Final answer:
The statement that the 1989 ILO's Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169 failed is the incorrect statement among the options provided about the history of indigenous peoples mobilization in Latin America. The correct answer is option B.State policies and public discourse till the 1990s discouraged indigenous identification
Step-by-step explanation:
All but one are true about the history of indigenous peoples mobilization in Latin America? Let's examine each statement provided:
- A. The Zapatista uprising of 1994 in Chiapas was indeed against the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The indigenous groups foresaw the detrimental impact of NAFTA on their agricultural livelihood due to competition with large corporations.
- B. It is true that state policies and public discourse until the 1990s generally discouraged indigenous identification, leading to the marginalization of these communities.
- C. The 1989 International Labor Organization's (ILO) Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169 was not a failure. In fact, it is a significant piece of international law concerning indigenous peoples that many Latin American countries have ratified.
- D. Successful indigenous mobilization events indeed took place in countries like Ecuador and Bolivia during the 1990s as part of broader social movements and the fight for political and cultural rights.
- E. The indigenous rights movement has shown transnational characteristics, where groups have formed coalitions with global allies and engaged in sustained public protests.
The statement that the 1989 ILO's Indigenous and Tribal Peoples Convention 169 failed is false, making it the item that does not align with the history of indigenous peoples' mobilization in Latin America.