Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

* La mayor parte de la investigación que dio origen a este artículo fue nanciada por el Instituto Colombiano de Antropología e Historia

– ICANH. El autor pertenece al Grupo de Antropología Social reconocido por Colciencias.

** Antropólogo con Opción en Filosofía (Universidad de los Andes). Magíster en Migraciones y Relaciones Interétnicas (Université de

Poitiers, Francia). Doctor en Sociología (Université de Poitiers, Francia). Actualmente trabaja como profesor-investigador de planta

vinculado al Departamento de Sociología de la Universidad de Antioquia. jpsarra@yahoo.com

The protection of cultural

diversity: reexions on its

origins and implications*

La protección de la diversidad cultural:

reexiones sobre sus fundamentos e

implicaciones

Jean Paul Sarrazín Martínez**

Recibido: 7 de noviembre de 2014 / Aceptado: 23 de enero de 2015

Abstract

The rst part of this paper presents a historical outline of how racial and

cultural alterity (particularly indigeneity) has been imagined and represented

by elites in Colombia since the nineteenth century. The evolution of these ideas

takes us to the contemporary category of “ethnic groups” and its representa-

tion in positive terms, a process that signies a substantial change compared to

past discourses in favour of cultural homogeneity. The second part of this text

reects on the ways in which ethnic policies are legitimized –today more than

ever– through the principle of “the protection of cultural boundaries”, a prin-

ciple which is widely praised and uncontested, but which has become totally

dependent on problematic concepts such as “cultural damage”, “authenticity”

or “preservation”. Furthermore, the institutional actions based on that principle

are actually uncertain, ambiguous and inefcient, a situation that invites us to

question the “policies for diversity”.

Resumen

La primera parte de este artículo presenta una perspectiva histórica sobre

la manera en que la alteridad racial y cultural (particularmente la indigenidad)

ha sido imaginada por las élites en Colombia desde el siglo XIX. La evolución

de estas ideas nos lleva a la actual categoría de “grupos étnicos” y su repre-

sentación en términos positivos actualmente. En la segunda parte del artículo

se reexiona sobre la manera en que las políticas étnicas se legitiman hoy más

que nunca a través del principio de “protección de la diversidad cultural”, el

cual goza de un elogio generalizado, pero que en el fondo depende totalmente

de conceptos muy problemáticos tales como “daño cultural”, “autenticidad” o

“preservación”. Así, se observa que muchas de las acciones institucionales que

se han tomado en nombre de dicha protección son en realidad, inciertas, am-

biguas e inecaces, lo cual evidencia la necesidad de reevaluar las “políticas

para la diversidad”.

Key words:

Alterity, Cultural boundaries,

Cultural diversity, Identity

and Social policies.

Palabras clave:

Alteridad, Fronteras culturales,

Diversidad cultural,

Identidad y Políticas sociales.

Referencia de este artículo (APA): Sarrazín, J. (2015). The protection of cultural diversity: reexions on its origins and

implications. En Justicia, 27, 99-117. http://doi.org/10.17081/just.3.27.322

100

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

jeAn PAUl sArrAzín mArtínez

INTRODUCTION

The “policies for diversity” –referred to here-

after– are Colombia’s national policies created

for ethnic groups. Although “diversity” can also

include other categories such as gays and les-

bians, handicapped people or Jews, we will not

refer to them directly in this text. Today, ethnic

groups –mainly indigenous peoples and afro-co-

lombians

1

– are the most visible social categories

of what is now widely and too uncritically called

“cultural diversity” in Colombian media and of-

cial discourses.

In this article we will be analysing some of

the historical grounds of today’s praise of “cul-

tural diversity”, as well as the workings and

implications of contemporary policies in favour

of ethnic “diversity”. Without disregarding the

political struggles of some ethnic groups, or

ignoring the fact that those populations are the

descendants of social groups which have been

systematically marginalised and excluded in the

country since colonial times, it is important to

clarify from the beginning of this paper that it is

not a revision of the extensive literature on mul-

ticulturalism or on ethnic movements and their

struggle for empowerment and recognition. In-

stead, we will be focusing on the evolution of

some hegemonic ideas about ethnicity and cul-

tural diversity by non-ethnic elites, and we will

be critiquing some of the policies based on the

1 According to the latest census of the national population

(DANE, 2007, 2008), there are three main categories of eth-

nic groups in Colombia. Indigenous peoples (3.4 % of the

national population), Afro-Colombians (10.6 %) and Romani

people (0.01 %). Indigenous peoples are themselves divided

into approximately 84 ethnic groups or “cultures”.

principle of the protection of cultural diversity,

supposedly in favour of ethnic populations.

This implies a critical analysis of “cultural

diversity”, not as an objective reality, but as a

concept invented mainly by “white” intellectual

elites. Several authors have indeed shown how

“cultural diversity” is a concept praised unani-

mously in different countries and within differ-

ent ideologies, left-wing or right-wing alike,

in academia, private companies, governmental

and non- governmental organizations see for in-

stance (Ribeiro, 2007; Sarrazin, 2011 and Wood,

2003). We must now try to understand how this

concept came to be so widely praised, and what

are some of the consequences of its use in Co-

lombia’s social-political context.

The rst part of this article describes some of

the main positive ideas manifested by the elites

about ethnicity and particularly about indignity

as they have evolved in the history of the coun-

try, since it became an independent nation in

the rst decades of the nineteenth century. We

will provide a very brief overview of the period

stretching from independence until the end of

the 1960s. From 1970 on, the analysis will be-

come more detailed, as this was the beginning of

a period directly inuenced by the multicultural-

ists political Constitution written in 1991.

After that historical outline, this article de-

velops a critical reection on some of the poli-

cies, laws, decrees, ofcial norms, and judicial

cases where ethnic groups are involved and/or

are opposed to other types of actors, such as

peasant communities, the State, or private com-

101

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

the Protection of cUltUrAl diversity: reflexions on its oriGins And imPlicAtions

panies. A revision of those cases

2

is what led

us to notice that the principle of the protection

of cultural diversity is frequently brought up in

defence of social groups marked as “ethnic” –a

category which is in itself problematic, as we

will also argue.

Far from being another critique of multi-

culturalism see for example (Bocarejo, 2011;

Chaves, 2011; Hale, 2002, 2005; Pineda, 2011;

Restrepo, 2004, 2007; Segato, 2007 and Wade,

2011), this is a critique of the “policies for diver-

sity”, a type of policies which is frequently pre-

sented as something new and free from the prob-

lems pointed on multiculturalism. Indeed, this

essay specically reects on the logic behind the

“protection of cultural diversity”, an idea which

is nowadays unchallenged and considered by

many as a principle for political action which

would necessarily be good in the eyes of every

sensible human being. In fact, we will see that

those political actions suffer in many aspects

from the same fundamental problems affecting

multiculturalist’s policies.

Discourses about indignity from 1810 to

1970

In Colombia, the images and policies related

to Native Americans have been formative of

the images and policies related to other ethnic

2 Those judicial cases where sent to the Instituto Colombiano

de Antropología e History (Colombian Institute of Anthropo-

logy and History - ICANH) by the Corte Constitucional (The

Constitutional Court). The facts presented in the second part

of this paper are partly based on the observations and con-

clusions drawn by us as researchers working at the ICANH

with those documents and cases. Considering the restrictions

of space in an article such as this one, we cannot quote and

explain each one of them.

groups, and –most importantly for this article, as

it will be explained later– to what is now called

“cultural diversity”. Because of this, the history

of representations about the “Indians”, the “in-

digenous peoples” or the “native cultures”

3

is

crucial to understand contemporary representa-

tions about other ethnic groups. Indeed, Restre-

po (2007) has shown that the dominant model

for imaging indignity in the country has been

extrapolated in many institutional circumstances

to imagine black communities as well

4

.

In 1890, for instance, the State gives, for the

rst time, a particular status to the “indigenous

peoples” in the juridical framework. We can thus

speak of some sort of recognition which can be

considered as an ancestor of today’s “positive

discrimination” (Cunin, 2003, p. 31) and the

policies for the protection of cultural diversity.

This recognition, however, did not impede re-

jection and exclusion of the peoples categorized

in this way by the “white” and “mestizo” major-

ity in the country.

As it is widely known, since the nineteenth

century most nationalist projects were founded

on the idea of cultural homogeneity of the Na-

tion (Smith, 2000, p. 17). Colombian national-

ism was certainly not an exception to this rule: a

unied country with one culture, one language,

one religion, etc. Moreover, the newly-born Re-

public of Colombia declared the equality of all

men (Political Constitution of 1821). Colombian

3 The terms “Indians”, “natives” or “indigenous peoples” will

be used as synonyms.

4 In colonial times, the category of “black people” was denied

an institutional place in ofcial discourses and in the works of

most intellectuals (Cunin, 2003, p. 30).

102

elites, inuenced by French republican ideas,

believed that the State could only ourish under

a regime based on the notion of “citizenship”.

However, indignity was kept as a symbol of

autochthony and autonomy for a nation whose

recently-acquired identity as a new and inde-

pendent republic was based on its distinction

from colonial powers. Indeed, since the Indians

were the native peoples of the New Continent,

their idealized image was taken as a symbol of

a national identity separated from Spain. As an

example of this, briey after the nal battle for

independence in 1819, liberal elites represented

the American continent as a young indigenous

woman (Pineda, 1997, p. 112). A few decades

later, under the inuence of romanticism, some

Colombian authors (for example, Jose Joaquin

Borda or Prospero Pereira) gloried the local

and traditional culture, speaking of the Indian’s

“magnicent kingdoms” of the past (Langebaek,

2003). These romantic, idealized images which

aspired to extol Colombia’s self-pride existed at

the same time as the real Indians in esh and

bone were generally despised by the majorities

(Pineda, 1997, p. 113).

If liberal regimes (associated in Colombia

with left-wing ideologies) tended to propose

the equality of all men, conservative regimes

(right-wing) more frequently tended to discrimi-

nate the natives. For instance, in 1886, a new

Constitution was written under a conservative

regime; here, ofcial discourses openly con-

sidered the Indians as “savages” or “half civi-

lized”, and from the point of view of the legisla-

tion they were considered as “minors” (Pineda,

2002) who should be put under the tutelage of

the Catholic missions.

As time went on, and no matter what type of

government was in power, the measures regard-

ing indigenous populations were a subject of in-

tense debates. Although most of the ofcial dis-

courses in the rst half of the twentieth century

assumed that the assimilation of the Indians was

the only way to achieve national integration and

construct a modern country, intellectuals like

Gregorio Hernandez de Alba (one of the rst

Colombian ethnologists), critical of the euro-

pean social reality of that time, thought that in-

digenous cultures were admirable in many ways

(Troyan, 2007). He believed that some indige-

nous characteristics should be integrated into the

Colombian identity (Hernandez de Alba, 1944).

The 1940s was a period in which folklore

studies became important in Colombia as in

other Latin American countries, notably Mexico

and Peru (Rueda, 2009). This was also a found-

ing moment for the institutionalization of ethnol-

ogy in the country (Langebaek, 2003). Concom-

itantly, the “afro” heritage began to be valued

by some “white” intellectuals who recalled the

important contribution of “black” folklore to the

national cultural heritage

5

.

Artists’ organizations also played a key role

in the valuing of “tribal societies”. For instance,

the “Grupo Bachue” promoted the “recovery”

and “re-interpretation” of native art, symbols

and myths as sources of inspiration and as sym-

5 This contribution of “other races” was accepted by “white”

elites in Bogota only if it came in a very “whitened” form

(Wade, 2002, p. 13).

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

jeAn PAUl sArrAzín mArtínez

103

bols of national identity. This artistic interest for

“tribal cultures” cannot be dissociated from the

interest in African art by European artists in the

same historical period (for example the cubist

movement).

Around the 1950s there was also the ideal of

creating a “Colombian race” or a “mestizo” so-

ciety imagined as the combination of Spaniards,

Afro-descendants and Indians (Gros, 2000, p.

353). This “mestizo race” was seen as a way to

achieve social integration, unity and homogene-

ity in the nation.

However, the project of the “mestizo” nation

only hid the class-racial hierarchy in the social

system (Wade, 2000). We can thus see a contra-

dictory logic in which some local elites (mainly

intellectuals) praised the mestizo-colombian

race, sometimes praising indignity in itself but,

on the other hand, secretly preferred “whiteness”

(of the skin and of a person’s manners, personal

tastes, social acquaintances, etc.)

6

.

As for the modernization of the Nation, In-

dians living according to their own traditions,

language, etc. (as it is the ideal today) were con-

sidered to be incompatible with the construction

of a modern society (Gros, 2000). Although the

idea of exterminating ethnic groups had lost le-

gitimacy by the 1960s, their assimilation into

modernity had to be accomplished and one of

the main ways to do this was through their in-

corporation into the modern-national education

6 This contradiction is still found nowadays in Colombia (Sa-

rrazin, 2011, pp. 392-407).

system. This unidirectional perspective, how-

ever, was to be challenged.

The promotion of (ethnic) difference and

the arrival of multiculturalism

Major cultural, economic and political

changes took place in the late 1960s and 1970s.

For instance, Marxist theories on economic de-

pendence denounced unequal commercial rela-

tions between Latin America and the economic

powers of the North

7

. The natives and afro-de-

scendants were considered as the victims of a

new form of colonialism. Anti-colonialist dis-

courses began to strongly criticize those who

treated indigenous peoples and their culture as

“backward” (Wade, 2000, p. 94).

This came along with counter-cultural move-

ments: criticism of “western culture” and against

the ideal of the “melting pot” spread among in-

tellectuals from the North. Cultural change and

difference began to acquire a valued status in

some social contexts, and the project of assimi-

lation could even be seen as “ethnocide”. This

was also a time of social movements in the west-

ern hemisphere partly inuenced by the Civil

Rights Movement in the USA. In Colombia, the

1970s was a key moment for the foundation and

development of ethnic-social movements.

In the 1970s and 1980s, the nationalist proj-

ect of cultural homogenisation was seriously

criticized. The State granted new lands for the

native communities and declared that education

7 The term “North” (with a capital letter) is a short way to re-

fer to countries in Western Europe and North-America. Other

authors use the expression “the North Atlantic”.

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

the Protection of cUltUrAl diversity: reflexions on its oriGins And imPlicAtions

104

programs designed for them should be bilingual

(Spanish and one of the local native languages).

Ofcial discourses began to use the concept

of “interculturality”, meaning the exchange of

knowledge between modern culture and indig-

enous cultures. “Interculturality offers the pos-

sibility to know other cultures and, thus, the pos-

sibility to enrich our own culture” (Ministery of

Education National of Colombia, 1987, p. 81).

This was also the time when the word “ethnic”

began to be used systematically, the intellectual

elites being the rst to do so, followed by State

ofcials and then by some natives and afro-de-

scendants. A government employee in the late

1980s said that the ethno-education program

“promotes cultural relativism and […] shows

that no culture is superior to another” (cited by

Jackson, 1995, p. 308).

In the 1990s, the State adopted the 107 Con-

vention of the International Labour Organisa-

tion on the “rights of tribal minorities”. That

Convention became a national law

8

and provided

legal grounds for many new decrees and institu-

tional actions related to the protection of ethnic

groups (for example, respect of their communal

lands, attribution of a certain degree of autono-

my for indigenous communities, the right to be

consulted when development projects would af-

fect them, etc.). It is not a random coincidence,

however, that the signing of this type of conven-

tion happened at the same time as international

NGOs and global institutions such as the United

8 Cfr. Ley 21 de 1991.

Nations Organization (UN) acquired a stronger

presence in the country.

Recognition, respect and preservation of eth-

nic traditions became important values mainly

among highly-educated sectors of urban popula-

tion, a tendency which was part of the globalised

diffusion of anti-racist discourses and a certain

praise of cultural difference in countries from

the North. At the same time, anthropologists and

other social scientists played an important role

by inspiring and providing visibility of those mi-

norities’ movements based on racial and cultural

identity (Sarrazin, 2009)

9

.

By the 1990s, “ethnic cultures”, considered

as “traditional” and “endangered”, were to be

“protected”. Furthermore, in the context of an

armed conict which affected mainly the coun-

tryside, the State saw the need to negotiate with

different political factions and to provide spe-

cial assistance to some sectors of the population

–such as the ethnic groups– which were con-

sidered as more vulnerable in violent circum-

stances. It was in this setting that a new political

Constitution was born in 1991

10

. This happened

also in the midst of other types of macro-struc-

tural changes on the national and transnational

levels: increasing decentralization, neoliberal-

ism and democratization, the larger presence

of the USA in the region, and the adherence to

international treaties and conventions, involving

mainly the UN.

9 To acknowledge the key role of “white” intellectual elites in

this process is not to say that ethnic groups did not participate

in it.

10 There was a turn towards multiculturalists Constitutions in se-

veral other countries in Latin-America at the time, for exam-

ple in Nicaragua (1987), Brazil (1988), Mexico (1992), Peru

(1993) and Bolivia (1994).

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

jeAn PAUl sArrAzín mArtínez

105

Some of the articles of the Constitution that

are related to diversity and its protection include:

“The State recognizes and protects the ethnic

and cultural diversity of the Colombian Na-

tion” (Art. 7). “It is the State’s and the people’s

duty to protect the cultural and natural wealth

of the country” (Art. 8). “The members of eth-

nic groups have the right to receive an education

that will respect and develop their cultural iden-

tity” (Art. 68) “Culture in its various manifesta-

tions is the foundation of our nationhood. The

State recognizes the equality and dignity of all

[cultures] living in the country” (Art. 70).

Colombia proudly declares itself a “pluri-eth-

nic and multicultural” country. A new national

identity was also being constructed: “diversity”

(particularly ethno-cultural diversity) was more

and more frequently mentioned in ofcial dis-

courses as a “wealth” of the Nation and as a key

element of “our identity”: “Unity in Diversity”.

In order to implement the recognition of

ethnic-cultural difference, the colombian State

put in place the Differential Approach (Enfoque

Diferencial). All of the State’s institutions in

Colombia (administering for example food sub-

sidies, health, development programs, etc.) are

supposed to apply the Differential Approach:

every institution must actively recognize the

countries “diversity”, which actually means to

consider –ideally before taking any institutional

action– the particular conditions, history, de-

mands and needs of minorities or marginalized

social sectors. The implementation of the Differ-

ential Approach should contribute to attain the

ideal of “equality for all” in the country.

It is a fact that, after the 1991 Constitution,

ethnic groups are recognized as political actors

and have greater possibilities to interact with the

State in favour of their own interests. Communi-

ties can prot from their recently valued iden-

tity to stand up politically (Laurent, 2005). As

a consequence of these types of specic advan-

tages, the numbers of people who have declared

themselves as members of ethnic groups has in-

creased dramatically in what has been called a

re-ethnization process (Chaves, 2003).

Some of the main types of rights and privileg-

es granted to ethnic groups are: the autonomous

administration of public resources transferred to

them directly from the State; freedom to enforce

their own law and political autonomy within

their territories (as long as they do not contradict

the constitutional principles); the right to have

their own representatives in the senate; the col-

lective ownership of lands; the right to stop the

execution of certain economic projects which

could endanger their cultural integrity.

Despite the great advantages that multicul-

turalism could bring in theory, its actual imple-

mentation has been strongly criticized on sev-

eral aspects which cannot be thoroughly revised

here

11

. Directly relevant to the argument of this

article, as it will be developed below, is the fact

that, under multiculturalism, the State’s recogni-

tion of social and cultural differences has been

strongly limited to ethnicity, and more speci-

cally, to indigenous peoples (Chaves, 2011). In

11 See the compilations edited by Bocarejo (2011) or Chaves

(2011), just to mention recent Colombian cases.

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

the Protection of cUltUrAl diversity: reflexions on its oriGins And imPlicAtions

106

the same sense, Bocarejo (2011) argues that the

subjects of cultural heterogeneity under multi-

culturalism in Colombia are now ethnic groups.

Structural and conceptual problems be-

hind the policies for diversity

After all the criticism against multicultur-

alism that we have seen in recent years in this

country and abroad, ofcial discourses, laws,

decrees, programs, etc., are rarely presented as

multiculturalist. In what can truly be described

as a “diversity turn” (cultural and political), the

key word is now “diversity”, and “cultural di-

versity” is taken for granted as something “out

there”, an objective reality easily recognizable,

and as a value in itself. Moreover, many of the

discourses about cultural diversity have become

some kind of moral manifestos which provide

the grounds for ethnic policies (a relationship

which should not be taken for granted). For

instance, a publication of the Ministry of Cul-

ture

12

, prays for an “increasing awareness about

diversity”, and curiously presents this concept as

some kind of attitude to be exercised constantly,

a value, a moral principle: “diversity should be a

daily exercise”(!).

Despite its vagueness, the word “diversity” is

widely used in politics and literature around the

world. Herring (2009) reminds us that “general-

ly, ‘diversity’ refers to policies and practices that

seek to include people who are considered, in

some way, different from traditional members.

12 Dirección de etnocultura y fomento regional. Ministerio de

Cultura.

More centrally, diversity aims to create an inclu-

sive culture that values and uses the talents of

all would-be members” (Herring, 2009, p. 209).

Transnational academia is no exception of the

use of the word “diversity” as a moral principle,

or as something we should value. For example,

according to Modood (2011, p. 5), “where ‘dif-

ference’ is positively valorized (or pragmatical-

ly accepted) […] I shall call diversity”; the au-

thor adds later that “diversity” can be considered

as an ethos: “we should value diversity”. In the

same spirit, Mexican researcher Hector Diaz-

Polanco (2006) talks about “diversity” as a “me-

ta-principle”, meaning, the principle of accept-

ing other value systems or other possible ways

of thinking. Wood (2003) is then right when he

afrms that “diversity” is in fact an ideal which

has been constructed and diffused in good mea-

sure by social scientists.

If Diversity as an indenite moral principle

can hardly be contested, we think that the “poli-

cies for diversity”, however, can and should be

critiqued, since they have become the ideologi-

cal justication of concrete, institutional actions

affecting social groups in Colombia. One of the

problems that must be noted here is that the poli-

cies (and discourses) concerned with the protec-

tion of cultural diversity, just like the criticized

multiculturalism mentioned above, constantly

present cultural diversity as a series of bound-

ed “cultures” (or what we would call “ethno-

cultures”). This implies a conceptual construct

which contributes to establish and institution-

alize a very particular and historically located

classication system that informs our ways of

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

jeAn PAUl sArrAzín mArtínez

107

seeing the social world and our ways of dealing

with heterogeneity and social divisions. In this

vision, ethnic groups

13

are supposed to have dif-

ferent “cultures”; actually they are “cultures”,

and furthermore, they are “different” and “tra-

ditional”. Since “different cultures” have been

reied in ofcial norms and administrative pro-

cedures, cultural boundaries

14

are erroneously

taken for granted as objective realities that need

to be found (by “experts” such as anthropolo-

gist who have recently graduated from college)

in order to implement social policies.

It is thus important to critique the presump-

tion that the discourses and policies for diversity

are the right and just recognition of an objective

reality supposedly composed of ancestral “eth-

no-cultures”. This contemporary construction

of “cultural diversity” ignores (yet again) the

fact that “other cultures” and “ethnic groups”

are invented categories with colonial origins; a

taxonomy that is also functional to processes of

domination.

Although the “protection of cultural diversi-

ty” is associated with the defense of the margin-

alized and the subaltern, we may ask ourselves if

the praise of the concept is not another element

of a global agenda for the “ethnization” of so-

cial differences (Segato, 2007) imposed by the

powers from the North through the UN, the Or-

13 To see ethnic groups in the social landscape is a particular

construction which must not be taken for granted. On this sub-

ject Brubaker (2004, chapter III) has developed the concept of

“ethnicity as cognition”.

14 We are taking the concept of “boundaries” in the sense that

Barth (1998) proposed it. Seeing “cultures” as discreet entities

in a discontinuous space is a ction also denounced by Gupta

and Ferguson (1997).

ganization of American States, the World Bank,

or the Inter-American Development Bank

15

. It

does not seem to be a coincidence that the praise

of cultural diversity runs parallel to the growing

inuence of the UN and neo-liberalism on States

like Colombia.

As we said, protection of cultural diversity

(7

th

article of the Constitution) has become a key

principle of governance. A great number of laws,

decrees, ofcial norms or litigation arguments

are based on it. However, the principle translates

into two types of institutional actions which are

very different, and yet frequently confused: the

policies whose aim is “cultural preservation”

(including “traditions” and “heritage”), and

the policies whose aim is to assist some social

groups in order to diminish social inequalities.

One of the main arguments frequently ex-

pressed to try to explain the conation of these

two types of policies is that the cultural differ-

ence of ethnic groups has been a cause of their

marginalization, discrimination and exclusion.

Having recognized that traditional know-how,

medicinal or production practices, as well as so-

cial alliances, etc., have been weakened, under-

mined, and rejected by the dominant non-ethnic

majority, the State has decided to counteract

that tendency by advertising a positive image of

“ethnic cultures” nation-wide. We could quote

many examples of such type of advertisements,

but let us refer to a document by the Ministry

of Education which considers that the “policies

15 For more on the way these last two nancial institutions have

put pressure on the State to include the “ethnic” as an admi-

nistrative category, Urrea (2011).

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

the Protection of cUltUrAl diversity: reflexions on its oriGins And imPlicAtions

108

for diversity” (they literally use that expression)

should contribute to “install intercultural educa-

tion in every school in the country, so that boys,

girls and their families understand that the afro-

Colombian, indigenous and romani cultures are

part of our nationality” (Ministery of Education

National, 2001). In this way, “diversity” means

some sort of moral recognition of ethno-cultures.

Such valorization should not only counter

discrimination and exclusion of ethnic indi-

viduals, but it should also allow ethno-cultural

groups to be proud of their “own identity”, and

thus to prosper and attain good life standards.

“We need proper strategies and actions which will

valorize and enhance the cultural riches of ethnic

groups and facilitate their re-encounter with their

own identity and self pride […]. We have errone-

ously dismissed the real value of their own world-

views and cosmologies” (DNP, 2012).

It is also announced that discrimination

against ethnic cultures affects negatively the

chances of ethnic individuals to prosper eco-

nomically and otherwise.

This ofcial campaign aimed at protect-

ing ethnic traditional culture is obviously not a

very local, autochthonous idea. The UNESCO

(part of the UN) is a very important reference

in the country regarding the protection of cul-

tural diversity and the discourses that justify it.

For instance, the UNESCO has contributed to

the diffusion and structuring of discourses about

“intercultural dialogue and exchange”, the “pro-

motion of cultural diversity”, “preservation of

cultural heritage”, and other similar concepts.

The “2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safe-

guarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage”

16

is constantly referred to by national institutions

in Colombia, especially after its adoption as a

Law 1037 of 2006. For example, among the

cultural policies dictated by the Ministry of Cul-

ture, there is a Decree 2941 of 2009 for the “Pro-

tection of Intangible Heritage” which orders lo-

cal authorities to have “inventories of their local

cultural heritage” as “signicant manifestations

of their cultural diversity”. We can see here that

“cultural diversity” is often associated to the past

(“heritage”) and to ethnic groups, since they are

supposed to be “traditional cultures”. UNES-

CO’s inuence on local representations of cul-

tural diversity can also be seen in academia and

intellectual elites, and it is those local elites who

translate, introduce and contribute to the diffu-

sion and appropriation of those globalised prin-

ciples and norms. An example –among many

others– is a recently published book where the

authors praise a local university program on “In-

terculturality” by quoting the UNESCO’s “Dec-

laration for Higher Education in the twenty-rst

Century”

17

: “the teaching of pluralism should be

based on respect and appreciation of other cul-

tures […]” (Parra and Herrera, 2005, p. 21).

What is respected and valued from our “di-

versity” is frequently related to what is consid-

ered as worthy “cultural heritage”. But let us

16 This convention denes “intangible cultural heritage” as “the

practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as

well as the instruments, objects, arte facts and cultural spaces

associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some

cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage”.

17 Véase. La declaración mundial sobre la educación superior

del 9 de octubre de 1998. http://www.unesco.org/education/

educprog/wche/declaration_spa.htm#declaracion

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

jeAn PAUl sArrAzín mArtínez

109

take a brief look at how this process operates.

According to the international norms, cultural

heritage is composed of practices, representa-

tions, expressions, beliefs, know-how, tradi-

tions, rituals, festivities, etc. […], that the com-

munities, groups and sometimes individuals

recognize as part of their cultural heritage

18

.

This denition is not only circular (“cultural

heritage is what people consider cultural heri-

tage”, imprecise (“beliefs”, “traditions”), but it

also pretends that every person or group on earth

will naturally know what “cultural heritage” is.

Based on those denitions, the government of

Colombia has established that locals should

choose their “own cultural heritage” in order to

participate in a kind of contest where national

authorities (non-ethnic elites) will choose which

cultural expressions deserve to be considered as

part of the country’s “cultural heritage”. The na-

tional selection will eventually be presented in

the international arena (the UN and the tourism

industry, for example). In this way, to acquire

the status of the country’s “cultural heritage”

and part of the country’s “cultural diversity”,

ethnic communities have undertaken processes

of cultural transformations in order to conform

to the standards of the elites, and therefore, to a

large extent, to the standards of the UNESCO

and the tourism industry

19

.

Can these measures aimed at the preserva-

tion of some kind of “culture” actually become

18 Véase la página ocial de la Unesco. http://www.unesco.org/

culture/ich/index.php?lg=en&pg=00002

19 In the two thousand nine (2009), a similar process in Africa is

described by Comaroff and Comaroff.

efcient policies for assisting marginalized sec-

tors of the population and diminishing social in-

equalities?

Procedural difculties

The vagueness and ambiguity behind the

principle of “protection of diversity” cost dearly

to the nation. In fact, our experience in a public

institution shows that the increasing amount of

long and complex litigations where this principle

is involved has already become unmanageable

by the State. For example, in a country where

ethnic communities are in contact with the rest

of the population in many different aspects of

social life, countless interactions which inevita-

bly change the social reality of any group can be

considered as causes of “cultural damage” for

ethnic groups. As a result, the judicial system

and research institutions such as the Colombian

Institute of Anthropology and History (ICANH)

receive an increasing amount of demands where

ethnic individuals or ethnic representatives ap-

peal to the constitutional mandate to protect

the cultural diversity: a strategic move in legal

confrontations that has led to the systematic fa-

voring of ethnic groups (or, more likely, some

members of their elites) vis-à-vis other individu-

als or communities such as peasants who are not

necessarily richer or less marginalized and often

live in the same areas as ethnic groups.

In this context, some groups and individu-

als construct discourses of unity, belonging and

ancestrality, reproducing what is widely known

(after Spivak) as “strategic essentialism”. By

doing so, they often reproduce hegemonic ideas

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

the Protection of cUltUrAl diversity: reflexions on its oriGins And imPlicAtions

110

and ideals of what an ethnic culture is supposed

to be. Those who can show a “traditional” im-

age before the State and the dominant society

are those who obtain the State’s benets. In this

way, the policies for diversity have actually con-

tributed to the transformation of ethnic practices

according to dominant standards.

Furthermore, we should notice the creation

of a new type of ethnic bureaucrats (Chaves

and Hoyos, 2011) who know better than oth-

ers the idioms and laws of the State; they are

individuals who have specialized in interact-

ing with the State, travelling constantly to the

capital city, socializing with politicians, civil

servants, “experts”, and intellectual elites. As

those individuals acquire new status and power,

there are changes in social relations and political

structures within ethnic communities, in some

cases creating social divisions, tensions and ri-

valries; once they begin to receive the benets

from the State (usually money), their practices,

alliances and cultural values are also radically

transformed.

Aware of the manipulation of identity mark-

ers and the use of identity strategies by ethnic

individuals and groups, the State and “white”

elites are constantly claiming proofs of cultural

authenticity. This implies more strict criteria and

more rigorous expertise looking for the “authen-

tic cultural difference” (or “real diversity”!) to

“protect”. Based on government’s experts (no-

tably anthropologists), different institutions (no-

tably the Ministry of the Interior) recur to de-

nitions of “indigenous community” such as this

one: a community whose members share values,

characteristics, and habits, as well as forms of

government, administration, social control, or

normative systems that differentiate them from

other communities (our translation and our use

of italics) (Decree 2164 of 1995. Art. 2). As any-

one can notice, apart from being very ambigu-

ous, this denition shows the importance given

to the fact that “values”, “habits”, etc., must be

different from those of other communities, an

idea that is repeated later in the cited document

and in many other ofcial norms. There must be

a cultural boundary that separates ethnic people

from the rest, a boundary that is not necessarily

clear-cut since we are talking about real people

who move, interchange, and whose origins can-

not be reduced to some millennial lineage or

pristine ethnic “roots”. The question of dening

a division line is even more problematic in some

rural areas where peasant communities have a

long history of intense social and cultural ex-

changes. Expecting to solve the problem of dif-

ferentiation, ofcial documents recur (yet again)

to the notion of preservation (of traditions from

the past); indeed, the cited document species

that the only communities to be considered in-

digenous are “those that have preserved their

own habits”.

The Differential Approach does not come

with a set of instructions for governments em-

ployees. When they have to work with commu-

nities of real people who live in modern times,

they cannot easily tell an “authentic ethnic cul-

ture” from a “non authentic” one; they do not

know just which differences to look for, which

traditions must be preserved or how to preserve

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

jeAn PAUl sArrAzín mArtínez

111

them (…) This lack of parameters generates

confusion, conicts, and inefciencies in the

administration of social policies aimed at the

protection of cultural diversity (i.e.: cultural dif-

ference).

Supposing that we can overcome the identi-

cation issue mentioned above (and we cannot!),

State institutions are also expected to design

special policies for ethnic groups according to

their identity, in order to preserve their “cul-

tural integrity”. Based on that principle, ethnic

organizations such as the ONIC (National Or-

ganization of Colombian Natives) argue that

the State’s laws and policies do not take suf-

ciently into consideration their particularities.

An additional measure has thus been introduced

into the national legislation: the “previous con-

sultation”, a legal principle (based on the 169

Convention of the ILO, part of the UN) order-

ing that ethnic groups should be consulted and

asked for authorization every time a develop-

ment project is likely to affect or put in danger

their culture, institutions, material or symbolic

goods, etc. The implementation of the “previous

consultation”, however, encounters problems re-

lated to questions such as How to decide what

may or may not affect a community directly?,

What is “cultural integrity”?, What exactly

should be done if there are cultural, social or

material changes?, What type of compensations

should there be depending on each case? How

far should discussions and negotiations over the

mentioned topics extend in time? Considering

the immense complexity of causal relationships

in social processes, how can one determine what

it means to “affect” a community? In practice,

lawyers representing indigenous communities

frequently bring up in their arguments concepts

such as “damage of the ancestral culture” and

“danger against cultural identity”, concepts that

imply the type of vagueness and ambiguity also

described above.

The “previous consultation” reminds us of

another problematic issue: legitimate represen-

tation of ethnic communities. Indeed, it is not

always easy to know which individuals should

be representing those communities, especially

considering the fact that their social and politi-

cal structures are not necessarily like western-

democratic organizations. In some cases it is not

even sure that the representatives actually be-

long to the ethnic community, or if the commu-

nity as such exists at all. In fact, nobody knows

in Colombia exactly how many indigenous com-

munities there are, or how many people belong

to them. The processes of ethno-genesis or re-

ethnization, as well as migrations and social di-

visions render those questions very difcult to

answer. As for the afro communities, there is

even more uncertainty regarding social cohesion

and political organization (Restrepo, 2004).

As we can see, to design special policies for

“cultural diversity” is a process that has to deal

with the question of identication, particularly

identication of ethnic groups and the potential-

ly innite differences within them. To be coher-

ent with its own principles, the State should con-

sider the cultural specicities of more than 80

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

the Protection of cUltUrAl diversity: reflexions on its oriGins And imPlicAtions

112

indigenous groups, the different romani groups

and an undened number of afro communities.

The State should study the cultural characteris-

tics of each one of them, design special policies

for each one, consider their changes in time, the

doubts on legitimate representation in each case,

the divisions within the communities, their new

identities, etc. And after having solved all those

questions (something unlikely to happen with a

limited amount of resources), every law, every

decree, every development project, every insti-

tutional action should be the object of “previous

consultations” with each group.

Regarding the question of representation,

some organizations, notably indigenous ones

(like the ONIC

20

or the CRIC

21

), have been cre-

ated to represent ethnic communities. This is no

easy solution, however. First, because they do not

necessarily represent entire ethnic communities,

since there can be internal divisions, conicts

and disputes over power and resources. Second,

because individuals who belong to some of those

organizations have been criticized for becoming

bureaucrats and/or businessmen who live in the

cities and do not translate properly the opinions

and needs of the rural communities. Third, while

the organizations that have taken a salient role

in negotiations and talks with the State may be

visible and in good health, common people are

rarely informed of what is happening in those

negotiations, and do not necessarily receive the

20 Organización Nacional de Indígenas de Colombia (National

Organization of Colombian Natives).

21 Consejo Regional de Indígenas del Cauca (Cauca’s Regional

Counsil of Indigenous Groups).

resources provided by the State.

22

This last point

shows one of the paradoxes of the system: while

in theory the goal is to help vulnerable and mar-

ginalized communities, those who benet from

the policies for diversity are usually strong eth-

nic organizations or crafty individuals who are

less in need of support.

CONCLUSIONS

In the past, cultural differences were com-

monly associated with racial differences, and

“other races” were imagined as “inferior”, “sav-

ages” or “primitives”. As time went on, the

concept of race was used less and less in aca-

demic and ofcial discourses, and was replaced

by other labels such as “indigenous peoples” or

“afro-descendants”. Later, the concept of “eth-

nic groups” was institutionalized, and nowadays

the concept of “cultural diversity” is supposed to

include those “ethnic groups”.

In the past, many people from academia and

State institutions thought that cultural differ-

ences had to disappear through Christianization

and the civilizing process; later, they were to

disappear in the “melting pot” of a “mestizo”

country through education and Progress. Today,

under the banner of “a diverse country” (“un

país diverso”), some categories –notably the

“ethnic”–, are to be respected, recognized, and

considered as a wealth for the Nation. This re-

22 These points come from the notes taken during our participa-

tion at the “II Mesa de Trabajo sobre Enfoque Diferencial”

(Second Discussion Meeting on the Differential Approach)

organized by the ICANH on the 26th of November 2012. We

would like to thank Juan Felipe Hoyos for sharing his views

on the previous meetings regarding this matter.

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

jeAn PAUl sArrAzín mArtínez

113

spect and recognition, however, relies heavily

on imagined boundaries and idealized images

of cultural Otherness, something that could be

found –mutatis mutandis– centuries ago. What

is quite new, however, is the larger diffusion of

such idealized images and the countless institu-

tional actions based on the unquestioned prin-

ciple of the “protection of diversity”.

That principle is part the cultural paradigm

that reigns today, a paradigm whose keyword

is identity. Much effort is actually put into the

construction, denition or detection of identities

by all sorts of actors, but their action is highly

depoliticized (although in their speeches words

like “political” and “empowerment” are very

common) in the sense that it has had very little

effect on the real power structures. Just as multi-

culturalism, the protection of cultural diversity,

as it is used in real institutional discourses and

programs, implies processes of identication and

differentiation, recurring persistently to the idea

of different “cultures”, imagined as traditional

(static and “archaeological” in many aspects),

distinct, and separated from a “white” major-

ity which has the power to name the Others as

“diversity”, a process of differentiation which is

similar in many ways to the colonial and racial

divisions imagined in the past centuries. Thus,

concrete actions directed at protecting cultural

diversity will continue to be negatively affected

by problems similar to those which have been

found in multiculturalism, such as tending to

return to xed categories that disregard social

transformations and other forms of difference,

naturalizing those categories, or imposing hege-

monic views on the value of some cultural forms

or stereotypical identities.

Perhaps unexpectedly for many, the policies

for the protection of diversity have become de-

pendent on dominant denitions of what a real

or authentic ethno-culture really is and should

be. To point out the importance of cultural au-

thenticity in the policies for diversity, is to point

out the very arbitrary ways in which such poli-

cies are actually implemented, because “authen-

ticity” is always a cultural invention inuenced

by personal interests and subject to power rela-

tions. The set of policies meant to protect cultur-

al difference and provide benets for disadvan-

taged groups has actually become a “structuring

structure” (paraphrasing Pierre Bourdieu), a

mould of “authenticity” that ethnic individuals

and groups are supposed to t into in order to

be recognized by the state and be respected by

dominant populations.

This implies not only the reproduction of

dominant concepts and values, but also the ex-

clusion of large numbers of individuals who do

not t into the mould. Those who do not corre-

spond to the “authentic ethnic”, those who have

become “contaminated”, who have “lost their

culture”, “their traditions”, “their identity”, they

do not belong to “diversity” and they deserve no

recognition, let alone the praise of being part of

the “cultural wealth” or the “cultural heritage”

of the national society they live in.

The ambiguous character of what really is

“diversity”, what or who is a part of it, and what

should be done to protect it, weighs heavily on

the public budget: endless studies, debates, judi-

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

the Protection of cUltUrAl diversity: reflexions on its oriGins And imPlicAtions

114

cial cases, etc. Those efforts, however, have not

proved to be very useful for society as a whole.

Although some types of cultural difference

are cherished and protected, usually the most

prominent and cunning actors are the ones who

benet the most, so marginalization, intolerance

and socio-economic disparities remain high. We

must ask if other communities, not ethnic, not

“marked”, should not be assisted on an equiva-

lent basis Why is the argument of “losing one’s

culture” not a valid one for peasants or the work-

ing class? Can we not explain the marginaliza-

tion of non-marked (non-ethnic) groups in terms

of the rejection and dismissal of their “cultural

capital” (Bourdieu, 1979), even though they are

not classied as “other cultures”? The protec-

tion of cultural diversity is falsely being sold

as the protection of marginalized sectors of the

population, but the fact is that, while some cul-

tural forms and small groups or well-positioned

individuals identied as “ethnic” or as part of

“cultural diversity” receive immense mounts

of attention by the State, or by the media and

intellectual elites of the country, other forms of

sociocultural differences (not necessarily identi-

ed through fashionable categories) generate to-

day’s large-scale poverty, exclusion and intoler-

ance, in one word, inequality, which is arguably

Colombia’s biggest problem.

REFERENCES

Barth, F. (1998). Ethnic Boundaries. Introduc-

tion. En F. Barth (Ed.), Ethnic groups

and boundaries: the social organization

of cultural difference (pp. 9-38). Long

Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press.

Bocarejo, D. (2011). Introducción. Hacia una

crítica del multiculturalismo en Colom-

bia. Revista Colombiana de Antropología,

47(2), 7-13.

Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction: critique so-

ciale du jugement. Paris: Minuit.

Brubaker, R. (2004). Ethnicity Without Groups.

Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University

Press.

Chaves, M. (2003). Cabildos Multiétnicos e

Identidades depuradas. En C. I. García

de La Torre (Ed.), Fronteras, Territorios

y Metáforas (pp. 121-135). Medellín:

Hombre Nuevo Editores.

Chaves, M. (2011). Presentación. La multi-

culturalidad estatalizada. En M. Chaves

(Ed.), La Multiculturalidad Estatalizada.

Indígenas, Afrodescendientes y Congu-

raciones de Estado (pp. 9-24). Bogotá:

ICANH.

Chaves, M. & Hoyos, J. F. (2011). El Estado en

las márgenes y las márgenes como Es-

tado. Transferencias económicas y gobi-

ernos indígenas en el Putumayo. En M.

Chaves, M (Ed.), La Multiculturalidad

Estatalizada. Indígenas, Afrodescendien-

tes y Conguraciones de Estado (pp. 115-

134). Bogotá: ICANH.

Cunin, E. (2003). Identidades a or de piel. Lo

‘negro’ entre apariencias y pertenencias:

mestizaje y categorías raciales en Carta-

gena. Bogotá: IFEA-ICANH-Uniandes-

Observatorio del Caribe Colombiano.

Comaroff, J. & Comaroff, J. (2009). Ethnic-

ity, Inc. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

jeAn PAUl sArrAzín mArtínez

115

Díaz-Polanco, H. (2006). Elogio de la Diver-

sidad: globalización, multiculturalismo y

etnofagia. México: Siglo XXI.

DANE [Departamento Administrativo Nacional

de Estadística] (2007). Colombia: Una

Nación Multicultural. Su Diversidad Et-

nica [online]. Bogotá: República de Co-

lombia. Available from: http://www.dane.

gov.co/les/censo2005/etnia/sys/colom-

bia_nacion.pdf [accessed 4 November

2008].

DANE [Departamento Administrativo Nacional

de Estadística] (2008). Censo General

2005. Nivel Nacional [online]. Bogotá:

República de Colombia. Available from:

http://www.dane.gov.co/censo/les/libro-

Censo2005nacional.pdf [accessed 4 No-

vember 2008].

DNP [Departamento Nacional de Planeación]

(2012). Guía para la Incorporación de la

Variable Étnica y el Enfoque Diferencial

en la Formulación e Implementación de

Planes y Políticas a Nivel Nacional y Ter-

ritorial [online]. Bogotá: Departamento

Nacional de Planeación. Available from:

x?fileticket=d69DIYUqNhw%3D&tab

id=273 [accessed 15 October 2012].

Gros, C. (1997). Indigenismo y Etnicidad: El

Desafío Neoliberal. En M. V. Uribe &

E. Restrepo (Eds.), Antropología en la

modernidad: identidades, etnicidades y

movimientos sociales en Colombia (pp.

15-59). Bogotá: ICANH.

Gros, C. (2000). De la nación mestiza a la nación

plural: el nuevo discurso de las identida-

des en el contexto de la globalización. En

G. Sánchez & M. E. Wills (Eds.), Museo,

Memoria y Nación (pp. 351-363). Bogo-

tá: Mincultura.

Gupta, A. & Ferguson, J. (1997). Beyond ‘Cul-

ture’: Space, Identity and the Politics of

Difference. En. A. Gupta and J. Ferguson

(Eds.), Culture, Power, Place. Explora-

tions in Critical Anthropology (pp. 33-

51). Durham: Duke University Press.

Hale, C. (2002). Does multiculturalism menace?

Governance, cultural rights and the poli-

tics of identity in Guatemala. Journal of

Latin American Studies, 34, 485-524.

Hale, C. (2005). Neoliberal multiculturalism:

the remaking of cultural rights and racial

dominance in Central America. Political

and Legal Anthropology Review, 28(1),

10-28.

Hernández de Alba, G. (1944). Lo indígena

como expresión americana. América In-

dígena, 4(3), 223-235.

Herring, C. (2009). Does Diversity Pay?: Race,

Gender, and the Business Case for Di-

versity. American Sociological Review,

74(2), 208-224.

Jackson, J. (1995). Preserving Indian Culture.

Shaman Schools and Ethno-Education in

the Vaupes, Colombia. Cultural Anthro-

pology, 10(3), 302-329.

Langebaek, C. (2003). Arqueología colombi-

ana. Ciencia, Pasado y Exclusión. Bo-

gotá: Colciencias.

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

the Protection of cUltUrAl diversity: reflexions on its oriGins And imPlicAtions

116

Laurent, V. (2005). Comunidades indígenas, es-

pacios políticos y movilización electoral

en Colombia 1990-1998. Motivaciones,

Campos de acción e impactos. Bogotá:

ICANH; IFEA.

Ministery of Education National of Colombia

(1987). Informe del Seminario de Etno-

educación: sep. 28-oct. 2 de 1987: San

José, Guaviare. Bogotá: Ministerio de

Educación Nacional, Programa de Etno-

educación.

Ministery of Education National of Colombia

(2001). Altablero, 3 [online]. Available

from: http://www.mineducacion.gov.

co/1621/propertyvalue-31355.html [ac-

cessed 25 May 2012].

Modood, T. (2011). Multiculturalism and In-

tegration: Struggling with Confusions

[online]. European University Institute

Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced

Studies. The Accept Pluralism 7th Frame-

work Programme Project. Available from:

www.eui.eu/RSCAS/ [accessesd 15 July

2011].

Parra, C. & Herrera, C. (2005). Cátedra Viva

Intercultural: Metodología. En C. Parra

& G. Rodríguez, Comunidades Étnicas

en Colombia. Cultura y Jurisprudencia

(pp. 14-49). Bogotá: Centro Editorial de

la Universidad del Rosario.

Pineda, R. (1997). La Constitución de 1991 y la

perspectiva del multiculturalismo en Co-

lombia. Alteridades, 71(4), 07-129.

Pineda, R. (2002). Estado y Pueblos Indígenas

en el Siglo XX. La Política Indigenista

entre 1886 y 1991. Revista Credencial

Historia, 146 [online]. Available from:

tas/credencial/febrero2002/estado.htm.

[accessed 6 September 2008].

Pineda, R. (2011). Jurisprudence constitution-

nelle et dilemmes face à l’Indienac cultu-

ré: le cas de la Colombie. En C. Gros and

D. Dumoulin (Eds.), Le multiculturalisme

“auconcret” (pp. 185-198). Paris: Presses

Sorbonne Nouvelle.

Restrepo, E. (2004). Biopolítica y alteridad:

Dilemas de la etnización de las Colom-

bias negras. En E. Restrepo & A. Rojas

(Eds.). Conicto e (in)visibilidad: retos

de los estudios de la gente negra en Co-

lombia (pp. 269-299). Popayán: Editorial

Universidad del Cauca.

Restrepo, E. (2007). Commentary. El ‘giro al

multiculturalismo’ desde un encuadre

afro-indígena. Journal of Latin American

and Caribbean Anthropology, 12(2), 475-

486.

Ribeiro, G. (2007). Cultural diversity as a glob-

al discourse. Brasilia: Universidade de

Brasilia.

Rueda, J. E. (2009). Juan Friede. El Desarrollo

de la Antropología Histórica y el Indigen-

ismo. En C. H. Langebaek & C. I. Botero

(Eds.), Arqueología y Etnología en Co-

lombia. La creación de una tradición

cientíca (pp. 241-268). Bogotá: Centro

de Estudios Socioculturales, Universidad

de los Andes.

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

jeAn PAUl sArrAzín mArtínez

117

Sarrazín, J. P. (2009). Le rôle des élites intellec-

tuelles dans le processus de visibilisation

des indigènes en Colombie. E-Migrinter,

4, 100-106.

Sarrazín, J. P. (2011). Du Marxismeau Chaman-

isme. Naissance d’un indigénisme local à

l’heureglobale. Sarrebruck: Éditions Uni-

versitaires Européennes.

Segato, R. (2007). La nación y sus otros: raza,

etnicidad y diversidad religiosa en tiem-

pos de política de la identidad. Buenos

Aires: Prometeo.

Smith, A. (2000). The nation in history: histo-

riographical debates about ethnicity and

nationalism. Hanover (NH): University

Press of New England.

Troyan, B. (2007). Gregorio Hernández de Alba

(1904-1973): The Legitimization of In-

digenous Ethnic Politics in Colombia.

European Review of Latin American and

Caribbean Studies, 82, 89-106.

Urrea, F. (2011). Contar y Ser Contados. El

Censo 2005 y las Minorías Étnicas. En M.

Chaves (Eds.). La Multiculturalidad Es-

tatalizada. Indígenas, Afrodescendientes

y Conguraciones de Estado (pp. 67-90).

Bogotá: ICANH.

Wade, P. (2000). Raza y Etnicidad en Latinoa-

mérica. Quito: Abya-Yala.

Wade, P. (2002). Música, Raza y Nación. Música

tropical en Colombia. Bogotá: Vicepresi-

dencia de la República de Colombia.

Wade, P. (2011). Multiculturalismo y racismo.

Revista Colombiana de Antropología,

47(2), 15-35.

Wood, P. (2003). Diversity. The Invention of

a Concept. San Francisco: Encounter

Books.

Justicia, No. 27 - pp. 99-117 - Junio 2015 - Universidad Simón Bolívar - Barranquilla, Colombia - ISSN: 0124-7441

the Protection of cUltUrAl diversity: reflexions on its oriGins And imPlicAtions