Ethnic Tourism in Sierra Tarahumara/Planeta.com

Ethnic Tourism in the Sierra Tarahumara:
A Comparison of Two Raramuri Ejidos
by Amy Elizabeth Anderson

CHAPTER 1: APPROACHES TO ETHNIC TOURISM

Tourism is increasing in the Sierra Tarahumara of northwestern Mexico because of the region's scenic natural environment and unusual indigenous cultures. As the number of tourists grow, the region's native inhabitants are using various methods to deal with them. This thesis compares two approaches to tourism; one an outside-assisted development project, the other an inside-initiated approach. This comparison not only contributes to knowledge of development in Mexico, but it also adds to the body of literature on ethnic tourism.

Ethnic Tourism

Ethnic tourism is related to the more popularly known nature or eco-tourism. In nature tourism, people visit a region, usually in a third world country, in order to enjoy its natural beauty (Boo 1990, Whelan 1991). Nature tourism can also imply social awareness because it "creates an understanding of cultural and natural history, while safeguarding the integrity of the ecosystem and producing economic benefits that encourage conservation" (Ryel and Grasse 1991). Ethnic tourism is the addition of an indigenous or traditional group of people who live in this environment and interact and depend upon it (Graburn 1989, Harron and Weiler 1992). Visitors enjoy both the natural environment and the singular ethnic experience. Because of the ethnic groups' dependence on the environment, it is difficult to separate ethnic tourism from the landscape in which it occurs. Hence, nature and ethnic tourism are often interrelated and inseparable. From the visitor's point of view, ethnic tourism is "travel motivated by the search for the firsthand, authentic and sometimes intimate contact with people whose ethnic and/or cultural background is different from the tourists" (Harron and Weiler 1992:84). Ethnic tourists are also driven by the desire to see some of the "threatened" cultures which may soon disappear through assimilation into the nation's majority (Johnston 1990). The visitor's experience usually includes opportunities to see and photograph people in their traditional dress, observe their living conditions, and purchase local handicrafts (Harron and Weiler 1992).

Ethnic and nature tourism can help protect indigenous people and their environments by providing a sustainable alternative to subsistence agriculture and extractive activities such as timber harvesting (Boo 1990). The added income and exposure can satisfy national goals of development while contributing to cultural pride and autonomy (Harron and Weiler 1992). Ethnic tourism can also have many negative consequences including commoditization of culture, social tension, and loss of cultural identity (Butler 1989, Cohen 1988, Silver 1992). In any case, tourism brings changes as groups gain or lose ownership, access, and use rights, and adjust to a new economic system (Johnston 1990). The varying controllers of tourism play a major role in the changes and effects wrought by tourism on the resident population.

National parks and similar protected areas are the most recognizable forms of nature and ethnic tourism. These large scale, federally controlled land management systems preserve the land which is often in danger of encroachment and extraction activities (Boo 1990, Whelan 1991). Some national parks are designed to protect the environment and the indigenous group dependent on that environment such as Odzalla National Park in Congo, the Kalahari Reserves in Botswana, Manu Park in Peru, Gates of the Arctic Monument in Alaska (USA), Kluane Park in the Yukon (Canada), Kakadu National Park in the Northern Territory in Australia, Varirata National Park in Papua New Guinea, and Honduras Rio Platano Biosphere Reserves (Clad 1984:70). However, federal control of these lands often neglect the needs or input of the parks' residents. For example, the nomadic Masai who migrate seasonally with their cattle through Amboseli and Serengeti National Parks in Kenya and Tanzania have increasingly come into conflict with park administrators who have placed priority on preserving large tracts of savanna woodlands and wildlife over that of the Masai's traditional sustainable lifestyle (Drake 1991, Olindo 1991). Although most tourists come to see the wildlife, increasing numbers also want to view the Masai. This form of ethnic tourism brings few benefits for the Masai who have hardly any crafts and no control over tourism. In other parks, like Sagarmatha National Park in Nepal, much of the resident population does benefit from tourism (Brower 1991). The Sherpa have supplemented their herding lifestyle with jobs relating to tourism but have little control over tourist access. As the national government promotes Sagarmatha for tourism, the demand for material needs like wood for heat increases. As the environment is degraded due to deforestation, the Sherpa must compete with outsiders for their own resources. Hence, national parks sometimes hurt more than help the local populations who live in and around these protected areas.

An alternative to national, people-exclusive projects is a project or approach to tourism that includes the resident population and recognizes the value of traditional techniques that can help manage the environment. Outside assisted projects vary from obvious governmental or organizational influence and control to projects promoted as "grassroots" or "bottom-up" but which include outside influence in planning and implementation (Boo 1990, Smith 1989, Whelan 1991). "Local participation at all stages" is a phrase included in most project documents but not always strictly followed (Stiles 1987). Outside assistance can provide ideas and needed capital but can also produce many problems. One example is the Toraja of southern Sulawesi in Indonesia who receive federal assistance in planning, promotion, and infrastructure (Adams 1990). Although the Toraja have some control and earn most of the benefits, government interference has designated some areas over others as tourist destinations, so that competition and animosity between formerly cooperative communities has begun. Less obvious outside interference from the national majority has caused social problems among the Ladakhi of Northern India (Goering 1990). Most tourism benefits go to the small percentage of hotel owners and to outside tour operators. To help remedy this situation, the Swedish-backed Ledeg foundation has helped the Ladakhi develop souvenirs and promote native dancing which builds on their traditional background. It remains to be seen if Ledeg's involvement helps distribute benefits more uniformly or just allows another minority to profit over others. Outside involvement is not always apparent. The Kuna of Panama have developed a rainforest reserve with the administrative and monetary help of multinational organizations including the Inter-American Foundation and the World Wildlife Fund (Breslin and Chapin 1984). The Kuna benefit from selling their colorful weavings but have seen a decline in tourist visitation since the implementation of their project because it severed cooperative relations with individuals and groups who formerly helped to advertise, transport, and provide lodging for the visitors (Chapin 1990, Swain 1989). These smaller projects are elaborated upon in Chapter 3 as examples of different problems in ethnic tourism.

One alternative to outside assistance is no assistance. This allows an approach to tourism to evolve from the existing social order and within the limits of the natural environment and culture. Of course, economic unfairness and social disruption can still occur (and does). Indigenous-developed tourism has some clear advantages. Tourism on Taquile island on Lake Titicaca is one example of indigenous-controlled tourism (Healy and Zorn 1983). In order to develop a tourist infrastructure, the Quechua-speaking residents of Taquile pooled together their money and energy. They bought a boat motor to speed tourist transport to the island and take turns lodging the guests. Without the influence or investment of outside groups or the government, the residents of Taquile have fostered tourism without many of the problems of outside-assisted tourism. In Ecuador, the small community of Capirona near the Napo river wanted to avoid becoming a "tourist zoo" like many of the neighboring villages (Silver 1992). By designing and running their own tours and constructing a thatch guest hut as a community, Capirona residents have more control over tourist access and accommodation as well as the distribution of the resultant benefits. While there is cooperation with outside groups, the tourism project or approach is a community desire and not one imposed from the outside.

All of the examples mentioned above fit into three main categories of nature and ethnic tourism: national projects which generally exclude the resident population, smaller-scale projects that are implemented and/or assisted by outside groups, and approaches initiated by the indigenous people without outside assistance. Large national projects such as national parks and reserves are important to recognize as options but are beyond the scope of this discussion. National parks in Mexico are nearly nonexistent; green dots connoting parks on tourist maps have more to do with politics than tangible reality. The first two approaches to tourism are the focus of this thesis: outside-assisted tourist projects and inside-initiated approaches.

Outside-Assistance versus Inside-Initiative

An outside-assisted tourist project or approach entails the influence of a group or organization in implementation, planning, capital, and/or advice. Sometimes that influence is the government, such as is the case in Tana Toraja. Other times the help comes from international organizations like Ledeg for the Ladakhi and the Inter-American Foundation for the Kuna. Although all these outside agents aim to help or assist the indigenous group in tourism, often this assistance backfires. An inside-initiated approach is an approach or project to tourism that is initiated, planned, and implemented by the group themselves. Native people may engage in cooperative relationships with outsiders, such as Capirona residents have, but these relations differ from outside-assistance because the exchange is controlled by the indigenous people themselves.

Since ethnic and nature tourism occurs in diverse settings, comparing different projects is difficult because there are so many ecological, social, cultural, political, and economic variations. To solve this problem, this thesis compares two approaches to tourism that occur in the same region; the neighboring ejidos (community ranch land) of Arareco and Cusarare in the Sierra Tarahumara of northern Mexico. Both areas have a similar natural environment, economy, culture, political problems, and history so an analysis of their varied strategies can be more easily compared. Although many of the problems with Arareco's and Cusarare's plans may be culture specific, the method in which this study determines and analyzes these problems can apply to other cultural groups dealing with tourism. This method reduces the analysis to four issues which are found in the ethnic tourism literature and also are of specific importance for the case study region. In order to better understand the context in which these four issues are analyzed, the background to each project is discussed below followed by a brief summary of the four issues.

Background of Projects

Arareco and Cusarare are neighboring Raramuri ejidos in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. The last twenty years have seen these two areas change and adapt to increased tourism. Even though this study emphasizes the many similarities they share which makes them suitable for comparison, each has some unique aspects that have influenced their respective treatment of tourism.

The Sierra Tarahumara is the region of southwest Chihuahua which is occupied by the Raramuri (Figure 1). Once inhabiting the fertile river valleys and plains to the East, the Raramuri have been gradually pushed by other indigenous groups, Spaniards, and later mestizos, westward into cold high plateaus, deep tropical barrancas, and the moderate altitudes in between (Pennington 1963). Today, as in the past, they survive on their subsistence crops of maize, beans, and squash and live in scattered ranchos throughout the Sierra. Early Jesuits' efforts to bring the Raramuri into villages failed although the Jesuits did have some influence on the Raramuri's religious beliefs (Merrill 1988). The mixture of the Raramuri traditional religion with Catholicism has developed into an belief system which is expressed in their unusual Christmas and Easter celebrations. Both occasions last approximately a week as the Raramuri brew their traditional tesgôino (corn beer) and participate in traditional dancing set to Spanish-derived music.

The ejido system divided the land into ejidos to be used by the people already living and working on the land. After the Mexican Revolution, this system was protected and in the case of the Sierra Tarahumara, newly restored. The ejidatarios (every male head of family and an occasional widow) elects an ejido president who represents the ejido to the outside world. Although the ejido system broke up traditional community boundaries, suddenly the Raramuri had political recognition.

Arareco and Cusarare are two ejidos which lie on the northeastern edge of Raramuri occupied territory and are near the mestizo community of Creel. Because of Arareco's and Cusarare's proximity to mainstream society, both ejidos are pressured to compete in the modern economy. The two ejidos have been the recipient of increasing number of tourists eager to see the mysterious Raramuri, especially during their Christmas and Easter festivities However, the bulk of tourism profits have bypassed Arareco and Cusarare while the nearby mestizos have profited by providing services. Arareco's and Cusarare's strategies regarding tourism both attempt to profit from the increasing interest in the Raramuri culture and in the natural environment in which they live.

Tourism in Arareco and Cusarare has been similar in some respects. Most tourists are transported by their hotel to an ejido where they might visit the mission, and then take a short hike to enjoy a scenic view such as a waterfall. The tourists view the scattered Raramuri dwellings, either wooded houses or caves. Along the hiking paths, Raramuri women make and sell their crafts which include baskets, pottery, blankets, drums, dolls, purses, and belts. Some Raramuri men offer their services as guides and rent their horses. Most are engaged in herding goats, tending plots, gathering plants, and working around the home; all activities which interest the ethnic tourist.

In April of 1992, the ejido of Arareco started a tourist development project. This project receives money from the federal government and advice and supervision from the Commission for Solidarity and Defense of Human Rights (COSYDDHAC). With goals of economic development, there are plans to pave the roads, build a museum, and provide horse, bike, and boat renting facilities. Currently, the most prominent change is the $3 (U.S.) entry fee and $10 (U.S.) per camera fee which is collected at the time of entry. The money collected from tourists along with that provided by the government is used to carry through the aforementioned projects.

Unlike Arareco, Cusarare has no tourist project but does have a different approach to tourism. Neither requesting nor receiving outside assistance, the residents of Cusarare decided to maintain and build upon tourism in its present form. They are doing this by developing new crafts and increasing craft production. In addition, they began charging $1 (U.S.) per person to visit the ejido mission and waterfall. The money collected is currently being used to fix the mission floor and will later be used for other community projects. Future development plans include maintaining the ecological and cultural elements of the ejido while improving the diet and living conditions of its residents.

Issues of Comparison

Both Arareco and Cusarare want to benefit from the increasing tourism, retain local power, and maintain their cultural identity. The approach each is taking to accomplish these goals are very different in both their method and consequences. Arareco's government-subsidized, outside-assisted tourist development project dramatically contrasts with Cusarare's continuation of small-scale tourist development. To compare these two approaches, four main issues drawn from ethnic tourism literature are analyzed for each ejido. Summarized briefly here, the issues are elaborated upon in Chapter 3.

Issue I - Economic Development
Tourist projects aim to attract visitors who will spend money and thereby increase the income of the area. This influx of income can spur economic development in several forms. Initial income can go to basic improvements such as food and medicine purchase. As more capital is accumulated, residents may adopt modern accouterments including better housing, paved roads, and electricity. However, adapting to modern society is often resisted and development can also take the form of reinvestment into cultural activities such as craft-making and dances. Issue II - Tourist Attractiveness
Maintaining and increasing tourist visitation is usually the main goal in tourist projects. Attractiveness already exists in the natural environment and indigenous population; an appropriate project would increase that attractiveness. However, the realities of cultural change often break tourist expectations consequently hurting the "authenticity" of the area. On the other hand, there are also problems with upholding tourist expectations as real social and political needs are sacrificed for tourism.

Issue III - Inter-ethnic Relations
Indigenous groups often share their region and/or country with the non-indigenous or mixed-blood majority. The manner in which they relate to these resident "outsiders" helps determine their future cultural individuality or assimilation. These outsiders include the non-indigenous local residents, the national government, and outside organizations. Often these relations are exploitative with the dominant majority forcing their interests over those of the minority. This does not necessarily have to be the case as cooperative relations between ethnically diverse groups can occur to the benefit of all. How the indigenous population deals with the various interests can play an important role in the success of an ethnic and nature tourism project.

Issue IV - Community Cohesiveness
Community cohesiveness is the state of relations which have bound the indigenous group together through cultural, economic, and linguistic similarities. Tourism, with its disparate benefits, can cause and increase divisions in these communities. There are also opportunities to maximize benefits through community cooperation.

Methodology

There is limited documentation of tourism in Arareco and Cusarare. Even among the hundreds of articles, books, and archive materials, most information on the Sierra Tarahumara deals with Jesuit-written history or ethnographies on the Raramuri with very little on tourism and its impact in the past twenty years. Therefore, most of this study's information was gathered in the field through interviews, attending meetings, and observation. Field research was done in Arareco and Cusarare over a three year period (both formally and informally) with over six total months of residence in Creel during October 1991, February-April 1992, January, March, May-June, November 1993, and January 1994.

Gathering information about COSYDDHAC was difficult. Unlike the United States, which requires non-profit organizations to have an annual report that is available to the public, these laws in Mexico, even if they exist, are not enforced. Therefore, it was a perplexing task to find documentation that indicated the extent of COSYDDHAC's role in Arareco, specifically in regards to money. Problems also arose when interviewing COSYDDHAC members. There were problems in identifying leadership within the group, many contradicted the information given by other members, and several refused to give their names. Because of these difficulties, the Raramuri viewpoint as well as data collected from personal observation is given more weight in this analysis.

Interviewing the Raramuri was a difficult task. Many are functionally illiterate and shy away from outsiders so questionnaires and a specific sample study were deemed inappropriate. Instead, focused interviews were used (Zeisel 1981:137-156). This style of interviewing is characterized by unstructured questions designed to determine respondents understanding of "the situation." In this way, "respondents, rather than [the] interviewer, decide which issues and elements are salient to them and are to be discussed and which are irrelevant" (1981:141). Through these interviews, the Raramuri respondents defined the main issues related to tourism. For example, by observation, environmental conservation seemed to be an important issue. However, through interviews, it became apparent that it was not as important to the Raramuri as other issues such as community cohesiveness. Therefore, the four issues used in this analysis were ones that had the greatest significance to those Raramuri interviewed.

Many Raramuri were at first unwilling to discuss their problems. However, as more time was spent in the area and contacts were made, confidence grew. Eventually, by merely mentioning another resident, respondents were willing to talk more openly. Women were particularly effusive and contacts with men were often a result of these womens' introductions. Language was not a great problem since interviews were conducted in Spanish. Although almost all Raramuri use their native tongue as their first language, most have a working knowledge of Spanish. In addition, when families were interviewed, it was common for one member to speak Spanish well enough to interpret for the others. Most of these interviews were conducted in the ejidos and oftentimes in or near Raramuri homes. Because of the informal nature of the interview style and the time span under which they were conducted, it was difficult to quantify these data. However, an attempt was made to interview at least one member of every rancho within walking distance of the main tourist area of each ejido. An effort was made to duplicate questions asked of each individual and to cross check information. Many Raramuri preferred not to give their names for a variety of cultural, social, and political reasons. Therefore, except for those named in the acknowledgments, respondents names are not listed.

Mestizo and tourist viewpoints are based on interviews and observation. For both groups, open-ended interviews followed the unstructured format described above to allow the respondents to define the situation. Viewpoints expressed from questions such as "what do you think of the tourist project?" were generally consistent within each group. Observation opportunities included attending meetings of Creel residents and particularly the meeting held between Arareco and Creel residents which is described in Chapter 4. Tourist behavior was observed in both ejidos. In particular, the body language expressed by the tourists when asked to pay entry fees was noted. Numerous tourists were interviewed and observed: no one served as a primary informant.

Outline of the Thesis

The thesis, organized in six sections, presents the area's history, details the four issues outlined previously, case studies, and a comparative analysis of the two approaches. Before any analysis can be made, it is important to understand the historical and cultural context on which this comparison is based. Therefore, Chapter 2 will briefly depart from the discussion of inside and outside tourism approaches and instead discuss the history of change and outside influence in the Sierra Tarahumara. In Chapter 3, the four main issues of comparison, economic development, tourist attractiveness, inter-ethnic relations, and community cohesiveness are defined, illustrated with examples, and discussed in relation to each study area. Chapters 4 and 5 analyze the two approaches to tourism in Arareco and Cusarare by applying the four issues outlined in Chapter 3. In conclusion, Chapter 6 compares the two areas' methods and relative success including final comments and the prognosis for the future.