Blatant military coup in Bolivia

[PyramidHead]

To round out the day's news, a significant development:

Soldiers of the Bolivian Army (infantry division) join the indigenous movement that marches from Oruro to La Paz against the coup in Bolivia.

The people are chanting "Mesa, Camacho, same shit!"

 

[Angra Mainyu]

What makes something constitutional is what the people whose job it is to determine it decide is constitutional, and as conditions change, that can change as well.

No, that is false. What makes something constitutional is that it is in accordance to what the constitution says. The people whose job is to ascertain what is constitutional do not have the job of deciding what is constitutional, but to ascertain what is constitutional. Otherwise, there would be no point in having a constitution in the first place, but just some absolutely powerful Supreme Court that can decide (not ascertain, not figure out, but decide) what is constitutional.

When the SCOTUS makes a 5-4 ruling, the members of the minority say that what is constitutional is what they say, and that the majority is mistaken. They do not say that what is constitutional is what the 5-member majority says because whatever they decide to be constitutional is so. The same goes for 6-3, or 7-2, etc. Sometimes, the minorities in the court are correct, and the majority incorrect. Sometimes, even a 9-0 majority is incorrect, and a later SCOTUS realize that. Indeed, at some point the SCOTUS said that laws banning interracial marriage were constitutional. But they were not. The members of the SCOTUS were mistaken.

In the case of the Bolivian ruling, it's not clear to me that they were mistaken as opposed to just lying through their teeth, since it should have been obvious to them that it was no a violation of human rights (and more precisely, of the American Convention on Human Rights) to have term limits, as it had been obvious to every legal scholar till then, as it had been obvious indeed to Evo Morales himself.

Morales did not call for throwing out the entire constitution, just changing a provision that threatened to derail the project he had worked so hard to undertake before it was complete.

Morales strongly supported that Constitution - all of it -, and in fact, it was supported by his party. When he thought that that particular provision should be changed, he asked the Bolivian voters in a referendum. They said "no", by majority. Morales had agreed to abide by the constitution, and of course to abide by the decision of the voters. He did not. He made the absurd claim that term limits were violations of human rights that contravened the American Convention on Human Rights.

The judges who ruled in his favor were elected, not appointed by Morales like SC justices are in the US.

Yes, elected among several chosen by Congress, with a vast pro-Morales majority. All of the choices were pro-Morales.

Now, there is a difference between choosing judges with views similar to those held by those choosing them - that is what you could expect in any democratic system with an indirect election of judges - and judges who will follow orders from the government even to absurdity - which is obviously wrong.

But that aside, the 'yes, sir' judges in question turned out to be 'yes, madam' as well. More to the point, the flip-flop with the political power. And now the same tribunal ruled that Áñez has legitimately become the President of Bolivia:

https://www.prensa.com/mundo/Tribunal-Constitucional-Jeanine-Anez-Bolivia_0_5440705944.html

https://puntodecorte.com/tribunal-c...ocio-a-jeanine-anez-como-presidente-interina/

Obviously, I'm not arguing that she is. I'm saying that your arguments are not just bogus, but self-defeating (of course, you will spin it as you like).

Your constant repetition of the meme that he circumvented the constitution, when in reality he appealed to the established institutions of state power to change it and was successful in doing so, is facile and unwarranted.

That is nonsense. I point out that he circumvented the constitution because the institutions meant to ascertain what is says failed miserably to do their job - more precisely, the Constitutional Tribunal did - and supported and absurd claim by Morales. It's a claim he should not have made in the first place, as he had agreed first to abide by the constitution, and second to respect the will of the majority of the voters - who said "no".

Morales had every legal and constitutional right to run for re-election, regardless of what you think about how that was achieved.

No, he did not.

There is no measure of "constitutional" beyond what is currently accepted as legally binding by the current court, who rendered a verdict according to their own judgment, with no evidence of coercion from Morales.

That is false. A law in the US banning interracial marriage, establishing slavery, or a vote in which Trump is elected POTUS for life would be unconstitutional even if the SCOTUS says otherwise, and that would be unconstitutional by the actual measure of "constitutional" beyond what is currently accepted as legally binding by the current court, which is what the constitution actually says!.

Even the referendum, which like the Brexit one was entirely non-binding, was incredibly close and may have been swayed by outside forces who wanted Morales gone.

And also by outside forces who wanted him to stay, like the Venezuelan dictatorship. Regardless, he lost.

Honestly, if the people want to elect someone for four or seven or ten terms because they prefer their leadership, what is the problem with that?

If some of the people want that, but others want otherwise, the problem is that the rules say otherwise.
If a majority says that he should not be allowed to run and he said he'd abide by their decision, the problem is that they said he should not be allowed to run and he promised to abide by their decision.

The problem is that he's breaking the rules he himself proposed and promised to uphold, and denying the decision of the majority in a referendum he called for.

If the removal of term limits was in violation of the constitution, which it was not, and against the will of the people, then why does Morales and his party have continued popular support over his rivals, as measured by the election results and 5/6 polls independently collected beforehand?

First, it was against the constitution - obviously.
Second, it was against the will of some of the people, and not against the will of some other people - obviously.
Third, the majority of voters actually said "no".

Fourth, right back at you: if the removal of term limits is not against the will of the people, why did they vote against it?

Fifth, he had more political support that any given rival, but not enough to win over half the votes in a second round, according to most polls.

Not even the supporters of the coup deny that Morales is the democratically selected choice, and the circumstances of his victory are unremarkable compared to countless other national elections, including every US presidential election that has been decided by the electoral college.

That is false. While no one denies that Morales got more votes than Mesa, many - maybe a slight majority - believe that he would have lost in a democratic runoff election vs. Mesa.

As such, the violence by pro-Morales supporters is amply justified, because their government was taken over by forces that had no quorum to do so.

No, they're attacking innocent people, and they are taking actions that are making things much worse. Morales' was already illegitimate, but violence against him was not justified because it would predictably make things much worse for innocent people. Same here.

They are defending themselves against the threat of the anti-indigenous Senator who has declared herself president despite having no right to do so, backed by "Macho" Camacho and the same backers of the Venezuelan coup that failed earlier this year.

The Constitutional Court says that she is the legitimate president, so there you go.

But seriously, there is no right to defend oneself no matter the consequences. If Morales's supporters really have the majority, then it's easy: don't use violence, demand a vote, she will agree for sure, and then vote for anyone Morales says. That would be far better than the predictable spiral of violence if they do not stand down.

 

[laughing dog]

A word about term limits, the issue that liberal and conservative coup supporters alike (and if you are bombarding the dialogue with both-sides-isms, you support the coup, end of story) are fixated on. It is, again, exposed as ridiculously trite if you take a larger context into account. Even the OAS, the group which is now flinging allegations of election fraud--and, by the way, receives the majority of its funding from the United States--did not see anything particularly damning about the SC's 2017 ruling. From Reuters:

On the eve of his campaign launch, Morales secured the blessing of the head of the Organization of American States, infuriating his critics who see Morales as a threat to Bolivia’s democracy.

“To say that Evo Morales can’t participate is absolutely discriminatory considering other presidents who have taken part in electoral processes on the grounds of a court ruling,” Luis Almagro, the secretary general of the Organization of American States, said in televised comments during a visit to Chapare.

Morales' reasoning is sound; his work is not done, so there is no reason to stop doing it and allow the right wing to destroy what progress has been made thus far. This makes perfect sense for a colonized nation emerging from a history of violent takeovers and finally ramping up its economic development.

Term limits are not some essential ingredient for democracy. The prime ministers of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and many first-world nations do not have term limits. Nobody would dare suggest that the Canadian military would be justified in removing Trudeau for this reason, because capitalist nations are not scrutinized for flaws in their electoral process. Only left-wing socialist ones are, and those flaws, real or imagined, are exploited by reactionaries to legitimize their use of overt force to seize power.

Term limits are not essential ingredient for democracy. And the democratic way to deal with them is to change the constitution, not violate the constitution by running for terms beyond the term limit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A word about term limits, the issue that liberal and conservative coup supporters alike (and if you are bombarding the dialogue with both-sides-isms, you support the coup, end of story) are fixated on. It is, again, exposed as ridiculously trite if you take a larger context into account. Even the OAS, the group which is now flinging allegations of election fraud--and, by the way, receives the majority of its funding from the United States--did not see anything particularly damning about the SC's 2017 ruling. From Reuters:

On the eve of his campaign launch, Morales secured the blessing of the head of the Organization of American States, infuriating his critics who see Morales as a threat to Bolivia’s democracy.

“To say that Evo Morales can’t participate is absolutely discriminatory considering other presidents who have taken part in electoral processes on the grounds of a court ruling,” Luis Almagro, the secretary general of the Organization of American States, said in televised comments during a visit to Chapare.

Morales' reasoning is sound; his work is not done, so there is no reason to stop doing it and allow the right wing to destroy what progress has been made thus far. This makes perfect sense for a colonized nation emerging from a history of violent takeovers and finally ramping up its economic development.

Term limits are not some essential ingredient for democracy. The prime ministers of Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, and many first-world nations do not have term limits. Nobody would dare suggest that the Canadian military would be justified in removing Trudeau for this reason, because capitalist nations are not scrutinized for flaws in their electoral process. Only left-wing socialist ones are, and those flaws, real or imagined, are exploited by reactionaries to legitimize their use of overt force to seize power.

What happened here is the military refused to use force against the people. This is certainly not the first time a government has fallen this way and it is in no way a coup when it happens. Rather, it is the result of a very unpopular government.

 

[PyramidHead]

It's infuriating, but not unpredictable, that the usual apologists for capital continue to throw up smokescreens on this issue. Day by day, Bolivia is descending into chaos. But not all of the apologetics are motivated by the same thing. People who fit the mold of American liberalism are driven primarily by the need to feel smart and think the only way to do that is to never take sides. It creates a veneer of rationality and satisfies a deep motivation to be the most clever person in the room. But in the end, time and again, they get duped by the far right and end up doing their work for them.

I don't have the time or the inclination to respond to the ransom note of quotes and responses that seem to be your MO, AngraMainyu. They are at different turns naive, chauvinistic, and utterly misinformed, and it's not my job to change your opinion. But I did want to highlight this particular bit of procedure-worship:

But seriously, there is no right to defend oneself no matter the consequences. If Morales's supporters really have the majority, then it's easy: don't use violence, demand a vote, she will agree for sure, and then vote for anyone Morales says. That would be far better than the predictable spiral of violence if they do not stand down.

A more breathtaking misreading of the situation may not be possible. What makes you think the usurping government is interested in what the majority has to say? They have installed a leader whose party has less than 5% support in the government, and have declared their intention to arrest officials belonging to Morales' party in the senate (whose elections were not contested and term limits were never in dispute). This is not the time to call for the indigenous population, who make up the majority of Bolivia and who overwhelmingly support Morales, to "stand down" and stop resisting the undemocratic takeover of their government by literal Nazi-saluting fascists who have no intention of listening to their will. Your suggestion can only be made from the comfort of the imperial core of a powerful nation; the same rules don't apply in revolutionary states under constant threat of overthrow. During a war, you don't lay down your arms and ask to speak to the Nazi's manager.

Finally, the contortions of logic that try to paint Morales as an authoritarian dictator are nothing short of desperate. Morales invited the OAS to audit the elections. He called for a new vote when they said the results may have been unreliable.

When questioned about whether he would be a candidate in the new election, Morales told a local radio station "the candidacies must be secondary, what comes first is to pacify Bolivia", adding he has a constitutional duty to finish his term.

Why invite scrutiny and appeal for a do-over if you're a power-hungry tyrant who doesn't care about rules? Why was there no do-over?

The reason is that the de facto, self-appointed administration is not interested in democracy and couldn't care less about the constitution, and you are shilling for their cause whether you know it or not.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't have the time or the inclination to respond to the ransom note of quotes and responses that seem to be your MO, AngraMainyu. They are at different turns naive, chauvinistic, and utterly misinformed, and it's not my job to change your opinion. But I did want to highlight this particular bit of procedure-worship:

That was a side-note to the direct debunking of your main claims. But still, since you want to talk about that, let us go with it.

A more breathtaking misreading of the situation may not be possible. What makes you think the usurping government is interested in what the majority has to say?

That is a breathtaking misreading of the situation on your side. Of course, the only thing that might prevent new elections is further violence. If people engaging in violence now were to stop and demand free elections, Áñez would yield, regardless of whether she personally cares about the majority or not. Her situation is desperate. Her government hangs by a thread, and she's doing her best to get international support and recognition from around the world. Of course, she will have to give Bolivia free elections with like a gazillion international observers - not just the OAS, but the EU, the UN, probably the Carter Center, at least some regional governments and so on.

The only thing that she could use as an excuse - if she is actually looking for one, which may or may not be the case for all I know - would be violent attempts to overthrow her.

Now, this is not to say that the violence will not succeed. It might or might not. What is apparent to anyone who is not massively misreading the situation and/or seeking to restore Morales (rather than have an election) is that attempting to remove Áñez by force will result in much more suffering and death of innocent people than an alternative peaceful protest.

That aside, very probably the violence will continue, and as I said, I do not know whether it will succeed. It does have a good chance, but then, Áñez does as well. We'll see.

They have installed a leader whose party has less than 5% support in the government, and have declared their intention to arrest officials belonging to Morales' party in the senate (whose elections were not contested and term limits were never in dispute).

That is not what they have declared. They have declared their intention to arrest people who engage in criminal actions like incitement to commit certain acts (in short, political violence). Now, they may well abuse that an arrest others, but the fact remains that they are hanging by a thread. Only violence can give Áñez and excuse not to have an election, if she wants that.

This is not the time to call for the indigenous population, who make up the majority of Bolivia and who overwhelmingly support Morales, to "stand down" and stop resisting the undemocratic takeover of their government by literal Nazi-saluting fascists who have no intention of listening to their will.

It is always time to call for people not to behave immorally. Acting violently to remove Áñez predictably consequences will be much worse if they do so than if they do not. And supporting Morales is also wrong, though of course to a much lesser degree.

Your suggestion can only be made from the comfort of the imperial core of a powerful nation; the same rules don't apply in revolutionary states under constant threat of overthrow.

Since when is Buenos Aires at the imperial core of a powerful nation?

Where are you calling for violence from, by the way? Perhaps, from a country that does not share a border with Bolivia, and where the prospect of all sort of trouble spilling over if it gets much worse is just not a consideration? Perhaps, from a country with far less than 5% of Bolivians in its population?

Of course, here I'm just getting back to your ill-thought-out ad-hominem. In reality, where you speak from is irrelevant to the matters at hand. The real problem is that you are plain wrong, and the arguments about the issues at hand are what matter, not your location.

During a war, you don't lay down your arms and ask to speak to the Nazi's manager.

It would be morally unacceptable to go to war with Áñez. It's much easier to go peaceful and go for a vote.

Finally, the contortions of logic that try to paint Morales as an authoritarian dictator are nothing short of desperate.

Of course, Morales was authoritarian, and was not allowed to run. Whether that counts as a dictator is unclear, as the word is ambiguous.

He called for a new vote when they said the results may have been unreliable.

Yes, instead of resigning, he called for a new vote, even then without ruling out being a candidate (which he was not allowed to be in the first place, fraud or no fraud), which was a risk for both sides, but better for him than being ousted. I wish Mesa had listened. And I wish the military chief had not legitimize him in the eyes of millions (not you; you're already a fundamentalist who even support much worse leaders, dictators like Maduro or the Castros/Díaz Canel, but other people). But they did not, and immorally went for more.

Why invite scrutiny and appeal for a do-over if you're a power-hungry tyrant who doesn't care about rules?

You mean, after he was kicked out?
He's trying to maneuver the best he can. And you know, maybe he'll succeed and get back in power, which would be a pretty bad outcome, but much better than a civil war. In fact, either side consolidating power is much better than the civil war, so I hope whoever wins, wins fast (though I know it's very improbable).

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's infuriating, but not unpredictable, that the usual apologists for capital continue to throw up smokescreens on this issue. Day by day, Bolivia is descending into chaos. But not all of the apologetics are motivated by the same thing. People who fit the mold of American liberalism are driven primarily by the need to feel smart and think the only way to do that is to never take sides. It creates a veneer of rationality and satisfies a deep motivation to be the most clever person in the room. But in the end, time and again, they get duped by the far right and end up doing their work for them.

Said the apologist for leftist dictatorships. Bolivia is descending into chaos because the people object to Morales trying to turn it into a dictatorship.

 

[PyramidHead]

We're not going to make any headway in this exchange, I can tell. I'll just keep posting updates about the indigenous people getting mowed down by soldiers under control of a Christian fundamentalist, and you can keep parroting state department propaganda about leftist revolutionary leaders throughout history and in the present. It'll be obvious which one is more concerned about human rights and democracy, honest.

 

[PyramidHead]

Interesting comparison between authoritarians being sworn into office

 

[Harry Bosch]

We're not going to make any headway in this exchange, I can tell. I'll just keep posting updates about the indigenous people getting mowed down by soldiers under control of a Christian fundamentalist, and you can keep parroting state department propaganda about leftist revolutionary leaders throughout history and in the present. It'll be obvious which one is more concerned about human rights and democracy, honest.

Do you have a link that supports the above assertions? Christian Fundies mowing down indigenous people?

 

[PyramidHead]

We're not going to make any headway in this exchange, I can tell. I'll just keep posting updates about the indigenous people getting mowed down by soldiers under control of a Christian fundamentalist, and you can keep parroting state department propaganda about leftist revolutionary leaders throughout history and in the present. It'll be obvious which one is more concerned about human rights and democracy, honest.

Do you have a link that supports the above assertions? Christian Fundies mowing down indigenous people?

Massacre in Cochabamba: Anti-Indigenous Violence Escalates as Mass Protests Denounce Coup in Bolivia

In Bolivia, at least 23 people have died amid escalating violence since President Evo Morales, the country’s first indigenous president, resigned at the demand of the military last week. Growing unrest quickly turned to violent chaos on Friday outside Cochabamba when military forces opened fire on indigenous pro-Morales demonstrators, killing at least nine people and injuring more than 100. The violence began soon after thousands of protesters — many indigenous coca leaf growers — gathered for a peaceful march in the town of Sacaba and then attempted to cross a military checkpoint into Cochabamba. Amid this escalating violence and reports of widespread anti-indigenous racism, protesters are demanding self-declared interim President Jeanine Áñez step down. Áñez is a right-wing Bolivian legislator who named herself president at a legislative session without quorum last week.

Western Media Whitewash Bolivia’s Far-Right Coup

Áñez is a member of the right-wing Democratic Social Movement from the eastern lowland region of Santa Cruz, historically a bastion of separatist groups and home to some of the most powerful Bolivian oligarchic families. She has a history of making glaringly racist remarks, tweeting in 2013 (6/20/13) that the “Aymara New Year,” an indigenous holiday, was “Satanic”: “There is no replacement for God.” Just days before seizing power, she questioned on Twitter (11/6/19) whether some people being interviewed could really be Indigenous—because they were wearing shoes.

[...]

In addition to whitewashing Áñez, corporate journalists have sought to sanitize the image of the figure widely considered to be the real force behind the coup: Christian fundamentalist multimillionaire Luis Fernando Camacho.

Camacho is quite literally a fascist who got his political start in the sieg-heiling Santa Cruz Youth Union, an ultra-right paramilitary outfit that was instrumental in the Santa Cruz oligarchy’s 2008 US-backed secessionist plot which ultimately failed.

Senator Brandishing Giant Bible Assumes Bolivia Presidency

Anez took over the government headquarters Tuesday evening saying “the bible has returned to the government palace”. Morales oversaw the introduction of a new constitution which put Christianity on an equal footing with other religions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We're not going to make any headway in this exchange, I can tell. I'll just keep posting updates about the indigenous people getting mowed down by soldiers under control of a Christian fundamentalist, and you can keep parroting state department propaganda about leftist revolutionary leaders throughout history and in the present. It'll be obvious which one is more concerned about human rights and democracy, honest.

The indigenous people were trying to take over the country. Is it any wonder they are suffering in the backlash?

 

[PyramidHead]

We're not going to make any headway in this exchange, I can tell. I'll just keep posting updates about the indigenous people getting mowed down by soldiers under control of a Christian fundamentalist, and you can keep parroting state department propaganda about leftist revolutionary leaders throughout history and in the present. It'll be obvious which one is more concerned about human rights and democracy, honest.

The indigenous people were trying to take over the country. Is it any wonder they are suffering in the backlash?

Do you hear yourself? Who should be in charge of a country, if the two options are its indigenous inhabitants and a fucking neo-Nazi takeover? Is there any right-wing repression you will not ceaselessly defend?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

We're not going to make any headway in this exchange, I can tell. I'll just keep posting updates about the indigenous people getting mowed down by soldiers under control of a Christian fundamentalist, and you can keep parroting state department propaganda about leftist revolutionary leaders throughout history and in the present. It'll be obvious which one is more concerned about human rights and democracy, honest.

The indigenous people were trying to take over the country. Is it any wonder they are suffering in the backlash?

Do you hear yourself? Who should be in charge of a country, if the two options are its indigenous inhabitants and a fucking neo-Nazi takeover? Is there any right-wing repression you will not ceaselessly defend?

The people should be in charge of the country, not a small subset of the people.

 

[Jokodo]

Do you hear yourself? Who should be in charge of a country, if the two options are its indigenous inhabitants and a fucking neo-Nazi takeover? Is there any right-wing repression you will not ceaselessly defend?

The people should be in charge of the country, not a small subset of the people.

The indigenous inhabitants are not a small subset of the population of Bolivia by any count. The exact figures vary as du the definitions, but on any count whites ate a smaller minority than indigenous inhabitants - depending in who you ask, the latter may be a plurality or the largest minority after a Mestizo majority. And in Bolivia, unlike in the USA where you're native if one of your grandparents is, in Bolivia you're mestizo if the equivalent of one of your grandparents is white. You can tell by looking at the figures for language rather than ethnicity: only a minority speak exclusively Spanish. Since Spanish is the language I'd prestige, speaking Quechua, Guarani or Aymara, even alongside Spanish almost universally implies growing up in a Quechua/ Aymara/ Guarani speaking community.

The fact that might have come away believing the indigenous population are a small minority only shows how much they've been underrepresented until recently.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

You can tell by looking at the figures for language rather than ethnicity: only a minority speak exclusively Spanish. Since Spanish is the language I'd prestige, speaking Quechua, Guarani or Aymara, even alongside Spanish almost universally implies growing up in a Quechua/ Aymara/ Guarani speaking community.

Do you have more direct evidence than the minority of Spanish-only speakers?
The 2001 Census ( in Spanish: https://web.oas.org/childhood/ES/Li...Bolivia, Indicadores, Cifras y Resultados.pdf ) indicates Spanish is the mother tongue of 63.5% of Bolivians. Maybe you have more recent data, but the changes should not be so big - unless the Census was unreliable, but I haven't found better information.

I found more recent data, from the 2012 census ( https://www.ine.gob.bo/index.php/co...em/185-dia-internacional-de-la-lengua-materna ). Spanish as the mother tongue is up to 68.7%.

Going by self-identification, it seems groups classified as "indigenous" compose about 40,6 % of the population (2012), but they include people who only speak Spanish (e. g., Morales, at least when he was elected; I don't know whether studied other languages later).

That aside, people who support Morales are of course not a small minority, though they include many people who are not members of any of the groups classified as "indigenous" or similar.

 

[Jokodo]

You can tell by looking at the figures for language rather than ethnicity: only a minority speak exclusively Spanish. Since Spanish is the language I'd prestige, speaking Quechua, Guarani or Aymara, even alongside Spanish almost universally implies growing up in a Quechua/ Aymara/ Guarani speaking community.

Do you have more direct evidence than the minority of Spanish-only speakers?
The 2001 Census ( in Spanish: https://web.oas.org/childhood/ES/Li...Bolivia, Indicadores, Cifras y Resultados.pdf ) indicates Spanish is the mother tongue of 63.5% of Bolivians. Maybe you have more recent data, but the changes should not be so big - unless the Census was unreliable, but I haven't found better information.

I'm not saying that Spanish is a minority language, but that monolingual speakers of Spanish are a minority. A bilingual speaker who speaks both Quechua and Spanish on a regular basis may well state Spanish as his native language when forced to pick one. He's still unlikely to be an urban middle class white. Indeed, there are probably more indigenous people who only speak Spanish on a day to day basis than there are white people who regularly speak any native language at all.

I found more recent data, from the 2012 census ( https://www.ine.gob.bo/index.php/co...em/185-dia-internacional-de-la-lengua-materna ). Spanish as the mother tongue is up to 68.7%.

I was going by this table from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Bolivia#Demographics, which states 45% "Spanish only", but it doesn't state its sources so maybe its wrong. It does however fit well with your census: When you look at "GRÁFICO 4" on page 39, adding up Quechua and Aymara alone gets you 35% of the urban and 70% of the rural population. Of course, some people will speak both, so the actual total of speakers of any indigenous language may be lower, but probably not much.

When you force people to pick one language, you get poor data about all the languages they speak, not because you messed up during data collection but because you were asking a different question.

And thay aside, Loren is from the USA where sometimes p people with one native grandparent are counted as Native Americans, and where most native languages are moribund (for example, Lakota is said to have 2000 speakers out of over 100000 registered members if the Lakota tribe). By that definition, close to 90% of Bolivians are indigenous.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I'm not saying that Spanish is a minority language, but that monolingual speakers of Spanish are a minority.

Fair enough. At that point, I was addressing the argument that people who speak Quechua, Guarani or Aymara grew up in a Quechua/ Aymara/ Guarani speaking community. Some surely do, but there seem to be several options (e.g., they grow up with a bilingual father and a Spanish-only mother; they mostly speak Spanish at home, but they also learn another language, etc.), and the data shows many more people speak more than one language than identify as a member of an "indigenous" nation (or "indígena" in Spanish) and most identify their mother tongue as Spanish.

When you force people to pick one language, you get poor data about all the languages they speak, not because you messed up during data collection but because you were asking a different question.

True, though if they were growing up in a Quechua-speaking community, it seems to me they'd be more likely to pick Quechua than Spanish as their mother tongue (assuming they are not afraid of answering, but that I think was not the case in general).

And thay aside, Loren is from the USA where sometimes p people with one native grandparent are counted as Native Americans, and where most native languages are moribund (for example, Lakota is said to have 2000 speakers out of over 100000 registered members if the Lakota tribe). By that definition, close to 90% of Bolivians are indigenous.

I don't know the actual percentage, but a very large majority for sure.

I don't think it matters in the context of that part of the debate, by the way: People classified as "indigenous" cannot all rule as they have different opinions. They should be allowed to vote like everyone else, including mixed-race and White people, or Black or White Bolivians or whatever.

 

[Jokodo]

Fair enough. At that point, I was addressing the argument that people who speak Quechua, Guarani or Aymara grew up in a Quechua/ Aymara/ Guarani speaking community. Some surely do, but there seem to be several options (e.g., they grow up with a bilingual father and a Spanish-only mother; they mostly speak Spanish at home, but they also learn another language, etc.), and the data shows many more people speak more than one language than identify as a member of an "indigenous" nation (or "indígena" in Spanish) and most identify their mother tongue as Spanish.


True, though if they were growing up in a Quechua-speaking community, it seems to me they'd be more likely to pick Quechua than Spanish as their mother tongue (assuming they are not afraid of answering, but that I think was not the case in general).

Not afraid, but possibly ashamed?

 

[Angra Mainyu]

While not impossible, I think at least in the census done during Morales's presidency (2012), that's pretty improbable. I think they'd be much more likely proud than ashamed. Shame might be more likely among some mixed-raced people trying to pass as White (I think being proud or ashamed makes no sense, since it's not an achievement or a fault to be a member of a community one has not chosen, but people often do seem to be either proud or ashamed of belonging to some such community).