy (2014), Hill (2011), Hosking and Palomino-Schalscha (2016), Krueger, Schulz, and Gibbs (2018), Lepofsky (2007), Little, Maye, and Ilbery (2010), Morrow and Dombroski (2015), Naylor (2018), North (2015), Oberhauser (2005), Roelvink, St. Martin, and Gibson-Graham (2015), Shear (2010), Smith (2004, 2007), and St. Martin (2007).
3. This discussion of power was part of the conversation between panel and audience at the 2017 American Association of Geographers conference.
4. Although I would argue that fair trade does “work” for some (largely consumers in the United States and Western Europe), a point to which I return in chapter 3, when I discuss “who benefits” from fair trade.
5. In the heyday of the ICA, INMECAFE provided technical assistance, research findings, and export permits and purchased and processed coffee grown by small producers.
6. It is important to note that no new empirical research on the Zapatista movement has been approved by its members since 2003 (see Giovanni 2014, 95; Mora 2008, 2017; Newdick 2012).