Critical Ethnographic Film Zapatista
Critical Ethnographic Film Review
Zapatista
Zapatista, a film by Benjamin Eichert, Rick Rowley, and Staale Sandberg is based in the most southern state in Mexico, Chiapas. This films depicts indigenous people in Chiapas fighting for visibility and recognition against their country and government. When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in to law, on January first 1994, the Zapatista National Liberation Movement (EZLN) rose up and seized several cities in Chiapas to fight against global corporate power and the treatment they faced because of NAFTA (Zapatista 1999). The film depicts the conflict between the Mexican government and the Zapatistas form the perspective and experiences of the Zapatistas. The unique perspective …show more content…
The Mexican government adheres by a constitution that was formed in 1917. In 1991, in preparation for NAFTA, Mexican president Carlos Salinas revised article 27. Article 27 created public ownership of all land and water resources, forest and mineral deposits; it was then changed to enable the selling and buying of any parcel of land. This change in the Mexican constitution benefits the corporation and the treaty over the people and the country. This move by the government sparks the indigenous people to feel ignored and forgotten, as stated by an indigenous man saying “the Zapatistas appeared because of the condition and situation in which we live here in these mountains” (Zapatista 1999). The people have felt forgotten by their government and have sparked a movement to gain visibility. Similarly, the formation of NAFTA, established a free-trade zone in north America which eliminated tariffs and similar trading blocks between Canada US and Mexico (cbp.org). This treaty is beneficial of the economic growth and sustains a neo-liberal market. The two socio political issues in the film, Mexican politics and NAFTA, form the Zapatista movement in to a movement driven by indigenous people, supported by people in urban areas, and aimed at providing a democratic government to …show more content…
The film looks in to experiences and fight of the Chiapas people against global politics and for human rights. The film depicts the movement and people in a way where the audience understands why they are revolting against the government. During the first five minutes of the film the Zapatistas are lined up in front of armed forces. The Zapatistas speaking in protest that “they are there to fight for the good of the people on a national level. Not like you who fight for special interest and who defend the corrupt Mexican government, listen, understand, open your eyes” (Zapatista 1999). For me this moment between peaceful protest, and an army, exemplifies the purpose, message, and who the Zapatistas are. During the film we are exposed to opinions, stories, and perspectives from the Zapatistas and other supporters making the bias in the film lean towards the Zapatistas. The bias perspective in the film is countered by the opinions of people outside of the movement such as Noam Chomsky, Professor at MIT, or Karen Parker, attorney, humanitarian law project, who gives legitimacy in a non bias way to the Zapatistas and those who support them. Parker states that “they have the right to prefer the
Zapatista
Zapatista, a film by Benjamin Eichert, Rick Rowley, and Staale Sandberg is based in the most southern state in Mexico, Chiapas. This films depicts indigenous people in Chiapas fighting for visibility and recognition against their country and government. When the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in to law, on January first 1994, the Zapatista National Liberation Movement (EZLN) rose up and seized several cities in Chiapas to fight against global corporate power and the treatment they faced because of NAFTA (Zapatista 1999). The film depicts the conflict between the Mexican government and the Zapatistas form the perspective and experiences of the Zapatistas. The unique perspective …show more content…
The Mexican government adheres by a constitution that was formed in 1917. In 1991, in preparation for NAFTA, Mexican president Carlos Salinas revised article 27. Article 27 created public ownership of all land and water resources, forest and mineral deposits; it was then changed to enable the selling and buying of any parcel of land. This change in the Mexican constitution benefits the corporation and the treaty over the people and the country. This move by the government sparks the indigenous people to feel ignored and forgotten, as stated by an indigenous man saying “the Zapatistas appeared because of the condition and situation in which we live here in these mountains” (Zapatista 1999). The people have felt forgotten by their government and have sparked a movement to gain visibility. Similarly, the formation of NAFTA, established a free-trade zone in north America which eliminated tariffs and similar trading blocks between Canada US and Mexico (cbp.org). This treaty is beneficial of the economic growth and sustains a neo-liberal market. The two socio political issues in the film, Mexican politics and NAFTA, form the Zapatista movement in to a movement driven by indigenous people, supported by people in urban areas, and aimed at providing a democratic government to …show more content…
The film looks in to experiences and fight of the Chiapas people against global politics and for human rights. The film depicts the movement and people in a way where the audience understands why they are revolting against the government. During the first five minutes of the film the Zapatistas are lined up in front of armed forces. The Zapatistas speaking in protest that “they are there to fight for the good of the people on a national level. Not like you who fight for special interest and who defend the corrupt Mexican government, listen, understand, open your eyes” (Zapatista 1999). For me this moment between peaceful protest, and an army, exemplifies the purpose, message, and who the Zapatistas are. During the film we are exposed to opinions, stories, and perspectives from the Zapatistas and other supporters making the bias in the film lean towards the Zapatistas. The bias perspective in the film is countered by the opinions of people outside of the movement such as Noam Chomsky, Professor at MIT, or Karen Parker, attorney, humanitarian law project, who gives legitimacy in a non bias way to the Zapatistas and those who support them. Parker states that “they have the right to prefer the