Lasa Pulan

R A C E A N D N AT U R A L R E S O U R C E
CONFLICTS IN HONDURAS
The Miskito and Garifuna Struggle for Lasa Pulan
Sharlene Mollett
University of Toronto
Received 11-18-2004; Conditional Acceptance 3-15-2005;
Received Revised 6-15-2005; Final Acceptance 6-22-2005

Abstract: The Honduran Rio Platano Biosphere Reserve has become a place of
struggle over natural resources. This paperexamines a land contest between the
Miskito Indians and the Garifuna, an indigenous group and Afro-indigenous
group respectively. The area in question is Lasa Pulan, a one square kilometer of
forest and farmland, historically shared by both Miskito and Garifuna collectives.
Through discursive analysis, this paper traces contemporary discourse and practice that these actors employ to justify exclusiveclaims to Lasa Pulan. Such contemporary claims are structured by longstanding colonial and postcolonial racial
ideologies that stereotypically label blacks as “immoral” and “violent” and Indians as “ignorant” and “backward.” This paper argues, through analysis of Miskito
and Garifuna claims to Lasa Pulan, that natural resource struggles are simultaneously racial struggles, and it acquaintspolicy makers with the multiple tenure
arrangements in pluricultural Honduras.
INTRODUCTION

In 1958, on the north coast of the Honduran Mosquitia, the Garifuna
village of Plaplaya challenged longstanding Miskito Indian control over
natural resources. For almost four centuries, the Miskito had dominated
natural resource access relative to other indigenous and Afro-indigenous
populations in theMosquitia.1 As a result of rising tensions between the
Garifuna and the Miskito over differences in planned land uses, the Garifuna
sought assistance from regional officials to divide the communal area of
1. For the purpose of this paper I will refer to the Miskito and Garifuna as indigenous
and Afro-indigenous peoples respectively. Reference to the Miskito as an indigenous group
does notmean that I am erasing their African ancestry. Rather, the Belén Miskito strongly
deny the Afro-indigenous label, and they both self-identity and are identified by the state,
as indigenous (Indian) peoples. “Rights” under Convention 169 also grant indigenous
and tribal people the right to self-identification (ILO 1989). I respect that here.

Latin American Research Review, Vol. 41, No. 1,February 2006
© 2006 by the University of Texas Press, P.O. Box 7819, Austin, TX 78713-7819

77
Lasa Pulan, a one square kilometer of forest and farmland located between Plaplaya and the Miskito village of Ibans. The Garifuna requested
exclusive control of half of the area to protect agricultural crops against
the Miskito cattle grazing in this, hitherto, common land.2 Officials, with
thesupport of Miskito and Garifuna representatives, divided the area
of Lasa Pulan between these two communities, marking the new boundaries with a barbwire fence (CACRC 2002b).
More than forty years later, and long after Miskito villagers reportedly destroyed the fence, Antonio Vera, a native Garifuna farmer from
Plaplaya, arrived in Lasa Pulan to work on his yucca plantation. Upon
arrival, he sawthree large cows trampling plants and eating yucca
leaves.3 Frustrated, not only at this most recent destruction of his crops,
but “for forty years of Miskito disregard for Garifuna farmland,” Antonio summoned three men to join him in Lasa Pulan. The men proceeded
to kill the cows and then delivered their tails to Ibans. As the Miskito
commonly allow cattle to roam freely between coastalvillages, the news
of the event united Miskito villagers from Ibans to Belén in outrage.
And as expected, those Miskito who lost cattle immediately demanded
compensation (Antonio Vera, personal communication 2003). In 2003,
while villagers for both sides claimed tensions had abated, the debate
over Lasa Pulan lingered.
This examination of the Miskito-Garifuna struggle for Lasa Pulan
draws upon...