The Movement And Class Lines

1131 WordsNov 3, 20165 Pages
Eaton (2007) frames the cruceño movement along racial and class lines. He asserts that the cruceño movement is a response to the “anti-market sentiment” of indigenous political groups by the Santa Cruz business association. The autonomy movement has broadened its base by appealing to “common class interests” and “regional class interests.” Eaton pinpoints economic ideology as the center for contention. Eaton also specifies the actors not just as cruceño elites versus the state, but business association versus indigenous political groups. As such, he categorizes the state as indigenous and anti-capitalistic in contrast to the white/mestizo economic elite of Santa Cruz. While Eaton recognizes that the cruceño movement has widened its base to non-elites, he dismisses this as an attempt to legitimize the movement. In so doing, Eaton overlooks why non-elites do, in fact, join the movement. Although Eaton dedicates a subheading to subnational regionalism and thus recognizes that the cruceño movement pre-dates the rise of Evo Morales, he uses this section to explain the beginnings of the Pro-Santa Cruz Committee, rather than highlight the production of lowland identity. Although Centellas argues that Fabricant (2009, 2011) adheres to this backlash interpretation, her work more deeply engages with the intersection of regional identity, ethnicity, and class struggle than that of Eaton. Although Fabricant recognizes that regional divides existed in Bolivia prior to the early
Open Document