The human rights discourse in Chiapas is incredibly nuanced. While from our Western perspective, human rights are considered an objective constant, an imperative resource of any sensible civilization, they are not so clear-cut in the context of the Chiapas conflict. The concept of “human rights” has become malleable, adopted and interpreted differently by various local, global and state groups with different things at stake. For the Zapatistas and their supporters, human rights were a vehicle for liberation from injustice at the hands of the state; a means to the end of a long-standing social struggle. Those contesting the rebels, including the paramilitaries Ladinos and Chol, saw “human rights” as a buzzword used by groups mobilizing to alter or even subvert the status quo and therefore posed a threat to their positions. elite in society. Similarly, state authorities in Chiapas noted the use of “human rights” as a challenge to their legitimacy and thus “mobilized human rights discourse to justify counterinsurgency and limit indigenous autonomy” (Speed 58). The presence of mostly Western international actors, such as NGOs, has further complicated the matter; 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 external presence further challenged the authority of the state and other actors opposed to the Zapatista movement – ​​thus, human rights, for these groups, also became associated with outsiders. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay While international activists sought to protect those in Chiapas who had no say, 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 the perception of the government by different local groups. For example, Speed ​​tells the story of the indigenous Chol Indians of Chiapas: during a fifty-year period of harsh treatment by exploitative coffee producers, the Chol “developed a binary worldview, in which the Chol were equal to the good, and Kaxlanes, or non-Chols, to the evil” (Speed ​​73). In the 1930s, the Cardenas regime implemented a land reform project, which provided large tracts of agricultural land to the Chol. They took their land and willingly withdrew from the national economy: as a result, the Chol saw in the PRI government an ally who freed them from the oppressive rule of the mosojantel and allowed them to enjoy their culture free from Kaxlane's influence or interference . Thus the EZLN's anti-government agenda was interpreted by Chol as a direct attack on their autonomy. It's not that the Chol were necessarily against human rights as we define them: the fact is that these international activists did not consider how their agenda might pose a threat to the autonomy that indigenous groups have struggled to achieve over the centuries . In this sense, one could rightly say that “human rights” in this context were indeed a form of cultural imperialism: a crass prioritization of Western notions of freedom and justice without regard or analysis of nuanced indigenous history that led to several Perceptions of the Mexican government's legitimacy among local communities. It certainly did not come with malice – it is doubtful that these international activists sought to threaten these indigenous groups – but by rushing to the aid of the EZLN without fully understanding the.