and definitions around indigenous video.The second part outlines the relationship ofthe Mexican state and indigenous peoplesthrough the analysis of media policies. Inthe past three decades, Mexico' s indigenousmedia have been run, generally, by thegovernment. First through a network of in-digenous-language radio statíons, and thenthrough programs of community video, thegovernment ensured that indigenous masscommunication was under its control. It wasnot until the last decade of the 20th century,possibly as a result of the 1994 Zapatistarebellion, that independent, indigenousmedia (mostly radio and video initiatives)sprung up throughout the country. The thirdsection reflects on competing ideas of whatindigenous video is and should be. Thissection is based on the results of .the 2009seminar with Maya videomakers.

CONCEPTUALIZING

INDIGENOUS VIDEOVideo has been widely used by in-

digenous peoples all over the world. Eventhough video practices can pursue differentgoals and adopt diverse strategies, a com-mon purpose for using this technology has

enerally been contributing to the mainte-nancc and continuity of cultural identity.:insbLlrgproposes that "when other forms

1Ii'('no longer effective, indigenous mediaOJ'iI'I'HII possible means -social, cultural andpolll lcnl- rol' reproducing and transforming('1111111'111identity among people who ha ve1'\ 1" 'r1l'nrcd rnassive political, geographic,111111('Col1omic disruption" ("Mediating('IIIIIII'C"217).

While one of the main advantages of/lIdio is its orality (which resembles thelV"y In which ancestral tradition has been1I'IIIIHl11illed),video has the power of the1111111\1',which makes it an ideal medium1111'1H'lr-l'l'presentation of the indigenousIIItlV!'l"H~'(Turncr 84-86). Through video,Illdl¡',('IH)LlHpcoplcs stop being reprcsentedIly IlIhl'I'Hand construct their own image,dl'IIII1'llH'iJ'owll idl'111ily,and 1'I'-cr¡'Ol¡'llwir111V1I1'IIIII'I'pll!HHIOrpIIHI,pr('H('IlI,IIIHI1'111un-,

a construction that líes beneath many oftoday's indigenous demands.

But, which identity is to be repre-sented? Who defines it and how do theydefine it? Between the extremes of a hetero-identification and a self-identification thereis a tension (Giménez 13), a tension thatconstitutes a space of negotiation of what in-digenous video i'sand what it should be. Thisnegotiation takes special relevance when thetechnological and financial aspects of indig-enous video depend partially or entirelyfrom external agents. Because video is aconstantly evolving technology that requiresrelatively complex training and expensiveinvestments, its practice is often supportedby governments and international agenciesandNGOs.

The definition of indigenous videois not univocal. It has been the object of adebate since the 1980s and 1990s (Spitulnik303-304). It is generally accepted that not allvideo made by indigenous people, about in-digenous peoples, or for indigenous peoplescan be considered indigenous, but no con-sensus has been reached on what can. Assome academics have suggested, the mean-ing of the concept changes under differentcircumstances, and must be negotiated bythe actors involved (Salazar and Córdova41; Wortham 367). When talking about anemerging movement of indigenous video inLatin América, Salazar and Córdova identify"a process grounded in local struggles forpolitical self-determination, cultural andlinguistic autonomy and legal recognition"(40). These authors use the concept of "thepoetics of indigenous media," in the centerof which "we locate socially embeddedself-representation, or the active process ofmaking culture visible"(40). The poetics orindigenous video refers both to proccsscsof representation and to their producís "111what may be regarded as a particular ('111turallogic of indigenous media" (40).

This logic is powerful for indigl'lHllI1elf-expression and contributes to cIIIIIII'1I1

revitalization, but in sornc inHlllJ1('t'H,1111'P{WLiCHof indigl'110llHvidl'() iH I11lll'kl't1II\1411111'polil'll'H Illld 1'I'IIIIIollilw llh 1',IIVI'1I1

ments (CillHhlll'I\, 1/ I\IIIIII¡',IIIIIIMI'dl" Illldthe Austrullun IIlHl¡',11I1IIy" 111)1)),111IIH'('lIHl'ofMexico, the inflUl'n('1'011111'fllllll' 1/1('tll1\'-cially relevant,

Freya Schiwy re111(11'1<.1'1111111IIlIiI'oI'I)OU,media in the Andes huvr l'II¡',II¡',i'd III uprocess of decolonizatluu (1)),I\y 1'1111[l'HI-ing dominant repreHvnlllllOlHl,dlflCOlII'Hl'H,and practices, indigl'llollH IIlvdlll andespecially fill11-chnllvill\(' I'Oloillnl HubLlI-ternization and decoloniíll' kI1O\"k'dgc (9),The relevance of documentury 11I1d(¡cLíoninthis process líes on DLlrihulil1gexportlsc toindigenous actors and constructlng altorna-tive representations of 1'[1('l',lnd gcndcr (11).Schiwy names this prOCl'HHof dccolonizationindianizingfilm. More spccifícally, iudíauizingfilm refers to the indigcnous stratcgies totransform the systcm, instead of participat-ing in it, 01' integraling to rcccive benefits(12-15). Some of the charactcristics of thisprocess in the Andes include generatingknowledge from the rringes of dominantcenters, working th rough au tonomousproduction and distribution networks, andthe commitment to organizc communityshowings (15).

uring the 20th century, Mexico'siI1digenous peoples had a complex andontradictory relationship with the statend especíally with the Instituto Nacional

Ind igenista (INI, National Indigenist Insti-tu te), the government's branch of indigenousaffairs, While the state valued indigenousfolklore and indigenous archaeologicala rtifacts and monuments as a vital part ofMexican national identity, it also attemptedto assimilate indigenous cultures, whichwere perceived as a threat to cohesion andan obstacle to modernity. The governmentused INI and cultural venues such as film,archaeology, architecture or mural paintingto promote archaeologized or idealized vi-sions of indigenous peoples and cultures(often emphasizing contemporary traitssuch as music and dress), while trying toput an end to more profound forms of ev-eryday culture (such as language or socialorganization).

In the assimilation attempt, the educa-tion system played a key role, a role that wascomplemented at the end of the century bythe use of state media in indigenous lan-guages. Radiodifusión indigenista (indigenistradio broadcasting) and video indígena (in-digenous video) became the two main ele-ments of the state's media policies towardsindigenous peoples.

Radio and video could only be con-sidered tools of assimilation in theory,however, if they could be considered toolsof assimilation at all. Indigenous mediapractitioners and. audiences found fissuresin which to use radio and video work at theiradvantage. Indigenous media policies needto be analyzed separately, though. The gov-ernmental approaches towards radio andvideo have several aspects in comrnon, butthe essence of the two prograrns has differedgreatly. These differences may explain whythe success of radio and video has been sodissimilar, and why state-sponsored indig-enous video today can hardly be considereda cornmunity medium whereas indigenistradio has gained a prorninent. symboliprescncc I1I11()ngindigcnous pcoplcs.

..•1

INDIGENOUS PEOPLES, MEDIA,

AND THE MEXICAN STATEThe study of indigenous media in

Mexico poses a challenge because unlike therest of Latin América, Mexicc's indigenousmedia have grown within the state sphere. Itis, therefore, necessary to review the role thatthe state has played in the development ofindigenous peoples and cultures, that is, therole of indigenism. Throughout this article, in-digenism refers to the concept generally usedin Latín America. It does not refer to a fightfor indigenous rights by using indigenousknowledge (e.g. Ward Churchill), but rathera rnovement, a theory, and a policy imple-mented by the sta te. In México, authors suchas Cuillcrmo BonAI have equated Mexico'sindigunism OH o tool of thc Rcvolution toI/dl'-Indinnlíli'" indigl'nOW¡ pcoples sinIIIt' 11)2()/I(71)),

The politics of indigenous radioIndigenist radio policies were contradic-

tory since the beginníng, in the late 1970s andearly 1980s. On the one hand, radio stationsofficially aimed at protecting Native languag-es and fostering community participation. Onthe other hand, they were run by the samegovernmental agency that had traditionallyimplemented assimilative policies. Addition-ally, their goals included both to foster the useof indigenous languages and to Castellanizarthe audience (i.e., to turn Spanish into thelanguage of common use, to they detrimentof indigenous languages).

The project was also contradictory in thatthe state mistrusted the radio stations andtheir mostly indigenous staff, even thoughthe federal government itself installed, ownedand ran these stations (Castells-Talens, "TheNegotiation of Indigenist Radio Policy inMexico"). In spite of their official affiliation,however, radio contributed to the strength-ening of indigenous identities, and has beentreasured by the communities in which thestations operate (Ramos 165-166).

Before too long, indigenous radio sta-tions had become spaces of negotiation,spaces created and owned by the sta te, butoperated by indigenous staff. The state al-lowed for flexibility of action and abandonedany explicit goals of assimilation as long asindigenous demands were not threatening tostate interests (Castells- Talens, "The N egotia-tion"). Supporting indigenous claims was theinternational indigenous rights climate of theearly 1990s, which induced reforms in thecountry's Constitution, and legally turnedMexico into a multicultural and multilingualstate. Additionally, in the early 1990s INIintended to transfer the production of thestations (not their management) to indig-enous communities (Castells- Talens, "TheNcgotiation").

Two events dramatically altered theCOIII'Heof indigcnist radio policy. First, in11)tI11,::111upriHing in thc Southcrn statc of( 'Ii1111'1lHby t1 I1CWgUl'rrilln group, tlw ¡,;ZLN(lql\I'I'11(l Zn pllllHtll ti\' 1.11ll'rllch~n N n¡,io-11111,'.',111'111111111I\I'IIIY 01'NIIIIIIIIIIII,IIiI'I'lillolI),11111111111'1'11111111Y (1I1Id111111'111111111'wol'id),

and placed indigenous rights as a priorityin the national agenda. The Zapatistas de-manded communication rights, includingthe transfer of indigenist media to indigenouscommunities.

Although explicit polícies changed líttleafter the uprising, the sta te abandoned whathad been a paternalistic attitude and begancontrolling indigenous-Ianguage radio.Within weeks, indigenous affairs (íncludíngindigenous media) stopped being treatedas a matter of social weIfare, and became amatter of national security. When a guerrillamovement amasses the amount of supportamong the population that the EZLN did,and when it advocates socialIy acceptabledemands, such as the EZLN did, it cannotbe stopped with coercive, military, or re-pressive measures (Benítez Manaut 6). Afterthe uprising, indigenous radio needed tobe treated with caution, especially becausethe rebels had used it to broadcast theircommuniqués. Traditionally, Mexico hasproduced two interpretations of nationalsecurity when dealing with the indigenouspeoples: an excluding, coercive interpreta-tion in which "cáncer is eliminated withmilitary chemotherapy" and a political andsocial interpretation (Benítez Manaut 7). Thefirst advocates the use of force. The secondreading favors social policies (e.g., combatpoverty; establish solid justice systems; de-mocratize indigenous communities whilerespecting traditional forms and means oforganization; strengthen indigenous cul tu res,values, and traditions; develop a strategy tomake indigenous micro-economies viable lobreak the culture of paternalistic assistanco(Benítez Manaut 7).

In the case of indigenist rad io, tll('Mexican State has used both approaches,After 1994, INI organized serninars to fonll'l'indigenous rights and promete gr::1HHr(l1l111participation (see, e.g., INI, "Primcrnn 101'nadas de la radiodifusión"), but olHo 11)(11,rcprcssivc rncasurcs such as pll1cing ti l'V il'1'/1on thc HlnliO/1¡'¡'lrOI1HI11i1ll'I'Hto 1'\,11101('ly"111tlw Hip,l1nllf IWI'l'HHllry,whhh WIHIIIII\'I'JlI'l'il'd1/1111'1)1'11101'1'I'IlIIIII'flhIP IlIld 1'111111'111( '111111'1h

'11111'1111,"'I'Iu' NI'¡',IIIII1IIiIlI" 1111)),

Anothcr cvcnt thnt nILl'I'l'd 1 he coursc ofindigenist media WOHt:lll' prosldcntinl clcc-tion of 2000 that cndcd 70 yel1l'fi of onc-partyrule. A populist, opposltlon candidatc andformer Coca-Cola cxccutlvc, Vicente Fox,became presidcnt, During his campaign, Foxhad promised to cnd the Chiapas conflict infifteen minutas, as long as the leaders of theEZLN were willing to talk (Sanz, 2000). WithFox, indigenism took a radical turno The newadministration dismantled INI ip. 2003, andreplaced it by a new institution, the NationalCommission for the Development of Indig-enous Peoples (CDI).

Fox said that, deep inside, all Indianswanted was "a Volkswagen Bug, a TV set,and a family business" (Gutiérrez Chong27). The ideas of a supposed material ambi-tion of the indigenous peoples (a car) andof their will to be long to the mainstream aculture (a TV) had already driven indigenistpolicies until the 1970s and early 1980s. Foxintroduced a new element, though, pertinentto his neoliberal program: entrepreneurship(a family business). The sum of old-schoolindigenist practices plus neoliberalismequaled neoindigenism, a set of policies thatsuggest that consumption will be one of thesolutions to indigenous poverty and culturalmarginalisation. Hernández, Paz & Sierra,who edited the first book on neoindigenism(El Estado y los indígenas en tiempos del PAN),point out one of its main underlying assump-tions: indigenous peoples are free subjects,but only in economic terms.

Neoindigenism has taken an inter-cultural approach, an approach in whichindigenist broadcasting must act as a bridgebetween indigenous and non-indigenouscultures. Interculturalism is only requiredfor indigenous-Ianguage media, however.No policy in Mexico conceptualizes Spanish-language broadcasting to reach out towardsindigenous peoples. The intercultural bridge,for ncoindigcnism, is unidirectional.

'/'J/I'/J/I/lI/"/I /1/ Il/tll,III'lItllI,~ V/tll'lI

1111111\1III111il1111'/111111'11I'IlIIHlll'd indig-(\111111/1vtdilll¡ 111111III'IIIII',IIIlilil 1111'llIilll'Y1'1111111'111111111111\ 1'111111'111111'1111111'1'11111111'1I111'ly

1950s and 1970s, INI filmed ethnographídocurnentaries about indigenous peoplcs,their life conditions, and their customs andtraditions (CDI, "Acervo de cine y videoAlfonso Muñoz" cdi.gob.mx). In the late19705, the state modified indigenist policy inan attempt to develop participatory mecha-nisms. With a considerable investment, INIcreated the Archivo Etnográfico Audiovisual(Audiovisual Ethnographic Archives) andkept producing documentary films. Between1985 and 1987, Mexican film director LuisLupone developed a project that alreadyattempted to form indigenous filmmakers.After a workshop in the state of Oaxaca,Ikoot women filmed and contributed todirecting and editing a film, Tejiendo mary viento (Weaving sea and wind) (Córdovaand Zamorano, "Mapeando medios enMéxico", nativenetworks.si.edu). The Ar-chivo Etnográfico Audiovisual continuedproducing documentaries with professional,non-indigenous directors throughout the1980s. At the end of the decade, INI begana program to transfer audiovisual mediato indigenous communities. Indigenousgroups and associations received video 8and H8 equipment (Smith 115). The gov-ernment trained indigenous videomakersand created four Centros de Video Indígena(CVI, Centers of Indigenous Video) in thestates of Michoacan, Oaxaca, Sonora andYuca tan. These centers influenced a group ofindigenous videomakers who, after workingfor INI, became independent activists andvideo practitioners (Salazar and Córdova46). By the mid-1990s, indigenous videowas also growing in Mexico outside of statecircuits. The best-documented experiencesare those of Ojo de Agua and The ChiapasMedia Project/Promedios. Ojo de Agua isan independent organization that workswith indigenous communities in Oaxaca topromote video and alternative media. One ofthe main promoters, Guilermo Monteforte,had directed one of INI's CVI before leav-ing his post and working independently(wortham 364; Magallanes 81; Smith 115-I(6), Síncc its crcation. Ojo de Agua hasWlIl'kl'd w 11h 1nd IgVI101lHrol! lo nnd v ideo

practitioners in Mixe and Zapotec communi-ties of Oaxaca.

The Chiapas Media Project was born inthe mid-1990s in the midst of the Zapatistaconflicto One of the main promoters of theinitiative, U.S. filmmaker Alexandra Halkin,met with Zapatista authorities interested inintroducing video technology to their com-munities. Halkin also met with Monteforte,who was stil! involved with INI's CVI andwho helped her recruit instructors and orga-nized the training sessions (Halkin 164-166;Magallanes 81-82).The project grew with thesupport of activists and NGO's in Mexicoand the United States until1998 when twoZapatista towns hosted the first videoworkshops, with VHS and S-VHS camcord-ers and editing equipment. The success ofthe experience led the trainers to formalizethe initative into a U.s.-based nonprofitorganization, the Chiapas Media Project(CMP). CMP became CMP /Promedios in2001, a col!ective that one decade later stillworked with indigenous communities, andhad trained over 200 people who producedfilms for internal and external audiences(Halkin 170-177).

THE MAYA WORKSHOP:

WHAT INDIGENOUS VIDEO?Government agencies are not mono-

lithic. Not everyone at CDI shares a commongoal nor a unique conception of what thestate relationship with indigenous peoplesshould be like. In a critical study of indigenistmedia in the early 1990s, Vargas argued thatit was impossible for the government to havecomplete control of indigenist radio stationsbecause INI was not monolithic, nor effi-cient enough to achieve its goals (241-242).Negotiation, thus, takes part between indig-enous videomakers and the government indefining indigenous video, but also withinthe COI in implementing policies (Castells-Talcns, "The Negotiation").

ILwas as a part of one of thcsc intcrnal1H'f',olilllions w ií hin thc ('1)1 í hn! Ilw Oll-

IIHII'fl,WIHIhnve Pllhlllllwd ilI'll('II'n('1'1111'1111Illlllllf',I'lilHIIl,WI'I'I'lilvlll'd Itllll'f',lIliI:lI'lIild

lead the three-day seminar with Maya vid-eomakers. Although the government tendsto emphasize workshops to acquire techni-cal skills, this seminar aimed at provokingdebate and reflection. With the seminar,the organizers became not only privilegedacademic observers, but facilitators of a CDIseminar, and therefore, a part of the statemedia policy to~ards indigenous peoples.

The 20 videomakers who participatedin the seminar had been trained in CDI'sCenters of Indigenous Video, where theytook workshops in filming and editing. Al-though most of them carne from indigenouscommunities, CDI authorities consideredthat participants needed a seminar to reflecton indigenous identity and on the socio-economic situation of the Maya and otherindigenous peoples in Mexico.

The authors planned the seminar as aparticipatory space in which experts and the20 participants shared and reflected on theirexperiences, their views on identity and itsrelationship with video, and their opinionson governmental communication policies.The critical tone of many of the voices sug-gests that the fact that the CDI organizedthe seminar did not deter video makersfrom expressing their opinions freely. All thesessions were audio taped. The participantsgave their explicit consent to use the materialfor academic purposes.

The official conception of indigenousvideo was reproduced, but also challenged 01'

contested by Maya participants. The absenceof a clear, unanimous definition of the terrnal!owed for a debate on which componentsconstituted indigenous video. Following arsix categories in which indigenous videowas negotiated: language, topics, genrCHand formar, target audience, communityinvolvement, and sustainability.

LanguageThe use of minority languagcs in IllI'

media has been identified as csscntlul loullural rcvival, prescrvation, and l'Xll'I1Hloil

(Brownc 1(6) llnd lo 1"'lwl1lnl\111('11"111k 111'1'nn nI'InIIp,11np,l'1IIIIIdd 11Il'0111'11\'(1\lllll'lf\t1(':1, :\"lillll\'I'II/I\'Ili' vldl'll, 1III'IIIII'IIIIIIIIIIdlp,I'IIIIII/I

...01

language tcgití rnatcs rhc langLlage andturns it into a quoüdian objcct, rather thaninto something marginal that is rcscrvcd tothe prívate sphcrc (Castclls-Talcns, "Cineindígena y resistencia cultural").

In the scrni nar, participants' mothertongue was Maya and Spanish was spokenwith different degrees of fluency. In an opendiscussion on the meaning of being Maya,some participants mentioned Maya lan-guage as a central element of id",entity:"Be-ing Maya is to speak the Maya language."This definition, however, posed a problembecause of a generalized perception that lan-guage was being lost and other traits werementioned as a part of Maya identity, suchas traditions, customs, history, and a way tounderstand the world. A videomaker said:

For me, being Maya is a tremendousweight on our shoulders. Nowadays, ifwe say that we are Maya, being Maya,it's because of our heritage. We arechildren of Maya and 1believe there arestill villages in which Maya is spokenas it's no longer spoken in other placesof the [Yucatan] peninsula. 1don't thinkwe can deny being Maya even whenwe speak Spanish or English. Evenwhen we don't know how to write norto read, we are Maya, although manytimes we deny it.CDI officials did not emphasize the

importance of the language explicitly, butthe majority of the participants' videosshown in the seminar were in Maya. Furtherresearch is needed to determine the amountof importance given to language by the CDIvideo programo

Genres and FormatsDonald Browne (10-11) argues that

adopting dominant media genres andformats can bccome mechanisms to erodecultural idcntitics, He bases his argumentun dcpcndcncy thcory and the premise thatlllodl'IH rrOI11central countries can even go111ll1ollcl'dhy indlgl'nOUfl produccrs, whof',I'lldlli\lIy11I1'(\I'pOI'I1I('II1('fl('model» lo l'lwirtlWII wor], IIIHI1.1"1' 1'01'!',I'III1ll'dlhlll llw111'1'1ll'l'd,'d

Documentary is the predorninant gcnrcat CDI. Fiction was almost absent in the vid-eos exhibited during the workshop, as it is inthe rest of the CVI, or even in the indepen-dent indigenous col!ectives Ojo de Agua andCMP / Promedios. The music (mysteriousand new-age like during indigenous ceremo-nies), the editing style, and the structure ofthe documentaries resembled that of manyWestern documentaries on the Maya.

The videos viewed during the seminarwere al! 27 minutes long. When the CDIpublishes a cal! for videos to finance indig-enous productions, it establishes also that thelength must be 27 minutes. The 27-minuteformat fol!ows a commerciallogic (30 min-utes minus 3 for commercial breaks), It is safeto assume that requiring to work under thatformat means that the CDI priority for videodistribution is TV channels. In the samesense, some participants emphasized theneed for resources to produce professionalimage and audio quality:

If we want to have access to [Mexico'spublic TV] Channel 22, to have a spacein the media, we must take care of thequality and be accepted. We need re-sources for quality productions.Some participants were concerned that

sometimes the 27 minutes were not enoughto show, for instance, a complete religiousceremony. To elude the constraint, somehad made two versions of a same produc-tion: one to show the community where itwas taped, and a second one for CDI andits distribution channels. Real chances ofbroadcast, however, are slim in México, asthere are very few cultural TV stations andno community stations.

ContentsThe contents of the videos emphasized

traditions, except for a social-interest videothat denounced the lack of services in acommunity. When asked about their workas indigenous videomakers, some of theanswcrs were:

"it's Lo lct othcrs know, so that otherscan Ht'V 01-11'clIHLol118nnd traditions, soWI'1'1111nllllw whu] Wl' 111'\',"

--

-- ---

"to register ceremonies that are not com-mon, that some towns are forgetting.Sometimes they make them but there areno testimonies. This is of great value.""to rescue, strengthen, save, and pro-mote our culture to the ones who reallyneed it, our indigenous brothers.""we are showing our roots, we are win-ning a space in the news media."

A participant went further with the idea ofvideo to record history:

It's important that we use this tool so it'sus who make the images of traditions,so they are not Iost, so there is a recordand in 100 or 200 years or 1don't knowhow many more, they can see what thereused to be.Participants tended to privilege top-

ics related to the ancestral past and to oldtraditions. On the one hand, this could beinterpreted as a rebellion against the rep-resentation of the past by others. On theother hand, little attention is paid to theproblems and everyday lives of today'sindigenous peoples, one of the favorite top-ies of independent videomakers in Mexieo.Thus, CDI participants could be reproducingwhat some Australian Aboriginal producershave termed as cultural refrigeration, thatis preserving idealized cultural identities(Ginsburg "Mediating Culture" 230) ratherthan reflecting the realities of contemporaryindigenous societies. Amere emphasis on thecontinuity of indigenous culture or tradition,however, runs the risk of slipping into un-critical cultural essentialism (Turner 77).

Although no evidence from the seminarsuggests that CDI imposed the topics andcontents of the videos, the use of video asa tool to record trádition prevailed amongparticipants. The contents of indigenousvideo that are negotiated and constructed donot differ greatly from the content of the firstindigenist film s of the 1960s: both attemptto record a tradition that is perceived as indanger of being lost, both take a nostalgic,ethnographic approach to what imagcs de-scrvc lo be prcscrvcd.

Target audienceAs mentioned above, videos seem to

be produced to reach a mass TV audience,but participants also mentioned indigenousfilm festivals as possible venues. Some par-ticipants showed their work at film festivalshosted by the CDI and other Mexiean andinternational organizations.

Many participante said that they felt acommitment towards the community thatfacilitated taping of events and interviews,but not in a methodie way: "We have taken[our work] to the communities, to the peoplewho appear in the videos, to the authoritiesor the community, but it's difficult, we needequipment: sound, a projector, transporta-tion ... "

Community involvementFor organizations like CMP / Promedios

or Ojo de Agua, indigenous video is incon-ceivable without community involvement.Laurel Smith notes that "indigenous videois much more than the result of individualswho self-identify as indigenous planningand directing video shoots, recording withcamcorders, and/or editing taped footage"(114). What makes the difference is commit-ment with the community, allowing commu-nity to control how their cultural know ledgeis transmitted to the publie (114).

In the case of CDI, indigenous videodoes not seem to have the communitycomponent. For instance, the term videastasthat appears in the title that the CDI gaveto the seminar ("Seminario de vide astasindígenas de la península de Yucatan"), andthe recurrent reference to the participantsas vide astas, has a specific meaning in theeveryday Mexican Spanish language. Unlikeother .terrns such as productor, realizador, 0.1'

comunicador, the word videasta evokes anartist or an individual creator and his 01'

her personal expression, rathcr than a vid-eomaker who shares responsibilitics with ncomrnunity tcarn.

Thc tcrrn that CDI UHCH, nnd lhnll'lw 111

digcnous pnrlicipnnlH lo Ihv workHhop I\lulinll'l'nnllz('d, d('pil'I!J illllndlvldllllllzl,¡I 1'01'111

01' 1'01)('('1 vi!)!', 11H' WOI'lI 11II11 I1I1"q 11'1'11Id 11'0111

...•....

them. This nuancc could SCCI11too subtlc tomatter, but it is an indicator of thc conccptíonof indigenous video that thc govcrnment isemploying. Likc a rnctaphor of the spirit ofentrepreneurship that characterizes neoin-digenism, oideasia values the person whileminimizing the community.

As for direct community involvement,the level of participation throughout theprocess of video making was low. Commu-nity participation was limited .•to being thesubject of an interview or the protagonist ofa ritual, and, in some cases, the approval ofthe project by the traditional authorities.

When the participatory experience ofColombian videomakers in a conflict zonewas projected, Maya videomakers com-mented they had never thought of a similarpossibility. In Colombia, many non-profes-sional community members participatedin all the production stages. "But he re it'sdifficult to have people participating, theyare not interested."

SustainabilityVideomakers in the seminar depended

largely on the government for their proj-ects. The CDI provided funds, equipmentand workshops, but did not encourageautonomy. Many videomakers have internal-ized the paternalistic need for governmentalsupport to keep working. Most video makersdid not visualize alternative funding sourcesfor the future.

When asked where they would like tobe five years from then and how to get there,some videomakers expressed their depen-dence on the government: [We would like]that CDI increase funds to support projects,that they change the "rules of operation"so they give more financing, that there belarger budgets." Other participants however,exprcssed the need to find other sources forsupport, think of alternatives to generatethcir own funding, 01' crcate an independent()I'glínizn[ion.

JUi'!1 Di'! Stcphcn Rigginfl (280) and Don-IIId III'OWIH' (10·11) noicd, W(' Iound thnt1111'1lII0Jlll01l 01 1l1ll11mll'lIlllll illl'dln 1',('111'1'11,

1111'11111111,IIIUIIIlI'II'H 11I'I'VI,tlll/lll 1111\1'11111"11111

that can contribute to assimilation, ratherthan to the strengthening of indigcnouscultures and languages. Individualisrn,entrepreneurship, a focus on idealized andnostalgie views of indigenous realities anda will to communieate to non-Maya viewersare values that seemed rooted into the pro-gramo The CDI trains, equips, and supportsMaya video makers, This support cultivatesthe field and encourages Maya participantsto make and complete videos in indigenouslanguages from an indigenous perspective.However, it also conditions the level ofcommunity participation, shapes the topiescovered, and imposes specific formats. Theresponse of the Maya participants was notmonolithie, however. Some of these topicswere perceived as obstacles by some of thevideo makers. When asked about the future,these same participants visualized ways ofmaking video outside state circuits.

DISCUSSIONAlthough video practitioners, academ-

ics, and other actors involved cannot agreeon a set definition of indigenous video,some of the practiees observed in Mexicogive hints on competing definitions of thetermo For independent video organizations,indigenous video is related to strengtheningidentity, and to promoting social changewith a high degree of community involve-ment, at least in theory. For the CDI, the goalseems to be training indigenous videomak-ers. The implicit governmental definition ofindigenous video lies within its practices.

In 2009, the authors planned and leda three-day seminar organized and fundedby the cm. In the seminar, 20 Maya video-makers debated the relation of their workto the larger issues of identity and socialproblems. At a time when the government'sindigenist policies are under scrutiny, theauthors attempted to answer the questionof to what extent the federal government isfostering cultural preservation and the vital-ization of local cultures, and to what extent111 Ii pl'omollng nSflimilation of indigcnousí'ltlllll'Illllí'llvllllll 11110 muinstrcum sorioty.

A more conciso way to phrase the questioncould havc LW~'I1:'I() what extent is neoin-digL'niHI'\'1l'('rlL'cLl'lIin the CDI's indigenousvid~'o pl'Ogrnm

t\m¡wl'l'ing the question poses at leastI'hrl'l' grcat challcnges, First, the CDI is nota monol ithic institution. The policies do notrcspond to a single point of view, but ratherto a process of decision making in which agreat number of individual s with diverseideologies and interests participate. Second,the authors became part of the policy whenthey were invited to offer the seminar. Thatthe cm promoted the participation of criti-cal scholars to lead a discussion on videoand identity with 20 videomakers suggestsa certain openness into criticismo Third, theCDI does not implement its policies in asocial vacuum. External actors, such as theMaya participants in the seminar, acceptsome aspects of the policies, adapt otheraspects, and reject others. CDI officials areaware of this everyday negotiation andaccept it.

In spite of these difficulties, however,the mode of operation of CDI's indigenousvideo makers differs a great deal from thatof independent organizations. Today'sindigenous video, as promoted by CDI,Hl'~'Il1S in many ways a return to assimila-ttvc policies of the 1950s-1970s. Recording.ndangercd traditions, showing what Mayaulture is Jike (to either other indigenousroups or to non-indigenous audiences),

and training indigenous people with a skillwith no explicit intent to use it in benefitof the community are activities that seemplanned for non-indigenous audiences,rather than strategie actions for indigenousself-determination. At the same time, how-ever, CDI-style indigenist video does notadvocate castellanización, it encouragesthe use of indigenous languages, and is do-ing a thorough job at training indigenousvideornakers, so it would be unfair to saythat CDI's indigenous video is a tool forassimilation, as it challenges severa! domi-nant practiccs. Although more research islH'lid('d 011llw t'Onll'nl of thc videos, Moya1"lli'rlillll1d 1l1'1l1¡lf',ol1lnIHronstrucl n r('nlily

of their own. However, the "indianizationof film," understood in Schiwys terms, islimited. Video is not used as a tool of systemtransformation, but rather as a tool to contestcertain hegemonic representations withinthe system.

The meaning and the practice of in-digenist media policies in Mexico hastraditionally been negotiated, and today'sindigenous video is not an exception. In athree-day workshop, it was hard to find con-crete cases, but the partícípatíon of the Mayavideomakers illustrated a few: the 27-minuteformat was respected, but longer versionsof the same video were also produced;community showings are not organized bythe CDI, but some videomakers attempt tomake them anyway; and the governmentdoes not encourage financial independence,but a few videomakers visualize themselvesconstituting independent NGO's or findingalternative forms of financing their videos.

As for the meaning of indigenous video,the CDI generated an idea, but this idea hasbeen negotiated, and is probably negotiatedagain, every time that the videomakers meetwith governmental officials. The seminarwas no exception. The authors of this paperplaced in the seminar agenda topies thatother workshops and training sessions hadnot covered, and triggered new eIementsto think and negotiate the meaning ofindigenous video: identity and power, in-digenous rights and media, language use invideo, community participation, or the verydefinition of indigenous video. The seminaremphasized participation and interactionover lectures, and so the ideas discussed willmost likely influence the making of futurevideos and the negotiation of the meaningof indigenous video.

The seminar showed what could be theparticular poetics of government-sponsoredMaya video in the Yucatan peninsula: it isa non-fiction video spoken in Maya, with acommercial formar and no political stance,with a view of culturc that focusos on es-scnccs, produccd for tolcvlsion and filmfcstivals, with litrlc communlty pnrll('lpnliol1nnd n P1'('porHIl'1'11111 1'011'rol' Illí' 1111'('1'101',

--- .J

The sustainability of this type of indigenousvideo depends 100% on the state, a seem-ingly secure posilion that is accepted both bythe state and by many videomakers.

The poetics of CDI's indigenous video isan expression that comes, to a large extent,from the insides of state politics. It seemsthat, in spite of the negotiation, the definitionof indigenous video has many elements ofneoindigenism. It is politically ascetic andindividual, following the ídeolegy of neu-trality and of the Volkswagen Bug and theTV set. Collective ambitions take a distantsecond place behind personal developmentand material improvement. Videomakers,videastas, are meant to be entrepreneurs,just like the indigenous people that VicenteFox said only wanted a family business.As Hernández, Paz and Sierra suggested,indigenous videomakers are treated as freesubjects in economie terms (8).

The intercultural aspect of neoindi-genism introduced during the first decade ofthe 21st century has also found its way intoCDI's indigenous video. Maya videomakersexpressed that they make videos for others.There is a pride of self-representation and apride of their work, but this pride is intendedfor others, not for Maya communities. Justlike indigenist radio stations are supposed toserve as a bridge from indigenous culturesto the dominant culture, indigenous videois conceptualized as a unidirectional tool ofcommunication from the Maya videomakersto other indigenous groups and to Mexicanand international audiences.

The findings also expresses that neoin-digenism is a backward step for video. CDI'sindigenous video is of great value, but itspractices have the air of being trapped inlime. The theoretical and conceptual matu-I'ily that independent indigenous video isrcaching in Mcxico,in the rest of the Ameri-COA, and in Australia just makes the politiesof Iwoincligeniflt video in Mcxicolook evenIll()I\' nnuchronistic.

Works citedBenítez Manaut, Raúl. "La cuestión ind (geno

y la seguridad nacional." Regiones il/rlf-genas tradicionales. Un enfoque geopol fI icopara la seguridad nacional. Mexico City:Instituto Nacional Indigenista, 2000.5-8. Print

Bonfil Batalla, G. México profundo: unacivilización negada. Mexico City: Grijalbo,1990. Print

Browne, Donald. Electronic media and indig-enous peoples. A voice of our oum? Ames,10: Iowa State Up, 1996. Print

Castells- Talens, Antoni. The Negotiation ofIndigenist Radio Policy in Mexico. Diss.University of Florida. (2004). Print

-. "Cine indígena y resistencia cultural."Chasqui 84 (2003): 50-57. Print

CDI. "Acervo de cine y video AlfonsoMuñoz." Comisión Nacional para elDesarrollo de los Pueblos Indígenas. 6jan 2010. cdi.gob.mx. Web

Churchill, Ward. Acts of Rebellion: The WardChurcnill Reader. New York: Routledge.2003. Print

Córdova, Amalia and Zamorano Gabriela."Mapeando medios en México. Videoindígena y comunitario en México."Redes Indígenas. National Museum ofthe American Indian. ni d. 11nov 2009.nativenetworks.si.edu. Web

Ciménez, Gilberto. "Materiales para unateoría de las identidades sociales." Fron-tera Norte. 9.18 (1997). 9-28. Print

Ginsburg, Faye. "Mediating Culture: Indig-enous Media, Ethnographic Film, andthe Production of Identity." The Anihro-pologtJ of Media: A Reader. Malden, MA:Blackwell, 2002. 210-235. Print

-. "Aboriginal Media and the AustralianImaginary." Public Culiure 5 (1994):557-578. Print

Gutiérrez Chong, Natividad. "Mercadotecniaen el 'indigenismo' de Vicente Fox." ElEstado y los indígenas en tiempos del PAN:neoindigen ismo, legalidad e identidad.México: Centro de Investigaciones yIIHludiOHSupcriorca en t\ nll'opolog(llSodol, 200/1.27·!jl. 1'1'1111

III"!"""""

Halkin, Alexandra. "Outside the IndigenousLens: Zapatistas and AutonomousVideomaking." Global Indigenous Media.Durham, NC: Duke Up, 2008. 160-180.Print

Hernández, Rosalva A., Sarela., Paz, andMaría Teresa Sierra, . El Estado y los indí-genas en tiempos del PAN: neoindigenismo,legalidad e identidad. México, D.F.:Centrode Investigaciones y Estudios Superioresen Antropología Social 2004. Print

INI. Primeras jornadas de radiodifusión indi-genista. México, D.F.: INI, 1996. Print

Magallanes, Claudia. The use of video for Po-lítical Consciousness-Raising in Mexico. AnAnalysis of lndependeni Videos about theZapatistas. Lewinston, NY:Edwin MellenPress, 2008. Print

Ramos, José M. "Indigenous radio stationsin Mexico: A catalyst for social cohesionand cultural strength," The Radio [our-nal- lnternational Studies in Broadcast andAudio Media 3.3 (2005):155-169. Print

Riggins, Stephen H. (ed.) Eihnic minority me-dia: an iniernaiumal perspective. NewburyPark, CA: Sage, 1992. Print

Salazar, Juan F. and Córdova, Amalia. "Im-perfect Media and the Poetics of Indig-enous video en Latin América." GlobalIndigenous Media. Durham, NC: DukeUp, 2008. 39-57. Print

Sanz, Verónica. "Candidatos dan prioridad aeconomía, educación y conflicto en Chía-pas." Efe 28 June 2000. www.efe.com

Schiwy, Freya,. Indianizing Film: Decoloniza-tion, the Andes, & the Question ofTechnol-ogy. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Up,2009. Print

Smith, Laurel C. "Mobilizing IndigenousVideo: the Mexican Case." Journal ofLatin American Geography 5.1 (2006):113-128.Print

Spitulnik, Debra. "Anthropology and MassMedia". Annual Review of Anthropology22 (1993):293-315. Print

Turner, Terence. "Representation, Politicsand Cultural Imagination on IndigenousVideo: General Points and Kayapo Ex-amples". Media Worlds. Los Angeles, CA:U of California P, 2002. 75-89. Print

Vargas, Lucila. Social uses and radio practices:The use of participatory radio by ethnicminorities in Mexico. Boulder, Colorado:Westview, 1995. Print

Wortham, Erika. "Between the State andIndigenous Autonomy: UnpackingVideo Indígena in México." AmericanAnthropologist 106.2 (2004): 363-368.Print