CONSIDERATIONS OF EXPRESSIONS OF RAPANUI Resistance
The story of Rapa Nui, or Easter Island as it was called by Dutch Explorers (Ramírez, 2008: 32), has been characterized by violence not only physically but politically and culturally. As one of the nine indigenous communities, or nine percent of the population, legally recognized in Chile (Iwgia, 2019: 7), the Rapanui have experienced a ‘silenced story of their oppressed people’, as Fischer suggests (Fischer, 1999: 13). In response to human rights violations the Rapanui have expressed resistance. In the different forms it takes, this resistance in a way seeks to do justice to the current rapanui cultural struggle. As an objective, the conflict that the Rapanui community has had with the Chilean State will be analyzed and how from this conflict a space for resistance and negotiation in the twentieth and twenty -first century has emerged.
The Rapanui community uses resistance to achieve some autonomy recovery of its island in terms of territory, culture and politics. The conflict between the Chilean State and the Rapanui community has a root in the continuous violations of the Rapanui rights demonstrated in the lack of the ‘ILO Convention 169 implementation, in force in the country since September 2009′ especially in terms of’The rights of political participation and prior consultation [and] the criminalization of political protest’ (Chartier, Chirif, Tomas, 2011: 36). Faced with this conflict, the Rapanui community has expressed resistance and the community has mobilized to challenge the oppression of which they have been subject. In 2010 the occupation of private and public buildings by members of the Rapa Nui community, ‘as a pressure measure to demand the recognition of their ancestral property rights over the lands in which these buildings are located’ (Chartier, Chirif, Tomas, Tomas, Tomas,2011: 23), caused the Chilean government to criminalize protest acts and increase the police presence. However, if a more open dialogue began between the two parties and questioned and broke an administration system built on the continuous violations of Rapanui rights.
The resistance in Rapa Nui, both in the twentieth century and in the 21st century, functions as a way to legitimize the demands of the indigenous community. Sociologist Tilly suggests that ‘On The Whole, Analysts of Social Movements Treat Them as Expressions of Current Atitudes, Interests or Social Conditions rather than as elements of longer-run histories’ (Tilly, 2004: 8), however, one cannot exploreThe current Rapanui resistance against conflict with the Chilean State without first considering resistance expressions in the twentieth century. In the letter sent by the resistance movement led by Alfonso Rapu in 1964, Rapu says that ‘knows [n] and this [n] very grateful of the Chilean Navy’ but that ‘is not [n] according to the representativesGovernors of the Navy that [l] governs as if there are [an] an irresponsible and ignorant people ‘and affirms that’ what are] a lot to Chile, because they [n] part of Chile ‘(Rapu, Amorós, 2018:110). As a direct consequence of the law.441, from 1966) ’(Molina, 2008: 296), this demonstrates how Rapanui resistance expression caused an immediate reaction in government. However, the fact that the Chilean State did not respond to other lawsuits in the letter as’ recognizing the Rapanui as the unique and legitimate owners of the island ‘land’ (Molina, 2008: 298), indicates that there is still a conflict forsolve.
Similarly, in 2002 the ‘Ministry of National Assets transferred land to 281 families of Rapanui origin, complying with the first stage of the program “Management, administration and disposition of fiscal property on Easter Island”’ (Molina, 2008: 301). Despite this, approximately 70 percent of the lands in Rapa Nui are still ‘held by the State of Chile’ (Chartier, Chirif, Tomas, 2011: 31). Clearly the transfer of some lands to Rapanui families was used as a way to appease the community, but maintain Chilean sovereignty at the same time.
At present, Rapanui resistance also occurs through more subtle acts. For example, the National Park guards insist that all tourists who enter greet him with “Iorana” instead of “hello” and premises report that there are many schools that first teach him the Rapanui language and then Spanish to ensure conservationof the traditional language. In this way the premises reinforce the Rapanui- something fundamental if one considers that the Rapanui language is not recognized as an official language of Chile and its use is not allowed in court- a violation of the human rights of the community (Chartier,Chirif, Tomas, 2011: 35).
Rapanui resistance has been used to change in terms of knowledge about human rights violations, not only at the national level with the Chilean government, but also internationally. The work of art ‘return’ (2006) by the Chilean artist Rosa Velasco, in which she seeksThe Rapanui. Velasco explains that this work, or art action, ‘is a repair, a restitution to
A culture that has been mistreated with many other robberies ’(Velasco, 2006: 1) – What it represents is the decolonization of the island. The use of sacred objects and statues as ownership of people not of Rapanui origin suggests that there is still a colonialist hierarchy. This colonialist hierarchy has been reinforced during the history of Rapa Nui- due to the foreign occupation on the island for many years and the large number of private entities that continue on the island (Molina, 2008: 295) and which now nowis subject to a reevaluation. Velasco’s work is proof not only for the recognition of the need for a change, which has caused Rapanui resistance, but the fact that it has managed to make a specific change. Escobar analyzes the work of Velasco and suggests that through this repatriation ‘El Moai, it ceases to be the antiquarium dam, the gallery owner, the museologist, the anthropologist or the
tourist. It is no longer the Discovery Channel ’pet (Escobar, Velasco, 2006: 16). Therefore, it becomes evident that Rapanui resistance is not only in front of the Chilean State, but the colonialist hierarchy that has been superimposed during its history.
Stephan and Chenoweth suggest that ‘Commitment to Nonviolent Methods Enhances Domestic and International Legitimacy and finds More Broad-Based Participation in the Resistance, which translates into increased pressure being bought to bear on the target’ (Stephan, Chenoweth, 2011: 9). Certainly one sees, for example, the culturer and activist Rapanui Piru Hoke Atan who carried out a project to ‘identify the rapanui heritage that was in museums of Chile and abroad’ (Arthur, 2018: 15) in the 90s galvanized individualsTo reassess his position as owner of Rapa Nui objects. The beginning of Rapanui resistance regarding the repatriation of sacred objects has allowed this Rapanui struggle not to be obfuscated. Rapa Nui is known around the world for his megalithic statues- Los Moai. But the history and current life of the Rapanui has many other complexities, such as their cultural and political struggle, which has failed to penetrate the consciousness of the world to the same extent as what their enigmatic statues have done. One sees how a process of change begins since it causes a reevaluation of their civil and political rights, which were not recognized until 1966 (Chartier, Chirif, Tomas, 2011: 9), allows concrete actions to try to heal these evil/ misdeeds.
Throughout the history of Rapa Nui, he has been denied the proper representation in the administration of the island. In the public space, the Ministry of Cultures, the Arts and Heritage offers representations of the indigenous communities, such as the Rapanui, through art exhibitions (such as the photographic installation ‘Amerindia 2019’ by Jorge Brantmayer) in the Chilean Museum ofPre -Columbian art, which suggests that the Rapanui have negotiated their space within Chilean consciousness. However, the Rapanui continue to fight for formal and adequate representation of their political interests within the administration of the island. Fajreldin points out that ‘Rapa Nui is a full territory of (…) dreams of growth and participation’ (Fajreldin, 2017: 10), what has been allowed is not formal and active participation but a symbolic and passive representation.
The indigenous law of 1993 ‘acknowledged] the right [of the Rapanui] to significantly influence the most important decisions that can affect the island’, decisions assumed by the CDIP (Easter Island Development Commission) (Andueza,2000: 118) that demonstrates to some extent the decentralization of the insular administration. Andueza indicates that ‘lately Chile has shown openness towards the indigenous perspective’ and that currently the government has been [in] a completely unprecedented participatory management model for the country ”(Andueza, 2000: 119) andHe affirms that ‘collaboration spaces have been created despite the divergences of interest’ between the state of Chile, Rapanui people and their nursingized advice, Chileans residing on the island (Andueza, 2000: 119). However, the lived reality of the Rapanui has failed to permeate Chilean political discourse to the point they want.
Rapa Nui’s government is in Valparaíso- 4000 kilometers of the island (Iwgia, 2019: 8). This physical distance between the administrators of the island and the community has turned out that ‘the Pascuenses define themselves in the first place as Rapanui and rarely as Chileans’ because they have’ an ambivalent attitude and rather rejection against the "CONTIS ”or continental Chileans’ (Fischer, 1999: 7). It is true that through the creation of the CDIP, an important participation of the Rapanui has been created since they work together with the Chileans (Andueza, 2000: 118). Andueza affirms that ‘he definitely ends the ethnochilene monopoly in island management, especially evident in public services’ (Andueza, 2000: 118). But according to a report on Rapa NUI made by the IWGIA (International Working Group for Indigenous Affairs) in 2010 there was a complaint ‘that indigenous interests are [ban] being undermined by the state “indigenous” agencies [managed] by the State andcontrolled to meet their economic needs and those of private investors’ and that although these agencies have indigenous representatives this representation is’ minority and is limited to the fulfillment of the role of “advisors” ‘(Chartier, Chirif, Tomas, 2011: 33-4). The report only reinforces that what has been offered to the Rapanui is symbolic representation not what is required, which is real and active representation.
However Rapanui resistance is not about opposing the Chilean government completely, but about consolidating the Rapanui culture and the Chilean administration. Ramírez indicates that ‘the reaffirmation of Rapanui identity nourishes the past, but adapts to the reality of the present’ (Ramírez, 2008: 11). It is true that through cultural organizations such as the Kai Kai workshops and traditional art, the conservation of Rapanui collective memory and the beginning of the incorporation of the Rapanui in the current Chilean discourse occur simultaneously. Through the Kai Kai workshops, recreations of former stories and legends (Sigpa, 2019), and through art, the Rapanui intend to keep indigenous identity alive under the Chilean government. The Kai Kai workshops such as the Mana’u Tupuna workshop (1994) are dedicated to the research, rescue and revitalization of oral traditions and island crafts ’(Sigpa, 2019). These workshops ‘permanently have a lawsuit’ and when there are no manifestations asking for them (Valenzuela, Fuentes, 2017), as stated by Paula Valenzuela- the director of the Sebastián Englert anthropological museum in Rapa Nui.
In addition, the sculptures of Juan Tepano Huki (1866-1947), such as the ‘male figure’ of the twentieth century exhibited in the Chilean Museum of Pre-Columbian Art, represent the typical art of the island, made of traditional wood- Miro Pupu (Buzzoni, 2013: 102). The art of Tepano Huki contributes to the preservation of traditional Rapanui art and contributes to the syncretism of Chilean influence with Rapanui identity. Larraín says that the Chilean identity ‘is not only a kind of immutable inheritance received since a remote past, but is also a project to the future’ (Larraín, 2001: 10), and through the persistence of the rapanui culture the community struggles forintegrate into future Chilean identity issues. Singh and Grünbühel argue that island societies ‘are involved in that generating and Sheltering Themselves from Processions of Globalisation in Which Contextually Given Boundaries are transgressive and displaced’ (Singh and Grünbühel, Baldacchino, 2005: 248).Rapanui while the Rapanui place is negotiated within a new political-cultural framework. They become objects of representation of the community that in itself is a form of resistance since it represents its rejection of giving up their culture to be considered part of Chile.
The Rapanui community adopts non -violent forms of resistance to create the undeniable presence of an indigenous mobilization, which represents the interests of an unsatisfied community. Andueza maintains that ‘the Chilean State monopolizes the field of political action about indigenous territories in the name of territorial integrity’ (Andueza, 2000: 113) and also ‘in 2010 and 2011 [Chile] criminalized protest acts’ (Chartier,Chirif, Tomas, 2011: 33). Despite these obstacles, on May 27, 2019, in front of the Municipality of Rapa Nui on the island, there were signs with messages like “Until when they plan to fill their pockets with the moai of all rapanui?”(Figure 1) that calls into the exploitation of Rapanui lands and culture for the benefit of others. They ensure that there is dissatisfaction with current conditions in Rapa Nui.
The Rapanui have expressed resistance not only in the form of peaceful manifestations, but also through art, cultural organizations and through subtle acts in everyday life- how to insist that it greets "Iorana" instead of "hello". As a consequence, a more complete image of the reality of the island has begun to be projected, beyond the history of its statues to illuminate the continuous, political and cultural struggle of the Rapanui against their exploitation and the violations of their human rights. The persistence of its resistance disarms the colonialist hierarchy that has been imposed on the island and gives validity and importance to this current political, cultural struggle. In addition, the Chilean government has recognized, to one point, the need for greater and best honest representation of the indigenous, but it is evident that it is much so that they can get rid of the legacy of colonialism in current Rapanui society and open this hidden speech.
Leave feedback