The human rights discourse in Chiapas is incredibly nuanced. Although in our Western perspective human rights are seen as an objective constant, an imperative asset of any sensible civilization, they are not so simple in the context of the Chiapas conflict. The concept of “human rights” has become malleable, adopted and interpreted differently by different local, global and state groups with different issues. For the Zapatistas and their supporters, human rights were a means to freedom from state injustices; a way to end a long-standing social struggle. Those who fought the rebels, notably the Ladinos and Chol paramilitaries, saw "human rights" as a buzzword used by groups mobilizing to modify or even overthrow the status quo, and therefore posed a threat to their elite positions in society. Similarly, Chiapas state authorities emphasized that the use of "human rights" constituted a challenge to their legitimacy and therefore "mobilized human rights discourse to justify the counter- insurrection and limit indigenous autonomy” (Speed ​​58). The presence of predominantly Western international actors, such as NGOs, has further complicated the discourse; many sympathized with the EZLN and flocked to Chiapas to organize and aid the Zapatista cause, forming peace camps and providing protection to local communities. This outside presence challenged the authority of the state and other actors opposed to the Zapatista movement -- thus, the human rights of these groups were also associated with outsiders. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essay While international activists sought to protect voiceless Chiapas residents, these Western notions of human rights largely ignored the historical context of existing social structures. , in which race, class, gender, and indigenous history all played a role in shaping different local groups' perceptions of government. For example, Speed ​​tells the story of the Chol Indians of Chiapas: over a fifty-year period of harsh treatment by exploitative coffee farmers, the Chol "developed a binary understanding of the world, in which Chols were equated with good, and Kaxlanes, or non-Chols, with evil” (Speed ​​73). In the 1930s, the Cardenas regime implemented an agrarian reform project, which provided large tracts of agricultural land to the Chol. They took their lands and willingly withdrew from the national economy: as a result, the Chol saw the PRI government as an ally that freed them from the oppressive mosojantel regime and allowed them to enjoy their culture without the Kaxlane's influence or interference. Thus, the EZLN's anti-government program was interpreted by the Chol as a direct attack on their autonomy. It's not that the Chol were necessarily anti-human rights as we define human rights: it's that these international activists did not think through how their agenda might pose a threat to the autonomy that Indigenous groups have struggled to obtain it over the centuries. In this sense, one could rightly say that "human rights" in this context were indeed a form of cultural imperialism: a crude prioritization of Western notions of freedom and justice without regard or analysis of nuanced indigenous history that has led to varied perceptions of freedom and justice. legitimacy.