Exploring Garifuna Land Use, Identity Shifts, and Challenges

Chapter 1: How was (is) Garifuna land use and ownership different than those of the banana companies? How would you characterize these different ‘political economies’? According to Euraque in 2003 in the chapter, through historical documents and agricultural evidence, the Garifuna were “important pioneers” (Brondo, 24) in settling the coastal communities of Tela, La Ceiba, and Trujillo. In this time the Garifuna owned ejidales land that remained communal and in the hands of the Garifuna until the 1910s. It has been determined that the Garifuna had strong economic influence in their region and were “arguably community capitalists” (Brondo, 24) who sought to better their community economically and their culture’s well-being. The Garifuna bought and sold land through customary pricing where sale prices are based on what is believed to be fair, Brondo states that this mentality, “indicated that land was historically seen as a free resource, very few Garifuna sought … private ownership” (Brondo, 24). This mentality however was not reciprocated by the United States Banana Companies that would technically enter in 1899 (with the United Fruit Company adding Honduras as a new supply site) (Brondo, 23) and would play a large role in the early 20th century on how the Honduras coast would develop economically. The government provided the Standard Fruit Company and the UFC with subsidies to build a railroad track nationally for their production, however, this track only connected the coastal communities and did not connect the capitol with the isolated coastal regions. Instead their tracks went to remote areas where banana plantations could flourish. Three companies at their height came to own seventy five percent of all Honduran banana groves (Brondo, 24). The banana companies controlled by the United States and United Kingdom were vastly different political economies from the Garifuna. One of the most stark differences as mentioned before is the Garifuna concept of communal lands, and working together both agriculturally and in society for the betterment of the community, an idea that was often lost to different banana companies who sought profits and weren’t particularly bothered with the environment they left behind. Chapter 2: How did Garifuna identity formation shift from the 1950s-1980s? During this period, Garifuna identity transformed in terms of their attitude towards AfroHondurans. In the 1950s, the organized labor movement in Honduras changed their goals from being antiblack to a movement that addressed racial discrimintation that needed to be dealt with. This created a new idea of identity for the Garifuna as Afro-Hondurans, and deserving of full citizenship and equality in Honduras. Chapter 3: What are the key features of demographic and territorial change in the Sambo Creek community outlined in this chapter? The clearest example of demographic change in the Sambo Creek community is the Garifuna population’s prevalence in the communities. Brondo details this change on page fiftyfive, in 1981 McCommmon reported that the population of 1,196 in the community was 90% Garifuna (10 percent Mestizo), then in 2000 the total population was 2,720 with 47.87% Garifuna and 51.03% being “otros” (mestizos). And lastly in 2002, Sambo Creek’s population was estimated to be around five thousand with forty percent of the population being mestizo. In the span of twenty years the Sambo Creek community has shifted from a majority of the population being Garifuna to more Mestizos being mixed into the community. These changes in the demographics of Sambo Creek impacted the dynamics of the community and the identities of those who work and live there. Certain occupations were more difficult to fill and migration to the region continued to rise, presenting more of a strain on the local economy. A quote that stood out to me was a direct quote from an unemployed individual in the community regarding employment options and wages in the community: “Soon we younger people will have to go back to making houses out of wood, because we cannot afford the concrete!”. Chapter 4: Think about the agency and power connected to private property, and in particular women, in the Garifuna community. Related to this, what consequences did the loss of land have on the livelihoods of Garifuna people? Throughout the first portion of the text, Brondo continually mentions women in the Sambo Creek community and Garifuna women having a strong role in the agricultural duties in their communities and their responsibilities with cassava, a staple in their community. When Garifuna women and communities’ land is restricted or made private instead of communal, the women in their communities are no longer able to do their traditional obligations in the community of tending to the agriculture and such, therefore it could be argued that the women could suffer from a lack of identity when these responsibilities are no longer present. Chapter 5: What are the differences between how ODECO and OFRANEH draw on ethnopolitics in their work? ODECO is a NGO that serves as a communicator of sorts between international aid agencies and Garifuna communities, and was formed in 1992. Interestingly, it was formed by a group of individuals from OFRANEH who “disagreed in philosophies”. OFRANEH, founded in 1977, is a grassroots support movement (Brondo 95). This was originally formed to represent Afro-Hondurans but since has become focused only on Garifuna representation. According to Bronte during development, “… while ODECO positions itself as a collaborator algonside the central government to combat racism, OFRANEH’s approach is reflective of larger indigienous rights critique that sees globalization and neoliberalism as attempting to enforce a separation of humanity from the environment” (Bronde 96).