Honduras Trócaire
Brothers Celso Alberto and Oscar Amado Cabrera Matute hold up a photo of their mother, Maria Enriqueta Matute, who was murdered in 2013 for defending the rights of the of the Tolupan indigenous community.

Nick Vacchio
Managing Editor

“Our Mother Earth: militarized, fenced in, poisoned. A place where basic rights are systematically violated demands that we take action.”

These powerful words speak volumes on the character of Honduran indigenous and environmental activist, Berta ceres, who was assassinated in her home in 2016. Co-founding the National Council of Popular and Indigenous Organizations of Honduras (COPINH) in 1993, ceres had been an active leader in grassroots land rights movements for indigenous peoples throughout the country.  Her efforts were internationally recognized when she received the Goldman Environmental Prize in 2015 for her role in forcing Sinohydro, the world’s largest dam construction company, to pull out of the Agua Zarca Dam project.  ceres’ endeavors were but one of many in a popular movement of indigenous Hondurans who are defending their environment from capital exploitation.

Berta Caceres 2015 Goldman Environmental Award Recipient
Berta Cáceres on the phone in Rio Blanco in 2015 where she, COPINH and the local community convened in remembrance of the lives lost in the two years of resistance against the development of the Agua Zarca dam project.

As the most prominent environmental leader in the country, ceres’ assassination sent shockwaves throughout Latin America and brought greater attention to the indigenous plight from around the world. Since then, five other anti-dam protestors have lost their lives and her successor at COPINH, Tomás Membreño, was targeted in a failed assassination attempt. The problem is clearly systemic as over 120 Honduran environmental activists have died since the 2009 coup d’état at the hands of a corrupt and militarized state. The impact of external forces have done much to contribute to an institutionalized culture of violence with impunity and the destabilization of Honduran indigenous communities.

Manuel Zelaya

A staging ground for American policies to “contain communism” during the Cold War, Honduras has not developed as well as some of its regional counterparts. 63 percent of the nation’s eight million people live below the poverty line while one million of them additionally suffer from malnutrition. Elected as president in 2005 representing the center-right liberal party, Manuel Zelaya gradually abandoned the platform and veered toward a policy of leftist intersectionality.  He joined the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), a socialist alternative to the United States’ proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas, and looked toward leaders like Hugo Chávez and Raúl Castro for support.

He enacted a series of reform policies that looked to benefit the majority of Hondurans.  The minimum wage was raised 60 percent to reach a total of $9.60 per day, subsidies were given to small farmers and free education for all children was provided. He promoted the involvement of citizens in local decision-making processes, lowered the cost of fuel, provided free electricity to those most in need, expanded social security programs to cover domestic employees, supported the rights of the LGBT community and attempted to legalize the morning after pill. His popularity stemmed from marginalized sectors of society and he supported indigenous rights movements in their struggle to resist extractive industries backed by foreign capital.

Zelaya was by no means perfect. His name could be associated in distaste with corruption charges and his father’s role in a series of murders but they didn’t stop him from getting elected. In office, his social programs were obviously a threat to the ruling elites of Honduras and the world’s economic hegemony but Honduran activist and school teacher Hedme Castro likely summarized his presidency the best: “Maybe he made mistakes but he always erred on the side of the poor. That is why [his supporters] will fight to the end for him. Many people gave their lives so that we could have a democracy. And we cannot let a group of elites take that away.” In a country where 90 percent of the wealth is owned by just ten families and media outlets are dominated by an elite, conservative core it’s not surprising that those who thrived under the status quo felt threatened as the government’s priorities changed.

Coup d’état

Zelaya proposed a democratic referendum that would allow citizens to vote on whether or not an assembly should be called to make changes to the 1982 constitution. Though he claimed that he would not do so, one of the proposed changes would allow Zelaya to run for re-election. The Supreme Court ruled his proposed referendum as unconstitutional and his time left in office was not long. By 2009, his reforms had made him an enemy of the media, the military, the wealthy elite and citizens who succumbed to the sensationalized notion of a leftist dictator. On the day the referendum was to be held, the military captured Zelaya and forced him into exile.

A tumultuous period ensued with an end result unfavorable to Zelaya and his supporters. The United Nations immediately denounced his removal and continued to recognize him as the rightful president. The Organization of American States also showed their solidarity for Zelaya and suspended the membership of Honduras. The United States saw things differently and chose to support a more business-friendly form of government.  The election following Zelaya’s removal was anything but “free, fair and transparent,” like Hillary Clinton and State Department officials claimed.

Police suppressed and murdered anti-coup protesters, media outlets favorable to Zelaya were censored and Honduran government officials gave different estimates on election turnout to validate the results.  Further cementing their historical legacy as repressors of democracy in Latin America, the U.S. denied a plan from the O.A.S. that would make Zelaya’s return from exile a prerequisite for elections. Another key detail that emerged was that by not officially considering the events which transpired to be a military coup, the United States did not have to halt aid to Honduras as required by international law.  This aid often ends up in the hands of paramilitary and police forces via the military and is used to suppress those who speak out against governmental policies.

Honduras: peasant protests
Police detain indigenous leaders at a protest in 2014 located in the capital of Tegucigalpa.

The Fallout

The Nation reports that: Since Zelaya’s ouster, there’s been an all-out assault on decent people – torture, murder, militarization of the countryside, repressive laws, such as the absolute ban on the morning-after pill, the rise of paramilitary security forces, and the wholesale deliverance of the country’s land and resources to transnational pillagers. In 2011, the O.A.S. created the Honduras Truth and Reconciliation Commission which investigated the case of Zelaya’s removal from power and officially determined the acts which occurred to have been an illegal coup, instead of a constitutional transfer of leadership like his adversaries argued. This proclamation was two years too late however, as the National Party had already solidified power and was carving up land to capital investors.  The party’s rise coincided with the designation of over a quarter of the country’s land for mining grants that subsequently created a demand for energy that the country was not able to produce. The government, in turn, chose to displace and destabilize indigenous communities through the privatization of land and rivers in order to construct the hundreds of dams necessary to provide ample hydroelectricity.

The most publicized case is the construction of the Agua Zarca dam that Berta ceres and community members protested vehemently against.  The dam is to be constructed on the Gualcarque River which is considered sacred by the Lenca people.  Locals were adamantly against the project when they first heard about it in 2011 and when the mayor called an assembly to vote on the project, the locals rejected it entirely. Despite this, the mayor still went ahead with the project and signed a contract with the dam’s primary developer: Desarrollos Energéticos SA (DESA). In response, the citizens maintained a roadblock which prohibited the company from entering the proposed area of construction. Since 2013, the peaceful protesters have faced intimidation and repression tactics from the military and DESA’s own paramilitary forces.  

Members of COPINH, which ceres originally founded to stop logging and defend the rights of the Lenca people, have been targeted and often portrayed as criminals. Local leader Tomás García was killed and several others were seriously injured in July 2013 when soldiers fired from within DESA’s property into a crowd of peaceful protestors. In the face of violence, the organization did not back down and maintained their blockade through 2015 when the company adjusted their plans without notifying the local community and began construction along the opposite side of the river. Threats against COPINH members continued to escalate through May 2016 when an assassin entered ceres’ home and murdered her. She died protecting her people, her community and a sustainable existence. As The Nation states, these construction projects are “a violation of international treaties governing indigenous peoples’ rights.” If completed, the Agua Zarca dam would hinder hundreds of Lenca from accessing their traditional source of water, food and medicine.  It would furthermore disregard international law that protects indigenous people’s right to sustainably live off of their own land.

The struggle against the construction of the Agua Zarca dam is but one of many being waged by the indigenous peoples of Honduras. In September 2016, Amnesty International published a report on the challenges facing communities across the country as they spill their blood to resist the economic pillaging of their sovereign land. Besides Agua Zarca, the Lenca are defending their rights to territory and water in the municipalities of Santa María and Aguanqueterique and against additional hydraulic projects such as La Aurora in San José and Los Encinos in Santa Elena. The Tolupán in the San Francisco de Locomapa region are combatting invasive timber and mining industries. The Garifuna are upholding rights to their ancestral land in the face of tourist developments. In Bajo Aguán, poor farming communities are demanding that their rights are respected as corporations plant non-native African palm plantations for the extraction of palm oil on land that the farmers claim was granted to them by government through various land reforms from prior decades. The Aguán region has been especially problematic as 98 people have been found dead since the 2009 coup.

Palm oil trees of Bajo Aguán where deadly conflicts between the local community and corporations are frequent.


So who is funding these confrontational projects and providing the means for these deaths to continue? Multilateral financial institutions like the World Bank deserve a portion of the blame for providing loans to corporations who use violence and repression as tools to defend their unlawful economic interests. One such example is the Dinant corporation who dominates the aforementioned Aguán region with their palm plantations and have become well-known for their repression of small farmers through paramilitary violence. Weapons that are only supposed to belong to the military have been found in the hands of local police and private paramilitary forces. Reports from several media outlets have shed light that the high-profile assassinations and killings of members from social movement groups like COPINH have ties to the Honduran police and military. The U.S. deserves blame for this as well because they continue to provide humanitarian and military aid as well as training to the country despite its ineffective legal system, poor track record on human rights and armed forces’ links to death squad activity.

In the year following the assassination of Berta ceres, unfortunately not much has changed. The majority of those who commit these violent crimes against indigenous communities and protesters in the name of capital go unpunished. The most recent killing came in late February as the leader of the Tolupán people, José Santos Sevilla, was assassinated in his home. In relation to the Agua Zarca dam project, the Central American Bank of Economic Integration pulled out of the project in early June. They served as the primary source of funds and were the only organization left funding the construction after two European firms stopped participating immediately following the death of Cáceres in 2016.  DESA received less than 40% of the necessary capital to construct the dam and without any financiers left, it’s completion remains uncertain.  U.S. military aid is still being sent to Honduras, though the Berta ceres Human Rights in Honduras Act was reintroduced to congress in March. The bill would require that the U.S. government halt all military aid to the country until the human rights violations carried out by private paramilitary forces are formally addressed by the Honduran government. Though this is certainly positive news, the struggle is by no means over.  

As Berta ceres stated before her death, “Indigenous peoples are confronting a hegemonic project pushed by big national and international capital. The promoters of that strategy have imposed a profoundly neoliberal model based on invasion and militarization of territories, plunder, and privatization of resources.” Whether in Standing Rock or Santa María, that message rings out loud and clear to those who are willing to listen. Just how much blood remains to be spilt for the cause of neoliberalism?

Images courtesy of:


By Omkar Mahajan

Scandinavia, like many other regions of Europe, has faced a plethora of refugees from the Middle East seeking asylum and escaping persecution. While many in Scandinavia are welcoming of the refugees and as Scandinavia looks to a multicultural future with a heterogeneous population, one cannot help but notice the inherent hypocrisy in the history of Scandinavia in regards to the treatment of its own indigenous population, the Sami. This issue is further complicated when one considers the fetishizing of native indigenous cultures by Europeans in recent times. Discrimination of the Sami is a topic that is not adequately addressed and Scandinavian countries will have to confront this issue as they face a possible multiethnic future after the arrival of the refugees.

Discrimination against the Sami has increased in recent months in Scandinavia. In the preceding few months, large government projects have seized land from the Sami in order to build renewable energy projects and politicians have ignored concerns and protests from the Sami. Furthermore, racism and prejudice toward the Sami have risen as their voices continue to remain unheard. On the other side of the globe, the conflicts and chaos in the Middle East have led to a plethora of refugees entering Scandinavia, forcing Northern European countries to look to a heterogeneous population as they welcomes the refugees. Ironically, despite embracing multiculturalism, Sweden and others are shunning their own ethnic indigenous minority, the Sami. This begs the question, who are the Sami?

Who are the Sami?
The Sami are an ethnic indigenous people who primarily inhabit the Arctic areas of Sweden, Finland, Norway and the Kola peninsula of Russia. Based on archaeological evidence and discoveries of early settlements and cave paintings, the Sami are believed to have inhabited northern Scandinavia since at least 11,000 BCE after diverging from other hunter-gatherer groups in northern Russia. Throughout the centuries, the Sami maintained a variation of lifestyles ranging from hunter-gatherers, coastal fishermen, fur trappers and reindeer herders. Since they lived in the far north and had successfully adapted to the harsh and cold climate, interactions with other peoples were rare and the Sami became increasingly isolated. Around the 8th century, which saw the advent and expansion of the Vikings, the Sami were driven further north and interactions between the Vikings and the Sami were minimal. Although some fur trading did occur, communication between the two groups was sparse and rather non-existent. Thus, the Sami were able to maintain their own lifestyle and independence.

Prior to the 15th century, the Sami were independent of outside influences and continued their nomadic way of life. After the 15th century, the Kingdoms of Sweden and Norway expressed an interest in Sami lands and dispatched expeditions to annex Sami lands. The Sami people were mandated to pay taxes in order to continue to reside where they were and overhunting by the dispatchers led to a decline in reindeer herds. This forced many Sami to find new occupations and leave their lifestyles.

In the 1800s, Sami lands were seized by the governments and sold to wealthy landowners. Sami people themselves were forcibly relocated and many died on the journey to new places. Settler colonial projects took place as settlers were encouraged to move northwards. The Norwegian government outlawed the usage of Sami languages and customs and derided them as primitive and backward. Children were taught only in the Norwegian language and were converted to Christianity and renamed and given Christian names. The Swedish government also enacted similar measures. As a result, many Sami languages died out and became extinct.

In the early 1900s, the Norwegian government started an active effort to wipe out the Sami people and culture. Norway later passed a law that any land that was extremely fertile and owned by the Sami had to be given up to the government. Sami people were also rounded up and mass sterilized. Furthermore, many scientists conducted research on the Sami in efforts to support their pseudo-scientific disciplines about race. Because of determinations to erase the Sami culture and mass assimilate them into society, the Sami were segregated and not recognized as full citizens.

The Sami Today
Today, the Sami continue to face discrimination and many history books do not even elaborate on the Sami people. In fact, many in Scandinavia know more about the Native Americans of the United States than the Sami people of Scandinavia. Additionally, many Sami people today do not disclose that they actually are Sami and a large percentage of them have assimilated into mainstream Scandinavian society. While there were efforts to recognize the Sami as a marginalized people and implement programs to help them out of economic poverty, many politicians believe that enough time has passed and that these programs should be removed.

Moreover, many Sami living in northern areas of Scandinavia who try to maintain the ancient lifestyles of their ancestors unfortunately see their lands being taken away by lumber and logging companies. Governments also intervene in some cases seizing land from the Sami and later justifying it on the grounds that it’s needed for environmental green energy purposes. While green energy and alternative renewable resources are very important in this day and age, it is disrespectful to seize land from people and not compensate them for it.

Also, it is unknown how many Sami are currently living in Scandinavia today. Since their numbers are much smaller than before and many died through disease, colonization and forced relocation, there have been parallels drawn between the Sami of Scandinavia and the indigenous people of the Americas. On another note, many Sami people do not actively report that they are Sami and after a number of generations, many have assimilated into Scandinavian society and are now indistinguishable from the rest of the population. While some scholars would be outraged and rightfully should be, it is disturbing to consider that this is a trend that has been seen in various other cultures and places such as Japan and its Ainu people, the United States and its Native American population, the British and the aboriginals of Australia and others.

Governmental Action
In the late 1990s, the governments of Sweden, Finland, Norway and Russia finally passed laws recognizing the Sami as an indigenous people and granted them special provisions. Norway’s constitution grants the Sami special rights and ensures to protect their culture and language. Furthermore, they also allow the Sami to have their own parliament. While the intentions of these laws are clearly respectable, the unfortunate reality is that the passage of a few laws and little enforcement of these laws will do relatively little to undo centuries of abuse, mistreatment and discrimination. In 1993, a Sami parliament in Sweden was established but this is hardly effective since indigenous rights regarding the Sami are currently banned in Sweden. Although Sweden did apologize for its treatment of the Sami and recognized the Sami language as one of its five official minority languages in 1998, implicit racism and discrimination continue to affect the Sami and little is being done to combat this. Finland recognized the Sami as their own people in 1995 but this hardly means anything since Finland is yet to ratify ILO Convention 169 Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Also, Finland denied aboriginal and land rights to the Sami. In regards to Russia, Article 69 of the 1993 constitution grants rights to the indigenous communities and has the goal of economic development for marginalized indigenous peoples but the government is yet to act on these measures. Clearly, not much is being done to help the Sami.

After a careful and broad overview of this subject, one can evidently see that the discrimination of the Sami is unjustified and that the responses of the Scandinavian governments is rather insufficient. While recognizing and acknowledging past wrongdoing and abuse is helpful and is a direction in the right step, just acknowledging wrong actions from the past is worthless if there are not any significant measures or actions being undertaken to rectify and undo a series of damages. The refugee crisis of Syria and the Middle East has forced countries to foresee a multiethnic and multicultural future with a heterogeneous population. While some in those countries have expressed xenophobia, many have embraced multiculturalism and have expressed a desire to help out with the refugee crisis. However, it is ironic and hypocritical to embrace multiculturalism while overlook a troublesome history and pretend that a few laws passed decades ago are enough to correct centuries of discrimination. This will be an issue that many will have to face as a more multiethnic future materializes.

Photo by Tonynetone